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!
Objection. Kentucky Laws versus Calif laws could indicate 'venue shopping' - case law is absolutely pertinent, whether it is PA, UT or Washington IMO Truxel has been effectively challenged.,setting precidents
The grandparent has no relationship with the child
overruled. Grandparent was prevented from having a relationship with child. Child immediately responded to grandmother during one, 'allowed to hold' visit.
Sexual abuse family history
Irrevelant - over 40 years ago. VA divorced abusive spouse quickly after marriage. Abusive spouse's subsequent behavior is not a reflection on VA
Long distance relationship/Stability
Irrevelant - grandmother was actively prevented from participating in granddaughter's life by unmarried parent of grandchild. Unmarried parent provided no support to mother of child during mother's pregnancy. Parents of child were unmarried, in fact, father refused to marry mother. Father has allowed open contact with characters of interest in the death of the mother. Father has allowed open contact with his maternal/paternal relatives, no contact with childs maternal side of the family - intentional and malicious alienation
The state rests
:)