Being Taken to Court by GP

[Proserpina]

Would OP's spouse have wanted the relationship to continue? It certainly sounds like GP was not a risk to the children.

From earlier post of OP's:

Quite frankly my spouse would have severed ties with them but this is what he was afraid was going to happen. Well now he's gone and my personal history is not inextricably tied to these people and my identity as a human being is not linked with them that it is easier for me to make that decision. My spouse grew up with these people as his parents and I have been warned by him what this family is capable of doing

 

[candg918]

CandG918 apparently has an axe to grind.

I am a daughter, DIL, mother, MIL, Aunt, niece, Sister, SIL, cousin and GM. If that qualifies as an ax to grind, I am certainly guilty.

Over time each of these relationships have had rocky parts; since most of the relationships were never terminated with such acrimony as shown by OP, each has had very good times as well as the bad. Looking back at the recent passing of an uncle, I am saddened that his children were kept from the rest of the his family by his wife doing much as OP is doing. Now that he is gone, the cousins are now connecting now that his children are old enough not to be influenced by their mother. They are actually pleased to know that they were not forgotten and that their father was loved by so many people they never had a chance to know. They have lost 30 plus years of love and attention from a large extended family. It is quite likely that this is OP's children years from now.

Based on her postings, I can certainly understand why GM is not close to her. Since GM has not posted, it is hard to judge her. The children would benefit if both could put aside their differences and put the children first. Remember OP stated early on that the GM and children had a good relationship. Since OP will not permit a relationship, GM is doing what she thinks is necessary. Is she right to do so? In my opinion, no. Does she have the right to do so? Obviously, yes. Do I understand why she is doing this? Yes, based on the OP's attitude on this forum. No matter who "wins", the losers are the children; thus, they have my pity.

Finally, OP lost a spouse; GP lost a child; children lost a parent. They should be trying to come together FOR THE CHILDREN whom they both love and need as many people as possible to help them through the loss.

OP, I am sorry for your loss. I also extend the same sentiment to your inlaws.

 

[Rushia]

I am a daughter, DIL, mother, MIL, Aunt, niece, Sister, SIL, cousin and GM. If that qualifies as an ax to grind, I am certainly guilty.

Over time each of these relationships have had rocky parts; since most of the relationships were never terminated with such acrimony as shown by OP, each has had very good times as well as the bad. Looking back at the recent passing of an uncle, I am saddened that his children were kept from the rest of the his family by his wife doing much as OP is doing. Now that he is gone, the cousins are now connecting now that his children are old enough not to be influenced by their mother. They are actually pleased to know that they were not forgotten and that their father was loved by so many people they never had a chance to know. They have lost 30 plus years of love and attention from a large extended family. It is quite likely that this is OP's children years from now.

Based on her postings, I can certainly understand why GM is not close to her. Since GM has not posted, it is hard to judge her. The children would benefit if both could put aside their differences and put the children first. Remember OP stated early on that the GM and children had a good relationship. Since OP will not permit a relationship, GM is doing what she thinks is necessary. Is she right to do so? In my opinion, no. Does she have the right to do so? Obviously, yes. No matter who "wins", the losers are the children; thus, they have my pity.

Finally, OP lost a spouse; GP lost a child; children lost a parent. They should be trying to come together FOR THE CHILDREN whom they both love and need as many people as possible to help them through the loss.

OP, I am sorry for your loss. I also extend the same sentiment to your inlaws.

Sadly, you do not comprehend the damage these suits do to THE CHILDREN that you keep harping on about. As a parent who has been there....you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.

 

[liandrajade]

Sadly, you do not comprehend the damage these suits do to THE CHILDREN that you keep harping on about. As a parent who has been there....you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.

Agreed. I also agree that the children are the ones who ALWAYS suffer. We as the parents are angry, upset, hurt etc... but the children always get the worst of it. And I am also a parent who was put through a GPV for no reason...none...when I didn't do anything at all and never severed contact.

We can all sit here all day long debating the ETHICAL AND MORAL standpoints of not allowing a child near grandparents for whatever reason whether they be good or not.

At the end of the day though, I would like to know my rights as a parents whether I am a crappy parent or NOT are protected and no ONE should be allowed to sue for custody or visitation except for a mother or father...Period.

Short of huge extenuating circumstances where the childs life is in danger, being abused mentally or emotionally, the government has NO business telling me who I can or cannot bring around my children.

We can all sit here judging or not judging, no one knows the real story and quite frankly our opinions don't matter. All that should matter is that a parent should not have to worry about someone suing them to see their child if they do not want them around. Regardless of how crappy we may or may not think that is, it is still the parent's fundamental right.

Ironically it is the fault of those craptastic parents in the world that 3rd party visitation/custody suits happen in the first place. If people were better parents or did not have children they cannot take care of, no one would be in this place.

 

[LdiJ]

Agreed. I also agree that the children are the ones who ALWAYS suffer. We as the parents are angry, upset, hurt etc... but the children always get the worst of it. And I am also a parent who was put through a GPV for no reason...none...when I didn't do anything at all and never severed contact.

We can all sit here all day long debating the ETHICAL AND MORAL standpoints of not allowing a child near grandparents for whatever reason whether they be good or not.

At the end of the day though, I would like to know my rights as a parents whether I am a crappy parent or NOT are protected and no ONE should be allowed to sue for custody or visitation except for a mother or father...Period.

Short of huge extenuating circumstances where the childs life is in danger, being abused mentally or emotionally, the government has NO business telling me who I can or cannot bring around my children.

We can all sit here judging or not judging, no one knows the real story and quite frankly our opinions don't matter. All that should matter is that a parent should not have to worry about someone suing them to see their child if they do not want them around. Regardless of how crappy we may or may not think that is, it is still the parent's fundamental right.

Ironically it is the fault of those craptastic parents in the world that 3rd party visitation/custody suits happen in the first place. If people were better parents or did not have children they cannot take care of, no one would be in this place.

Actually, that's not true...or didn't start out to be true.

The first gpv statutes that got introduced in this country were due to young widows remarrying, and their husbands adopting their children. We are talking Korea/Vietnam era widows remarrying and their husbands adopting their children. That was when the first gpv statutes got put into place. The states felt a need to protect paternal grandparents who could get shut out when a stepparent adoption took place after a mother was widowed.

It morphed from that into absurdity, where in many states grandparents automatically got the equivalent of NCP visitation just for asking, no matter what the situation, until the USSC ruled on Troxel vs Granville.

I once sat in a courtroom (prior to Troxel) and heard a judge award every other weekend, 1/2 of holidays and 1/2 of the summer to a child that wasn't even BORN yet, and then ordered that the GPs would receive that same visitation for any future conceived/born children.

Thank GOD for Troxel.

 

[mistoffolees]

From earlier post of OP's:

{Quite frankly my spouse would have severed ties with them but this is what he was afraid was going to happen. Well now he's gone and my personal history is not inextricably tied to these people and my identity as a human being is not linked with them that it is easier for me to make that decision. My spouse grew up with these people as his parents and I have been warned by him what this family is capable of doing}


Well, we know what the father did - he brought the kids to spend a great deal of time with the grandparents.

The only thing we know about what he THOUGHT is what we're hearing second hand from someone who obviously disliked her in-laws.

Frankly, I'd be more likely to believe his actions than a second hand report from someone who obviously has a great dislike for the grandparents. However, she'll certainly have the opportunity to prove in court that they are not good for the child. Just as they will have the opportunity to point out that while their son was alive, he brought the kids to visit regularly.

 

[ecmst12]

The children spent a SMALL amount of SUPERVISED time with the grandparents. Not a great deal of anything.

 

[liandrajade]

Actually, that's not true...or didn't start out to be true

The first gpv statutes that got introduced in this country were due to young widows remarrying, and their husbands adopting their children. We are talking Korea/Vietnam era widows remarrying and their husbands adopting their children. That was when the first gpv statutes got put into place. The states felt a need to protect paternal grandparents who could get shut out when a stepparent adoption took place after a mother was widowed.

Very interesting, I didn't know that. NY case law and abstracts I have read make it sound like it was because of the increasing amount of 3rd parties raising children etc. I only focused on NY based cases and things, I did not research the issue as a whole.

I once sat in a courtroom (prior to Troxel) and heard a judge award every other weekend, 1/2 of holidays and 1/2 of the summer to a child that wasn't even BORN yet, and then ordered that the GPs would receive that same visitation for any future conceived/born children.

oh....my....god....I would have a had a complete nervous breakdown had that happened to me, hence why I tend to not complain about my situation, others have it worse than me. Please tell me the poor mother got that overturned on appeal???

Thank GOD for Troxel.

Yep!

 

[Anti-GPVMOM]

By Rushia: Sadly, you do not comprehend the damage these suits do to THE CHILDREN that you keep harping on about. As a parent who has been there....you have absolutely NO CLUE what you are talking about.

That's right cndg918 stop harping about the children because you are full of it. Before you start advising people on how to raise their children, maybe you should properly raise yours. By the way, how is that protective order your son got back in '05? Hopefully his actions aren't coming back to haunt him (or you) five years later. That's right it wasn't for anything violent, JUST phone calls and emails to his ex-girlfriend so that's alright in your book. Here, let me help you remember the incident. The link to your thread is below.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/arrests-searches-warrants-procedure-26/protective-order-276852.html

Oh by the way, phone and email harassment don't need to be scary. All it needs to be is unwanted. If the person who is being harassed asked the harasser to stop and they do not comply, that may constitute as harassment. Laws may vary from state to state. Tell me, what was your son's defense? "Your honor, I was only calling her incessantly because I was concerned for her well being." ??? Judge, didn't buy it? I know it has been five years ago but do remind him that no means no and I hope you have stopped coddling him.

And you would be so quick to trample on my constitional rights but your are so quick to defend your rights on the thread below. Maybe because it was YOUR rights and not somebody else's! What was it you were trying to do? Make sure your adopted grandchildren didn't get any inheritance from you! And you spent $6,000 dollars to make sure that happened and yet it got you nowhere. You are a foolish woman.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/wills-trusts-estate-planning-113/adopted-grandchildren-295812.html

And you acuse me of being hateful! I'm not quite sure how exactly your grandchildren were "adopted" but I guess parents wouldn't entertain you so you want to cut their children off? Vindictive. Awesome.

And here,

https://forum.freeadvice.com/wills-.../successor-trustee-responsibility-274344.html

You and your siblings are squabling over your mother's money! Sounds like my husband's toxic family! I bet you all settle your disagreements with a lawsuit, huh? That's probably why that woman in your family didn't want anything to do with all of you. If only my in laws would come to me and tell me to sign a document saying my children will receive nothing in exchange for them leaving me alone, I would sign it in a heartbeat!

You spent $6,000 to make sure you disinherited children? Man, you could have given that to a charity that benefited children. But it's your right what you do with your money, right?

Rushia, thank you for your generous offer to lend me an ear so that I can vent. When this is all over I will do that and let you know what happens I just don't think it healthy to do so a lot (vent). I think I would get tired of myself. : ) For now I am off to bed again. I really should check my alarm settings before I go to bed.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

From the sounds of it, there IS an EXISTING relationship between the children and the GPs. I could see them prevailing to get periodic visits with the children.

OP - I would suggest grief counseling for yourself and your children. That might save you untold amount of $$ in the end.

 

[LdiJ]

Very interesting, I didn't know that. NY case law and abstracts I have read make it sound like it was because of the increasing amount of 3rd parties raising children etc. I only focused on NY based cases and things, I did not research the issue as a whole.



oh....my....god....I would have a had a complete nervous breakdown had that happened to me, hence why I tend to not complain about my situation, others have it worse than me. Please tell me the poor mother got that overturned on appeal???

Yep!

No, sadly, it did not. The mother could not afford to appeal. Instead, she left the state with no forwarding address. The GPs tracked them down a few times but eventually gave up. The mother and her eventual new spouse also chose not to have any more children, even though they wanted them.

Can you imagine that? Can you imagine feeling forced to choose not to have any more children because you were afraid you couldn't protect them from a toxic grandparent?

 

[LdiJ]

{Quite frankly my spouse would have severed ties with them but this is what he was afraid was going to happen. Well now he's gone and my personal history is not inextricably tied to these people and my identity as a human being is not linked with them that it is easier for me to make that decision. My spouse grew up with these people as his parents and I have been warned by him what this family is capable of doing}


Well, we know what the father did - he brought the kids to spend a great deal of time with the grandparents.

The only thing we know about what he THOUGHT is what we're hearing second hand from someone who obviously disliked her in-laws.

Frankly, I'd be more likely to believe his actions than a second hand report from someone who obviously has a great dislike for the grandparents. However, she'll certainly have the opportunity to prove in court that they are not good for the child. Just as they will have the opportunity to point out that while their son was alive, he brought the kids to visit regularly.

You need to go back and re-read Misto.

He allowed the grandparents to visit in his home, for a few days, supervised, during the holidays. That does not remotely equate to "he brought the kids to spend a great deal of time with the grandparents".

 

[Rushia]

Rushia, thank you for your generous offer to lend me an ear so that I can vent. When this is all over I will do that and let you know what happens I just don't think it healthy to do so a lot (vent). I think I would get tired of myself. : ) For now I am off to bed again. I really should check my alarm settings before I go to bed.

LOL, I vented ALOT and all over anyone who would listen! Don't worry about me getting tired of hearing it. Just ask the poster Liandra. I listened to her constantly and she listens to me. She and I would be happy to talk to you and help you out. It's what we're here for! Let me know if you want my number when you're ready...

 

[mistoffolees]

You need to go back and re-read Misto.

He allowed the grandparents to visit in his home, for a few days, supervised, during the holidays. That does not remotely equate to "he brought the kids to spend a great deal of time with the grandparents".

It doesn't need translation. THE GRANDPARENTS HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN AND DAD ENCOURAGED IT.

That is sufficient to establish an ongoing relationship - regardless of whose home it was in.

 

[LdiJ]

It doesn't need translation. THE GRANDPARENTS HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILDREN AND DAD ENCOURAGED IT.

That is sufficient to establish an ongoing relationship - regardless of whose home it was in.

Dad did not encourage it, he tolerated it for brief amounts of time during the holidays.

I know that for some reason you appear to be pro gpv, but you really should know a whole lot more about the subject before you jump in too deep. GPV cases are completely different than parent vs parent cases.

Basically, if the relationship between the children and the GPs was such that the children would be harmed by the lack of the GPs in their life, then the GPs would have a case. The state must have a compelling reason to interfere with the constitutional rights of the mother.