Background
Abby Gergen-Olivas and Joshua Hecocks, who never married, have a child born in 2019. After changes to their parenting arrangement, Mother received sole legal decision-making authority and Father had no parenting time. Father’s parents, Robert and Barbara Hecocks, then petitioned for phone and video contact and at least four in-person visits annually, alleging that they had frequently seen and cared for the child before the parents’ relationship deteriorated.
Mother opposed visitation, asserting that Grandparents had minimized her concerns about Father, could not be trusted to protect the child, and had become virtual strangers to the child. Following an evidentiary hearing, the superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that visitation was in the child’s best interests. It ordered four unsupervised weekend visits annually in Arizona, monthly telephone or video calls of up to 15 minutes, and permission for Grandparents to send appropriate letters and packages.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the superior court did not abuse its discretion. The superior court gave special weight to Mother’s position as a fit parent, explained why it found her best-interests assessment flawed, and properly considered the statutory factors: Grandparents’ historical relationship with the child, each side’s motivation, the amount of visitation requested, and the potential effect on the child’s customary activities.
The appellate court also rejected Mother’s challenges concerning the child’s trauma therapy, an earlier therapeutic interventionist’s recommendation, and letters admitted at the hearing. The superior court considered the trauma-related evidence, was not required to follow a years-old recommendation that predated the visitation petition, and reasonably treated the letters as evidence of Grandparents’ efforts to maintain a relationship. Because substantial evidence supported the ruling, the appellate court would not reweigh testimony or revisit credibility determinations.
Key Takeaways
- A third party seeking visitation must overcome the special weight afforded a fit parent’s judgment by clear and convincing evidence that visitation serves the child’s best interests.
- A court must explain why the parent’s best-interests determination is incorrect and address the relevant factors under Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-409(E).
- An older therapeutic recommendation does not bind the court, particularly when it predates the visitation petition and the court considers it alongside the current evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the findings and evidentiary support needed to sustain third-party visitation over a fit parent’s objection. It also confirms that appellate courts defer to supported factual and credibility findings rather than reweighing competing evidence.
The memorandum decision is not precedential and may be cited only as authorized by Arizona Supreme Court Rule 111(c).