cites: Case Law, Grandparents Rights, Rulings
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2006-09-12-grandparents-favored_x.htm
The court also emphasized that Pennsylvania’s visitation statute was unlike the broadly written Washington state law at issue in 2000, because Pennsylvania specifically gave visitation rights to grandparents whose child had died.
http://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/custody-more/grandparents-visitation-rights(1).html
Many states have permissive visitation laws similar to Washington’s. These states don’t see grandparent or caretaker visitation as a severe restriction on the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children.
Instead, they classify visitation as only a slight burden on that right. Therefore, the states need only justify the burden with a “rational” reason. Preserving the right of
children to maintain strong bonds with their grandparents generally qualifies as such a reason.
http://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/custody-more/state-grandparent-custody.html
California Conditions for grandparent visitation rights include a determination of whether a parent is deceased, the child’s parents are divorced or separated, the whereabouts of one parent is unknown, or the child is not residing with either parent. In addition to determining that visitation is in the child’s best interests, the court must find that the grandparents had a preexisting relationship with the grandchild. The court must also balance visitation with the parents’ rights. If both parents agree that the court should not grant visitation to the grandchild, the court will presume that visitation is not in the child’s best interests. Adoption does not automatically cut off the visitation rights of grandparents.
Kentucky: A court may award visitation rights if visitation would be in the child’s best interest. A court may award a grandparent the same visitation rights as a parent without
custody if the grandparent’s child is deceased and the grandparent has provided child support to the grandchild. Adoption cuts off the visitation rights of grandparents unless the adoption is granted to a stepparent, and the grandparent’s child has not had his or her parental rights
terminated.
also:
http://www.californiafamilylawblog.com/2006/11/for_grandparent_visitation_thr_1.html
cites2: Case Law, Grandparents Rights, Rulings
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Thurgood082506.pdf
¶35 We therefore hold that the Grandparent Visitation Statute is not unconstitutional under Troxel. The statute expressly incorporates the parental presumption, thereby ensuring that courts give “special weight” to the decisions of fit parents.
Moreover, it provides guidance to courts in determining whether the petitioning grandparents have established circumstances under which the courts can, nevertheless,
supersede the parent’s decision.
¶41 The district court also found that visitation between the child and the grandparents had been unreasonably limited or denied. When Mr. Thurgood first received
custody in June 2000,he did not allow visitation for five months. After this five month period, he granted Ms. Uzelac two visits, one for the child’s birthday and the other for a family Christmas party. The next visitation did not occur until March 2001, and it only lasted for one hour.
Thereafter, Mr. Thurgood did not allow visitation or telephone calls until July 2002, despite repeated attempts by the Uzelacs to contact the child. After the judge
ordered visitation in July 2002, Mr. Thurgood only allowed Ms.Uzelac to see the child twice between July 2002 and January 2003, when the district court issued a second visitation order. Following that order, Ms. Uzelac saw the child every other weekend throughout 2003 until Mr. Thurgood and the child moved to Florida in January 2004. Mr.Thurgood terminated all phone contact between the Uzelacs and the child one month later.
Based on these findings, there was sufficient evidence for the district court to determine that visitation had been “denied or unreasonably limited,” in satisfaction of one of the named statutory factors. Utah Code Ann. § 30-5-2(2)(b).
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-53-2005mo.pdf
After Mother’s death, however, Father abruptly denied Grandmother contact with Child, despite Grandmother’s repeated attempts to call Father and request time with
Child.
Between Mother’s death in May 2002 and April 2003, Grandmother saw Child on only three occasions when Child was visiting other maternal relatives.2
Eventually exasperated with the situation, Grandmother filed for partial custody pursuant to Section 5311. The court granted her temporary partial custody in April 2003
2 Father apparently allowed Child’s relationship to continue with his maternal greatgrandfather (Great-grandfather) with whom Child also had a very strong relationship.
6. Significantly, the court observed that “when [Child] is with [Grandmother], he seeks and receives emotional support regarding the death of his mother.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6.
This finding is particularly resonant because “[Father] himself expressed concerns regarding [Child’s] ability to express his emotions regarding his mother’s death.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6.
Thus, the court concluded, “contact with his mother’s side of the family is highly beneficial emotionally for [Child] in helping him deal with the loss of his mother.” Tr. Ct. Slip Op. at 6
23 Pa.C.S. § 5311.1 The Superior Court held that the trial court’s application was constitutional. We affirm.
1 § 5311. When parent deceased
If a parent of an unmarried child is deceased, the parents or grandparents of the deceased parent may be granted reasonable partial custody or visitation rights, or both, to the unmarried child by the court upon a finding that partial custody or visitation rights, or both, would be in the best interest of the child and would not interfere with the parent-child relationship.
All due respect plum,
Kentucky and Washington have nothing to do with a baby that is a resident of CA. CA laws only would be at the core.
I am not saying she will not get visitation, only that CA laws will see her as a grandmother not a parent. It isn’t going to be cut and dry. Larry will go down swinging. Some valid and great concerns the court will NOT ignore
The grandparent has no relationship with the child. Whether that is her fault of not will not outway the fact there is no bond being broken is my point. THAT is important to courts. If a bond was built, they think long and hard before breaking that, again because emotionally it is not in a child’s best emotional interests to lose love just because grownups can’t behave like grown ups.
Sexual abuse family history
Like it or not, it WILL come up. How a judge will apply it in this day and age is anyone’s guess.
Long distance relationship
This plays again into no bonding existing to be broken and how much can a small child bond with a long distance relationship. Is it in the child’s best interest being so small to be shipped off occasionally to someone she doesn’t know?
Instabilty of relationships
Multiple marriages .. this in CA might not go far lol
But important is to stick with the appropriate state. Many tales can be told but they would not apply here. Discussing a case where the child is older and had a relationship (bond) also would not be comparable. Liberal courts like CA often recognize bonding as important. For whatever reasons .. the bottom line is that does not exist between DL and VA. It is the second most important measure they use after the best interest consideration.
California’s Legal Criteria is -
*Best Interest of Child
*Prior Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship
*Effect on Parent/Child Relationship
*Parents are Deceased, Divorced and/or Unmarried
*After Stepparent Adoption
Now, that bad news stated, the good would be:
Natural mother deceased.
Natural father and mom were not married
Child is so young, she could better adapt. The ‘stranger’ transition would be weighed against the lifetime benefit of having a loving grandmother in her life.
Effect on parent / child relationship .. minor. Larry has nothing to show that VA has EVER undermined his father role by speaking poorly of Larry so she has a proven track record there. Larry not being adult enough to return the same behavior is more likely to work against him imo from past cases studied in CA. IOW, teaching a child to hate and immaturity are NOT in the child’s best interest. They will not be in his favor. If anything, it will support the child needs her grandmother in her life to balance out the family from the deceased mom’s side.
It could go either way but it certainly is NOT going to be easy from either side. The one thing the court does do is.. deminish the emotions from both sides and focus on the child!