Michael Digiovanna v. Donna St. George

Summary

The court held that once a nonparent proves the required parent-like relationship and substantial harm from denial of visitation, the trial court may not deny visitation merely because the objecting parent may react in a way that harms the child. The best interests of the child remain relevant to the manner and conditions of visitation, and the court must consider tools such as counseling, protective conditions, contempt, and possible intervention by the department. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for judgment in favor of the plaintiff and a new dispositional hearing. Palmer, J., dissenting, would have affirmed because the trial court reasonably found that granting visitation would cause greater harm than denying it.