Grandparent Visitation Petition

PETITION FOR GRANDPARENT VISITATION

(Washington — RCW Chapter 26.11)

I. PARTIES

1.1 Petitioner(s) — Grandparent(s)

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

1.2 Respondent(s) — Parent(s) / Person with Custody

1.3 The Minor Child

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1 Subject-matter jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition under RCW 26.11.020 and RCW 26.11.030. Granting a petition under this chapter does not confer upon Petitioner the rights and duties of a parent and does not entitle Petitioner to party status in any custody proceeding under Title 13 RCW.

2.2 UCCJEA home state. Washington has jurisdiction to make a child-custody determination concerning the minor child under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, RCW ch. 26.27, because:

☐ Washington is the child's home state — the child has lived in Washington with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the filing of this Petition (or since birth, if the child is under six months); or

☐ Washington 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 — RCW 26.11.030.

☐ A court already has jurisdiction over the child under RCW ch. 26.27 (UCCJEA), and this Petition is filed with that court; or

☐ This Petition is filed in [COUNTY] County, the county where the child primarily resides.

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 — RCW 26.11.020

3.1 Petitioner has standing under RCW 26.11.020(1) because all of the following are true (check all):

☐ (1)(a) Petitioner has an ongoing and substantial relationship with the child;

☐ (1)(b) Petitioner is a relative of the child (as defined in RCW 26.11.010(2)); and

☐ (1)(c) The child is likely to suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is denied.

3.2 Ongoing and substantial relationship — RCW 26.11.020(2). Petitioner and the child have a relationship formed and sustained through interaction, companionship, and mutuality of interest and affection, without expectation of financial compensation, with substantial continuity, and with a shared expectation of and desire for an ongoing relationship, as follows:

☐ The relationship has had substantial continuity for at least two (2) years; or

☐ The child is under the age of two (2) years, and the relationship has had substantial continuity for at least half of the child's life.

Supporting facts:

[____________________________________________________________]

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS — THE LIKELY-HARM SHOWING

4.1 History of the relationship. Petitioner has had an ongoing and substantial relationship with the minor child, as follows:

[____________________________________________________________]

4.2 Denial or limitation of contact. Respondent(s) have denied or unreasonably limited contact between Petitioner and the child, as follows, and Petitioner alleges the Respondent's stated reasons for the denial are:

[____________________________________________________________]

4.3 Likelihood of harm — RCW 26.11.020(1)(c). The child is likely to suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is denied, and continued contact with Petitioner is necessary to prevent that harm, because:

[____________________________________________________________]

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); In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1 (1998).

5.2 Statutory presumption — RCW 26.11.040(2). Petitioner acknowledges it is presumed that a fit parent's decision to deny visitation is in the best interest of the child and does not create a likelihood of harm or a substantial risk of harm to the child. In making its determination, the Court shall consider the Respondent's reasons for denying visitation.

5.3 Burden to rebut the presumption — RCW 26.11.040(3). To rebut the presumption, Petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child would likely suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation between Petitioner and the child were not granted.

5.4 Best-interest burden — RCW 26.11.040(4). If Petitioner rebuts the presumption (or if no parent has custody), the Court shall consider whether visitation is in the best interest of the child. Petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest.

5.5 No parental rights conferred — RCW 26.11.040(1)(b). An order granting visitation does not confer upon Petitioner the rights and duties of a parent.

VI. BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD — RCW 26.11.040(4)

6.1 In determining the child's best interest, the Court shall consider the following nonexclusive factors. Petitioner alleges and is prepared to prove by clear and convincing evidence:

☐ (a) The love, affection, and strength of the current relationship between the child and Petitioner and how the relationship is beneficial to the child: [____________]

☐ (b) The length and quality of the prior relationship between the child and Petitioner before Respondent denied visitation, including the role performed by Petitioner and the emotional ties: [____________]

☐ (c) The relationship between Petitioner and Respondent: [____________]

☐ (d) The love, affection, and strength of the current relationship between the child and Respondent: [____________]

☐ (e) The nature and reason for Respondent's objection to granting visitation: [____________]

☐ (f) The effect that granting visitation will have on the relationship between the child and Respondent: [____________]

☐ (g) The residential time-sharing arrangements between the parties having residential time with the child: [____________]

☐ (h) The good faith of Petitioner and Respondent: [____________]

☐ (i) Any history of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse or neglect by Petitioner, or by a person residing with Petitioner if visitation would involve contact with that person: [____________]

☐ (j) The child's reasonable preference, if the Court considers the child to be of sufficient age to express a preference: [____________]

☐ (k) Any other factor relevant to the child's best interest: [____________]

☐ (l) The fact that Respondent has not lost his or her parental rights by being adjudicated an unfit parent.

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 Petitioner has standing under RCW 26.11.020 (ongoing and substantial relationship; relative; likelihood of harm);

B. Find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child would likely suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is not granted, thereby rebutting the presumption in RCW 26.11.040(2);

C. Find, by clear and convincing evidence, that visitation with Petitioner is in the child's best interest under RCW 26.11.040(4);

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

E. Address attorneys' fees and transportation costs as authorized by RCW 26.11.050; and

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

IX. VERIFICATION / DECLARATION

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that I am the Petitioner in this action, that I have read the foregoing Petition, and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Signed at [CITY], [STATE], on [__/__/____].

_________________________________
[PETITIONER NAME], Petitioner

X. SIGNATURE

Dated this ___ day of __________, 20___.

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

XI. NOTICE TO RESPONDENT

TO THE RESPONDENT(S): A Petition for Visitation under RCW chapter 26.11 has been filed concerning your child. You have the right to respond in writing. If you do not believe Petitioner should have visitation, you must file a written response with the Clerk of this Court before the deadline stated in the court papers and serve a copy on Petitioner or Petitioner's attorney. You may use Washington mandatory form FL Visits 478 (Response to Petition for Visits). If you fail to respond, the Court may grant the relief requested in this Petition. 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 Petition, supporting affidavit/declaration(s), and UCCJEA disclosure was served upon each parent by ☐ personal service ☐ certified mail ☐ service of process server ☐ other [____________], at the address(es) listed above.

_________________________________
[PETITIONER / ATTORNEY SIGNATURE]

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• RCW ch. 26.11 — Nonparental Child Visitation — Relatives (2018 c 183, eff. June 7, 2018): definitions (.010); petition criteria (.020); venue, affidavit, notice, hearing, no temporary orders, file-once (.030); orders, best-interest factors, fit-parent presumption, clear-and-convincing rebuttal (.040); attorneys' fees and transportation (.050); modification/termination (.060).
• RCW 26.11.040 — fit-parent presumption (subsection (2)); clear-and-convincing harm burden (subsection (3)); clear-and-convincing best-interest burden and twelve nonexclusive factors (subsection (4)).
• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) — struck down former RCW 26.10.160(3) as applied; fit parent's decision entitled to special weight.
• In re Custody of Smith, 137 Wn.2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 (1998) — Washington Supreme Court invalidated the prior nonparent visitation statutes.
• In re Visits with A.S.A., 21 Wn. App. 2d 117 (2022) — petition must show continued contact with the nonparent is necessary to prevent the identified harm.
• RCW ch. 26.27 — UCCJEA; RCW 26.27.281 (child-custody disclosure / declaration).

This Petition is a preparation aid only. Washington's grandparent/nonparent visitation law (RCW ch. 26.11) imposes a high, constitutionally sensitive burden — clear and convincing evidence of an ongoing and substantial relationship AND likely harm — against the backdrop of Troxel v. Granville, which struck down Washington's prior statute. Consult a licensed Washington family law attorney before filing.