Cited by

A court’s consideration of a non-parent’s visitation request must afford “‘some special weight’ to a fit parent’s determination of whether visitation is in the child’s best interest.” –78, ¶ 18 (App. 2001) (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 70).

Father argues that the superior court failed to afford his determination of the children’s best interests “special weight” as required for a fit parent under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 25-409(E), and that the visitation granted to Boyfriend was not “minimally intrusive” ¶ 16 (App. 2001), ¶ 16 (App. 2022).

¶ 36 (2018); ¶ 6 (App. 2001).

visitation.” ¶ 17 (App. 2001) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68–69 (2000)).

DISCUSSION ¶4 We review a garnishment judgment for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 19 (App. 2018), and review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, ¶ 6 (App. 2001).

Power Prods., Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., ¶ 10 (2016) (Rule 59); (Rule 60); ¶ 24 (App. 2017) (Rule 56(d)); ¶ 6 (App. 2001) (reconsideration).

In considering a grandparent’s petition for visitation with their grandchildren, a superior court must give “special weight” to a fit parent’s determination of whether visitation is in the grandchildren’s –78, ¶ 18 (App. 2001).

¶ 6 (App. 2001) (citations omitted).

¶ 21 (App. 2002) (“We attempt to construe statutes with ‘a reasonable and constitutional meaning’ whenever possible in order to remove potential doubts regarding the statute’s viability.”) ( ¶ 20 (App. 2001)).

¶¶ 13, 21 (App. 2017) (noting that the special weight afforded to a parent’s opinions concerning grandparent visitation applies only to a fit parent) (-78, ¶¶ 17-18 (App. 2001)).

–41, ¶ 43 (App. 2009); ¶ 7 (App. 2003); ¶ 6 (App. 2001).