Background of the Case:

Following a Christmas Eve "altercation," the child in this case was placed in temporary custody of the grandfather, Bobby Vibbert, Sr. The child was returned to parental custody about one week later. The grandfather and his wife subsequently sued for grandparent visitation rights. The case was heard by a domestic relations commissioner (DRC), a position which was abolished in 2003.

The DRC granted visitation to the grandfather but not the wife, who is not biologically related to the grandchild.

The parents protested, citing the case of Scott v. Scott, in which the grandparents were required to show that denying visitation would result in harm to the child -- the so-called harm standard. Although the Attorney General declined to intervene, the ciruit court instructed the DRC to revisit the decision and come up with a decision that was more in line with Troxel v. Granville and Scott v. Scott. The DRC's second decision stated that it was "common sense" that it would be harmful to cut a grandchild off from a grandparent with whom the grandchild has spent substantial amounts of time. The circuit court signed the decision of the DRC. The parents then appealed, and the case ended up in the Kentucky Court of Appeals.

Legal Outcome:

The appellate court found that the standard set in the earlier case of Scott v. Scott was "unnecessarily strict and unworkable." The judges found that the federal case of Troxel v.

Granville does not require that grandparents show actual harm to the child if visitation is denied. The court advocated for a return to a modified "best interests of the child" standard, advising that a "broad array of factors" should be considered when determining whether to award grandparent visitation. The court then named the following seven factors:

• The nature and stability of the grandparent-grandchild relationship
• The amount of time the they have spent together
• The possible advantages and disadvantages of visitation
• The impact visitation would have on the parent-child relationship
• ?The physical and emotional health of both parents and grandparents
• Whether the child has stable living and schooling arrangements
• The child's wishes.

In addition, the court stated that the Scott decision was unsatisfactory because it did not allow for cases in which the parents withheld visitation "out of vindictiveness." This statement opened the door for the Kentucky Supreme Court to add an eighth factor to be considered.

Importance of the Case:

In 2012 the Kentucky Supreme Court upheld Vibbert v. Vibbert. The court was hearing Walker v. Blair, the first grandparent visitation case to reach that court since 1992. The court decreed that in order to win visitation, the grandparents did not have to challenge the fitness of the parents. They had only to show that the parents were wrong in their conclusion that visitation was not in the best interest of their child. The justices recommended the "Vibbert factors" for making such a determination and formalized the concerns of the Vibbert justices by adding an eighth factor, "the motivation of the adults participating in the grandparent visitation proceedings." Although the Kentucky Supreme Court denied the petition of the grandparents in Walker v. Blair, they did uphold and even extend the list of factors developed in Vibbert, giving grandparents some grounds for winning visitation rights without entering the treacherous territory of parental fitness.

Read the full transcript of Vibbert v. Vibbert. Learn more about grandparents' rights in Kentucky or see grandparent visitation statutes by state.

This article is one in a series examining important grandparent visitation cases. See also:

1. Rideout v. Riendeau (Maine)
2. Wilde v. Wilde (New Jersey)
3. Santi v. Santi (Iowa)
4. Fenn v. Sherriff (California)
5. Sher v. Desmond (Massachusetts)
6. G.J.L. v. A.K.L. (Oregon)
7. In re Guardianship of A.J.A. and L.M.A. (Indiana)