{ "id": 4274670, "name": "In re GRANDPARENT VISITATION OF CHINA PFALZGRAF, a Minor (Cynthia Pfalzgraf et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Deann McCann, Respondent-Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Pfalzgraf v. McCann", "decision_date": "2008-02-04", "docket_number": "No. 5\u201407\u20140256", "first_page": "1107", "last_page": "1111", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "378 Ill. App. 3d 1107" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "227 Ill. 2d 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5705604 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181-82" }, { "page": "185" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/227/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 Ill. 2d 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 58935 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "318" }, { "page": "318" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/199/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "262 Ill. App. 3d 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2849112 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/262/0605-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 Ill. 2d 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 963718 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "474" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/193/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ill. 2d 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1578240 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/206/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 Ill. App. 3d 913", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4262301 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "918" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/364/0913-01" ] }, { "cite": "332 Ill. App. 3d 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1034204 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/332/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 Ill. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3606828 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/224/0312-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 421, "char_count": 9510, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14339542575648231 }, "sha256": "3057749075466abbe041730c6a9180fbbcd4a0a887219134ea9151f562985c60", "simhash": "1:eb93bf89064f1683", "word_count": 1506 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:56.542688+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re GRANDPARENT VISITATION OF CHINA PFALZGRAF, a Minor (Cynthia Pfalzgraf et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Deann McCann, Respondent-Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE WEXSTTEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe petitioners, Cynthia and Roger Pfalzgraf, appeal from the circuit court\u2019s order entered on their petition for grandparent visitation (750 ILCS 5/607 (West 2006)). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.\nBACKGROUND\nChina Pfalzgraf is the minor daughter of Michael Pfalzgraf and the respondent, Deann McCann. Michael and the respondent are divorced, and the respondent is China\u2019s custodial parent. The petitioners are China\u2019s paternal grandparents.\nOn February 27, 2007, the petitioners filed a petition for grandparent visitation with China pursuant to section 607 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/607 (West 2006)). The petition, which stated, inter alia, that Michael did not object to his parents\u2019 request, sought \u201cextensive visitation\u201d with China.\nOn April 11, 2007, the parties\u2019 attorneys advised the circuit court that the parties were in agreement that the petitioners should have visitation with China but that the parties disagreed with regard to when that visitation should occur. The petitioners wanted the proposed visitation to occur during the respondent\u2019s custody time because they did not want to diminish Michael\u2019s visitation time with China, but the respondent did not want the petitioners\u2019 visitation time to diminish her custody time. Counsel directed the court\u2019s attention to section 607 of the Act and, in particular, to subsection (a \u2014 5)(1)(B), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: \u201cThe visitation of the grandparent *** must not diminish the visitation of the parent who is not related to the grandparent *** seeking visitation[.]\u201d 750 ILCS 5/607(a \u2014 5)(1)(B) (West 2006). After reviewing section 607 of the Act, the circuit court directed counsel to prepare the following order, which the court entered the same day:\n\u201cCause comes on for hearing on petition for grandparent visitation.\nParties agree that grandparent visitation herein should be allowed. However, Mother maintains that grandparent visitation should not diminish her custodial time with the minor child. Mother cites [section 607(a \u2014 5)(1)(B)] in support of her position. Said provision states that \u2018The visitation of the grandparent ... must not diminish the visitation of the parent who is not related to the grandparent... seeking visitation.[\u2019]\nWherefore, the Court orders that the grandparents shall be allowed visitation but said visitation shall take place during their son\u2019s visitation and shall not diminish the time during which the Mother currently has the minor child.\u201d\nThe petitioners subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal.\nANALYSIS\nThe petitioners argue that the circuit court \u201cimproperly conflated the terms \u2018visitation\u2019 and \u2018custody\u2019 \u201d when the court concluded that subsection (a \u2014 5)(l)(B)\u2019s directive that \u201c[t]he visitation of the grandparent *** must not diminish the visitation of the parent who is not related to the grandparent *** seeking visitation\u201d (750 ILCS 5/607(a \u2014 5)(1)(B) (West 2006)) precluded it from ordering that their requested visitation occur during the respondent\u2019s custody time. The petitioners maintain that the directive was enacted to \u201cprevent a court from reducing the time that a noncustodial parent will have with his or her child\u201d and should be interpreted accordingly. The respondent counters that the circuit court correctly interpreted subsection (a \u2014 5)(l)(B)\u2019s directive to mean that \u201c[t]he parent who is unrelated to the party requesting visitation rights does not have to give up their time with the child to allow [grandparent] visitation.\u201d\nThe interpretation of a statute is a question of law, for which the standard of review is de novo, and the \u201cprimary objective is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, the surest and most reliable indicator of which is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning.\u201d People v. Perry, 224 Ill. 2d 312, 323 (2007). Section 607 of the Act refers to both \u201ccustody\u201d and \u201cvisitation,\u201d while subsection (a \u2014 5)(l)(B)\u2019s directive that \u201c[t]he visitation of the grandparent *** must not dimmish the visitation of the parent who is not related to the grandparent *** seeking visitation\u201d refers only to the latter (750 ILCS 5/607(a \u2014 5)(1)(B) (West 2006)). Thus, given the language\u2019s plain and ordinary meaning, the directive only precludes a court from granting grandparent visitation that diminishes the unrelated parent\u2019s visitation time.\nIf we were to adopt the petitioners\u2019 proposed interpretation of subsection (a \u2014 5)(1)(B), we would have to ignore that, as written, its directive only precludes the diminishment of the unrelated parent\u2019s visitation. If we were to adopt the respondent\u2019s proposed interpretation, we would have to read the phrase \u201cthe visitation of the parent\u201d as \u201cthe visitation or custody time of the parent.\u201d Under the circumstances, we are unable to adopt either proposed interpretation. \u201cWe cannot read words into a statute that are not there\u201d (Chicago Tribune Co. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 332 Ill. App. 3d 60, 67 (2002)), nor can we \u201cignore the plain language of the statute and the intent of the legislature\u201d (Rita v. Mayden, 364 Ill. App. 3d 913, 918 (2006)). As previously stated, by its plain terms, subsection (a \u2014 5)(1)(B) only precludes a court from granting grandparent visitation that diminishes the unrelated parent\u2019s visitation time. In the present case, the petition for visitation was brought by the grandparents who are related to the parent with visitation, and subsection (a\u2014 5)(l)(B)\u2019s directive regarding the unrelated parent\u2019s visitation time is thus inapplicable. Nevertheless, \u201c[a]s a reviewing court, we can sustain the decision of the circuit court on any grounds which are called for by the record regardless of whether the circuit court relied on the grounds and regardless of whether the circuit court\u2019s reasoning was sound.\u201d City of Chicago v. Holland, 206 Ill. 2d 480, 492 (2003).\nSection 607 of the Act provides a mechanism by which a minor child\u2019s grandparents may petition the court for visitation under certain circumstances. Lulay v. Lulay, 193 Ill. 2d 455, 474 (2000). As with any visitation decision, the overriding concern in a proceeding on a petition for grandparent visitation is the best interests of the child. Weybright v. Puckett, 262 Ill. App. 3d 605, 608 (1994).\nIt is presumed that \u201ca fit parent\u2019s decision to deny or limit [grandparent] visitation is in the child\u2019s best interests.\u201d Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309, 318 (2002). This presumption is reflected in section 607(a \u2014 5)(3) of the Act (Flynn v. Henkel, 227 Ill. 2d 176 (2007)), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n\u201c[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent\u2019s actions and decisions regarding grandparent *** visitation are not harmful to the child\u2019s mental, physical, or emotional health. The burden is on the party filing a petition under this Section to prove that the parent\u2019s actions and decisions regarding visitation times are harmful to the child\u2019s mental, physical, or emotional health.\u201d 750 ILCS 5/607(a \u2014 5)(3) (West 2006).\nHere, the respondent, as China\u2019s custodial parent, advised that she did not want the petitioners\u2019 visitation time to diminish her custody time. It is presumed that the respondent\u2019s decision is \u201cnot harmful to [China\u2019s] mental, physical, or emotional health\u201d (750 ILCS 5/607(a \u2014 5)(3) (West 2006)) and is in China\u2019s best interests (Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d at 318). Pursuant to subsection (a \u2014 5)(3), it was therefore incumbent upon the petitioners to prove that the respondent\u2019s decision regarding the visitation is harmful to China\u2019s mental, physical, or emotional health. See Henkel, 227 Ill. 2d at 181-82. The petitioners made no attempt to do so, however, and merely maintained that they did not want their visitation time with China to diminish Michael\u2019s visitation time. We also note that the petitioners do not argue that the present cause should be remanded so that they can have the opportunity to prove that the respondent\u2019s decision regarding the visitation is harmful to China\u2019s mental, physical, or emotional health. By failing to rebut the presumption set forth in subsection (a \u2014 5)(3), the petitioners failed to provide the circuit court with a valid basis upon which to grant their request that the visitation occur during the respondent\u2019s custody time. Cf. Henkel, 227 Ill. 2d at 185 (reversing the circuit court\u2019s order granting grandparent visitation where the court\u2019s \u201cunsupported oral pronouncement that [the] petitioner had met her burden of proof in overcoming the statutory presumption that [the custodial parent\u2019s] decision denying grandparent visitation was not harmful to [the minor child\u2019s] mental, physical^] or emotional health [was] against the manifest weight of the evidence\u201d). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s order denying the petitioners\u2019 request that their visitation time occur during the respondent\u2019s custody time.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGOLDENHERSH and DONOVAN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE WEXSTTEN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kevin A. Polo, of Law Office of Kevin A. Polo, of Gillespie, for appellants.", "Charles H. Stegmeyer, of Stegmeyer & Stegmeyer, of Belleville, for appel-lee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re GRANDPARENT VISITATION OF CHINA PFALZGRAF, a Minor (Cynthia Pfalzgraf et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. Deann McCann, Respondent-Appellee).\nFifth District\nNo. 5\u201407\u20140256\nOpinion filed February 4, 2008.\nKevin A. Polo, of Law Office of Kevin A. Polo, of Gillespie, for appellants.\nCharles H. Stegmeyer, of Stegmeyer & Stegmeyer, of Belleville, for appel-lee." }, "file_name": "1107-01", "first_page_order": 1123, "last_page_order": 1127 }