Grandparents Rights

[Pretty24]

i'm from ft Wayne indiana i have a granddaughter and her mother decided that since her own mother moved out of state and no longer was in the baby's life unless when they come for a visit, she has decided that i had to stay out of the baby's life also they live three houses down from me and i use to see the baby everyday sometimes they were here in my home for the whole day, i would watch her all the time the baby would even cry when she had to leave or when i left thier house, i was as close to the baby as the mother was i gave what i could to them no matter the cost no matter if it was using all my gas to take her places or to give her my last dollar, why can't grandparents have visitation rights, i have asked my son (the babys dad) but he say's the babys mom said i said this and that which is all lies and i proved her to be a liar because i contacted her mother and she got made so my son believes the lies and won't tell her to let me see my grandaugher, this is not fair and i want to be in my grandaughters life how can i get my rights, i'm hurt by what she's doing i know the baby is also, she wouldn't let me be there for her first birthday that was hard to keep from crying. Please let me now what i can do.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

In the absense of an emergency situation, Grandparents have no more rights to see their grandchildren when the parent(s) say "No."

Please read this site:
http://www.parentsrights.org/

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

What might be an emergency situation?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

1. Illicit drug usage.

2. Failure to feed or to supply other necessities of life.

3. Child abuse.

4. Keeping the child out of school.

5. Failure to obtain necessary medical care and treatment.

. . . and the list goes on, and on.

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

So, in effect, you're saying if the rights of the parent were terminated for neglect, then the grandparents could have access to the children?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

Not necessarily "terminated". A grandparent could be appointed as the (temporary or permanent) guardian or, at the very least, a "visitation monitor".

My opinion is based upon the ruling in Troxel vs. Granville; and from the lastest U.S. Supreme Court decision on the subject in the case of "Dodge vs. Graville" (similar name), just decided about 4 or 5 days ago.

The High Court's "Dodge" decision upheld it's previous "Troxel" ruling, in an Arizona Supreme Court attempt to do an "end run" around Troxel.

IAAL

 

[Grandma B]

Thank you, kind sir!

I saw something on Dodge v. Graville on a website, but had trouble accessing so haven't been able read it yet.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

You are most welcome, and my condolences to our original writer.

I realize this is a hard pill to swallow, and make no mistake about my views in this matter - - I am not thrilled at all with the Court's decisions concerning GrandParent Rights.

IAAL

 

[LegalBeagle]

I realize this is a hard pill to swallow, and make no mistake about my views in this matter - - I am not thrilled at all with the Court's decisions concerning GrandParent Rights.

That surprizes me.. part of it or all of it? As a parent myself, I am totally against any court telling me to give up my child for 3rd party visitation. In situations where both parents are alive, no abuse or neglect and in agreement with their decision, then I support the courts decision.

 

[Grandma B]

IAAL, your comments on the recent rulings prove you are a man after my own heart! LB had expressed his agreement with Troxel many months ago, but I don't remember previously reading your opinion.

All adult children are not nice people, and they can resent one/both parents for various reasons. They hurt their children tremendously by denying them access to loving grandparents for selfish, self-serving reasons.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

. . . and the child is ultimately the loser.

LB, I understand your beliefs, but at the same time, a child needs the ENTIRE village, with all the love and nurturing the child can get from it. A child doesn't understand why he / she can't see grandma - - all the child knows is that there's an emptiness and yearning for the love, cloesness and relationship the child had.

Remember, it's about "the best interests of the child"; the law is not "the best interests of the parent(s)".

At the same time, as an attorney, I am an officer of the court and, thereby, I am sworn to uphold the law - - but I don't have to like it.

This, I believe, is probably one of the worst decisions to come out of the U.S. Supreme Court since slavery, and the Dred Scott decision.

IAAL

 

[LegalBeagle]

I do not agree 100% with Troxel and the blanket statement that GP's should have no rights. I agree that when the living bio parents of the child are in agreement and are not deemed to be unfit, that they should be the ones to make decisions on raising the child.

You know, in both Troxel, and a case IAAL should be familiar with, Kyle O. v. Donald R. (CA), the surviving parent WAS allowing visitation to occur between the child and the GP. In both cases, the GP *demanded* more. To me, Kyle is a classic case against GP's. The GP's wanted more than just visitation, they wanted (and took) a full say in the raising of the child against the wishes of the parent.

We all know that the views of a GP is fundamentally different than today’s generation and they will, in most cases, be in conflict. The parent should have the final absolute right to the decisions effecting the up bringing of the child.

 

[LegalBeagle]

This, I believe, is probably one of the worst decisions to come out of the U.S. Supreme Court since slavery, and the Dred Scott decision.

That case was like asking Ford to rule on why their Explorer rolls over.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

I think this is where you and I must part company on this subject, LB.

You see, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court was fundamentally wrong for two reasons:

1. Since they were dealing not only with Constitutional law, it was not so cut and dried in such a decision. They were also dealing with, and I believe ignored to a great extent, the "human aspect" and the fundamental, emotional needs of humans. Humans need closeness and love - - and that should have been the overriding factor.

2. Additionally, I believe the court placed the onus on the wrong parties; i.e., they decided, in essence, that a grandparent only has rights when a parent or parents are "unfit". I believe the decision should have been that Grandparents can only be denied if the Grandparent is the one who's unfit, and becomes a safety issue for the child.

Otherwise, the "best interests of the child" doctrine is not met. And now, it's gone altogether in this regard. The "best interests" rule is still in place for other areas of Family law - - why did it have to go to the wayside in this particular instance ?

And that's what I'm saying. It didn't have to.

If the court placed the burden on parents to show that the grandparent was unfit, we'd have a lot more kids with their loved ones, and not being upset by their parents' selfish desires.

IAAL

 

[LegalBeagle]

I think this subject has been the only thing we have disagreed on in the last 12 months... and I understand and partly agree with most of what you are saying.

At the heart of this, my issue is with a GP's inability to not interfere with the raising of the child when they disagree with the parent. Visitation of more than a few hours on a regular basis allows that party to have a major influence in the raising of the child. When decisions conflicts with the wishes of the parent, it stops being ‘in the best interest of the child’ when the GP refuses to back down.

The problem is, as a parent, I can not see past being in the same situation and the absolute outrage I would feel if a judge ordered me to give up my child to anyone except the mother. I would most likely pack my bags and move to Bolivia!