B
bill mcbride
Guest
my wife and I are attempting to get visitations with a granddaughter in Georgetown, Tx. CPS has refused. Can any one offer advice?
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
usmcfamily
Senior Member
You apparently are not familiar with the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding Grandparent's rights - - essentially that ruling states that the only people with legal right to access to the child would be the natural or legally adoptive parents -- it is up to them whether or not to grant access/visitation to any other parties...including grandparents.
Why do you not currently have accesst to the child?
Why do you not currently have accesst to the child?
G
groveport
Guest
visitation rights
HELLO,
My husband and I are going through the same problem, only it is in Ohio. I have heard both good and bad about the courts. I do know of a few parents getting grandparent rights but that was here in Ohio. Please read my letter. (Groveport) We do have an attorney going to check into this as he was unfamiliar with all states being included in the supreme court ruling. I will let you know what we find out.
I know how you must feel
Good Luck
Sharon Runyon
Groveportbound@aol.com
HELLO,
My husband and I are going through the same problem, only it is in Ohio. I have heard both good and bad about the courts. I do know of a few parents getting grandparent rights but that was here in Ohio. Please read my letter. (Groveport) We do have an attorney going to check into this as he was unfamiliar with all states being included in the supreme court ruling. I will let you know what we find out.
I know how you must feel
Good Luck
Sharon Runyon
Groveportbound@aol.com
I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
My response:
Every state's law allows court-ordered child visitation for grandparents, at least in some circumstances, although the standards for awarding visitation vary between the states. On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Troxel v. Granville, which is likely to have a wide-ranging effect on grandparental visitation.
Background of the Troxel Case.
The case came out of the state of Washington. Following is a simplified summary of the facts.
Tommie Granville is the mother of two minor daughters. She did not marry their father, although they lived together for a time after the girls' birth. When the parents separated, the father moved to the home of his parents, Jenifer and Gary Troxel. The girls regularly spent weekends with their father at their grandparents' home. Then the father passed away. At first the girls continued to spend time regularly with their grandparents, but after about six months the mother told the grandparents they would be limited to one afternoon visit per month with no overnights. So they filed a court case asking for more time. The trial judge awarded them one two-day weekend per month including an overnight, four hours on each grandparent's birthday, and one week of vacation with overnights each summer. The judge made a finding that such a schedule would be in the girls' best interest in that they were part of a loving extended family that could give them exposure to their cousins and to music. The judge commented in court that as a child, he had spent a week with his grandparents during the summers.
The Washington statute (which means a law enacted by the legislature) on which the judge's decision was based allowed any person to be awarded court-ordered visitation with any children at any time, if it was in the children's best interest. This was an especially liberal visitation statute.
The mother appealed to the higher courts in the state of Washington. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court voided the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because it interfered with the mother's right to make decisions about her children and it thereby violated her right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case ultimately was accepted for review by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Washington Supreme Court.
What the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled in Troxel.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a parent has the right to make decisions about his or her children's care, custody, and control, which is perhaps the oldest of the "fundamental liberty interests" recognized by the Court, and violating that right deprives a parent of what is called substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is a presumption (which means something that is considered to be true unless it is proven to be untrue) that a fit parent's decisions about his or her children are in the children's best interest, and a court cannot substitute its opinion for the parent's judgment about the children's best interest. The Court did not define "fit parent". In the Troxel case, there was no suggestion that the mother was unfit, as would be the situation (for example) if there were an attempt to take the children away from her and place them in a foster home.
The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that the trial court had not accorded any special weight to the mother's decision about the grandparent's visitation, thereby failing to acknowledge the presumption that her decisions were in the children's best interest: "The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville's determination of her daughters' best interests…f a fit parent's decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent's own determination."
The U.S. Supreme Court stressed that the mother had not totally cut off the grandparents' visitation, and what the trial court had intervened in was only a dispute about the schedule. Although that is repeatedly stressed, it does not seem to be pivotal in the decision because the Supreme Court also said a parent's liberty interest includes the right to decide whether a third party such as a grandparent will have any visitation at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington's statute allowing any person to be awarded visitation at any time if the court determined it would be in the children's best interest, which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described as "breathtakingly broad", was unconstitutional as applied to this mother in this particular situation. That is the holding of the case.
What the U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Rule In Troxel.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate the Washington statute, or any other statute of any state. Instead, the Supreme Court observed that visitation matters are decided on a case-by-case basis and no statute is necessarily unconstitutional on its face. The question is how the statute is applied in a particular situation. The Supreme Court indicated that even this "breathtakingly broad" Washington statute might not have been unconstitutional in its application to this mother, if the Washington courts had interpreted it differently.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that for a court to substitute its judgment for that of a parent in regard to the best interest of children, there must be proof that it would be harmful to the children to do what the parent has decided. That was what Tommie Granville argued should be the standard, and the Supreme Court expressly declined to go that far in its ruling.
While the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that "special factors" might justify a state's interference with a parent's fundamental right to make decisions about the rearing of his or her children, it did not give examples of what some of those special factors might be. The Supreme Court said it was not deciding the "precise scope of a parent's due process right in the visitation context".
The U.S. Supreme Court did not accord any special status to grandparents compared to friends, non-relatives, or even strangers who might have sought visitation under Washington's any-person-at-any-time statute. The Supreme Court acknowledged that "grandparents and other relatives undertake duties of a parental nature in many households" and that in "an ideal world parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between grandparents and their grandchildren." Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled the traditional liberty interest of a fit parent to make decisions about the children takes precedence over those considerations, even in this situation in which the father is dead and there does not appear to be any likelihood that the mother will allow his children to continue in a meaningful relationship with his side of the family without court-ordered grandparental visitation.
Presently Existing Visitation Orders
If Troxel had ruled the Washington statute itself to be unconstitutional, then a parent who wished to set aside an existing visitation order might have been able simply to point to the wording of the statute on which the existing order was based. But because Troxel requires looking to the specific facts of individual cases and does not invalidate any statute across the board, parents who seek to have presently existing visitation orders overturned will likely have to make a motion on the basis that there was no special factor sufficient to overcome the presumption of their right to make decisions about visitation. Another factor that can have a difficult-to-predict effect on setting aside presently existing orders will be the question whether the parent stipulated (which means agreed) to the visitation rather than it having been imposed on him or her by the court.
IAAL
Every state's law allows court-ordered child visitation for grandparents, at least in some circumstances, although the standards for awarding visitation vary between the states. On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Troxel v. Granville, which is likely to have a wide-ranging effect on grandparental visitation.
Background of the Troxel Case.
The case came out of the state of Washington. Following is a simplified summary of the facts.
Tommie Granville is the mother of two minor daughters. She did not marry their father, although they lived together for a time after the girls' birth. When the parents separated, the father moved to the home of his parents, Jenifer and Gary Troxel. The girls regularly spent weekends with their father at their grandparents' home. Then the father passed away. At first the girls continued to spend time regularly with their grandparents, but after about six months the mother told the grandparents they would be limited to one afternoon visit per month with no overnights. So they filed a court case asking for more time. The trial judge awarded them one two-day weekend per month including an overnight, four hours on each grandparent's birthday, and one week of vacation with overnights each summer. The judge made a finding that such a schedule would be in the girls' best interest in that they were part of a loving extended family that could give them exposure to their cousins and to music. The judge commented in court that as a child, he had spent a week with his grandparents during the summers.
The Washington statute (which means a law enacted by the legislature) on which the judge's decision was based allowed any person to be awarded court-ordered visitation with any children at any time, if it was in the children's best interest. This was an especially liberal visitation statute.
The mother appealed to the higher courts in the state of Washington. On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court voided the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional under the federal Constitution because it interfered with the mother's right to make decisions about her children and it thereby violated her right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case ultimately was accepted for review by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Washington Supreme Court.
What the U.S. Supreme Court Ruled in Troxel.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a parent has the right to make decisions about his or her children's care, custody, and control, which is perhaps the oldest of the "fundamental liberty interests" recognized by the Court, and violating that right deprives a parent of what is called substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is a presumption (which means something that is considered to be true unless it is proven to be untrue) that a fit parent's decisions about his or her children are in the children's best interest, and a court cannot substitute its opinion for the parent's judgment about the children's best interest. The Court did not define "fit parent". In the Troxel case, there was no suggestion that the mother was unfit, as would be the situation (for example) if there were an attempt to take the children away from her and place them in a foster home.
The U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that the trial court had not accorded any special weight to the mother's decision about the grandparent's visitation, thereby failing to acknowledge the presumption that her decisions were in the children's best interest: "The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville's determination of her daughters' best interests…f a fit parent's decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent's own determination."
The U.S. Supreme Court stressed that the mother had not totally cut off the grandparents' visitation, and what the trial court had intervened in was only a dispute about the schedule. Although that is repeatedly stressed, it does not seem to be pivotal in the decision because the Supreme Court also said a parent's liberty interest includes the right to decide whether a third party such as a grandparent will have any visitation at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Washington's statute allowing any person to be awarded visitation at any time if the court determined it would be in the children's best interest, which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described as "breathtakingly broad", was unconstitutional as applied to this mother in this particular situation. That is the holding of the case.
What the U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Rule In Troxel.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate the Washington statute, or any other statute of any state. Instead, the Supreme Court observed that visitation matters are decided on a case-by-case basis and no statute is necessarily unconstitutional on its face. The question is how the statute is applied in a particular situation. The Supreme Court indicated that even this "breathtakingly broad" Washington statute might not have been unconstitutional in its application to this mother, if the Washington courts had interpreted it differently.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule that for a court to substitute its judgment for that of a parent in regard to the best interest of children, there must be proof that it would be harmful to the children to do what the parent has decided. That was what Tommie Granville argued should be the standard, and the Supreme Court expressly declined to go that far in its ruling.
While the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledged that "special factors" might justify a state's interference with a parent's fundamental right to make decisions about the rearing of his or her children, it did not give examples of what some of those special factors might be. The Supreme Court said it was not deciding the "precise scope of a parent's due process right in the visitation context".
The U.S. Supreme Court did not accord any special status to grandparents compared to friends, non-relatives, or even strangers who might have sought visitation under Washington's any-person-at-any-time statute. The Supreme Court acknowledged that "grandparents and other relatives undertake duties of a parental nature in many households" and that in "an ideal world parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between grandparents and their grandchildren." Nevertheless, the Supreme Court ruled the traditional liberty interest of a fit parent to make decisions about the children takes precedence over those considerations, even in this situation in which the father is dead and there does not appear to be any likelihood that the mother will allow his children to continue in a meaningful relationship with his side of the family without court-ordered grandparental visitation.
Presently Existing Visitation Orders
If Troxel had ruled the Washington statute itself to be unconstitutional, then a parent who wished to set aside an existing visitation order might have been able simply to point to the wording of the statute on which the existing order was based. But because Troxel requires looking to the specific facts of individual cases and does not invalidate any statute across the board, parents who seek to have presently existing visitation orders overturned will likely have to make a motion on the basis that there was no special factor sufficient to overcome the presumption of their right to make decisions about visitation. Another factor that can have a difficult-to-predict effect on setting aside presently existing orders will be the question whether the parent stipulated (which means agreed) to the visitation rather than it having been imposed on him or her by the court.
IAAL