The Arizona Court of Appeals recently upheld a lower court's decision granting visitation rights to Karen Smythe, the paternal grandmother of three minor children, despite objections from their mother, Corrine Stewart. This ruling, issued on November 4, 2026, is significant as it highlights the balance between a parent's rights and the best interests of the children involved.

The case, Smythe v. Stewart (1 CA-CV 25-0862 FC), centers around a family dispute regarding visitation rights after a history of state intervention. The court's decision is crucial for families facing similar situations and emphasizes the importance of maintaining family connections, particularly with grandparents.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Corrine Stewart (Mother) and Karen Smythe (Grandmother). The children in question are three minors born in 2018, 2022, and 2023. The children's father, Brandon Bullard, did not participate in the case after being served by publication.

In March 2022, the Arizona Department of Child Safety placed the two older children in Grandmother's care due to concerns regarding their welfare. They remained with her until February 2023, when they were returned to Mother. Following this reunification, Grandmother maintained a visitation schedule, seeing the children once a week until Mother refused further visits in October 2023.

Mother's refusal stemmed from concerns about Grandmother's husband, whom she accused of behaving inappropriately with one of the children. In March 2024, Grandmother filed a petition for visitation, seeking to see the children for 8 to 10 hours twice a month. Mother opposed the request entirely, leading to a trial in September 2025.

The Ruling

The Arizona Court of Appeals, led by Judge Kent E. Cattani, affirmed the lower court's decision to grant Grandmother visitation rights. The court noted that it had given special weight to Mother’s wishes, as required by Arizona law, but ultimately found that the visitation was in the children's best interests.

The court stated, "Grandmother took care of the two older children for 10 months... Grandmother had a strong, bonded relationship with the children."

During the trial, the court considered various factors, including the historical relationship between the children and Grandmother, the motivations of both parties, and the potential impact on the children's normal activities. The court concluded that the evidence supported granting limited visitation to Grandmother, allowing her to visit the children twice a month under specific conditions.

These conditions included that Grandmother must be present for the entire visit and cannot leave the children with anyone else without Mother’s consent. The court's ruling emphasized that the children's best interests were paramount, and it addressed Mother's concerns regarding Grandmother's husband without finding sufficient evidence to restrict visitation based on those claims.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for similar cases involving third-party visitation rights in Arizona. It reinforces the principle that while parents have significant rights regarding their children's care, the courts must also consider the best interests of the children, especially in cases involving grandparents.

The decision sets a precedent for how courts may handle visitation disputes in the future, particularly when a parent objects to third-party visitation. It highlights the need for courts to carefully evaluate the relationships between children and their grandparents while balancing parental rights and concerns.

What's Next

Mother has the option to appeal the ruling, but it is unclear if she will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court filing. The court's decision stands as a significant ruling in the realm of family law in Arizona.