Grandparents rights?

[PeacefulChaos]

Do they even exist? I haven't really paid much attention if they do... Every once in awhile I hear of families with a difficult situation and the grandparents might say they are thinking of 'taking them (meaning the parents) to court for grandparents rights.'

So what are they?

 

I have to admit that on first glance for me, they are not good. Because here is how I see it:

Mom and dad have made this decision for their children for a reason. It may not be valid to anyone else, and it may even be clear that the grandparents haven't done anything to warrant being unable to see their grandchildren. HOWEVER, I'm not sure I like the idea of a court having a say in this matter. Wouldn't it undermine the parents for a decision like this to be put in the hands of the court?

 

Anyway, tell me about this if you know about it. Its something I've been thinking about of late (we have no grandparent problems - I've just heard it mentioned a few times lately elsewhere.)

 

:lurk5:

[Jpoy85]

No grandparents dont have rights unless both parents (sometimes 1 can) give up rights. (at least the last time i checked in OH). Im speaking of a NORMAL custody case. If its Childrens Services its different.

 

Now in DSs situation his dad has custody but his grandparents take care of him, claim him on taxes, and collect child support for him. I dont like it BUT DS better off with them than his dad. I CAN get custody back so that is not an issue.

[Lara in Colo]

I few times I have seen this be an issue is when one parent is missing (dead or absent) and the parent of the missing parent isn't getting any time with the children.

 

They intervene and sometimes they win, sometimes not.

[PeacefulChaos]

I see. So for grandparents to try to go and get grandparents rights when the parents (both living) have cut them off from their grandkids (with valid reason, at least as far as the parents are concerned, which IMO is what matters), it wouldn't really hold water?

I wonder if it is something that people just say because they wish they could change the situation? Or if they actually think that it works differently than it does?

Just pondering..

[Tohru]

In some states, if one parent is deceased, then grandparents of the deceased parent can have rights for visitation. Other than that situation, I don't think there are any actual "grandparent rights," but I could be wrong.

[phathui5]

I remember reading an article in Parents magazine years ago about a couple deciding that they didn't want contact with their parents and the grandparents took them to court for visitation and won.

[frugalmama]

I few times I have seen this be an issue is when one parent is missing (dead or absent) and the parent of the missing parent isn't getting any time with the children.

 

They intervene and sometimes they win, sometimes not.

 

This. My mother and I are going through this with my niece and nephew - my brother passed away and my SIL is actively preventing us from having contact with the kids. When my brother was a live we spoke to them on the phone multiple times a week and even went up to visit. I worry about how she is treating the kids a lot - I know my nephew wasn't happy at all the last few times we managed to speak with him.

 

We are seriously thinking of suing to force her to re-establish contact with the kids.

[sweetbasil]

This. My mother and I are going through this with my niece and nephew - my brother passed away and my SIL is actively preventing us from having contact with the kids. When my brother was a live we spoke to them on the phone multiple times a week and even went up to visit. I worry about how she is treating the kids a lot - I know my nephew wasn't happy at all the last few times we managed to speak with him.

 

We are seriously thinking of suing to force her to re-establish contact with the kids.

 

In most states in a visitation case, the burden of proof is on the grandparents to prove that the grandchild is harmed by not seeing the grandparent.

 

If you sue, it will cost about $20K for each of you, and if you lose (which you probably will, given Troxel v Granville), you can guarantee you'll never see them again.

 

It would be much, much wiser to try to make amends.

[kiwik]

Grandparents have a duty to protect their grandchildren. If they think the child is being harmed they have to do something. There would have to be a very good reason to deny access especially as people ago weren't the best parents are often excellent grandparents. I believe every effort should be made to ensure the child has an extended family. In a lot of cases the reasons given for preventing contact seem petty and childish.

[Hoot]

YES, they absolutely DO exist. When my brother and I were younger, our grandparents sued our dad and step-mom for grandparent's rights and won. We were not being harmed or abused by our parents but my dad and step-mom have some manipulation issues and were being very petty. My grandparents were granted every-other-weekend rights until we were 18.

Edited September 19, 2012 by contessa20

[LaxMom]

YES, they absolutely DO exist. When my brother and I were younger, our grandparents sued our dad and step-mom for grandparent's rights and won. We were not being harmed or abused by our parents but my dad and step-mom have some manipulation issues and were being very petty. My grandparents were granted every-other-weekend rights until we were 18.

 

Were they your mother's parents? That would fit with current laws (parents of an absent/deceased parent can be granted visitation).

 

Grandparents' rights do not supersede rights of parents in cases outside of that situation (where the, say, deceased parent's rights are being continued and, before death, they were clear in their pattern of communication/visitation). Grandparents cannot disagree with the decisions of an intact family unit and assert their right to have the parents make decisions according to their wishes. That includes cutting off the grandparents due to their behavior.

 

Abuse/neglect doesn't factor here. If there is abuse or neglect, that goes through different channels; it's not a magic word that gives somebody rights to your children because they want them.

[Rhonda in TX]

I have a friend whose brother and SIL went through an ugly divorce. I don't know the details, but they both cut off the grandparents from seeing the kids. Friend's parents went to court and won some sort of visitation rights. The family all had a farm together, with separate homes all on the same property (very large). So, prior to the divorce the grandparents saw the kids on a daily basis. It may be that they were able to make the argument that cutting off contact was harmful to the kids. This was about 20 years ago.

[Jenny in Florida]

No grandparents dont have rights unless both parents (sometimes 1 can) give up rights. (at least the last time i checked in OH).

 

It depends on the state.

 

I can tell you from experience (which I don't wish to discuss publicly) that in New Jersey, grandparents and all kinds of other people do have a legal right to get court-ordered visitation in a wide variety of circumstances.

 

In Florida, it's only grandparents and only if the parents are not married.

 

Other states fall somewhere in between.

[Zebra]

My understanding of grandparents rights is that as long as both biological parents are taking care of the child, grandparents DON'T have any rights. When a parent dies or gets divorced and the parent who is not related to the grandparents in question cut off contact, then grandparents rights come into play.

 

If grandparents think the child is being abused then they can start the process to have the children taken away from the parents, and then apply for guardianship.

 

This is exactly how it should be. Able parents who are raising their children how they see fit should never be judged for who they cut out of their lives and why. Family situations are so complicated, it's no one can possibly understand and judge what is going on. Grandparents should not have special rights to a child who is not being abused.

[NotSoObvious]

This is a state issue, FYI.

 

CA has grandparent rights, Utah does not. I know because of what we went through in court with our girls when we were foster parents.

 

If you are just concerned about when you die, get a good estate planning attorney and have a solid will. This is what we did. It's an entire binder. Don't just print something off the Internet. Then you'll be fine.

[mommaduck]

I remember reading an article in Parents magazine years ago about a couple deciding that they didn't want contact with their parents and the grandparents took them to court for visitation and won.

And this is why I'm against "grandparents' rights". They are the children of the parents, not the grandparents. The parents sometimes have excellent reasons for breaking contact. This would be a horrible thing to put parents through that are trying to raise their children in a stable home without toxic people in their children's lives. I like the fact that I get to choose whether or not a grandparent is in my child's live and which grandparents. My kids don't need to be around and NPD grandparent that does nothing by treat them like carp.

[Danestress]

But with constitutional limitations. In 2000, the US Supreme Court (you can search Troxel v. Granville) ruled that parents have a constitutional right to make decisions about their children's lives and that the government can only infringe on that right if there is a compelling government interet.

 

Since then, some states have revised their statutes on grandparent visitation. Others were already fairly limited. Generally in any state now, grandparents are going to be limited in when they can file suit (for example, in some states, there must be a current custody dispute between the parents) and there will have to be very strong evidence.

[Jenny in Florida]

Grandparents' rights do not supersede rights of parents in cases outside of that situation (where the, say, deceased parent's rights are being continued and, before death, they were clear in their pattern of communication/visitation). Grandparents cannot disagree with the decisions of an intact family unit and assert their right to have the parents make decisions according to their wishes. That includes cutting off the grandparents due to their behavior.

 

Again, not true in some states.

 

http://www.grandparents.com/family-and-relationships/grandparents-rights/grandparent-rights-united-states

 

The way I read this list, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland and several other states -- including New Jersey -- do not require that a marriage be "broken" in order to award visitation, and courts can do so if it is determined to be in the child's best interests. Several other states allow for grandparental visitation if the child was born out of wedlock, regardless of whether the parents later married.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Jenny in Florida

[Carrie12345]

Again, not true in some states.

 

http://www.grandparents.com/family-and-relationships/grandparents-rights/grandparent-rights-united-states

 

Yup.

Grandparents can most definitely petition the court in NJ. They might find it difficult to win, but the proceedures are there!

 

http://www.wilentz.com/personal_services_pa.aspx?ID=142

[LaxMom]

Again, not true in some states.

 

http://www.grandparents.com/family-and-relationships/grandparents-rights/grandparent-rights-united-states

 

The way I read this list, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland and several other states -- including New Jersey -- do not require that a marriage be "broken" in order to award visitation, and courts can do so if it is determined to be in the child's best interests. Several other states allow for grandparental visitation if the child was born out of wedlock, regardless of whether the parents later married.

 

(Speaking only regarding MD, as I have an interest)

 

The FACT of that article is accurate, but it does not reflect the TRUTH, which is that the case law and appellate decisions are clear that there must be parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances to usurp parental rights. The state simply acknowledges that it cannot define every possible circumstance, so it doesn't limit the family courts by trying.

[Sharon37127]

My husband and I are an intact family living (and melting :001_smile:) in Florida. Recently (it is over) we had a legal situation with 1 set of grandparents. So, just seeing this thread title made my stomach "do that thing" like when you ride a roller coaster. I have a bit of input. Anyone with more specific questions can feel free to PM me.

 

First of all, there are few separate avenues in "going to court" regarding children.

 

As we are an intact family, I don't have experience with custody issues and visitation. But- our attorney advised us that- outright (in Florida) grandparents don't automatically have any basic rights. Now, if a child had a regular, on-going relationship (like they were providing child care for them everyday- that was the example the att'y used to explain) for some reason that relationship was cut off, and the child was going to be harmed by this, grandparents could go through family court to reinstate some rights (if it was in the child's best interest). It is a costly process and the grandparents would have to prove the relationship issues. The estimate I saw earlier of $20,000 sounds like it might be in the neighborhood of correct from what I remember.

 

A second avenue for court is for someone to file a petition for dependency. That is what most CPS organizations use to mandate a family to take action in an (accused) abuse/neglect case and/or Terminate Parental Rights for adoption (possibly by a grandparent). This is almost unheard of outside the realm of CPS, but (legally, at least in Florida) anyone that has a direct connection to the child (family, child care provider, teacher maybe) can file this petition. So, yes- grandparents can file this (as did happen in our situation). CPS is completely out of it, so, the petitioner pays for the whole thing (see estimate above).

 

quote from a few posts ago...

In most states in a visitation case, the burden of proof is on the grandparents to prove that the grandchild is harmed by not seeing the grandparent.

 

If you sue, it will cost about $20K for each of you, and if you lose (which you probably will, given Troxel v Granville), you can guarantee you'll never see them again.

 

It would be much, much wiser to try to make amends.

 

 

This sound right on the money to me.

[DusksAngel]

In MO,

The court may grant reasonable visitation rights to grandparents under the following circumstances:

1. The parents of the child have filed for divorce. Grandparents have the right to intervene solely on the issue of visitation rights. Grandparents also have the right to file a motion to modify the original divorce decree to seek visitation rights;

 

2. One parent of the child is deceased and the surviving parent denies the grandparent reasonable visitation rights;

 

3. The child has resided in the grandparent’s home for at least 6 months within the 24 month period immediately preceding the filing of the petition for grandparent rights;

 

4. The grandparent has been unreasonably denied visitation with the child for more than 90 days, unless the natural parents are legally married to each other and are living together with the child. In that case, the grandparent may not file for visitation. (The Missouri court reasons that when the parents are married and living together with the child, the parents know what is in the best interest of their child. See Missouri Revised Statute 452.402.02) ;

 

5. The child is adopted by a stepparent, another grandparent or other blood relative.

[Reflections]

My husband and I are an intact family living (and melting :001_smile:) in Florida. Recently (it is over) we had a legal situation with 1 set of grandparents. So, just seeing this thread title made my stomach "do that thing" like when you ride a roller coaster. I have a bit of input. Anyone with more specific questions can feel free to PM me.

 

First of all, there are few separate avenues in "going to court" regarding children.

 

As we are an intact family, I don't have experience with custody issues and visitation. But- our attorney advised us that- outright (in Florida) grandparents don't automatically have any basic rights. Now, if a child had a regular, on-going relationship (like they were providing child care for them everyday- that was the example the att'y used to explain) for some reason that relationship was cut off, and the child was going to be harmed by this, grandparents could go through family court to reinstate some rights (if it was in the child's best interest). It is a costly process and the grandparents would have to prove the relationship issues. The estimate I saw earlier of $20,000 sounds like it might be in the neighborhood of correct from what I remember.

 

A second avenue for court is for someone to file a petition for dependency. That is what most CPS organizations use to mandate a family to take action in an (accused) abuse/neglect case and/or Terminate Parental Rights for adoption (possibly by a grandparent). This is almost unheard of outside the realm of CPS, but (legally, at least in Florida) anyone that has a direct connection to the child (family, child care provider, teacher maybe) can file this petition. So, yes- grandparents can file this (as did happen in our situation). CPS is completely out of it, so, the petitioner pays for the whole thing (see estimate above).

 

quote from a few posts ago...

In most states in a visitation case, the burden of proof is on the grandparents to prove that the grandchild is harmed by not seeing the grandparent.

 

If you sue, it will cost about $20K for each of you, and if you lose (which you probably will, given Troxel v Granville), you can guarantee you'll never see them again.

 

It would be much, much wiser to try to make amends.

 

 

This sound right on the money to me.

 

 

:iagree: Especially with the bolded. This happened to someone I know (not in Florida) and last I heard the Grandparents were now taking them back to court for custody (I don't know any of the particular details other than the family is intact).

 

I know that the AARP has been actively promoting Grandparent rights. This article from their site links to a chart and how each state breaks it down.

 

http://www.aarp.org/relationships/grandparenting/info-05-2009/goyer_grandparent_visitation.html

 

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/family_law/resources/family_law_in_the_50_states.html

[Jenny in Florida]

I know that the AARP has been actively promoting Grandparent rights.

 

Yep, and they have been for many years, which is why I've told them in no uncertain terms never to contact me about membership, no matter how old I get or how retired I am. The AARP will never see a penny from me until and unless they back off from this issue.

[marbel]

This. My mother and I are going through this with my niece and nephew - my brother passed away and my SIL is actively preventing us from having contact with the kids. When my brother was a live we spoke to them on the phone multiple times a week and even went up to visit. I worry about how she is treating the kids a lot - I know my nephew wasn't happy at all the last few times we managed to speak with him.

 

We are seriously thinking of suing to force her to re-establish contact with the kids.

 

I'm sorry you are going through this.

 

I've known a few people who, through death or divorce, lost contact with grandchildren (nieces/nephews, etc). In the cases I've known about, the custodial/remaining parent just decided she didn't want to bother with the in-laws anymore. (Mothers had sole custody; fathers were out of the picture.)

 

It is heartbreaking for innocent family members to be cut off like this. I don't know about extending legal rights, but it is so cruel of the parents to do this to grandparents/aunts/uncles.

[Dobela]

I have only seen people pursue grandparents rights in situations where parties are not angry. For example, Joe just learned that he has a 9 year old daughter from his brief affair with Sue. Paternity tests prove it, he has visitation, Mom is ok with it, but the grandparents want to make sure they are in the picture in case the relationship between Joe and Sue does deteriorate. When Joe was working out custody and child support with his attorney, Grandparent rights were added to the paperwork and submitted to the courts at the same time.

[mommaduck]

I'm sorry you are going through this.

 

I've known a few people who, through death or divorce, lost contact with grandchildren (nieces/nephews, etc). In the cases I've known about, the custodial/remaining parent just decided she didn't want to bother with the in-laws anymore. (Mothers had sole custody; fathers were out of the picture.)

 

It is heartbreaking for innocent family members to be cut off like this. I don't know about extending legal rights, but it is so cruel of the parents to do this to grandparents/aunts/uncles.

I agree, but I'm still not for "grandparents' rights". I was one of those kids. However, I'm also a parent that has had to cut off certain toxic grandparents.

[Dmmetler]

FWIW, one reason a particular friend's custody decision was decided as it was initially was that the grandparents, who had been actively involved in the child's life, went to court to make sure that it was known that even though their child wasn't a good fit for custody and needed supervision, that they were ready, willing, and able to step up and support their child so that they would have continued contact with their grandchild, and so their child could have contact with his child. The eventual agreement essentially gave the grandparents and one parent joint custody-however in that situation the parent was in agreement that the grandparents SHOULD be able to be involved-and much preferred her former inlaws handle and manage the visitation with her ex so that she didn't have to do it!

[PeacefulChaos]

Were they your mother's parents? That would fit with current laws (parents of an absent/deceased parent can be granted visitation).

 

Grandparents' rights do not supersede rights of parents in cases outside of that situation (where the, say, deceased parent's rights are being continued and, before death, they were clear in their pattern of communication/visitation). Grandparents cannot disagree with the decisions of an intact family unit and assert their right to have the parents make decisions according to their wishes. That includes cutting off the grandparents due to their behavior.

 

Abuse/neglect doesn't factor here. If there is abuse or neglect, that goes through different channels; it's not a magic word that gives somebody rights to your children because they want them.

 

My understanding of grandparents rights is that as long as both biological parents are taking care of the child, grandparents DON'T have any rights. When a parent dies or gets divorced and the parent who is not related to the grandparents in question cut off contact, then grandparents rights come into play.

 

If grandparents think the child is being abused then they can start the process to have the children taken away from the parents, and then apply for guardianship.

 

This is exactly how it should be. Able parents who are raising their children how they see fit should never be judged for who they cut out of their lives and why. Family situations are so complicated, it's no one can possibly understand and judge what is going on. Grandparents should not have special rights to a child who is not being abused.

 

I'm glad to see this.

I'm not asking for any personal reasons, I just have run across the term in the past and was wondering about it. :)

I don't feel that anyone should be able to undermine the parents decision in this matter. Out of curiosity, I'm going to go see if I can find out what the laws are in my state.

Thanks!

[FaithManor]

I'm sorry you are going through this.

 

I've known a few people who, through death or divorce, lost contact with grandchildren (nieces/nephews, etc). In the cases I've known about, the custodial/remaining parent just decided she didn't want to bother with the in-laws anymore. (Mothers had sole custody; fathers were out of the picture.)

 

It is heartbreaking for innocent family members to be cut off like this. I don't know about extending legal rights, but it is so cruel of the parents to do this to grandparents/aunts/uncles.

 

 

I agree that it is heartbreaking. However, the courts are to deal with legal rights/constitutionality issues. This is not a reason for grandparents to gain rights to a child and forced visitation. For better or worse, the legal parent has a right to choose with whom their child spends time.

 

Faith

[Murphy101]

I'm adamantly against grandparent rights. Heartbreak doesn't grant rights.

 

And yes, better hope they win bc if they put us through that and lose, I'm never ever going to do so much as send a yearly photo.

[gardenmom5]

I'm sure it varies with the state. we've had some "grandparent's rights" court cases that have made the news locally.

[gardenmom5]

I've known a few people who, through death or divorce, lost contact with grandchildren (nieces/nephews, etc). In the cases I've known about, the custodial/remaining parent just decided she didn't want to bother with the in-laws anymore. (Mothers had sole custody; fathers were out of the picture.)

 

It is heartbreaking for innocent family members to be cut off like this. I don't know about extending legal rights, but it is so cruel of the parents to do this to grandparents/aunts/uncles.

 

it goes both ways. when my father died, *his mother* basically wanted nothing to do with my mother. I, a minor grandchild, hardly ever saw her.

[amy g.]

When I broke contact with my mother, she threatened to sue us for visitation. Fortunately, we had a law firm offer to represent us for free. Once my mother realized that it would cost us nothing to tie her up in court for years she lost interest.

 

I bet you can guess how I feel about grandparents' rights.

[jayb842]

My mom died when I was 3. My dad remarried when I was 5. My grandmother had a fear I would forgot my biological mom. She would drag me at 5,6,7 years old to my mom's grave. She would force me to look at pictures of my mom and retell stories of her. She was toxic. My step-mom hated her too. It wasn't over me. It was because she felt she was in competition with my biological mom. She was fighting a ghost. ( Honestly she married my dad for money and security.)

 

When I was 7 my grandparents sued for "vistation". What is funny is I really don't know who won. To this day both sides claim victory. Someone on my mom's side finally figured out this was destroying my life. They backed off until I was 18. My step-mom and grandmother still can't be in the same room together. It's been 28 years since all of it took place.

 

We have a situation with my middle daughter that is almost the same. Dh's ex took off with Dd when she was a baby. My dd doesn't really know my in-laws at all or dh. We see her four times a year. My in-laws see her twice a year. They could have sued for vistation but are trying to just let her grow up without waves. I didn't think it bothered my father-in-law until a few days ago. He misses not knowing the female version of DH and himself. ( For a kid that didn't know dh very well, she sure does acts like him. )

Edited September 19, 2012 by jayb842

[Amy in NH]

Yes, grandparents sometimes do have rights. They can sue for visitation of their grandchildren with whom they already have a relationship. If they do not have a prior relationship with the grandkids, then they usually will not get visitation.

 

People who know they have particularly toxic parents sometimes choose to sever ties with those toxic parents when they start having children to keep the toxic parents from being able to sue for unsupervised visitation.

[sweetbasil]

Just to sum things up, Grandparents DO NOT have any inherent rights. None. They can, however, sue for custody or visitation.

 

One of the PPs mentioned she's in FL. That's definitely the best state to be in re: GPV. If I was sued by my children's grandparents for visitation that is absolutely where I would want to be.

 

In fact, if someone was concerned about the turn things were taking with GPs I would recommend for him/her/them to move there. Especially if one was currently living in PA or NY.

 

While the state laws are fairly clear about the burden of proof, there have been MANY cases of activist judges siding with GPs in sometimes absurd ways.

 

For example, in one case a woman's husband died and they had one child together. She remarried and moved. Her 1st husband's parents sued for visitation and were awarded every other weekend, every other holiday, and 5 weeks in summer - with both the current child and every future child born to the family.

 

Thankfully Troxel v. Granville has been used to overturn many of those, but there are still crazy GPs and crazy judges out there. Fit parents are able to win nearly every time (and on appeal if nothing else), but that's only the parents who can afford an atty or get pro bono representation.

 

If you have a parent with money and you don't, and your parent wants access to your children, it can be a long expensive battle. A well-off grandparent can simply try to fight until the parent cannot afford to fight any longer.

Edited September 19, 2012 by sweetbasil

[Jennifer3141]

I'm adamantly against grandparent rights. Heartbreak doesn't grant rights.

 

And yes, better hope they win bc if they put us through that and lose, I'm never ever going to do so much as send a yearly photo.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I have a rocky relationship with my mother. We visit when we can. DD can call her at any time but my mother is a teensy bit whacko and can easily run rough over any boundaries. I can see her suing for GPR but thankfuly, they have no money. We would be able to destroy them in court. And that would just be it. They would never see any of us again.

[Hoot]

Were they your mother's parents? That would fit with current laws (parents of an absent/deceased parent can be granted visitation).

 

Grandparents' rights do not supersede rights of parents in cases outside of that situation (where the, say, deceased parent's rights are being continued and, before death, they were clear in their pattern of communication/visitation). Grandparents cannot disagree with the decisions of an intact family unit and assert their right to have the parents make decisions according to their wishes. That includes cutting off the grandparents due to their behavior.

 

Abuse/neglect doesn't factor here. If there is abuse or neglect, that goes through different channels; it's not a magic word that gives somebody rights to your children because they want them.

 

 

Yes, they were my mother's parents.

[justLisa]

I have never heard of this. I am not sure how a grandparent would think this is the way to go though? I mean who wants to chat with someone who just drug them through court?

[DusksAngel]

I have to look at this from the other side too. My mother had custody of one of her grandchildren for 9 months of his life. She should be able to see that child on a regular basis. If the child's parents suddenly refused to allow her any contact I would encourage her to pursue visitation.

[Hoot]

I have to look at this from the other side too. My mother had custody of one of her grandchildren for 9 months of his life. She should be able to see that child on a regular basis. If the child's parents suddenly refused to allow her any contact I would encourage her to pursue visitation.

 

:iagree:

 

In my situation, my dad and step-mom were just being jerks. Up until my mom died, my family lived on their property and we saw them everyday. For YEARS I saw my grandparents as much, if not more than my own parents. New step-mom comes along and gets her panties in a bunch over the silliest of things and takes offense to something that my grandmother did (My step-mom was griping that she had no clothes to fit her daughters, but had recently given my grandmother bags of clothes for a yard-sale. My grandmother, not realizing what she had done, gave her the clothes BACK in an attempt to help her out.) And thus, suddenly we "didn't have time" to visit for several months in a row. My grandparents rightly went ballistic and hired a lawyer. There are two sides to every story and sometimes, it's the parents who are the crazies, not the other way around.

[Mommy22alyns]

They absolutely do exist and it really bothers me. I know someone whose son is cared for by her grandparents. They took her to court and THEY won, so she is not able to see her son regularly. Her new husband is military and they were not able to move with him in tow. Yes, the courts took the grandparents' side over the side of the MOTHER.

 

This troubles me as I no longer have contact with either of my parents and I wonder if my mom is more petty than lazy. She never once came here to see the girls, but she might just be B enough to try and hurt us by pulling something like that. I have no idea about my dad.

[Impish]

*haven't read all responses*

In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that where the parents are together, gpa have no rights. Gpa can sue if there's a divorce or death.

[sweetbasil]

:iagree:

 

In my situation, my dad and step-mom were just being jerks. Up until my mom died, my family lived on their property and we saw them everyday. For YEARS I saw my grandparents as much, if not more than my own parents. New step-mom comes along and gets her panties in a bunch over the silliest of things and takes offense to something that my grandmother did (My step-mom was griping that she had no clothes to fit her daughters, but had recently given my grandmother bags of clothes for a yard-sale. My grandmother, not realizing what she had done, gave her the clothes BACK in an attempt to help her out.) And thus, suddenly we "didn't have time" to visit for several months in a row. My grandparents rightly went ballistic and hired a lawyer. There are two sides to every story and sometimes, it's the parents who are the crazies, not the other way around.

 

But do you realize what a slippery slope that is? If we allow a 3rd party to decide whether parenting decisions made by fit parents are justifiable, where does that end?

 

I have the right to make decisions that my parents don't agree with. As a fit parent, they don't get a vote in whether my reasons are "good enough."

 

The logical conclusion of GPV argument is that grandparents could fight fit parents in court to prevent them from moving out of state, from moving out of country - from homeschooling, from making different medical choices, etc.

[Lisbeth]

In most states in a visitation case, the burden of proof is on the grandparents to prove that the grandchild is harmed by not seeing the grandparent.

 

If you sue, it will cost about $20K for each of you, and if you lose (which you probably will, given Troxel v Granville), you can guarantee you'll never see them again.

 

It would be much, much wiser to try to make amends.

 

I agree. Because if anyone ever attempted to sue me for rights to MY children, I would never, EVER speak to that person again, and they would NEVER see my kids. I have heard that even if you win, it is not enforced. The court system has much bigger fish to fry.

[DusksAngel]

But do you realize what a slippery slope that is? If we allow a 3rd party to decide whether parenting decisions made by fit parents are justifiable, where does that end?

 

I have the right to make decisions that my parents don't agree with. As a fit parent, they don't get a vote in whether my reasons are "good enough."

 

The logical conclusion of GPV argument is that grandparents could fight fit parents in court to prevent them from moving out of state, from moving out of country - from homeschooling, from making different medical choices, etc.

Usually we're talking about grandparents who are actively involved in the lives of their grandchildren AND there is typically an issue in the family (death, divorce, custody issues, etc). It's not a cut and dry issue, every case needs to be looked at individually.

Edited September 19, 2012 by DusksAngel
correctly typos

[TranquilMind]

Do they even exist?

 

Wouldn't it undermine the parents for a decision like this to be put in the hands of the court?

 

 

In my state, grandparents may request visitation if a parent is deceased, divorced (in my state), or born outside of marriage, so long as paternity has been established. Visitation rights don't even arise if the parents are married/together, so that concern is moot. They must also demonstrate that visitation is in the child's best interest.

 

There are parents who use kids as pawns, keeping them away from grandparents unless they jump through certain hoops,i.e. blackmail. This law is an attempt to circumvent this. It is rarely used in the case of the child having both parents anyway. Usually one is left and the parent with custody just takes off, cutting out the grandparents and often, the father/mother who is left.

 

Given what grandparents must demonstrate, I don't think your concerns are well-founded. If it is not in the child's best interest, the grandparents don't win anyway. And it is a rarely used law, with legal procedures being so expensive anyway.

 

Visitation is not granted to either parents or grandparents where it is found that visitation would endanger seriously the child's physical, mental, moral or emotional health.

[PeacefulChaos]

But do you realize what a slippery slope that is? If we allow a 3rd party to decide whether parenting decisions made by fit parents are justifiable, where does that end?

 

I have the right to make decisions that my parents don't agree with. As a fit parent, they don't get a vote in whether my reasons are "good enough."

 

The logical conclusion of GPV argument is that grandparents could fight fit parents in court to prevent them from moving out of state, from moving out of country - from homeschooling, from making different medical choices, etc.

 

I think this is what makes me dislike the grandparents rights idea. The idea that anyone could go to court and say they don't like ___ that the parents are doing is crazy to me, and a serious violation of parental rights.

 

Anyway, as I won't ever have cause to worry about it personally, I just was curious as to what they were and how the whole thing works. :)

[Murphy101]

But do you realize what a slippery slope that is? If we allow a 3rd party to decide whether parenting decisions made by fit parents are justifiable, where does that end?

 

I have the right to make decisions that my parents don't agree with. As a fit parent, they don't get a vote in whether my reasons are "good enough."

 

The logical conclusion of GPV argument is that grandparents could fight fit parents in court to prevent them from moving out of state, from moving out of country - from homeschooling, from making different medical choices, etc.

 

:iagree: The argument for GPR seems to be either or a combination of:

 

"I'm emotionally attached and it's just mean to deny that attachment, so I have a right to force a parent to allow it."

 

And or

 

"I have spent a lot of time with them and miss doing so and they liked spending time with me. So I now have a right to demand the parent permit me to continue spending time with the child."

 

And or

 

"I share genetics, that gives me a right to access those kids."

 

Not only do I not agree that any of that grants a non parent rights, I shudder to think how that definition of child custody rights could be misused and interpreted.