Grandparent Visitation Petition

VERIFIED PETITION FOR GRANDPARENTAL VISITATION

(Oklahoma — 43 O.S. § 109.4)

I. PARTIES

1.1 Petitioner(s) — Grandparent(s)

Co-Petitioner (spouse / other grandparent), if applicable:

1.2 Respondent(s) — Parent(s) / Custodian

1.3 The Minor Child

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Subject-matter jurisdiction. The District Courts of Oklahoma are vested with jurisdiction to issue orders granting grandparental visitation rights upon the filing of a verified petition. 43 O.S. § 109.4(F)(1).

2.2 UCCJEA home state. Oklahoma is the home state of the minor child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 43 O.S. §§ 551-101 et seq., because:

☐ The child has lived in Oklahoma with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the filing of this Petition; or

☐ Oklahoma was the child's home state within six (6) months before filing and a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State; or

☐ Other basis: [____________]

2.3 Venue. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County under 43 O.S. § 109.4(F)(1) because:

☐ There is an ongoing proceeding in this Court that involves the child (Case No. [____________]); or

☐ There is no ongoing proceeding, and this is the county of the residence of the child or a parent.

2.4 Other proceedings.

☐ There are no other pending or prior proceedings concerning the custody or visitation of the minor child.

☐ There are other proceedings — Court: [____________]; Case No.: [____________]; Nature: [____________].

III. STANDING — DISRUPTION OF THE INTACT NUCLEAR FAMILY (§ 109.4(A)(1)(c))

3.1 The child is an unmarried minor, and the intact nuclear family has been disrupted because at least one of the following conditions exists (check all that apply):

☐ (c)(1) An action for divorce, separate maintenance, or annulment involving the child's parents is pending, and Petitioner had a preexisting relationship with the child that predates the filing of that action.

☐ (c)(2) The child's parents are divorced, separated under a judgment of separate maintenance, or their marriage has been annulled.

☐ (c)(3) The child's parent who is a child of Petitioner is deceased, and Petitioner had a preexisting relationship with the child predating that parent's death (unless the mother's death was due to complications related to the child's birth).

☐ (c)(4) Legal custody of the child has been given to a person other than a parent, or the child does not reside in the home of a parent.

☐ (c)(5) One of the child's parents has had a felony conviction and been incarcerated in the Department of Corrections, and Petitioner had a preexisting relationship with the child predating the incarceration.

☐ (c)(6) Petitioner had custody of the child (with or without a court order), and there exists a strong, continuous grandparental relationship between Petitioner and the child.

☐ (c)(7) The child's parent has deserted the other parent for more than one (1) year, and there exists a strong, continuous grandparental relationship between Petitioner and the child.

☐ (c)(8) The child's parents have never been married, are not residing in the same household, and there exists a strong, continuous grandparental relationship between Petitioner and the child.

☐ (c)(9) The parental rights of one or both parents have been terminated, and there exists a strong, continuous relationship between the child and the parent whose rights were terminated (Petitioner being that parent's parent).

3.2 Supporting facts for the condition(s) checked above:

[____________________________________________________________]

3.3 No absolute bar — § 109.4(B). Petitioner alleges that the child is NOT a member of an intact nuclear family (married mother and father) in which both parents object to visitation. Under no circumstances may the Court grant visitation where the child is a member of an intact nuclear family and both parents object.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

4.1 Preexisting relationship. Petitioner has had a strong, continuous, preexisting relationship with the minor child (a relationship occurring or existing prior to the filing of this Petition), as follows:

[____________________________________________________________]

4.2 Circumstances leading to this Petition. Visitation has been denied or unreasonably limited, as follows:

[____________________________________________________________]

V. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY STANDARD

5.1 Special weight to a fit parent's decision (Troxel). Petitioner acknowledges that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, and that a fit parent's decision regarding visitation is entitled to special weight. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Neal v. Lee, 2000 OK 90, 14 P.3d 547.

5.2 Burden of proof — § 109.4(A)(1)(b). Petitioner acknowledges that, to obtain visitation, Petitioner must establish either:

(a) parental unfitness (as defined in § 109.4(E)(2)(c)); or

(b) for a fit parent, rebut by clear and convincing evidence the presumption that the fit parent is acting in the best interests of the child, by showing that the child would suffer harm or potential harm without the granting of visitation to Petitioner.

5.3 Definition of harm — § 109.4(E)(2)(a). "Harm or potential harm" means a showing that, without court-ordered visitation by the grandparent, the child's emotional, mental, or physical well-being could reasonably or would be jeopardized.

5.4 No-harm cases barred (Neal v. Lee; Craig v. Craig). Petitioner acknowledges that the Oklahoma Supreme Court reverses awards of grandparent visitation entered over a fit parent's objection where there is no allegation or finding of unfitness and no allegation or finding of harm absent visitation. Neal v. Lee, 2000 OK 90, 14 P.3d 547; Craig v. Craig, 2011 OK 27, 253 P.3d 57; In re Herbst, 1998 OK 100, 971 P.2d 395.

5.5 Petitioner alleges the following facts establishing harm or potential harm (or, alternatively, parental unfitness):

[____________________________________________________________]

VI. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD — § 109.4(E)(1) FACTORS

6.1 Petitioner alleges, and requests that the Court make specific findings of fact upon, the following factors:

☐ (a) The needs of and importance to the child of a continuing preexisting relationship with Petitioner, and the age and reasonable preference of the child (per § 113).

☐ (b) The willingness of Petitioner to encourage a close relationship between the child and the parent(s).

☐ (c) The length, quality, and intimacy of the preexisting relationship between the child and Petitioner.

☐ (d) The love, affection, and emotional ties existing between the parent and the child.

☐ (e) Petitioner's motivation and efforts to continue the preexisting relationship with the grandchild.

☐ (f) The motivation of the parent(s) in denying visitation.

☐ (g) The mental and physical health of Petitioner.

☐ (h) The mental and physical health of the child.

☐ (i) The mental and physical health of the parent(s).

☐ (j) Whether the child is in a permanent, stable, satisfactory family unit and environment.

☐ (k) The moral fitness of the parties.

☐ (l) The character and behavior of any other person who resides in or frequents the parties' homes and that person's interactions with the child.

☐ (m) The quantity of visitation time requested and the potential adverse impact on the child's customary activities.

☐ (n) If both parents are deceased, the benefit in maintaining the preexisting relationship.

6.2 Supporting facts:

[____________________________________________________________]

6.3 Child's preference (if of sufficient age and maturity).

☐ The child has expressed a desire to maintain a relationship with Petitioner: [____________]

☐ The child is too young to express a preference.

VII. PROPOSED VISITATION SCHEDULE

7.1 Regular visitation. Petitioner requests:

☐ Weekly: [____________] ☐ Monthly: [____________] ☐ Other: [____________]

7.2 Holidays and special occasions.

7.3 Transportation / exchange. [____________]

7.4 Communication. Telephone/video contact: [____________]

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Find that the child is an unmarried minor whose intact nuclear family has been disrupted under 43 O.S. § 109.4(A)(1)(c), and that the bar of § 109.4(B) does not apply;

B. Find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child would suffer harm or potential harm absent visitation with Petitioner (or that a parent is unfit), thereby rebutting the presumption that the fit parent acts in the child's best interest;

C. Determine that grandparental visitation is in the best interest of the child under the § 109.4(E)(1) factors, and make specific written findings of fact on the requested factors;

D. Enter an order awarding Petitioner reasonable grandparental visitation pursuant to the schedule in Section VII, or as the Court deems just;

E. Order that transportation and related costs be borne by Petitioner as provided in § 109.4(H);

F. Award attorney fees and costs as the Court deems equitable under § 109.4(I); and

G. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

IX. VERIFICATION

STATE OF OKLAHOMA )
COUNTY OF [____________] ) SS:

I, [PETITIONER NAME], being first duly sworn, state that I am the Petitioner in this action; that I have read the foregoing Verified Petition; and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Petitioner

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ___ day of __________, 20___.

_________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: ___________

X. SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of __________, 20___.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Pro Se
OR
_________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME], OBA No. [____________]
[FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS] | [PHONE] | [EMAIL]
Attorney for Petitioner

XI. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

TO THE RESPONDENT(S): A Verified Petition for Grandparental Visitation has been filed concerning the above-named child. You are required to file a written answer or other response with the Clerk of this Court and to serve a copy on Petitioner or Petitioner's attorney within the time allowed by Oklahoma law after service of this Petition. If you fail to do so, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded. You have the right to be represented by an attorney.

XII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of the foregoing Verified Petition (and accompanying UCCJEA affidavit) was served upon each Respondent by ☐ personal service ☐ certified mail ☐ service of process server ☐ other [____________], at the address(es) listed above.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER / ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• 43 O.S. § 109.4 — Grandparental visitation rights: standing/disruption conditions (A)(1)(c); unfitness-or-harm requirement and clear-and-convincing burden (A)(1)(b); absolute bar for intact nuclear family where both parents object (B); adoption limits (C), (D); best-interest factors and definitions of "harm or potential harm," "intact nuclear family," "parental unfitness," and "preexisting relationship" (E); district-court jurisdiction, venue, and enforcement (F); transportation costs (H); attorney fees (I); great-grandparents included (J).
• Neal v. Lee, 2000 OK 90, 14 P.3d 547 — visitation over fit parents' objection reversed absent any finding of unfitness or harm; applies Troxel.
• In re Herbst, 1998 OK 100, 971 P.2d 395 — history and constitutional limits of Oklahoma's grandparent-visitation statute.
• Craig v. Craig, 2011 OK 27, 253 P.3d 57 — a non-parent third party cannot compel visitation over a custodial parent's objection without showing harm or potential harm and applying § 109.4.
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — a fit parent's decision is entitled to special weight.
• 43 O.S. §§ 551-101 et seq. — UCCJEA; § 551-209 (affidavit).

This Petition is a preparation aid only. Oklahoma imposes a high, constitutionally sensitive burden — clear and convincing evidence of harm or potential harm (or parental unfitness) PLUS disruption of the intact nuclear family — and absolutely bars visitation where the child is in an intact nuclear family and both parents object. Consult a licensed Oklahoma family law attorney before filing.