The Rhode Island grandparents visitation case reached a turning point in Warwick, R. I., when a Family Court judge dismissed the petition filed by two retired physicians seeking visits with their granddaughter over her father’s objections. The ruling closed a bitter trial that had centered on family conflict, medical care, and the legal limits of grandparent visitation rights.
What Happens When a Judge Sees the Child’s Best Interests but Still Dismisses the Case?
Judge Felix Gill said he believed it would be in the best interests of 4-year-old Laila to see her maternal grandparents, Dr. Siavash Ghoreishi and Dr. Jila Khorsand. He also said they had loved and cared for her since birth and were the connection to her late mother, Shahrzad “Sherry” Naso.
Even so, the judge said the grandparents did not clear the high legal bar required under Rhode Island law. The standard gives strong weight to a fit parent’s decision, and the grandparents had to clearly and convincingly show that their son-in-law, Scott Naso, was unreasonable in refusing visitation. Gill concluded they had not done that.
That distinction matters. The court did not frame the issue as whether the grandparents cared for Laila or whether contact might be emotionally beneficial. It framed the issue as whether the law allowed the court to override a parent’s judgment. On that question, the judge said no.
What If the Trial Record Itself Undermines the Petition?
The most damaging piece of evidence was a secret audio recording made by a family friend during a nearly three-hour visit with Naso and Laila in June 2024. The recording captured Naso speaking openly about his distrust of the grandparents and his belief that they had interfered in his family life and medical decisions.
Gill called the recording an invasion of privacy and an overstep, but he also said it reinforced the reasonableness of Naso’s concerns. In the judge’s view, the recording showed that Naso believed the grandparents were trying to move against him and that he had good reason to restrict visitation.
This is where the Rhode Island grandparents visitation case becomes more than a family dispute. It became a test of whether evidence introduced by the petitioners could end up validating the father’s position. In this instance, the judge said it did.
What If the State Law Is Narrow, but the Human Story Is Still Compelling?
The legal framework is narrow: grandparents may seek visitation after a child’s parent has died or divorced, but the court must defer to a fit parent unless the grandparents prove the refusal is unreasonable. Gill said the state law is narrowly tailored to respect constitutional parental rights, and he had already denied motions to dismiss or stay the trial earlier in the week.
Still, the testimony made the dispute emotionally charged. Naso, a Middletown narcotics detective, accused his in-laws of prescribing many medications and providing poor medical care to Sherry and Laila. Ghoreishi and Khorsand denied wrongdoing. Khorsand testified that they loved the child deeply and had never harmed her in any way.
At the same time, the court heard broader testimony about medical treatment, recordkeeping, insurance billing, and family dynamics. Those details gave the case depth, but not enough to change the legal result once the judge focused on the burden of proof.
| Possible Outcome | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Best case | The law is applied narrowly, but families with clear proof of unreasonable denial can still win visitation rights. |
| Most likely | Fit-parent objections remain difficult to overcome, especially when the evidence shows deep mistrust. |
| Most challenging | Grandparent visitation petitions become even harder to sustain when trial evidence strengthens the parent’s fears. |
Who Wins, Who Loses, and What Comes Next?
In the short term, Naso won the legal battle because the judge dismissed the trial before it could continue. The grandparents lost their bid for court-ordered visits. The child remains at the center of a dispute the court described as intense and long running.
More broadly, the case signals how difficult grandparent visitation fights can be when a parent is found fit and emotionally opposed to contact. It also shows that even a sympathetic family story may fail if the legal threshold is not met. For grandparents in similar disputes, the lesson is blunt: care, closeness, and grief do not automatically overcome a parent’s refusal.
The Rhode Island grandparents visitation case is a reminder that family court can recognize the emotional stakes without changing the legal standard. Readers should expect similar cases to turn on evidence, credibility, and the exact weight of parental rights. For anyone following this area of law, the practical takeaway is clear: the law is not built to reward closeness alone, but to test whether the parent’s decision was unreasonable. That is the standard that decided the Rhode Island grandparents visitation case.
