"Custody hearing"

[liandrajade]

Seriously ...LdiJ is absolutely right.

Nobody is making any assumptions, but L is right when she says that there IS ample case law relevant to the OP's situation in Maryland.

Case law absolutely DOES matter. And should never be ignored, if only to provide a solid reference point.

Ok, I stand corrected ladies. But I didn't mean ignore caselaw either.

 

[Intact family]

If only Maryland had a law like Michigan where if both parents sign an affadavit against GPV the GP is SOL. The law in Maryland does favor parents but it's written in such a way that a GP can bring suit way too easily IMO. The circuit court will accept the complaint and then the parents have to go through the whole expensive and tedious process of litigation. The law needs to have some prerequisites in place before a GP can even think about suing their own kids, such as being a parent like figure or raising the kids for the last x number of years, etc. The threshold of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances established after the Koshko case in 2007 was a huge step in the right direction but it didn't go far enough. Fit parents of intact families need more protection than what the law gives them.

My two cents.

 

[LdiJ]

If only Maryland had a law like Michigan where if both parents sign an affadavit against GPV the GP is SOL. The law in Maryland does favor parents but it's written in such a way that a GP can bring suit way too easily IMO. The circuit court will accept the complaint and then the parents have to go through the whole expensive and tedious process of litigation. The law needs to have some prerequisites in place before a GP can even think about suing their own kids, such as being a parent like figure or raising the kids for the last x number of years, etc. The threshold of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances established after the Koshko case in 2007 was a huge step in the right direction but it didn't go far enough. Fit parents of intact families need more protection than what the law gives them.

My two cents.

There are many states where intact families may not be sued at all.

 

[liandrajade]

There are many states where intact families may not be sued at all.

Yes, we should all move to FL if only for the fact of their GPV statutes... they have none..to be more correct, it is extremely difficult for anything to even get started I should say.

 

[Intact family]

Well, one small victory for us. Our attorney spoke to grandma's attorney and said their motion is essentially asking the court to issue an illegal order, since she is a third party and does not have the legal standing that parents have. She would, at the very least, have to prove parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances and she has not done either at this point. Grandma's attorney agreed and has withdrawn the motion.

 

[mistoffolees]

Well, one small victory for us. Our attorney spoke to grandma's attorney and said their motion is essentially asking the court to issue an illegal order, since she is a third party and does not have the legal standing that parents have. She would, at the very least, have to prove parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances and she has not done either at this point. Grandma's attorney agreed and has withdrawn the motion.

Congratulations.

 

[LdiJ]

Well, one small victory for us. Our attorney spoke to grandma's attorney and said their motion is essentially asking the court to issue an illegal order, since she is a third party and does not have the legal standing that parents have. She would, at the very least, have to prove parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances and she has not done either at this point. Grandma's attorney agreed and has withdrawn the motion.

Was that the whole gpv case, or another motion?

 

[Intact family]

Was that the whole gpv case, or another motion?

That was just a separate motion. The case is moving full speed ahead with the trial in a few weeks. What's interesting is that each side will have an expert witness. Obviously, their expert witness, a PhD psychologist, will say that the kids may be "harmed" by not visiting with grandma anymore. Our expert, also a PhD psychologist, will say that he interviewed the kids and that they are fine and well adjusted, and that he does not expect them to be harmed absent visitation.

How do judges tend to look upon expert witnesses when each side has one? Are they heavily influenced by them? It seems like a wash, as each expert is paid by their respective sides. We hired one to counter theirs but I don't know if it was really necessary, as all their expert can do is just speculate about what will happen in the future. The court will want concrete evidence, not speculation. How can one "prove" what will happen in the future?

 

[mistoffolees]

That was just a separate motion. The case is moving full speed ahead with the trial in a few weeks. What's interesting is that each side will have an expert witness. Obviously, their expert witness, a PhD psychologist, will say that the kids may be "harmed" by not visiting with grandma anymore. Our expert, also a PhD psychologist, will say that he interviewed the kids and that they are fine and well adjusted, and that he does not expect them to be harmed absent visitation.

How do judges tend to look upon expert witnesses when each side has one? Are they heavily influenced by them? It seems like a wash, as each expert is paid by their respective sides. We hired one to counter theirs but I don't know if it was really necessary, as all their expert can do is just speculate about what will happen in the future. The court will want concrete evidence, not speculation. How can one "prove" what will happen in the future?

If there is conflicting evidence, the judge will first evaluate it to see if any of the evidence is more credible.

For example, in your case, if the judge feels that grandma's expert was better prepared and had done a more thorough investigation, that expert would have greater credibility.

If there's no way to distinguish between them (or, if the evidence presented by both experts doesn't really contradict the other), the judge will probably fall back on the law. And the law generally favors the parents over the grandparents.

Essentially, grandparents have the burden of proving that the child will be harmed if they don't get visitation rights. If there's no proof, they should lose.

But that's all theory. Any given judge may see it differently. For example, a (misguided, in my opinion) judge might say: "I don't believe that either side has made a major case, but it won't hurt the child to see grandma, so I'll order some level of visitation for grandma". Sadly, judges are not robots and personal feelings can enter into decisions, particularly wrt custody and visitation. Your best bet is to ask your attorney what he thinks - because he'll know the judge.

 

[Tex78704]

... judge might say: "I don't believe that either side has made a major case, but it won't hurt the child to see grandma, so I'll order some level of visitation for grandma"...

Given this case is now headed toward trial, this is a very real possiblity you should be prepared for. I would not presume this is an open and shut case for you.

Although you may have looked into case law that supports your position, you need to research both the relevant statutes and case law that support the GP's position in this case. Because that it the direction she and her attorney are coming at you from.

Granny would not normally be granted a trial on the merits unless she had enough of a legal fingerhold to sustain this suit. And such a fingerhold requires meeting a statutory threshold. Otherwise it would have been dismissed. So you need to understand what the relevant statutes are that got her a trial, and what they could mean in the context of your case.

While case law can be important, don't get too hung up on it, especially in family law cases, because cases arising from appeals address specific points of error in the interpretation or application of statutes, or their constitutionality, as applied to that case. These cases serve as guidelines to clarify any confusion or ambiguities in both the letter and intent of the statutes. But ultimately, the plain letter of the statutes rule.

Your case is not a case where one side has no evidence at all to support their position. Each side will offer evidence from expert witnesses, their own testimony, and more. It is entirely possible the judge already knows both expert witnesses from prior cases and may already have formed an opinion on which one he is more inclined to believe.

Given this, and if the statutes are written such that it gives the court the right to decide on visitation in your case, it could go either way.

Not trying to bum you out, because it could very well go in your favor, as it should.

 

[Proserpina]

Given this case is now headed toward trial, this is a very real possiblity you should be prepared for. I would not presume this is an open and shut case for you.

Although you may have looked into case law that supports your position, you need to research both the relevant statutes and case law that support the GP's position in this case. Because that it the direction she and her attorney are coming at you from.

Granny would not normally be granted a trial on the merits unless she had enough of a legal fingerhold to sustain this suit. And such a fingerhold requires meeting a statutory threshold. Otherwise it would have been dismissed. So you need to understand what the relevant statutes are that got her a trial, and what they could mean in the context of your case.

While case law can be important, don't get too hung up on it, especially in family law cases, because cases arising from appeals address specific points of error in the interpretation or application of statutes, or their constitutionality, as applied to that case. These cases serve as guidelines to clarify any confusion or ambiguities in both the letter and intent of the statutes. But ultimately, the plain letter of the statutes rule.

Your case is not a case where one side has no evidence at all to support their position. Each side will offer evidence from expert witnesses, their own testimony, and more. It is entirely possible the judge already knows both expert witnesses from prior cases and may already have formed an opinion on which one he is more inclined to believe.

Given this, and if the statutes are written such that it gives the court the right to decide on visitation in your case, it could go either way.

Not trying to bum you out, because it could very well go in your favor, as it should.

Out of curiosity how much experience do you have with MD GPV cases?

I love that you want to help - but you were also VERY wrong on this thread too: https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-...her-has-custody-but-child-oversea-526076.html

If you're not sure, it may be best to keep sitting back and reading before you post

 

[Tex78704]

Out of curiosity how much experience do you have with MD GPV cases?

I love that you want to help - but you were also VERY wrong on this thread too: https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-...her-has-custody-but-child-oversea-526076.html

If you're not sure, it may be best to keep sitting back and reading before you post

And what part of my post here do you disagree with?

Pointing out one error on another post that is completely irrelevant to this post is nonsense.

And btw, who died and appointed you a moderator?

 

[CourtClerk]

And what part of my post here do you disagree with?

Pointing out one error on another post that is completely irrelevant to this post is nonsense.

And btw, who died and appointed you a moderator?

Back up, newbie...

 

[Antigone*]

And what part of my post here do you disagree with?

Pointing out one error on another post that is completely irrelevant to this post is nonsense.

And btw, who died and appointed you a moderator?

Tex, you definitely don't want to make yourself look like an idiot, and your credibility is quickly headed for the gutter. A graceful exit right about now would be prudent.

 

[Tex78704]

If anyone here has a specific problem with the post then please articulate what that is, and if your analysis makes me look like an idiot (and that would be in a crowd of nameless faceless people in an obscure online site?), then fine. Otherwise just shut up and leave it alone.

While I never ever personally attack someone just because I am having a bad day, or because I feel the need to gang up and bully the new kid on the block, I will always respond in kind to any unwarranted attacks. I did not start this. So simply backing down or making a graceful exit that conceeds defeat is not an option.

And respect is a two way street. I have not yet gained enough respect for anyone here for me to automatically defer to their opinion. Number of posts in and of itself is by far not a determinant, or even a reliable indicator, of someones understanding of the law. On some levels, neither is a law degree. In my opinon, I bring some education and real life experiences to the table that arguably no one else here has, even attorneys.

I do occasionally shoot from the hip and make mistakes which I accept and learn from. I have also seen seniors do the same (and who all too quickly and callously bash each other for such mistakes).

How we treat each other here is probably a pretty darn good reflection of what kind of people we really are in our personal lives.

So if I hurt anyones feelings I apologize, and will leave it at that.