## Facts

- Michael L. Etter and Wanda Rose were divorced and had one minor son, who lived with Rose.
- Etter, the noncustodial parent, was incarcerated and petitioned for visitation with his son at the prison.
- Rose objected to prison visitation.
- The trial court denied visitation based on an internal policy of refusing prison visitation when the custodial parent objects and the judge’s general view that prison is not conducive to a positive parent-child relationship.
- The trial court did not conduct a full, factor-based inquiry into the child’s welfare and treated the mother’s objection and the prison setting as determinative.
- Etter, proceeding pro se, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying visitation based on a blanket policy and generalized assumptions about prison, rather than a case-specific best-interests analysis.
2. Whether the custodial parent’s objection may be treated as dispositive in deciding an incarcerated parent’s visitation request.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the order denying visitation.
- The court held the trial court abused its discretion by relying on a blanket policy that effectively made the custodial parent’s wishes controlling.
- The court held incarceration and the prison setting may be considered, but cannot replace a record-based, individualized analysis of the child’s best interests.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including a proper best-interests determination based on all relevant factors.

## Legal Principles

- Visitation determinations must serve the child’s best interests and permanent welfare.
- Best-interests determinations must be made case by case, weighing all factors legitimately affecting the child’s physical, intellectual, moral, and emotional welfare.
- A court may not substitute a categorical rule for the required fact-specific analysis in visitation matters.
- The custodial parent’s preference is a relevant consideration but cannot be treated as the single controlling factor.
- Incarceration restricts a parent’s ability to maintain family relationships, but it does not automatically bar visitation; any limitation must be justified by the child’s welfare in the particular case.

## Conclusion

The Superior Court required individualized adjudication of prison-visitation requests and held that denying visitation solely because the custodial parent objects, or because prison is generally viewed as unsuitable, is an abuse of discretion absent a full best-interests analysis.


Etter v. Rose, 684 A.2d 1092 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)