Does Grandmother Have Rights?

[KGGazelle]

What is the name of your state? Washington State

My son who is 9 years old has never had any sort of a relationship with his biological father or his family. About a year and a half ago his father passed away, now his mother is basically harassing me and of my family members she happens to run into to try and force visitation or some type of a relationship with my son. She has threatened to take me to court to get visitation. Does she have any legal rights or recourse to do so?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

What is the name of your state? Washington State

My son who is 9 years old has never had any sort of a relationship with his biological father or his family. About a year and a half ago his father passed away, now his mother is basically harassing me and of my family members she happens to run into to try and force visitation or some type of a relationship with my son. She has threatened to take me to court to get visitation. Does she have any legal rights or recourse to do so?

She can petition for visitation, please realize she is grieving and you may have no idea what she has and or is going through. She may have been prevented from having a relationship as well. Have you applied for Social Security survivor benefits for your child?

 

[beenthere30]

I don't know what kind of relationship you have had with this woman in the past but why should she even have to take you to court? This is the child's familiy even if she's not yours. Why not surround your child with more people to love him. No harm in that. You could invite her over for dinner or to join you at the park. Start out slow give your child a chance to get to know her. For your child's sake give her a chance.

 

[KGGazelle]

In reply to the responses that I've gotten about my message. Not to diminish that fact that my son's father has passed on and his grandmother is definitely grieving, but the history at least for me speaks for itself. This is just a small portion of the history about this matter, too much to write. During my pregnancy (7 months) the father, pulled a gun on me because I no longer wanted to be with him. We'd been apart for over 3 months. Against my wishes he went to my older child's daycare picked them up and took them home so that I would have to go to his house to get them after leaving work. After holding me against my will for about 10-15 minutes once I got away and was leaving the home this is when he pulled the gun on me while 7 months pregnant and in front of a 6yr old and in front of his mother. Who later went to court and said that none of it happened. The first year of my son's life I spent in and out of court. A year after my son was born and our last court appearance he had been incarcerated and was being transferred to a state penitentiary for more than 4 years. The judge ruled then that he nor his family would have any contact with the child. Long story short the son and mother made for very difficult proceedings during this year of court appearances. They maliciously reported me to Child Protective Services, which after extensive investigation on the part of CPS proved to be false and a form of retaliation because things were not going their way in court. During court proceedings at a time when there had been no visitation given the father after being told that upon completion of some court ordered things could not have contact with me or my children constantly appeared at my job as well as my son's daycare trying to force his way into the facility. This of course all happened prior to the jail time. While in jail he wrote a few letters that I received I read the first couple thinking he had something positive to say. Every letter touched on us getting back together never once did he ask how his son was doing nor did he ever mention his son it was all about us. After a 4 year silence, upon his release I started to receive phone calls at work. After being awarded a protection order he violated that order on more than one occasion. Due to his constant court appearances (none of which had anything to do with me and all happened long after we broke up) and after violating the court order multiple times a warrant was issued for his arrest. So even longer story short since conception or my son this man and woman I feel have never had my son's best interest at heart everything done has or had been some form of punishment towards me. So again not to diminish his death but his mother has told me in so many words that she still harbors ill feelings towards me. I really don’t think that she can create a warm and safe environment for my son.

 

[beenthere30]

Well then from what little I know about grandparents right sometimes they are awarded visitation when the father passes away but due to the history you have said I would say that her chances are very slim. It is very hard for grandparents to get any kind of rights as it is. I would try not to worry if I were you. If she did take you to court it would be an uphill battle for her. If she does file then get a lawyer I am pretty sure you have nothing much to worry about though.

 

[LdiJ]

She can petition for visitation, please realize she is grieving and you may have no idea what she has and or is going through. She may have been prevented from having a relationship as well. Have you applied for Social Security survivor benefits for your child?

Uh...no she cannot petition for visitation. The Washington Surpreme Court, yesterday 4/7/2005 found the WA state statute for third party visitation to be facially unconstitutional. Someone posted a link to the case late last night I believe. Therefore this parent has nothing to worry about. Grandma cannot sue.

In any case, with no pre-existing relationship grandma wouldn't have gotten anywhere in court.

 

[mom2J]

Uh...no she cannot petition for visitation. The Washington Surpreme Court, yesterday 4/7/2005 found the WA state statute for third party visitation to be facially unconstitutional. Someone posted a link to the case late last night I believe.

Here is that link on this forum with it typed out...
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=236892

 

[rmet4nzkx]

OP first makes claims that there were no relationships, when challenged, supplies a disjointed account of disputes between adults and thawarted attempts to deny relationships with the child. Nothing firm was stated about court orders or if a GAL was ever appointed for the child, which at this point I believe would be the best way to remove the child from the emotional fighting between the adults and allow an objective assessment of the situation. There was never an opportunity to have non adverserial relationship with the child.

I am well aware of the recent case and in fact read the decision.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?...docid=752621MAJ Remember, absolutes will always get you in trouble. If you read the case, the grandparents had been primary custodians of the child for the majority of the child's life and lived in another country. None the less, a decision even by a state supreme court, is not the end of the story, but rather a step along the way to validation of the concept of grandparents rights. Ever heard of a test case? Even with a SC opinion things can and often do change. In this case expect an appeal.

In OP's case there is 9 + years of history, of which we are getting a biased account. We don't know the facts and I always am suspect when vital facts are withheld only to be followed by what appears to be a compelling account, but one if I were investigating likely uncover a different picture, based on the actual facts. It is not the case that there is no relationship beause of neglect or disinterest as OP first lead us to believe, it is rather a complex series of events, wherein OP seeks to deny relationships based on emotions rather the facts.

OP,
My advice is the same. The man you had a child with but now hate, is DEAD. He is no longer a threat to you or your child. Your child doesn't have a father, but your child had other relatives, grandparents, who obviously want, very much, to have a relationship. You have some responsibility for what happened. Did you tell your older child's childcare, that dad was not supposed to pick up the child when you broke up? No, you didn't, if you had, they wouldn't have released the child to him and there would be a different story. That is behind your anger. It is time to grow up, take responsibility for your actions, put aside your emotions and look at the best interest of the child. A part of that is to have an opportunity to have a relationship with their grandparents. You can fight this and spend a lot of money that might be better spent on your child. Request a GAL be appointed for your child, the cost will be split between the parties, then there can be an objective assessment if you can't get along with the grandparents.

 

[kidoday]

OP first makes claims that there were no relationships, when challenged, supplies a disjointed account of disputes between adults and thawarted attempts to deny relationships with the child. Nothing firm was stated about court orders or if a GAL was ever appointed for the child, which at this point I believe would be the best way to remove the child from the emotional fighting between the adults and allow an objective assessment of the situation. There was never an opportunity to have non adverserial relationship with the child.

I am well aware of the recent case and in fact read the decision.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?...docid=752621MAJ Remember, absolutes will always get you in trouble. If you read the case, the grandparents had been primary custodians of the child for the majority of the child's life and lived in another country. None the less, a decision even by a state supreme court, is not the end of the story, but rather a step along the way to validation of the concept of grandparents rights. Ever heard of a test case? Even with a SC opinion things can and often do change. In this case expect an appeal.

In OP's case there is 9 + years of history, of which we are getting a biased account. We don't know the facts and I always am suspect when vital facts are withheld only to be followed by what appears to be a compelling account, but one if I were investigating likely uncover a different picture, based on the actual facts. It is not the case that there is no relationship beause of neglect or disinterest as OP first lead us to believe, it is rather a complex series of events, wherein OP seeks to deny relationships based on emotions rather the facts.

OP,
My advice is the same. The man you had a child with but now hate, is DEAD. He is no longer a threat to you or your child. Your child doesn't have a father, but your child had other relatives, grandparents, who obviously want, very much, to have a relationship. You have some responsibility for what happened. Did you tell your older child's childcare, that dad was not supposed to pick up the child when you broke up? No, you didn't, if you had, they wouldn't have released the child to him and there would be a different story. That is behind your anger. It is time to grow up, take responsibility for your actions, put aside your emotions and look at the best interest of the child. A part of that is to have an opportunity to have a relationship with their grandparents. You can fight this and spend a lot of money that might be better spent on your child. Request a GAL be appointed for your child, the cost will be split between the parties, then there can be an objective assessment if you can't get along with the grandparents.

That of course wasn't legal advice but an opinion.

If the grandmother has not had previous contact, regardless of the law passed yesterday, she would have had a difficult time proving it would be in the best interest of the child for visitation.

Tell the lady to stop harrassing you and your family members. Legally you can do something about that too, if you wish to take it further.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

That of course wasn't legal advice but an opinion.

If the grandmother has not had previous contact, regardless of the law passed yesterday, she would have had a difficult time proving it would be in the best interest of the child for visitation.

Tell the lady to stop harrassing you and your family members. Legally you can do something about that too, if you wish to take it further.

Explaining that a court decision may be appealed and what a test case is, is that not advice as opposed to opinion?

Informing OP that requesting a GAL be appointed is not advice?

Informing OP that as a person, who conducts assessments for the courts, called an expert witness so I am entitled to have an opinion as a part of my advice, that they have may have some problems with their contentions, things they did and for such they have responsibility.

It is false that there has been no contact. There have been attempts to establish a relationship that have been thwarted by OP. A no contact order against the dead father, 9 years ago, has long since expired.

The grandmother's desire to have a relationship with the child is not harassment.

There are a number of ways for this to reach court besides a petition for grandparnets rights or visitation.

Op is very defensive and withholding facts when OP has some responsibility for the chain of events this sends up a red flag.

 

[LdiJ]

OP first makes claims that there were no relationships, when challenged, supplies a disjointed account of disputes between adults and thawarted attempts to deny relationships with the child. Nothing firm was stated about court orders or if a GAL was ever appointed for the child, which at this point I believe would be the best way to remove the child from the emotional fighting between the adults and allow an objective assessment of the situation. There was never an opportunity to have non adverserial relationship with the child.

I am well aware of the recent case and in fact read the decision.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?...docid=752621MAJ Remember, absolutes will always get you in trouble. If you read the case, the grandparents had been primary custodians of the child for the majority of the child's life and lived in another country. None the less, a decision even by a state supreme court, is not the end of the story, but rather a step along the way to validation of the concept of grandparents rights. Ever heard of a test case? Even with a SC opinion things can and often do change. In this case expect an appeal.

In OP's case there is 9 + years of history, of which we are getting a biased account. We don't know the facts and I always am suspect when vital facts are withheld only to be followed by what appears to be a compelling account, but one if I were investigating likely uncover a different picture, based on the actual facts. It is not the case that there is no relationship beause of neglect or disinterest as OP first lead us to believe, it is rather a complex series of events, wherein OP seeks to deny relationships based on emotions rather the facts.

OP,
My advice is the same. The man you had a child with but now hate, is DEAD. He is no longer a threat to you or your child. Your child doesn't have a father, but your child had other relatives, grandparents, who obviously want, very much, to have a relationship. You have some responsibility for what happened. Did you tell your older child's childcare, that dad was not supposed to pick up the child when you broke up? No, you didn't, if you had, they wouldn't have released the child to him and there would be a different story. That is behind your anger. It is time to grow up, take responsibility for your actions, put aside your emotions and look at the best interest of the child. A part of that is to have an opportunity to have a relationship with their grandparents. You can fight this and spend a lot of money that might be better spent on your child. Request a GAL be appointed for your child, the cost will be split between the parties, then there can be an objective assessment if you can't get along with the grandparents.

Rmet, I must respectfully disagree due to the legislative and judicial history in WA on this issue....and also on the basis of the fact that the statute was found facially unconstitutional rather than unconstitutional "as applied".

In Smith (the combined case that also included Troxel) the Washington Supreme Court struck down the previous WA statute as facially unconstitutional.

The WA legislature enacted new legislation. This current decision has now struck down that legislation as facially unconstitutional.

That sends a clear message to the trial court judges and to the WA legislators.

Since third parties have no rights under common law either...this grandmother would have no standing to sue for visitation. The statute is facially unconstitutional. It may no longer be used.

It may be appealed to the USSC. However the USSC has declined to hear GPV cases since its ruling on Dodge vs Graville (AZ, 2001).

Edit: To add some comments regarding one of your other posts

The grandmother's actions can indeed be considered harassment. The mother has made it clear that contact by the grandmother is not welcomed. As the grandmother has no "rights" continued contact (of this nature) can certainly be harassment.

It bothers me that you can't switch from the parent vs parent mindset, to the third party vs parent mindset. Attorneys who are well versed in third party cases would normally ask that an evaluator be removed from the case if the evaluator couldn't make that "switch". Please don't take that as a "bash". Take that as an honest observation from someone with a great deal of experience in this particular area of law.

 

[kidoday]

Op is very defensive and withholding facts when OP has some responsibility for the chain of events this sends up a red flag.

Doesn't really matter does it?

Quote - Since third parties have no rights under common law either...this grandmother would have no standing to sue for visitation. The statute is facially unconstitutional. It may no longer be used.

Your advice is being given on your opion, and not facts. Twist the facts so it makes your opion right, but it may not hold up in court, and lead OP down the wrong path.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

It bothers me that you can't switch from the parent vs parent mindset, to the third party vs parent mindset. Attorneys who are well versed in third party cases would normally ask that an evaluator be removed from the case if the evaluator couldn't make that "switch". Please don't take that as a "bash". Take that as an honest observation from someone with a great deal of experience in this particular area of law.

You obviously don't understand how forensic evaluators are appointed by the court or what they evaluate. It is an objective evaluation if done under FRE 702 or what is known as the Daubert standard. For the unteenth time, we evaluate the facts, what ever they are, we are not finders of fact in the same sense as a judge or jury. There is no consideration of bias for outcome, while an attorney may object to the appointment of the courts expert, They are appointed with what is called "quasi judicial immunity" I am not representing either side, that is a different duty, that is why it may appear that I don't switch from one mindset to another, because that has no relevance in my work.

In OP's case, I would evaluate all the facts in evidence and investigate until I could form an opinion/s including providing the facts supporting that opinion and reasons that might support another opinion. I don't make the court's decision, although they usually follow my reccommodations. The judge applies the law, not me. The key fact supplied thus far, in OP's story, is the fact that the proximal cause of the chain of events was OP's failure to advise the childcare that dad was no longer to collect the child from daycare. That was the key factor in arriving at my advice following the second post.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Op is very defensive and withholding facts when OP has some responsibility for the chain of events this sends up a red flag.

Doesn't really matter does it?

Quote - Since third parties have no rights under common law either...this grandmother would have no standing to sue for visitation. The statute is facially unconstitutional. It may no longer be used.

Your advice is being given on your opion, and not facts. Twist the facts so it makes your opion right, but it may not hold up in court, and lead OP down the wrong path.

You have the last item bassackwards.
It is not harassment to petition in court.

There is more than one avenue to pursue this issue.

The issue is not final in the courts, there will be new challenges and legeslation. Law is a dynamic entitity.

Since there are more custody cases and more grandparents living longer it is a matter of statistical probabality that this issue will continue for some time, as opposed to years ago when more families stayed together until the children were grown and grandparents were not in a place to fight for custody. In fact, it is fairly common for grown children to return home after fleeing the nest thus the jokes about changing the locks or moving to smaller homes and a great many grandparents are raising grandchildren, all of this without huge court battles. With this trend and the emphesis on mediation I would not expect this in the end to limit the rights of de facto parents or interested parties, because psychologically, children have needs that are met by more than the parents and denying children the opportunity to interact with family deprives them of crutial social learning. Children learn how to get along in the world first in their families. To deny a child the opportunities to get to know their families, warts and all, is like sending a child out on a bicycle for the first time with out brakes.

 

[LdiJ]

You have the last item bassackwards.
It is not harassment to petition in court.

There is more than one avenue to pursue this issue.

The issue is not final in the courts, there will be new challenges and legeslation. Law is a dynamic entitity.

Since there are more custody cases and more grandparents living longer it is a matter of statistical probabality that this issue will continue for some time, as opposed to years ago when more families stayed together until the children were grown and grandparents were not in a place to fight for custody. In fact, it is fairly common for grown children to return home after fleeing the nest thus the jokes about changing the locks or moving to smaller homes and a great many grandparents are raising grandchildren, all of this without huge court battles. With this trend and the emphesis on mediation I would not expect this in the end to limit the rights of de facto parents or interested parties, because psychologically, children have needs that are met by more than the parents and denying children the opportunity to interact with family deprives them of crutial social learning. Children learn how to get along in the world first in their families. To deny a child the opportunities to get to know their families, warts and all, is like sending a child out on a bicycle for the first time with out brakes.

Yes, its possible that the WA legislature will again draft new legislation to attempt to write a constitutionally satisfactory statute. However, since the WA Supreme Court has now shot them down twice, the statute will have to be narrowly crafted.

The grandmother in this case has no established relationship with the child. Therefore even if a constitutionally valid statute existed, grandma is a stranger to the child. Grandma could not win.

However, the issue IS final in the WA courts unless the USSC reverses their current policy and decides to hear another case AND decides to address the issue of whether or not a WA statute is facially unconstitutional. They declined to do that in Troxel....or unless the legislature crafts a new law.

Because third parties do not have rights at common law there is no other avenue to pursue this issue.

Therefore, grandma cannot sue and this parent can ignore the whole thing.

The issue of the "red flag" really doesn't matter....and wouldn't have mattered even if the statute was still valid. The grandmother has no existing relationship with the child. Mom could have been the biggest, most spiteful witch in the world and grandma could have been trying for years to overcome that...none of it matters. Mom had the legal RIGHT to deny grandma. This isn't a question of grandma actually having a right that couldn't be enforced without court orders......its that grandma has no rights AT ALL without court orders.