Etter v. Rose
1996 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3523, 454 Pa. Super. 138, 684 A.2d 1092 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court must conduct a full evidentiary hearing to weigh all relevant factors concerning a child's best interest before denying an incarcerated parent's visitation request. A court cannot rely on a blanket policy or defer solely to the custodial parent's objection, but it may create a rebuttable presumption that prison visitation is not in the child's best interest.
Facts:
- Michael L. Etter and the appellee mother had a son, who was born in October 1986.
- The child lived with both parents until he was two and a half years old, after which he resided with his mother.
- Etter was subsequently incarcerated as a repeat offender in the criminal justice system.
- Etter sought visitation with his son at the prison where he was incarcerated.
- The child's mother objected to the visitation request.
- The mother was also taking the child to visit her current husband (the child's stepfather), who was incarcerated in a different prison.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael L. Etter, the father, filed a petition in a Pennsylvania trial court requesting visitation with his minor son at the prison.
- The child's mother filed a response with the court, objecting to the request.
- On March 25, 1996, the trial court issued an Order denying Etter's request for visitation.
- Etter, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying an incarcerated parent's petition for child visitation based on a policy of deferring to the custodial parent's objection, without conducting a full hearing to determine the child's best interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Tamilia
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to carefully weigh all factors in determining the best interests of the child. The lower court improperly relied on a fixed policy that deferred to the wishes of the custodial parent rather than conducting an individualized inquiry. The court's reasoning was illogical and inconsistent, particularly because the child was permitted to visit his incarcerated stepfather but not his natural father. While incarceration alone is not grounds for denial, the court establishes a rebuttable presumption that such visitation is not in the child's best interest. The incarcerated parent must be afforded a hearing to overcome this presumption by presenting evidence on the relative benefits or harm of the proposed visitation.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant procedural safeguard for incarcerated parents seeking visitation, rejecting categorical denials in favor of individualized, evidence-based hearings. It balances the state's paramount concern for the child's welfare with the parent's rights by creating a rebuttable presumption that prison visitation is not in the child's best interest. This places the evidentiary burden on the incarcerated parent to demonstrate that visitation would be beneficial or, at least, not harmful. The ruling requires lower courts to engage in a more thorough, fact-specific analysis rather than relying on blanket policies or the sole objection of one parent.
