Alaska
Alaska Grandparents' Rights: The Harm Standard After Husby v. Monegan
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 12, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 12, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Alaska's grandparent visitation statute reads as one of the most open in the country on its face, but a fit parent's decision still carries real constitutional protection, and grandparents do not have automatic rights. The Alaska Supreme Court has made clear that if a parent objects, a grandparent must clear a genuinely high bar before a court can order visitation anyway.
Information last verified on 2026-08-12. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Alaska's Grandparent Visitation Statute
Alaska Statute 25.20.065 lets a grandparent petition for visitation if the grandparent has established, or attempted to establish, ongoing personal contact with the child, gated on a best-interest finding. On its face, that is unusually open: there is no requirement that the parents be divorced, that a parent have died, or that anyone be found unfit before a grandparent can file. Subsection (a) does, however, open with the words "Except as provided in (b) of this section," and that carve-out is covered below.
Two other provisions create routes to a grandparent visitation order. AS 25.24.150 allows visitation orders as part of a divorce or custody judgment. AS 25.20.060(a) is the second and is mandatory in tone: in a custody determination between parents, "the court shall provide for visitation by a grandparent or other person if that is in the best interests of the child." Both are also among the decrees that trigger the filing gate in AS 25.20.065(b).
That statutory breadth is exactly the kind of open-ended standard the U.S. Supreme Court found constitutionally troubling in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), when a state law lets a court override a fit parent's judgment on nothing more than a general best-interest finding. Alaska's own courts have since supplied the missing piece: when a fit parent objects, the statute's broad standing rule does not translate into an easy win.
The Real Standard: Clear and Convincing Proof of Harm
The Alaska Supreme Court's decision in Ross v. Bauman, 353 P.3d 816 (Alaska 2015), sets the actual bar. To protect a parent's fundamental right to raise their own children, a grandparent who seeks visitation over a fit parent's objection must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would be detrimental to the child to limit visitation with the grandparent to whatever the parent has determined is reasonable. Alaska courts call this the parental preference rule. In practical terms, a grandparent cannot win simply by showing that more visitation would be nice for the child; they must show that the parent's own, more limited decision would actually harm the child.

A more recent decision, Husby v. Monegan, 517 P.3d 20 (Alaska 2022), adds an important procedural wrinkle. The Alaska Supreme Court held that the parental preference rule from Ross v. Bauman governs a grandparent's original, initial petition under AS 25.20.065, but it does not automatically reapply when someone later asks the court to modify an existing visitation order. A modification motion is instead governed by AS 25.20.110, which asks whether there has been a substantial change in circumstances and what the child's best interest now requires, without re-running the parental-preference analysis that protected the parent the first time around. A grandparent or parent involved in a modification dispute is litigating under a meaningfully different standard than the one that applied to the original visitation order.
A separate Alaska Supreme Court case sometimes surfaces in searches on this topic, Dara v. Gish, 404 P.3d 154 (Alaska 2017). That case does not construe the grandparent visitation statute at all; it is a third-party custody dispute decided under Alaska's common-law psychological-parent doctrine and should not be cited as governing grandparent visitation.
In practical terms, the detriment showing required by Ross v. Bauman means a grandparent generally needs more than evidence that visitation would be pleasant or that the child enjoys the grandparent's company. Courts look for concrete evidence that the parent's specific limitation, not visitation in the abstract, would harm the child: a documented prior bond that is being severed, a caregiving role the grandparent had actually filled, or specific developmental or emotional effects tied to losing that contact. General closeness alone is unlikely to meet the bar.
Custody Is a Separate, Harder Track
Alaska has no grandparent-specific custody statute. The general minor-guardianship statute, AS 13.26.132, requires that a parent's custodial rights already be terminated or suspended before a guardian, whether a grandparent or someone else, can be appointed. It is not a lower-bar substitute for visitation when a parent's rights remain intact and that parent objects. For the custody-specific picture, see Can Grandparents Get Custody? and Alaska child custody laws.
Adoption and Filing After a Custody Decree
Alaska's Adoption Act supplies the general rule. AS 25.23.130(a)(1) provides that a final adoption decree terminates all legal relationships between the adopted person and the natural parents and other relatives of the adopted person, so that the adopted person is thereafter "a stranger to the former relatives for all purposes." Two qualifiers in the same statute matter to grandparents. The provision expressly excepts "a spouse of the petitioner and relatives of the spouse," which is the stepparent-adoption situation, so an adoption by a parent's new spouse does not cut off that spouse's relatives. And AS 25.23.130(c) provides that nothing in the chapter prohibits an adoption that allows visitation between the adopted person and that person's natural parents or other relatives, so a decree can preserve contact.
Filing after a decree is separately restricted. Under AS 25.20.065(b), once a decree or final order relating to child custody has been entered under AS 25.20.060 or AS 25.24.150, or relating to an adoption under AS 25.23, a grandparent may petition under the visitation statute only if (1) the grandparent did not request visitation during the pendency of those proceedings, or (2) there has been a change in circumstances relating to the custodial parent or the child that justifies reconsideration. The gate is triggered by the entry of the decree, not by any earlier grandparent petition, and it applies to a first-time petition as much as to a later one. Condition (1) is written for the grandparent who never petitioned before; a grandparent who did ask for visitation during the divorce or adoption case and lost is barred from an initial 25.20.065 petition absent changed circumstances.
How to Petition for Grandparent Visitation in Alaska
A grandparent visitation case is filed in Superior Court, and an original petition can be filed under AS 25.20.065 without waiting for a divorce or other proceeding. The exception is the AS 25.20.065(b) gate described above: if a custody or adoption decree has already been entered, a grandparent may petition only where the grandparent did not seek visitation during those earlier proceedings or can show a change in circumstances. No official statewide fee schedule was located for this filing, so confirm the current cost with the court where you plan to file.

Even with Alaska's broad standing rule, the clear-and-convincing detriment standard from Ross v. Bauman is a genuinely difficult bar to clear when a parent objects, and litigation over it is slow, costly, and adversarial toward the child's parent by nature. Mediation or a direct, informal conversation with the parent should be tried first, both because it is faster and because contested litigation can itself strain the relationship a grandparent is trying to protect. If a family does move forward with a petition, a family-law attorney licensed in Alaska can evaluate the specific facts and explain what the evidentiary showing will realistically require.
Talk to a family-law attorney: free case review
Every case has details a formula cannot capture. Get a free, no-obligation review from a family-law attorney.
Disclaimer
This article provides general information about Alaska grandparent visitation and custody law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case outcomes depend heavily on individual facts, and courts apply a genuinely demanding standard when a parent objects. Verify current statutory text and consult a licensed Alaska family-law attorney before relying on anything here for a specific situation.
Related Articles
- Grandparents' Rights by State
- Grandparent Visitation Rights
- Can Grandparents Get Custody?
- Alaska Child Custody Laws
- Alaska Divorce Laws

Last updated: 2026-08-12.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can any grandparent petition for visitation in Alaska?
Alaska Statute 25.20.065 lets a grandparent who has established, or tried to establish, ongoing contact with the child petition without a divorce, death, or unfitness trigger. Subsection (b) is the limit: once a custody or adoption decree has been entered, a grandparent may petition only if the grandparent did not request visitation during those proceedings or there has been a change in circumstances. Broad standing also does not mean the case is easy to win if the parent objects.
What must a grandparent prove if an Alaska parent objects to visitation?
Under Ross v. Bauman, 353 P.3d 816 (Alaska 2015), the grandparent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting visitation to what the parent has decided is reasonable would be detrimental to the child.
Does the same standard apply to a request to change an existing Alaska visitation order?
No. Husby v. Monegan, 517 P.3d 20 (Alaska 2022), held that a motion to modify an existing order is governed by AS 25.20.110's substantial-change-in-circumstances and best-interest standard, not the parental preference rule that applies to an initial petition.
Is Dara v. Gish relevant to Alaska grandparent visitation cases?
No. Dara v. Gish, 404 P.3d 154 (Alaska 2017), is a third-party custody case decided under Alaska's psychological-parent doctrine, not a decision construing the grandparent visitation statute.
Can grandparents get custody instead of visitation in Alaska?
Custody is a separate, harder track. Alaska's general guardianship statute requires a parent's custodial rights already be terminated or suspended before a grandparent can be appointed guardian.
What kind of evidence helps prove detriment in an Alaska case?
Courts generally look for a documented prior bond that is being cut off, a caregiving role the grandparent actually filled, and specific effects on the child, not simply that the child enjoys the grandparent's company.
Updates
Corrected the description of AS 25.20.065(b), which gates any grandparent petition filed after a custody or adoption decree has been entered, including a first-time petition; added Alaska's adoption cutoff rule under AS 25.23.130 and the grandparent visitation route under AS 25.20.060(a).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Alaska Statutes, Title 25. Marital and Domestic Relations, Chapter 20. Parent and Child
§ 25.20.065Visitation rights of grandparentIn force
(a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, a child's grandparent may petition the superior court for an order establishing reasonable rights of visitation between the grandparent and child if (1) the grandparent has established or attempted to establish ongoing personal contact with the child; and (2) visitation by the grandparent is in the child's best interest. (b) After a decree or final order relating to child custody is entered under AS 25.20.060 or AS 25.24.150 or relating to an adoption under AS 25.23, a grandparent may petition under this section only if (1) the grandparent did not request the court to grant visitation rights during the pendency of proceedings under AS 25.20.060, AS 25.23, or AS 25.24; or (2) there has been a change in circumstances relating to the custodial parent or the minor child that justifies reconsideration of the grandparent's visitation rights.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ross v. Bauman (2015) held that a grandparent seeking an order under AS 25.20.065 must prove by clear and convincing evidence that limiting visitation to what fit parents deem reasonable is detrimental to the child. Harvey v. Cook (2007) applied the section to let a grandparent denied intervention file a separate visitation action.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Harvey v. Cook (Alaska Supreme Court 2007, 172 P.3d 794)✓A maternal grandmother was refused intervention in the parents' custody case, where she had hoped to pursue visitation; the court affirmed, reasoning her interests were not impaired because AS 25.20.065(b)(1) let her file an independent visitation action after the custody decree.
- C.L. v. P.C.S. (Alaska Supreme Court 2001, 17 P.3d 769)✓Maternal grandparents intervened in their granddaughters' adoptions and asked for formal visitation; the court affirmed the denial, noting AS 25.20.065(a) did not apply because they had sought visitation during the adoption, though changed circumstances could support a later one.
- Ross v. Bauman (Alaska Supreme Court 2015, 353 P.3d 816)✓A grandfather won a visitation order against fit parents who had never unreasonably refused visits; the court held a grandparent petitioning under AS 25.20.065 must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parents' limits are detrimental, and dismissed the petition.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 25.20.110Modification of child custody or visitationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) An award of custody of a child or visitation with the child may be modified if the court determines that a change in circumstances requires the modification of the award and the modification is in the best interests of the child. If a parent opposes the modification of the award of custody or visitation with the child and the modification is granted, the court shall enter on the record its reason for the modification. (b) When making a determination relating to child custody under (a) of this section, the court shall consider the past history of the parents with respect to their compliance with the child support payment provisions of temporary or permanent support orders or agreements relating to the child or to other children. Under this subsection, the court may consider a parent's failure to pay child support only if the parent had actual knowledge of the amount of the child support obligation and had funds available for payment of support or could have obtained those funds through reasonable efforts, as determined by the court.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 134 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rego v. Rego (Alaska Supreme Court 2011, 259 P.3d 447)“…a change in cireumstances that justifies modification under AS 25.20.110. Two statutes guide the superior…”
- Long v. Long (Alaska Supreme Court 1991, 816 P.2d 145)“…ication is in the best interests" of the children involved. AS 25.20.110. The parent making the motion for custo…”
- C.R.B. v. C.C. (Alaska Supreme Court 1998, 959 P.2d 375)“…ould establish a substantial change in circumstances. See AS 25.20.110; Garding v. Garding, 767 P.2d 183,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alaska Child Custody Laws (2026): Types, Best Interests, and Your Rights
Alaska Statutes, Title 25. Marital and Domestic Relations, Chapter 24. Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage
§ 25.24.150Judgments for custody; supervised visitationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) In an action for divorce or for legal separation, for placement of a child when one or both parents have died, or as part of a child-in-need-of-aid proceeding for a child in state custody under AS 47.10, the court may, if it has jurisdiction under AS 25.30.300 25.30.320, and is an appropriate forum under AS 25.30.350 and 25.30.360, during the pendency of the action, or at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of a child of the marriage, make, modify, or vacate an order for the custody of or visitation with the minor child that may seem necessary or proper, including an order that provides for visitation by a grandparent or other person if that is in the best interests of the child. The court shall hear custody proceedings related to a child in state custody under AS 47.10 as part of the child-in-need-of-aid proceedings, as provided under AS 47.10.113, unless notice is provided to all parties to the child-in-need-of-aid proceedings and no party objects to hearing the custody proceedings in another appropriate forum. (b) If a guardian ad litem for a child is appointed, the appointment shall be made under the terms of AS 25.24.310(c).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 320 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Alaska courts apply the AS 25.24.150(c) best interests factors to custody. Ebertz v. Ebertz (2005) affirmed an award where the trial court did not detail every factor and rejected a custody investigator's recommendation. Limeres v. Limeres (2014) found the AS 25.24.150(j) domestic violence findings insufficient but harmless, and affirmed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ebertz v. Ebertz (Alaska Supreme Court 2005, 113 P.3d 643)✓A father challenged a custody award to the mother because the trial court rejected the custody investigator's recommendation and stressed one best interests factor; the court affirmed, holding a trial court need not discuss every AS 25.24.150(c) factor in detail.
- Limeres v. Limeres (Alaska Supreme Court 2014, 320 P.3d 291)✓A father who had threatened to shoot the mother and violated a no-contact order lost custody of the children; the court affirmed but found the findings insufficient to show a history of domestic violence under AS 25.24.150(j), upholding supervised visitation on other grounds.
- Jenkins v. Handel (Alaska Supreme Court 2000, 10 P.3d 586)✓A mother moved to modify custody of daughters aged 15 and 13 who said they wanted to live with her; the court affirmed the denial, holding the AS 25.24.150(c)(3) preference factor must be considered but can be outweighed when the stated wishes are not mature and well reasoned.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Alaska Statutes, Title 13. Decedents' Estates, Guardianships, Transfers, Trusts, and Health Care Decisions, Chapter 26. Protection of Minors and Incapacitated Persons and Their Property; Powers of Attorney
§ 13.26.132Court appointment of guardian of minor; conditions for appointmentIn force
The court may appoint a guardian for an unmarried minor if all parental rights of custody have been terminated or suspended by circumstances or prior court order. A guardian appointed by will as provided in AS 13.26.121 whose appointment has not been prevented or nullified under AS 13.26.126 has priority over any guardian who may be appointed by the court but the court may proceed with an appointment upon a finding that the testamentary guardian has failed to accept the testamentary appointment within 30 days after notice of the guardianship proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at akleg.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Michael W. v. Brown (Alaska Supreme Court 2018, 433 P.3d 1105)“…e “suspended by circumstances” in the guardianship statute, AS 13.26.132, is properly focused on the parent’s ab…”
- ITMO Protective Proceedings of Macon J. (Alaska Supreme Court 2025)“…7753 Minor guardianships under AS 13.26.132 are probate proceedings.14 But guardian…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Alaska Stat. Section 25.20.065, Visitation Rights of Grandparents(akleg.gov).gov
- Alaska Stat. Section 25.20.110, Modification of Custody or Visitation(akleg.gov).gov
- Alaska Stat. Section 13.26.132, Appointment of Guardian of Minor(akleg.gov).gov
- Ross v. Bauman, 353 P.3d 816 (Alaska 2015)(courts.alaska.gov).gov
- Husby v. Monegan, 517 P.3d 20 (Alaska 2022)(courts.alaska.gov).gov
- Alaska Stat. Sec. 25.20.060, Petition for Award of Child Custody (grandparent visitation in custody determinations)(akleg.gov)
- Alaska Stat. Sec. 25.23.130, Effect of Adoption Decree(akleg.gov)