First, the trial court erred in automatically treating a Complaint for grandparent visitation as a summary action, thereby denying the grandparents the right to obtain discovery. Further, a verified Complaint prepared by an attorney seeking grandparent visitation should not be rejected because it was not presented with a standardized form complaint. A litigant should not be penalized for retaining an experienced attorney to present their case in the form of a professionally drafted pleading, which contains a far more comprehensive presentation of the facts and legal principles in this case than a standardized form document. Concerning the substance of the application, the Appellate Division grandparents’ reiterated the standard as stated in 177 84 (2003), Moriarty v. Bradt, N.J. cert. denied, 540 1177 (2004), grandparents bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance U.S. of the evidence that visitation is necessary to avoid harm to the child. The grandparents’ evidence can be expert or factual. In this case, the defendant claimed that he considered the grandparents remaining in contact with Olga not only to be against her best interest, but highly dangerous to her psychological well-being. The only way for the grandparents to rebut that presumptively valid objection is to provide factual testimonial evidence describing their past interactions with the child. They may also decide to present expert testimony as well, especially as it relates to how the ability to cope with the death child’s of her mother may be undermined by the to exclude the defendant’s decision grandparents from her life. Thus, when a litigant brings an action seeking grandparent visitation, the Family Part shall designate the matter as a contested case after joinder of issue and refer the case
First, the trial court erred in automatically treating a Complaint for grandparent visitation as a summary action, thereby denying the grandparents the right to obtain discovery. Further, a verified Complaint prepared by an attorney seeking grandparent visitation should not be rejected because it was not presented with a standardized form complaint. A litigant should not be penalized for retaining an experienced attorney to present their case in the form of a professionally drafted pleading, which contains a far more comprehensive presentation of the facts and legal principles in this case than a standardized form document. Concerning the substance of the grandparents’ application, the Appellate Division reiterated the standard as stated in Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84 (2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1177 (2004), grandparents bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation is necessary to avoid harm to the child. The grandparents’ evidence can be expert or factual. In this case, the defendant claimed that he considered the grandparents remaining in contact with Olga not only to be against her best interest, but highly dangerous to her psychological well-being. The only way for the grandparents to rebut that presumptively valid objection is to provide factual testimonial evidence describing their past interactions with the child. They may also decide to present expert testimony as well, especially as it relates to how the child’s ability to cope with the death of her mother may be undermined by the defendant’s decision to exclude the grandparents from her life. Thus, when a litigant brings an action seeking grandparent visitation, the Family Part shall designate the matter as a contested case after joinder of issue and refer the case