Scott Naso, a father and Rhode Island narcotics detective, is asking the Rhode Island Family Court to dismiss a petition brought by his former in-laws seeking court-ordered visitation with his 4-year-old daughter. #Powerjournalist Markos Papadatos has the scoop.
Naso argues that the court process being used in his case has gone too far in overriding his rights as his child’s father, which he says are protected under the U.S. and Rhode Island Constitutions.
At the center of the case is a visitation dispute following the death of Naso’s wife, Shahrzad “Sherry” Naso. The child’s maternal grandparents, retired physicians Dr. Siavash Ghoreishi and Dr. Jila Khorsand, are asking the court to grant them visitation rights. Naso is strongly opposing that request.
Naso also makes serious allegations about what happened before the court case. He claims the grandparents gave his daughter 36 prescription medications before she was 2 ½ years old without his knowledge or permission. He says he first became aware of this on the day his wife died, after witnessing a disturbing incident involving his daughter and medication.
Court filings also reference claims that the grandparents were heavily involved in his late wife’s medical care and that many prescriptions were not fully disclosed to her treating cancer doctors. The grandparents deny these allegations.
In his court filing, Naso argues that the case has been handled unfairly over the past 18 months, including multiple trial days and what he describes as repeated delays and missing rulings on key motions. He says some court decisions were made without full hearings or testimony, and based instead on limited reports, which he believes is unfair.
He also argues that the process has shifted the burden onto him to prove he is making good parenting decisions, instead of requiring the grandparents to prove why court-ordered visitation is necessary.
Naso’s motion relies on legal protections that generally say parents have the primary right to make decisions for their children, unless a court finds a strong reason not to. He argues those protections have not been properly followed in his case, and that ongoing delays and legal costs, now reportedly over $300,000, are making it increasingly difficult to continue defending himself.
He is asking the court to dismiss the visitation case entirely, undo prior visitation orders, and stop any related contempt proceedings. If not, he is asking the court to at least finish the trial without further delays and hear the case day-to-day until it is resolved.
After receiving notice of Naso’s constitutional challenge to the state law (as required), the AG’s Office chose not to intervene and defend the grandparent visitation law. Defending state laws is a key function of the AG’s office. Court resumes on April 20, 2026.
