In Re Mays-Hooper

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the grandparents’ visitation request should have been denied because there was no evidence that (1) the child’s mother was unfit, (2) the child’s health or emotional well-being would suffer if the court deferred to her decisions, and (3
• finding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding grandparent visitation in part because there was “no evidence that the [child]’s health or emotional well-being would suffer if the court deferred to [the mother’s] decisions”
• finding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding grandparent visitation in part because there was \no evidence that the [child]'s health or emotional well-being would suffer if the court deferred to [the mother's] decisions\
• avoiding determination of which standard applied and concluding “because the facts here are virtually the same [as in Troxel], the judgment must be the same too”
• avoiding determination of which standard applied and concluding “because the facts here are virtually the same [as in Troxel], the judgment must be the same too”
• “[S]o long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family.” (quoting Troxel, 530 U.S. at 68)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).