Bopp v. Lino, No. 24397
| Docket Nº | No. 24397 |
| Citation | 885 P.2d 559, 110 Nev. 1246 |
| Case Date | November 30, 1994 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Page 559
v.
James LINO and Dana Lino, Respondents.
Page 560
Matthews & Wines, Elko, for appellants.
Gary D. Woodbury, Elko, for respondents.
[110 Nev. 1247] Frankie Sue Del Papa, Atty. Gen. and Nancy Ford Angres, Deputy Atty. Gen., Carson City, for amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM:
This is a case of first impression in Nevada. This case involves visitation rights to three and one-half year old Kyndra Michelle Bopp (Kyndra). Kyndra's parents were married for a short time and divorced when she was seven months old. Three months later, Kyndra's mother remarried and Kyndra's stepfather adopted her with the consent of her natural father. Respondents are the parents of Kyndra's natural father.
Eight months after the adoption, respondents petitioned for visitation rights to Kyndra. After hearing testimony of the parties and expert witnesses, the district court concluded that visitation would be in Kyndra's best interest, and it granted visitation rights to respondents.
For reasons stated hereafter, the district court's order granting visitation to respondents is reversed.
Respondents James R. Lino and Dana Lino 1 (the Linos) are the [110 Nev. 1248] natural paternal grandparents of Kyndra. Appellant Michelle Bopp (Michelle) is Kyndra's mother. Michelle married respondents' son, Robert Lino (Robert), on June 24, 1989. Kyndra was born to that marriage on July 3, 1990. Shortly thereafter, marital difficulties arose between Michelle and Robert resulting in their divorce on February 5, 1991. Michelle was granted physical custody of Kyndra.
Three months later, on May 19, 1991, Michelle married appellant Andrae Bopp (Andy). Robert continued to have visitation rights with Kyndra until November 20, 1991, when he relinquished his parental rights so that Kyndra could be adopted by Andy. On November 25, 1991, a decree of adoption was entered.
Eight months after the adoption, on July 17, 1992, the Linos filed a "Petition for Visitation" with the district court. The Bopps opposed visitation because they believed that visitation was not in the best interests of Kyndra. The Bopps also contended that the Linos did not have standing to pursue visitation rights. Arguments on the petition for visitation were heard by the district court on February 5, 1993. The district court, in concluding that visitation was in the best interests of Kyndra, opined:
After listening to the testimony and observing the demeanor of the witnesses, the court believes that visitation with the [Linos] will not hinder the minor child's adoptive relationship or harm the child's emotional or physical well being. It is undisputed that until shortly after the divorce of Robert and Michelle, [the Linos] had a loving and caring relationship with their granddaughter, Kyndra. That relationship continued even after the divorce when Robert had visitation and took Kyndra to the homes of the [Linos]. Michelle testified she gave notice she was terminating the right of [the Linos] to visit their granddaughter. This court finds that a relationship would still exist between Kyndra and [the Linos] but for the actions of Michelle.
The Petition filed by the [Linos] to establish a limited visitation appears to this court to be motivated out of their continuing love and affection for Kyndra. The problems that have been testified to between the [Linos] and Kathy Lino on one side and Andrea [sic] and Michelle on the other do not appear to this court to be significant. Those problems seem to be somewhat magnified by the Bopps' natural fear that Kyndra will learn of the adoption
Page 561
before they are ready to discuss it with her....The difficulties of raising a child in today's society are [110 Nev. 1249] frightening. The ability to interact with people of all ages whether it be with parents, grandparents or peers is very important. It is the disintegration of the family that has been blamed for many of society's problems. Courts should attempt, where possible, to encourage family unity not to destroy it.
Kyndra is most fortunate to have parents that love her dearly. This court believes a child cannot receive too much love and affection. Knowing that she is loved by the [Linos] as well as her parents will only enhance Kyndra's security and feeling of well being.
Therefore, this court finds it is in the best interests of Kyndra that the [Linos] be granted limited visitation.
The district court went on to grant the Linos visitation rights on the first Wednesday of every month for two hours during the lunch period.
The district court's findings of fact will not be set aside unless those findings are clearly erroneous. Hermann Trust v. Varco-Pruden Buildings, 106 Nev. 564, 566, 796 P.2d 590, 591-92 (1990). Accordingly, if the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, they will be upheld. Pandelis Constr. Co. v. Jones-Viking Assoc., 103 Nev. 129, 130, 734 P.2d 1236, 1237 (1987). Substantial evidence is that evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State Emp. Security v. Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev. 606, 608, 729 P.2d 497, 498 (1986). The district court's conclusions of law, however, are reviewed de novo. City of Reno v. Van Ermen, 79 Nev. 369, 381, 385 P.2d 345, 351 (1963); see also Great American Airways v. Airport Authority, 103 Nev. 427, 429, 743 P.2d 628, 629 (1987).
Whether respondents had standing to petition for visitation rights.
Under common-law principles, grandparents did not have any legal right to visit and communicate with their grandchildren if visitation and communication were forbidden by the child's parents. The reasoning behind that rule of law was that any judicial enforcement of grandparent visitation rights would serve to divide, and to thereby hinder, proper parental authority. See generally 59 Am.Jur.2d Parent and Child § 36 (1987 & Supp.1993); see also Roberts v. Davis, 328 So.2d 879 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976) (reversing lower court's grant of visitation rights to [110 Nev. 1250] paternal grandparents); Carlson v. Carlson, 16 Wash.App. 595, 558 P.2d 836 (1976) (state law did not authorize the court to grant visitation rights to maternal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, No. 35856.
...505, 506-07, 654 P.2d 1017, 1018 (1982). 5. See, e.g., Blaich v. Blaich, 114 Nev. 1446, 1447-48, 971 P.2d 822, 823 (1998); Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1249, 885 P.2d 559, 561 6. See A.F. Constr. Co. v. Virgin River Casino, 118 Nev. ___, ___, 56 P.3d 887, 890 (2002). 7. See id. 8. State, De......
-
New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. B.G.S.
...visitation rights are also distinguishable because such rights are often created by statute. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1; Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1251 n. 2, 885 P.2d 559, 562 n. 2 (Nev.1994); Oregon ex rel. Costello v. Cottrell, 318 Or. 338, 345, 867 P.2d 498, 502 (Or.1994); In re Robi......
-
Dewey v. Redevelopment Agency of Reno, No. 35339.
...and legal counsel from the injunction. 8. NRCP 52(a); Radaker v. Scott, 109 Nev. 653, 657, 855 P.2d 1037, 1040 (1993). 9. Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1249, 885 P.2d 559, 561 10. Attorney General v. Board of Regents, 114 Nev. 388, 392, 956 P.2d 770, 773 (1998). 11. Id. at 392, 956 P.2d at 7......
-
State v. McKellips, No. 37886.
...2. Harnisch, 113 Nev. at 219, 931 P.2d at 1363 (quoting State v. Miller, 110 Nev. 690, 694, 877 P.2d 1044, 1047 (1994)). 3. Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1249, 885 P.2d 559, 561 4. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (quoting United States v. Men......
-
County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, No. 35856.
...505, 506-07, 654 P.2d 1017, 1018 (1982). 5. See, e.g., Blaich v. Blaich, 114 Nev. 1446, 1447-48, 971 P.2d 822, 823 (1998); Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1249, 885 P.2d 559, 561 6. See A.F. Constr. Co. v. Virgin River Casino, 118 Nev. ___, ___, 56 P.3d 887, 890 (2002). 7. See id. 8. State, De......
-
New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Services v. B.G.S.
...visitation rights are also distinguishable because such rights are often created by statute. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1; Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1251 n. 2, 885 P.2d 559, 562 n. 2 (Nev.1994); Oregon ex rel. Costello v. Cottrell, 318 Or. 338, 345, 867 P.2d 498, 502 (Or.1994); In re Robi......
-
Dewey v. Redevelopment Agency of Reno, No. 35339.
...and legal counsel from the injunction. 8. NRCP 52(a); Radaker v. Scott, 109 Nev. 653, 657, 855 P.2d 1037, 1040 (1993). 9. Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1249, 885 P.2d 559, 561 10. Attorney General v. Board of Regents, 114 Nev. 388, 392, 956 P.2d 770, 773 (1998). 11. Id. at 392, 956 P.2d at 7......
-
State v. McKellips, No. 37886.
...2. Harnisch, 113 Nev. at 219, 931 P.2d at 1363 (quoting State v. Miller, 110 Nev. 690, 694, 877 P.2d 1044, 1047 (1994)). 3. Bopp v. Lino, 110 Nev. 1246, 1249, 885 P.2d 559, 561 4. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 573, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) (quoting United States v. Men......