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
:)
The CHILD and one natural parent are residents of CA.
CA supports GP rights especially when a parent has died. A case for Texas, US Supreme shot down a case! And as recent as May 2007 another TX shot down because of that precedent. Is that the case law you want used in CA?
It will not be about Virgie. As I said, the bottom line remains, prevented or not, there is NO existing relationship. This by their State laws IS pertenient and imo, as it should be! It is pertenient in any case dealing with child. The child’s interest must be #1 no matter what imo. Will it go against her, judge’s call but you can’t discount it. It will be an argument to expect from LB and WILL be part of a judge’s consideration.
Sexual abuse:
We don’t know the full extent. There WILL be court evaluations and histories taken. The point is, it will be injected and considered. What weight a judge will decide, what will be ‘discovered’ remains to be seen.
BUT, In this day and age, no judge wants to be on O’Reilly for placing a child in a home that had ANY abuse history. Will divorce show enough to be moot, probably but .. it depends on other factors or if any other abuse can be shown.
Will it be enough to sway a judge remains to be seen. We just are not privy to the full truth. IF that is all there is in the history, it might be okay but... there are no guarantees. It is there. It isn’t like we are dealing with a home where it isn’t in the history. It is not cast aside easily nowadays is my concern. If a judge is hell bent on using it, they will. If not, they will say she dealt with it and it is not relevant.
Father ‘allowing’ Stern
WE suspect Stern but what is a judge going to look at? Stern is not accused of or charged with a darn thing. That is what the court will consider if anything. Unless you can show direct danger to the child, physical harm to the child, ‘friends’ will not be much weight at all. In fact, DL was with Stern for months and no illness or harm came to her.
Hell, parents can be drug addicts as long as they don’t DO the drugs in the child’s presence! As long as the child is fed and safe from physical harm don’t expect emotional moral battles. The courts will not focus on friends. Howard being a questionable friend is not what you wish it would be to a court. The court will look at Larry and Virgie.
You final point is indeed one VA will use on intentional alienation. The court knows this going in! Heck, if they agreed they wouldn’t be in court so that part is clear from the start to the court. It won’t get past the judge but it will not be the focus of the court. If a parent wasn’t trying to forbid visitation, they wouldn’t be there asking the court to decide period. Family court is used to cutting past the emotional fires.
US SUPREME COURT has already set a precedent. Grandparents have no right to visits over the parents wishes.
On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided a grandparent access case called Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Troxel addressed what rights grandparents have to maintain a relationship with their grandchildren after their child has died and over the surviving parent’s objection. The decision in Troxel - consisting of a plurality opinion, two concurrences and three dissents - further muddied an already unclear are of the law. The only clear holding from Troxel was that a “fit” parent had the right to decide whether a child’s grandparents could have access to the child.
Case in CA ..
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20040903.html
Thus, Karen had an uphill battle, to say the least, in challenging the statute. Perhaps realizing that challenging the statute “on its face” would fail, she also challenged it “as applied” to her particular situation.
But here, too, she lost. The California Supreme Court was unwilling to hold that granting the grandparents’ request, under the circumstances, violated Karen’s parental rights - especially given that Charles, who was then also Emily’s legal parent, had supported the request.
VA has no standing in the long run. LB is not Karen. The deceased natural mother will be presented, on film, as adamantly stating she did not want the grandmother involved (unlike Charles who supported GP visits). LB has the money to fight VA to the death aka US Surpreme Court and you see what their position is! Don’t think HKS and LB won’t go all the way there, they will. Unless or until LB were to be charged with a crime or unless LB could be shown to be unfit (highly unlikely) it will be a sad ending for Ms Arthur.
Hateful grownups make me sick. :(