Rhode Island Grandparent Visitation Rights Case Highlights Legal and Ethical Dilemmas

A contentious legal battle in Rhode Island is bringing the complexities of grandparent visitation rights, parental autonomy, and potential medical malpractice into sharp focus. The case centers around Laila, a four-year-old girl who lost her mother to cancer, and the efforts of her paternal grandparents, Dr. Siavash Ghoreishi and Dr. Jila Khorsand, to maintain a relationship with her. Her father, Scott Naso, a narcotics detective, alleges that his in-laws’ medical care contributed to his wife’s death and harmed his daughter, fueling his determination to limit their access to Laila.

The Battle for Laila: A Family Divided

The dispute, unfolding in Kent County Rhode Island Family Court before Judge Felix Gill, has escalated into a landmark legal challenge. Naso alleges that his in-laws prescribed unnecessary and potentially harmful medications to both his wife and Laila, and that a misdiagnosis delayed crucial cancer treatment. Text messages reportedly reveal misdiagnoses and questionable medical advice, raising concerns about the doctors’ conduct. Naso has spent over $300,000 in legal fees to protect his right to decide who has access to his child.

The Legal Landscape of Grandparents’ Rights

The movement for grandparents’ rights gained momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, leading to the passage of grandparent visitation laws in every state. These petitions differ from custody battles, as grandparents lack an inherent right to custody. However, visitation can be granted even if the child doesn’t want it. In 2017, Rhode Island amended its law to provide guidance to judges in determining whether visitation would be in the child’s best interests, considering the relationship between the grandparent and child, the parent’s reasons for denying visits, and the potential benefits and detriments of visits for the child.

Constitutional Rights and Parental Autonomy

The US Supreme Court and the Rhode Island Supreme Court have consistently affirmed that fit parents have a fundamental constitutional right to direct the upbringing of their children. The courts presume that fit parents act in their children’s best interests and give “special weight” to a parent’s decision to limit or deny grandparent visitation. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the 2000 Troxel v. Granville decision, courts should not “infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions simply given that [it] believes a ‘better decision could be made.’”

Concerns Over Intrusions on Family Life

Some parents and civil rights lawyers argue that grandparent visitation laws can be a costly intrusion on parental rights and detrimental to children. Dr. Ghoreishi testified that Laila is their only connection to their daughter, who died in 2023, stating, “We love that child with every fabric of our beings and have never harmed her in any way or shape.” However, cases like that of Amanda Bennett in New York highlight the potential for these laws to exacerbate family conflicts and create financial burdens. Bennett estimates she and her husband have spent $140,000 in legal fees fighting her parents’ visitation petition, money that could have been used for their children.

Potential for Abuse and the Importance of Due Process

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has opposed efforts to expand grandparent visitation rights, emphasizing the importance of protecting parental autonomy. Naso has countersued, alleging medical negligence. Legal experts emphasize that the state should only intervene when there is evidence of harm to a child. If a parent alleges abuse, they must “prove it.”

The Rhode Island Case: Ongoing Legal Proceedings

The Family Court trial in Rhode Island, which began in October 2025, will resume this week. The case continues to draw attention to the delicate balance between the rights of grandparents, the autonomy of parents, and, most importantly, the best interests of the child. Friends of Naso have launched a GoFundMe to help with legal fees.