Pyle, J.
Statement of the Case
Roxanna Prater (“Mother”) is the parent of an eleven-year-old daughter, R.W. (“R.W.”), who is currently under a guardianship with her paternal grandparents, Dianne and Steven Wineland (“Paternal Grandparents”). Mother filed a petition for visitation with R.W., and the trial court denied it without a hearing. On appeal, Mother contends that the trial court erred in denying her petition without a hearing. Concluding that Mother is correct, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to grant Mother a hearing to consider her visitation petition.
We reverse and remand with instructions.
Issue
The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court erred in denying Mother’s petition for visitation with R.W. without a hearing.
….
Mother argues that “[t]he trial court’s summary denial of her petition was contrary to law and policy” and that she “should receive a hearing on her petition for visitation.” (Mother’s Br. 10). We agree
“‘Indiana has long recognized that the rights of parents to visit their children is a precious privilege that should be enjoyed by noncustodial parents.’” Patton v. Patton, 48 N.E.3d 17, 21 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Duncan v. Duncan, 843 N.E.2d 966, 969 (Ind. Ct. App.2006), trans. denied). “‘As a result a noncustodial parent is generally entitled to reasonable visitation rights.’” Patton, 48 N.E.3d at 21 (quoting Duncan, 843 N.E.2d at 969). INDIANA CODE § 31-17- 4-1 specifically provides that “a parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to reasonable parenting time rights, unless the court finds, after a hearing, that parenting time by the noncustodial parent might endanger the child’s physical health or significantly impair the child’s emotional development.” (Emphasis added). Pursuant to this statutory provision, the trial court erred when it denied Mother’s visitation petition without a hearing.
We further note that in Manis v. McNabb, 104 N.E.3d 611, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), this Court held that “a trial court has the authority to determine whether parenting time is warranted and order reasonable parenting time for a parent whose child is placed with a guardian.” We also held that when a trial court orders parenting time in a guardianship case, it cannot allow the guardian, who often has a personal stake in the matter, to determine the parent’s parenting time with her child during the course of the guardianship. Id. We cautioned that doing so has the potential to deprive the parent and child of time together and an opportunity to develop a meaningful relationship and bond. Id. We further explained that if the parties are unable to agree on their own to a parenting-time plan that is in the best interests of the child, then the trial court must take an active role in developing one. Id. See also Blankenship v. Duke, 132 N.E.3d 410, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding that “[b]y making the parties agree upon parenting time, the trial court has essentially allowed the maternal grandparents to determine Father’s parenting time with Children. It was error for the court to do so.”).
Because the trial court erroneously failed to grant Mother a hearing on her visitation petition, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to hold a hearing on Mother’s petition. We further note that the “best practice” is for the trial court to make specific findings in support of its parenting time order. See Manis, 104 N.E.3d at 621.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur