Carlson v. Carlson, 2098--II

• Decision Date: 28 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 2098--II,2098--II
• Citation: 16 Wn.App. 595,558 P.2d 836
• Parties: Leone F. CARLSON, Respondent, v. Christine L. CARLSON, now Christine Spark and Geoffrey Spark, Individually and as husband and wife, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 595

16 Wn.App. 595

558 P.2d 836

Leone F. CARLSON, Respondent, v. Christine L. CARLSON, now Christine Spark and Geoffrey

Spark, Individually and as husband and wife, Appellants.

No. 2098--II.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Dec. 28, 1976.

George S. Kelley, Skoog & Mullin, Tacoma, for appellants.

Charles M. Granoski, Jr., Betzendorfer & Deutscher, Tacoma, for respondent.

PETRIE, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by a mother and an adoptive father from an order allowing their child's maternal grandmother limited visitation rights with her granddaughter. The primary question presented is whether, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 26.09.240, a maternal grandparent may be granted visitation privileges over the objection of the child's natural mother and adoptive father.

Appellant Christine Spark (nee Carlson) gave birth to an illegitimate child on November 23, 1971. For the next two years, the child's maternal grandmother (respondent) cared for the child during working hours. In 1974, respondent-grandmother obtained an order in a California court granting her limited visitation rights. Appellants moved to Tacoma and were married following Mr. Spark's return from England after obtaining a divorce from his wife in that country. On December 11, 1974, respondent obtained an order in Superior Court for Pierce County granting full faith and credit to the California visitation order. Mr. Spark was awarded a stepparent adoption in May 1975.

In July 1975 respondent sought to enforce her visitation rights. Appellants countered by arguing for a modification of the December 11, 1974 order, based upon alleged change of circumstances: the adoption of the child by Mr. Spark. Appellants sought to deny the grandmother any visitation rights whatsoever.

The trial court found, among other things, that following Mr. Spark's adoption of the child, the respondent was prevented by the appellants from visiting the child pursuant to the December 11, 1974 order; that appellants were fit parents and there was no evidence of neglect or abuse of the child; that a great deal of friction and bitterness existed between Mrs. Spark and the respondent; that close ties of love and affection existed between the child and respondent as the result of a normal grandchild-grandmother relationship; and that it was in the child's best interests to continue the grandmother's privilege to visit the child.

The trial court concluded that due to a change in circumstances the California court order regarding visitation was no longer entitled to full faith and credit, but that under the facts of this case Washington law permitted visitation by the grandmother if in the child's best interests. The court so ordered, and the appellants appeal therefrom.

It is apparent from the oral opinion of the trial court that the order permitting the grandmother visitation privileges was based upon a provision of the Marriage Dissolution Act of 1973, RCW 26.09.240, which provides:

A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation would endanger the child's physical, mental, or emotional health. The court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child.

The court may modify an order granting or denying visitation rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the child but the court shall not...