In Shaw v. Dupuy, the court held that the parties’ inability to communicate or agree on many issues did not amount to the extraordinary circumstances required by La. C.C. art. 136(B)(2) to support a visitation award to the non-custodial relatives.1
In Flack v. Dickson, the appellate court held:
[E]xtraordinary circumstances did not exist to support granting paternal grandparents visitation rights to minor child and there was no allegation or evidence that the child’s mother was unfit or did not adequately provide for the child, nor was there any showing that the mother’s decision regarding the paternal grandparents’ visitation was detrimental to the child and, in any event, record did not indicate that such visitation would serve child’s best interest.2
In Henry v. Henry, visitation was denied although the step-grandparent provided proof of extraordinary circumstances because she had been the primary caregiver for the two-year-old at issue. The court denied visitation because it found visitation would not be in the child’s best interest.3
In McCarty v. McCarty, the grandmother was denied visitation rights where parents were married, not involved in divorce, custody, or neglect litigation, and the child had not lived for an extended period with the grandmother.4
In Lingo v. Kelsay, the maternal grandparents were denied visitation as the parents were married, not involved in marital litigation, and objected to the grandparents’ visitation.5
In Galjour v. Harris, visitation was denied to the uncle and aunt since there were no extraordinary circumstances under La. C.C. art. 136 and no right of action under R.S. 9:344.6 The court granted visitation to the maternal grandparents. The court held that grandparents do not have to prove “extraordinary circumstances” in order to obtain visitation with their grandchildren when their child is dead, interdicted, or incarcerated.