Appeals court ruling favors grandparents (gives them visitation rights)

[Thom Little]

An Alabama appellate court ruled Friday that grandparents have the right to see their grandchildren despite a parent's efforts to refuse visitation, a ruling that restricts parents' right to chose what's best for their children.

The ruling by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals cites a legislative action that allows grandparents to see their grandchildren if it's in the grandchildren's best interest.

The Marion County case involved grandparents whose now deceased daughter married and had three children. After her death, the husband remarried and began refusing visitation of the three children to the grandparents, despite the children's desire to visit.

The trial court ruled in favor of the grandparents, but the father appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution protects a parent's right to raise his or her child without undue interference from government.


http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051217/NEWS02/512170352/1009

[Horse with no Name]

1. I totally agree

Speaking as a grandparent who has raised my grandchild.
She is almost 3 and I have been just as much of a parent to that child and if my daughter were to get angry and leave, then you can bet your ass I would sue for visitation.
I think it is terrible for the kids to lose their Mother AND their Grandparents.
It specifically said the kids wanted to visit their Grandparents.
IMHO, the Father is a dickhead.

[Robert Cooper]

4. Do you also support the courts...

...forcing a parent to stay in the area rather than moving away?
Do you also support the courts forcing an individual to reveal their address?
What about the courts forcing an individual to speak well of the grand-parents and not trying to turn the kids against the grand-parent...and subsequent litigation if the grand-parents think this is what has happened?

All this litigation and animosity between the parties is good for the grand-children?

[Horse with no Name]

5. I don't think it is alright for the Father to remove all reminders of

the children's Mother--including her parents, as long as they are fit.
For all you know, this silly bastard killed their Mom so he could marry his mistress.

[Robert Cooper]

7. Aside from not answering my questions, I find your insinuation...

...repugnant.

I thought it was only the RW that indulged in that kind of base-less attacks.

[Horse with no Name]

8. Funny

I was thinking the same thing when I responded to you...
And I find your questions repugnant as well.
Don't you have a DLC thread to tend to somewhere?

[Robert Cooper]

9. So we should not ask how far you'd expect the courts to go...

...in imposing visitation rights on behalf of grand-parents against a reluctant parent?

That in itself answers my questions.

I'll be curious to see just how much support you get on this thread.

[Horse with no Name]

10. Well if I lived my life for any support that I received on a message board

It would be a silly life indeed.
Your questions were completely off topic in the attempt to drive me down a road and I wasn't going to let you do that. So sorry for your luck that I won't allow you to derail a conversation.
As I prefaced--I was speaking as a Grandmother. I spoke of my situation and I spoke of the situation at hand. I wasn't nor did I indicate that I was speaking about the entire law or every case. Obviously there are some cases out there that the Grandparents shouldn't have rights--in the case of abuses, etc.
But, I am entitled to have an opinion and I wasn't speaking generally.
You don't like it? So sorry for your luck again.
Every case is obviously different, and the one in question would be different if the Mother were not dead.
If the Mother did not want HER children spending time with HER parents, then obviously that would be important to the visitation rights.
The fact that this Father did not attempt to do this until he remarried lends one to believe that perhaps his new wife wanted the old wife cut completely out of the picture.
Perhaps out of jealousy. Who really knows?
Perhaps he did kill his wife? Do you know he didn't?

[Robert Cooper]

17. "Perhaps he did kill his wife? Do you know he didn't?"...

"Well if I lived my life for any support that I received on a message board It would be a silly life indeed." - I've seen no one suggest otherwise.

"Your questions were completely off topic in the attempt to drive me down a road and I wasn't going to let you do that. So sorry for your luck that I won't allow you to derail a conversation."

In your first response you had said "I think it is terrible for the kids to lose their Mother AND their Grandparents. It specifically said the kids wanted to visit their Grandparents. IMHO, the Father is a dickhead." You supported the granting of visitation rights to the maternal grand-parents.

But for the grand-parents to actually -enjoy- those rights, certain conditions would be required. For example, they'd need to know where the father and children live, right? Thus my question "Do you also support the courts forcing an individual to reveal their address?". They would need to be able to visit. How easy is it to visit twice a month if the father and kids live in Spokane and the grand-parents live in Miami? Thus my question "Do you also support the courts forcing a parent to stay in the area rather than moving away?". And of what value is the visit to the children or the grand-parents if the children turn against the grand-parents? Thus my question "What about the courts forcing an individual to speak well of the grand-parents and not trying to turn the kids against the grand-parent...and subsequent litigation if the grand-parents think this is what has happened?"

Since it is conceivable to litigate and re-litigate all of these issues in court, dragging the kids in every time, I asked "All this litigation and animosity between the parties is good for the grand-children?".

I fail to see how any of this is off-topic or incorrectly directed at you?

"As I prefaced--I was speaking as a Grandmother. I spoke of my situation and I spoke of the situation at hand. I wasn't nor did I indicate that I was speaking about the entire law or every case." - which is why I asked. How else can I understand your position better?

"Obviously there are some cases out there that the Grandparents shouldn't have rights--in the case of abuses, etc." - I think we can agree on abuse cases.

My issue is the requirement to put parents and kids through litigation over the rights of the surviving parent to decide what is best for his/her child(ren). As I said, for visitation to work as scheduled, a parent must stay in the area of the grand-parents. What if the parent's employer offers a better job elsewhere? Does the parent have to go to court to get permission to say "Yes" (by which time the company has offered the position to someone less encumbered)? How does a surviving parent with a new spouse give time to -new- grand-parents to bond with their -new- grand-child while trying to work around court-ordered visitations from existing grand-parents?

After all, let's be honest, there is no reason to go to court unless there is a problem between the surviving parent and the grand-parents in question. Those who can work this out amicably don't need court. Your stated assumption that "Perhaps he did kill his wife?" as justification for forcing -visitation rights- seems hyperbolic.

If he killed his wife, should he have any parenting responsibility whatsoever? Should we even be talking of "visitation rights" if we're talking about murder?

Last I checked, it was still the law of the land that people were assumed -innocent- unless convicted by the due course of justice. Are you applying that principle here? By suggesting "Perhaps he did kill his wife?" without -any- evidence only re-victimizes the victim.

My father died when I was young, and we drifted away from his family. Would you like to accuse my mother of murder? You know nothing more about how my father died than you know of how this father's wife died, so you have just as much cause to question my mother as you do this father.

"But, I am entitled to have an opinion and I wasn't speaking generally." - you are entitled to your opinion and I was asking general questions to better understand your position.

"You don't like it? So sorry for your luck again." - :shrug:

"Every case is obviously different, and the one in question would be different if the Mother were not dead. If the Mother did not want HER children spending time with HER parents, then obviously that would be important to the visitation rights."

This seems to be in complete contradiction with your first response: "She is almost 3 and I have been just as much of a parent to that child and if my daughter were to get angry and leave, then you can bet your ass I would sue for visitation."

"The fact that this Father did not attempt to do this until he remarried lends one to believe that perhaps his new wife wanted the old wife cut completely out of the picture. Perhaps out of jealousy. Who really knows?"

Or it might well have been the grand-parents trying to overcompensate for the loss of their daughter by tearing down the new parent. Speculation is endless.

"Perhaps he did kill his wife? Do you know he didn't?" and this from your second reply: "For all you know, this silly bastard killed their Mom so he could marry his mistress."

I think it terribly sad that this father defending his right to make decisions for his kids has earned him such accusations from you. He's t be considered a "silly bastard" and his new wife was "his mistress".

Saw enough of that in the Schiavo case to make me sick.

Last I knew, people need to be proven guilty. It was not required that the accused prove their innocence, because that was assumed.

[Horse with no Name]

32. Yawnnnnnn

:hi:

[Bridget Burke]

144. Lots of hard questions there.....

Nap Time for Grandma.

[SoCalDem]

51. Or perhaps the new wife was trying to bond with the kids

and the grandparents stood in the way.. I can see all sides here.. The grandparents may not be crazy about the son in law for remarrying..they may fear that the children will "never know" their real mother.. perhaps they did not like the son in law, but tolerated him because he was their daughter's choice..

The new wife probably feels challenged at every turn. She might feel intimidated because the kids can always "run and tattle" to Grandma & Grandpa..

The kids probably need their grandparents in their lives, but they might feel awkward if G & G spend lots of time dwelling in the past and on their dead mnother..

The Dad/husband probably just wants their life to go on and reminders of what "was" might be as hard for him as for anyone.. If he was judged by the inlaws, he might not appreciate them peeking into his new life, through probing questions of his kids, by the grandparents..

Probably everyone is right..and everyone is wrong too

[LostinVA]

57. Or it could be the exact opposite, which is something that

happened to a friend of mine. Her sister dies, her BIL remarried about a year later, and his new wife erased all memories of the child's (four year-old) birth mother, including grandparents, aunts, etc. She actually told my friend that SHE was the mother and wife, and was having a a baby, and she wanted all of them to be one REAL family. Finally, this woman's own mother had a talk with her daughter and new son-and-law, and the kids can now see their grandkid.

I can also undertstand the other way, as my father's mother emotionally tortured me as a child, and I hated seeing her, but in this case, I side with the grandparents.

And, it's too bad for the Dad and new wife if they "just want to move on." The kids want to see the grandparents, and that's what counts. Sometimes you have to put your wants and needs aside for your kids' happiness.

[Robert Cooper]

66. I'll bear that in mind...

...the next time my kid refuses medicine or thinks setting fire to the carpet might make him "happy".

:eyes:

[TankLV]

105. Another stupid response and Strawman Agument.

Your debating skills are severely lacking.

[mondo joe]

71. How appalling to throw baseless innuendo. Maybe the dad has WMDs.

Maybe he's connected to Al Quaeda.

Maybe maybe maybe.

Are you a Swiftboater for "Truth"?

[jwirr]

36. I would go as far as it in the best interest of the children.

When we used to get a divorce in the US the trial was between the two adults and the children were treated as a type of chattel. Today most courts appoint an advocate to insure the children's rights. Many children travel to see an absent parent or grandparent so that does not inter fer with where one lives. As to talking down about another person I would simply remind you that children are not as stupid as some people think they are. In my experience the children soon realize who is being vindictive and who really love them. As to the constitutional rights of parents over their children. The courts have many times played the role of Solomon. I do not see that it is any difference when it comes to a grandparents right to see their grandchildren. You are from Canada if the maple leaf is correct and may not know that there are many grandparents here raising their grandchildren without the help of the courts and this is the first real victory they have had. We have many babies having babies who are not able to raise their children. It is a problem throughout our country. You might like to read "Grandparents as Parents: A Survival Guide for Raising a Second Family" by Sylvie de Toledo and Deborah Edler Brown.

[Robert Cooper]

56. Troxel v Granville: SCOTUS 2000

"When we used to get a divorce in the US the trial was between the two adults and the children were treated as a type of chattel. Today most courts appoint an advocate to insure the children's rights." - we're not talking of a divorce. There is no evidence to support an adversarial relationship between the surviving parent and the deceased parent.

"Many children travel to see an absent parent or grandparent so that does not interfer with where one lives." - really? You're going to pay for the airplane tickets for them? If the people involved were poor, you'd insist -they- pay for the tickets for twice monthly visits from Spokane to Miami and back?

"In my experience the children soon realize who is being vindictive and who really love them." - would that be before they're showered with toys, chocoalte and ice cream, or -after- their affections are bought with toys and candy? Is it fair to place this responsibility on kids when one side is trying to spoil the child and the other side is trying to prevent the child being spoiled? Know many kids wise enough to recognize they should not be spoiled with more toys and candy? At the age of 2, 4, 6, ...?

"As to the constitutional rights of parents over their children. The courts have many times played the role of Solomon. I do not see that it is any difference when it comes to a grandparents right to see their grandchildren. You are from Canada if the maple leaf is correct and may not know that there are many grandparents here raising their grandchildren without the help of the courts and this is the first real victory they have had. We have many babies having babies who are not able to raise their children. It is a problem throughout our country."

I'll draw your attention to those claiming the SCOTUS decision in 2000 on Troxel v. Granville. According to Sandpiper: "The court decided 6-3 that the custodial parent has the right to exclude non-custodial grandparents from their child's life."

As far as I know, Canadian law parallels that SCOTUS decision. Were my wife to die, I would hate for my in-laws to take advantage of my wife's death to assert a 'right' they never had as long as my wife was alive. My wife and I have kept her parents at arms length since before we married. But none of that means anything in a court without evidence to support the claim, despite the fact the claim is true.

I married my wife, have a child with her and am raising that child with her. I didn't marry her parents and they have no rights to try and dictate how we raise our son. My wife's death doesn't somehow invent rights for her parents.

It seems there are those here who would argue that it should. I'm glad they don't sit on SCOTUS or Canada's Supreme Court.

[Straight Shooter]

61. Excellent point. Very young children are easily emotionally bribed.

I have ambiguous feelings about the rights of grandparents. In an ideal world, wouldn't it be nice if they all could visit? In this not-at-all-ideal world, grandparents who sometimes have much more money than the parent(s) make it a habit of spoiling the child and causing division within the family, or actually driving a wedge between the grandchild and the natural parent. Who does a young child want to be with, the struggling mommy (or the new mommy), or how about "Let's go to Disneyland!" grandparents?

There are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and if the grandparents are not completely ethical about the situation, the bitterness can last for decades.

[Robert Cooper]

63. Which is why I oppose litigation...

...visitation should rely on the parent(s). Those who want to visit need to develop the kind of reltionship with the governing parent(s) that encourages visits.

[LisaL]

98. Oh give me a break!

There are all kinds of family situations. There are grandparents that are actually raising the kids because for whatever reason the parents are unable or don't want to. So, if after 15 years the parent shows up and demands the kid back from the grandparents, the grandparents should still have no say in the matter? Just hand the kid back, no questions asked?
Of course these cases are litigated, because a lot of kids aren't raised in two parent family any longer.

[Robert Cooper]

101. You're not paying attention...

...in Reply #56 ("Troxel v Granville...") I said:

"I'll draw your attention to those claiming the SCOTUS decision in 2000 on Troxel v. Granville. According to Sandpiper: "The court decided 6-3 that the custodial parent has the right to exclude non-custodial grandparents from their child's life.""

You are arguing for litigation between -custodial- grandparents and parents. No one has provided evidence to claim the grandparents in this case are "custodial".

I've consistently argued against litigation between custodial parents and non-custodial individuals, including grandparents, over visitation rights.

If I and my wife raise our son for fifteen years and my wife dies, are you saying my in-laws, who have had nothing to do with my son all that time, all of a sudden should have a right to take me to court for visitation rights? I should hand my son over, no questions asked, to avoid putting my son through litigation?

Hell, you seem to be going one better. You seem to think my in-laws have a right to put us through court even if my wife -doesn't- die. If both my wife and I agree that her parents shouldn't have access to our child, do you support her parents putting us through court to force us to explain this to a judge and have him/her decide whether we're right or not?

[TankLV]

106. So it's OK for YOU to bring up unrelated situations and arguments

but not others?

Okaaaaaay.....

[mondo joe]

116. How is the SCOTUS case unrelated?

Thank you.

[oldcoot]

120. If the grandparents have played in role in raising the child,

then the grandparents should have visitation rights and the right to sue for full custody. In the case of grandparents who have raised their grandchildren for 15 years, they should probably even have full custody.

On the other hand, there are also grandparents who meddle in the children's affairs and interfere with their adult children's childrearing practices. Some grandparents are even mean to their sons-in-law and daughters-in-law and always let them know that they will never be "part of the family." Should grandparents who are disrespectful to their children's spouses be able to have access to their grandchildren against the wishes of the parents?

Unfortunately, the article does not provide enough information about the case. It does not indicate that the grandparents helped raise the kids or that the man ever used his first wife's parents as a free babysitting service. It also does not describe the man had with the grandparents prior to his wife's death.

As a rule, I think that parental rights should take precedence over grandparents' rights (unless the grandparents played an active role in raising the children). Parents are responsible for raising their children and if their children get into trouble, they can be held liable. I hope that the courts really have a good reason for ruling in favor of the grandparents in this case because this decision could set a dangerous legal precedent for undermining parental authority.

[TankLV]

104. I support him/her - you're being obtuse and ridiculuous.

Your are playing the stupid questions game - what if parent fucked sheep and made them the grand parents? That's how absurd your non-answer answer to a legitimate viewpoint is.

I support the grandparents in this.

You are creating straw men arguments.

[pokercat999]

55. and for all YOU know the grandparents killed their own

daughter so they could bake the children into cookies and eat them....geez

merry xmas and happy holidays

[zanne]

58. Whoa--You just lost me

"For all you know, the silly bastard killed their Mom"? I thought your argument had some merit until you threw in a baseless allegation like that. Your argument would have carried more weight if you hadn't done it.

[Robert Cooper]

64. I don't agree....

... the problem with litigation just became more -transparent- thanks to the previous respondent's statement.

There's another respondent suggesting the father is an abuser.

There seems to be a pattern to the justifications for litigation.

[sojourner]

15. the court decided based its decision on what was in the CHILD's best

interests.

an this is an extraordinary case in that the children's natural mother, who ordinarily would have a say in this, is not around to argue her case.

[Arkana]

13. I have one grandmother who has renounced both, unfortunately.

She told us in no uncertain terms she never wanted to speak to us again, and moved to Florida.

Crazy old harpy.

[happyslug]

2. I have NOT read the Alabama Decision, but sounds like it Violates Troxel

TROXEL et vir. v. GRANVILLE Basically said parents have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to raise their children and can exclude Grandparents from seeing those children if that is what the Parents believe is in the Children's best interests. Thus the Court gave parents a CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS as to their Children over Grandparents.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-138

In Troxel, the father had died and the Mother did not want his parents to have access to her children. The court accepted that argument as a Fundamental Right of the Surviving Parent. As I said, the Alabama Court applies to violate Troxel, and I have not read anything that says anything else.

[Sandpiper]

18. Just what I was thinking

It's fairly well established precedent that a custodial parent has the right to exclude grandparents from their child's life.

Sounds like the Alabama Appeals Court created its decision from whole cloth.

[Robert Cooper]

20. That's reassuring...let's see what happens with SCOTUS nt

[mbperrin]

21. My grandparents sued my aunt by marriage when their son died

in the late 50s and won that decision on the same basis. I was just a kid myself, but the case was in Ector County, Texas, and my grandparents' attorney was Warren Burnett, so perhaps you would know how to locate it.

[Sandpiper]

23. That would have been prior to the SC's Troxel decision

Which took place back in 2000.


The court's current position on Grandparent visitation rights comes from Troxel v. Granville, a Washington case.

The court decided 6-3 that the custodial parent has the right to exclude non-custodial grandparents from their child's life.

While 2 of the 6 were O'Connor and Rehnquist, it's unlikely that the current court would disturb a decision that happened only 5 years ago.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-138

[Robert Cooper]

24. so the appeals court is playing politics...

....you know, those "damned RW activist judges" ;-)

[Sandpiper]

25. Yes, it would seem so

Although, I haven't read the Alabama Court's decision, so I can't say that with complete certainty.

[happyslug]

52. It may be on Lexis or Westlaw, both are pay to use sites

I doubt it is on any other internet site, but all of that old law ended with Troxel. All through the 1990s State Legislatures and State Courts were Expanding Grandparent's Rights, to my knowledge no state gave Grandparents Custody rights but did give them extensive Visitation Rights. Grandparents Rights were a constant headaches during the 1990s till Troxel. Troxel killed it.

[MissB]

33. Yeah, that was my very first thought.

[HuffleClaw]

48. FINALLY

a sensible response. thank you.

[politicat]

3. I'm not okay with this....

If my sister and her husband died, I'm the one who is to raise my niece because my sis and her husb are pagan, and his family is really fundy (save for his sister). Sis has said many times - and it's in her will - that she doesn't trust them to raise or influence her child to be open, giving, unselfish, humane and welcoming of differences. (Our family is likely to be okay.) She and he have both said that if he dies and she doesn't want to deal with his family, she's perfectly okay to cut them all out (save his lesbian sister.) While I hope that I could work something out with my niece's paternal grandparents, my niece's parents wishes trump her grandparents' wishes every time, and if I saw signs that they were putting her in situations that her parents would have disapproved of, she would not be going back.

Thus, when the parents make that decision, what right do the grandparents have to interfere? That's like saying the Christian Science grandparents have the right to tell the not Christian Science parents that taking the kid to the doctor is wrong.

I'm sure my niece would want to visit her grandparents (who have ponies and ducks and other fun stuff on their hobby farm), but kids often want to do things that aren't in their best interests. That's what parenting is all about. But the courts are all too likely to take the stand that the good christian (overly republican) grandparents are good influences over a child being raised as a liberal pagan pacifist - even though that is what her parents wanted for her.

[Robert Cooper]

6. How does one prove the grand-parents are creating a toxic

environment for a parent without bringing the kids in to testify against the grand-parents?

This is good for kids how?

[politicat]

12. In a custody/visitation situation, there are no perfect solutions.

Everything one does is going to affect the children - it's the Heisenberg principle as applied to children.

But when you know that the kid left home thinking parent and step-parent were okay people, and he comes home saying they're sinners and going to hell, that's documentable.

Yes, the child will have to testify (or the guardian ad litem or the therapist or whatever) but if it's better for the kid to learn bigotry than to be subjected to what is necessarily a not-good situation.....

[Robert Cooper]

19. A parent shouldn't lose his rights because a spouse dies...

...and that seems to be the case here. The grand-parents become de facto representatives of the dead spouse.

I have to admit I oppose this kind of litigation.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

26. I agree and have experience with a similar case.

In the case here, the grandparents pretend to be goody-goody, but undermine the father. The parents were divorced before the mother died, and the grandparents blamed the father for the divorce.

Now, they have visitation that is more extensive than what a divorced parent gets. The poor dad lives in constant fear of more litigation, and the kid has had to have counseling.

Where is the judge? He was raised by his own grandparents, and that colors his decisions. He clearly is biased for the grandparents.

Every situation is different. We cannot make assumptions about the Alabama case. I think it does violate Troxel. Probably the case here did, too, but the dad's lawyer failed to raise that issue.

[Sandpiper]

30. Who was his Lawyer?

Lionel Hutz?

How could (s)he have failed to raise that issue?

[LonelyLRLiberal]

126. He says she thought it was a "slam-dunk" in his favor,

but obviously did not even raise the issue.

[Robert Cooper]

46. I think this kind of decision undermines parental authority...

...and it places the child/children in the middle of a legal tug of war.

It's one thing when it is two divorced parents. While I don't agree witht he tug of war, I agree that if things cannot be resolved amicably, the courts are the only recourse.

And while I will not deny the connection grand-parents can have with their grand-children, especially those whose child has passed away, it must also be recognized that the surviving parent has lost his/her mate and partner and beloved.

Grief goes two ways.

Some people can come together in their grief and maintain their relationships amicably.

Some never had amicable relationships with their in-laws in the first place.

But to use the courts as an instrument to force one's self into the lives of others or to demand children be shared as if they were possessions only compounds the difficulties of recovering from the loss. And it is parent and child who need the most support, for they are the ones who feel the loss most keenly. Husband does not wake up each morning snuggled close to his beloved. Child no longer has Mommy to greet with a cheery "good morning" and a hug and a kiss.

Tell me the grief of grandparents is comparable. Tell me grandparents should have a right to intrude on their grieving process and demand, by court order, visitation with their grandchild.

I'd like to see someone make their case.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

128. The judge made the case with his own preconceptions

that grandparents are good people in all cases. Stupid. The child was a possession to be fought over. If the grandparents had backed off and not pushed the issue, the dad would have let them see the kid. Now he hates them and resents their intrusion. They talk to the grandson and tell him untrue things about his father. Terrible situation. The best thing that could happen is for the old goats to die soon.

[Robert Cooper]

131. I wonder how many who support grandparents and oppose parents think...

... about parents becoming grandparents who can then sue -their- kids for visitation.

Do they even know where "grandparents" come from? ;-)

[SkiGuy]

22. It's not good for the kids because

obviously the father is just being an asshole. He won't let the kids see their grandparents even though they want to??

[LonelyLRLiberal]

28. Do we know that, or are you assuming facts? eom

[SkiGuy]

29. "despite the children's desire to visit"

the father being an asshole is just my opinion, though

[Sandpiper]

31. A child's desires and a child's best interests are not one and the same

That's why a parent has authority to make decisions that may well be contrary to what the child desires.

[LisaL]

34. A child is not some sort of mindless thing that

has no right to decide what he/she wants to do.
And in this case, it's more than likely that children's desires to visit with grandparents and their best interests are one and the same.

[Sandpiper]

41. Given your lack of intimate knowledge

Of the family relationships in this case, on what do you base the following assumption:

And in this case, it's more than likely that children's desires to visit with grandparents and their best interests are one and the same.


Other than your own personal biases?

[LisaL]

47. You don't have a clue that it's not in their best interest either.

[Sandpiper]

50. Self Delete

n/t

[TankLV]

108. And you aren't using your own personal biases?

Only YOU are allowed to have an opinion? And only THAT opinion is valid?

Okaaaaayyy....

[Robert Cooper]

44. No, a child is not a mindless thing...

...however, a child is not aware of the consequences of his or her decisions. Maturity is a measure of how much we bear in mind consequences and how accurately we assess them. The youngest children have no experience upon which to even be aware that there are consequences.

Children can be impulsive. The child who decides he or she has a right to play near a flooding creek is a child in danger, and it takes adult eyes to see it that way. To the kid, it's fun and there is no danger, even when they've been warned.

This is why so many kids are lost to this kind of tragedy.

When my son doesn't like his cough medicine, but can't sleep and is cranky and irritable and in pain, it's my job to see to it he takes his medicine. I'd like to think that's what loving parents do: look out for their kids' best interests till the kids are adults and can do it for themselves.

[LisaL]

49. And there are parents who are abusive to their kids.

Not every parent is wonderful and only cares about what's best for the child.
Lets face it-father doesn't always know best. If the kids say they want to visit their grandparents, I am not going to assume the kids are stupid and don't know what they want.

[Robert Cooper]

53. And you're a parent? nt

[Don1]

72. There is no presumption of stupidity

Until you are 18 or an emancipated minor, your parents are making decisions for you all the time. It does not mean you are "stupid." Instead, it means you are not quite mature enough to understand the ramifications of your decisions. A good parent will relax restrictions and provide additional freedoms up to the point of a child becoming an adult. This way they understand the ramifications of their actions better naturally as they branch out more independently.

These kids are young and the father made this decision for some reason. It could be that he believes it is in the best interest of his children. It is easy to see that the grandparents may be remembering their daughter and not treating the stepmother with due respect or considering her authority or any other of these types of familial problems that can result. They may also constantly remind the children of their biological mother by doting on her memory and cause unnecessary stress during all visits. It is the father's responsibility and right to analyze the situation and act in accordance of the children's best interests.

It is definitely not the state's right to interfere with parental rights and make what they deem to be in the best interest of the child. This man's parental rights have not been revoked by a court and the state does not have custody of the children. If the state had custody, then only in that case would the state right to dictate the children's affairs be valid (for a visitation issue).

[LisaL]

76. Custody battles are constantly litigated by the courts.

Obviously, since this court awarded visitations right to the grand parents, the court has a right to interfere.
I imagine if the court thought that visitation with grand parents would be harmful to the children, the grandparents would not get visitation rights.

[Robert Cooper]

80. And having a court undermine the parent's authority...

...is not "harmful to the children"?

[mondo joe]

74. Like the Schindlers and Terri Schiavo, for example.

Though as I recall, you were adamant that the parents knew best for their adult married child.

[LisaL]

75. Terri Schiavo was their daughter, not their granddaughter.

[mondo joe]

78. And in the Schiavo case you arrgued parents knew best, even

for an adult child, screw the courts and screw the rights she granted her busband.

But here, curiously, you argue that parents don't know what's best, and courts can decide best interest.

[Robert Cooper]

81. Interesting...

...bias against the marital relationship, it appears.

Closest next of kin knows better than the spouse.

It's either that or a bias against husbands. ;-)

[LisaL]

82. Well, the courts agree with me-at least in one case out of two.

Nothing is written in black and white, is it? Everything depends on a situation. And I believe in custody battles, child's wishes are taken into a consideration.

[Robert Cooper]

85. Nothing better for a child than a good 'ol custody battle...

...being stuck in the middle of a legal tug of war and not know what your fate is and not have any control over it because it's all up to a judge you've never met.

Yep. Need -lots- more of those. Give more people rights to suit for visitation and the kid can spend more time in court than in school.
:eyes:

[LisaL]

95. Yea, the Solomon and the kid he wanted to cut in two.

Do you think that the father maybe could have prevented all of this by allowing the kids to visit the parents of their dead mother?

[Robert Cooper]

100. And still be a responsible father? Nope?

...nothing easier than giving in to a child -every- time the child says "Gimme".

...nothing wins a child's favour better than giving in -every- time the child says "Gimme".

God help that child.

No one requires parents to be perfect, just that they use their best judgment. You want to leave this parent with custodial responsibilities while reversing his decisions through litigation in court? Might as well take custody for all the respect his decisions will get from his kids in future.

But the grandparents don't care about that. They don't want custody. They just want to visit the kids and then turn them back over to the guy they sued.

Nice to see them taking the parent-child relationship so seriously.
:eyes:

[LisaL]

117. You have no idea whether the grand parents want custody.

I imagine they could have wanted it, but didn't sue for it because they knew they would not get it.

[mondo joe]

111. Some courts agree with you - but you seem to disagree with yourself.

Maybe it's just husbands you don't care for.

[Robert Cooper]

43. Absolutely...

... it's the Nanny state that calls for parents abdicating their responsibility to raise the children they create and adopt.

I'm all for giving children choices, within the limits established by their parents. When my son needs medicine I don't leave it up to him about whether he takes it or not. I just give him a choice between ice cream or yogurt to wash it down ;-)

[Boomer]

11. That's exactly the kind of situation that came to my mind

As a gay woman, I know many lesbians and gay men who are seriously estranged from fundie parents. The thought of those people having a court-mandated order to visit their grandchildren (yes, gay people do have children) is really disconcerting.

On the other hand, I imagine a fundie couple who be equally appalled if a court mandated that a lesbian grandmother had visitation rights with their children.

There is no way to create a one-size-fits-all rule to balance these competing parties when such fundamental emotional barriers exist. Treagic as it may be in some cases, I would still reluctantly agree that the parents/custodians should have ultimate say over how to raise their children.

If grandparents have acted as custodians of a child, then THEY get the parental control.

[HockeyMom]

14. My daughter's significant other's parents (religious fundies)

Are VEHEMENTLY opposed to their relationship and it is causing all sort of problems with the grandkids. As you said, yes, gays are parents, too. In their case, they seem to be hell bent on punishing their daughter and as a result, are punishing their grandkids to the point where they are now going to counselors. Excuse me, but no matter what you think of your daughter's sexual orientation, your grandkids should not be PAWNS in your misguided attempts to punish your daughter.

The counselor has even suggested that that kids spend time with ME to see that not all parents are opposed to a child's gay lifestyle. That may be true, but I really don't like being put in that situation. I would be more inclined to call up these grandparents and SCREAM at THEM, "What the hell are you doing to these poor little children with your WARPED views of punishing your daughter?"

My daughter has said that I should do it.

[bammertheblue]

38. I agree

parents should have first rights when it comes to their children. Children are not objects to be owned, but they are still dependant beings and their parents are responsible for their well-being.
Grandparents are great, but they're not essential.
However, I really would like to know more about the "whys" behind this case before I say more.

(Good luck to you and your daughter and grandkids, Hockeymom).

[sojourner]

16. in your case your sis leaves her will and thus says what she thinks is

in the children's best interests.

[politicat]

45. But grandparents can contest and litigate....

In my situation, my niece's paternal grandparents have money - far more than I have or my sister would have if I'm/she's raising my niece. They can make our lives hell - force us to live in Georgia, far away from her maternal family, sue us into bankruptcy - in the attempt to violate their son's wishes.

Just think about how Terri Schiavo's parents acted....

The best interest of the child is often the last thing people think about when they're litigating. They may say so, but in my experience with custody issues (and I have a reasonable amount) the BIOTC is the excuse for vengeance and vendetta.

[Robert Cooper]

107. "BIOTC"?..self-delete, just got it nt

[Yavin4]

27. Depends on How Involved The Grandparents Are

If the Grandparents provided active support, money, housing, shared parental duties, then yes, they should be given visitation rights because they were actively involved in the parenting.

If the grandparents were not actively involved, then they don't have automatic rights. It's up to the discretion of the immediate parent(s).

[LisaL]

35. They already got the ruling in their favor.

So, apparently, whatever they were doing, the court decided they should be able to see their grandkids.

[NashVegas]

37. There Just Aren't Enough Details in This Story to Second Guess Anything

Not even names or ages of the kids.

We can only guess.

If I were to give the father the benefit of the doubt (why not, the court did), I might guess the grandparents weren't too happy with his choice of bride and made waves that reverberated inside his home.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Wrong, wrong wrong

This is NOT something that ought to be decided in court. This should NOT be a legal matter.

So long as the health of the children isn't endangered, the parents should have the right to determine who they see, including grandparents.

The father in this blurb, anyway, sounds like a schmuck, I grant you. But those relationships tend to go both ways. Should the g'parents wish to maintain a relationship with the kids, they need to work at a relationship with the parents.

The law ought not to be deciding these things for parents. This is over-stepping in a big and dangerous way.

[Sandpiper]

42. Right

The court substituted its own judgment for the Father's where the Father was acting entirely within his rights as a parent.

Per Supreme Court precedent, the Alabama Court has overstepped its bounds.

[Robert Cooper]

54. Given the 'justifications' for intervention I've seen...

...I am -so- glad this principle of law is decided.

With justifications like 'he might have murdered his wife' and 'he might be abusive' (neither offered with a shred of evidence but both considered solid enough to usurp a parent's right to make decisions for his kids), there are too many with over-active imaginations willing to victimize widowers and their children.

[LisaL]

60. Does it matter how old the kids are?

If they were 14, 15, 17-still wouldn't matter what they wanted? They can say what they want to do, which in this case is to visit with their grandparents. Obviously, the court doesn't think visiting with grandparents is going to be harmful to them in any way. So, why shouldn't kids decision be considered?

[Robert Cooper]

62. If the parents decide to move to a new area...

...does it matter whether 14, 15 or 17 year-old children agree? Are you now suggesting the kids should have a right to suit the parents to stay in an area rather than move?

Parents shouldn't have the right to set a curfew for children of this age because the kids might not like it? Parents have no right to ground kids of this age? No right to control behaviour deemed inappropriate?

It -used- to be that kids were subject to their parents' discipline until the kids were old enough and moved out. Seems to me that if you have your way kids as young as 14 (and perhaps younger) would be able to contest -any- parental decision through the courts.

And any parental decision you disagree with seems to be cause for suggesting the parent is abusive (or in the case of another respondent: murder).

Not sure why you think anyone can take such positions seriously when supported by such hyperbole.

But yes, I oppose any legislation that turns any parent seeking to affirm his or her parental rights to govern their own children into a person whom others can freely label as a potential murderer or abuser.

In fact, I take such statements as indicative of just how much disrespect exists for parenting in general. A parent who loses a spouse to illness or accident deserves better than to be accused of being a murderer or abuser with nothing more for evidence than his desire to raise his own children without state interference.

But I've seen two respondents say otherwise.

Nice :eyes:

[LisaL]

65. And if all parents were great, we wouldn't have so

many run away children.

[Robert Cooper]

67. And you've raised how many children? nt

[LisaL]

68. None of your business.

[Robert Cooper]

73. Then I will assume you have no idea...

...of how difficult it can be to raise a child with active interference from others.

It's very nice to say 'let the children decide', but if you have no experience with how irresponsible their decisions can be then you have no idea how out-of-touch your advice is with reality.

[LisaL]

77. When you assume, you make an ass of you and me.

And I never said "let the children decide". But their decision should be taken into consideration.

[mondo joe]

79. Please distinguish "taken into consideration" from "let them decide", and

specifically address how it can be demonstrated their wishes are taken into consideration if they DON'T get what they want.

[LisaL]

83. If they want something that is in their best interests, then

their wish should be granted. If they want something that is harmful to them, then it shouldn't be granted.

[Robert Cooper]

86. Great! Parents can spend each day in court getting a judge to tell them...

...the difference.

:eyes:

[LisaL]

88. Most normal people decide such things as grandparents visitations

out of courts.

[Robert Cooper]

91. Yes, if not for weird grandparents litigating normal parents...

...we wouldn't have cases like the one in the OP.

People who think they have a right to use the courts to undermine a parent's authority over his/her child are not acting like loving grandparents by any definition with which I'm familiar. How is a child to respect a parent whose decision has been over-ruled by the courts at the bequest of the grandparents? How is this parent to continue custodial responsibilities for the child when his child has been taught by the courts and the grandparents to disrespect his decisions?

Tell me the act of litigation does not damage the parent-child relationship. Tell me litigation is initiated by the parent and not the grandparent.

Most "normal" people should have more respect for the existing difficulties parenting a child before they call for making it -more- difficult.

[LisaL]

93. Most normal people allow their kids to visit their grandparents,

so the grandparents don't have to sue to get visitation rights.

[Robert Cooper]

96. So anyone who refuses is "abnormal"? All grandparents are perfect?...

...do tell.

[mondo joe]

114. And most normal grandparents are welcome in their lives - you might

consider that there are reasons why a minority of grandparents are not.

[mondo joe]

112. Harmful to them in whose opinion, precisely?

The parents?

A court?

Themselves?

[Robert Cooper]

87. I can imagine all the pro bono lawyers hanging out at the schoolyard...

..."hey kid, want to eat as many cookies as you like? I can get you a great deeeal, no charge. Just sign this and we're on our way."

:eyes:

[Robert Cooper]

84. "their decision should be taken into consideration"...

...by a court, in litigation over visitation rights between a parent and someone who is not a legal guardian of the child in question?

Like grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, teachers, clergy, boyfriends and girlfriends?

And to reassure you, re-read what I wrote and you'll see I didn't quote anyone as saying "let the children decide". I dodn't even put those words in quotes.

As for assumptions, no matter how you cut it, I'm going to assume either you've children or you don't. I've seen no evidence to suggest you've raised any.

[LisaL]

90. Well, for whatever reason, the court decided that it should.

You are acting like I made it up, when the court has decided that grand parents can visit the grand kids against their father's wishes.
Obviously, there has to be some reason behind that decision.
Not made by me, but by the courts, so you don't confuse the two.
And I completely fail to see WTF my children has to do with any of it.

[Robert Cooper]

94. You're arguments supporting this decision have had nothing...

...to do with this case. My arguments against this decision have been equally general in principle.

And as I said, I've seen no evidence you've raised children. I know of no parent who eagerly accepts the state's intervention in their ability to raise children.

I suppose the exception that proves the rule are those grandparents who have been shut out of their child's life and try to take advantage of their child's death to turn their grandchildren into the ideal children they'd wished their child had been.

That they never accepted that their child had a right to live as he or she wished when he or she became an adult doesn't seem to enter their heads. We've seen examples of this in this thread, people talking about being estranged from their own parents for good reason and fearing their parents trying to intrude in the lives of the grandchildren.

You'd have all that go through the courts, so we can make condescending remarks as I've seen in this thread about the father in this case?

Can't trust the parents to make the right choice? Need a judge to tell parents whether they're right or wrong to control contact with their children?

And why limit litigation rights to grandparents? Why not aunts and uncles, cousins, clergy, best friends, boyfriends/girlfriends? A child might have a closer relationship with any one of those than he or she has with grandparents. let's keep forcing those parents into court, paying the legal costs for themselves and their child, over and over again until parents no longer make choices for their kids, and stop having them except by accident.

The perfect Nanny state: parenting by court order.

:eyes:


No, I've seen no evidence anyone who raises children embraces this paradigm.

[LisaL]

119. You have seen no evidence I have raised children?

WTF do you want? Should I post the birth certificates on the net? Give me a freaking break! I have seen no evidence that you have raised anyone either, by the way, but I am not demanding it from you.

[Robert Cooper]

122. sigh, I didn't "demand" anything...

...I asked a question, and expressed an opinion.

I stand by that opinion, btw.

[ninkasi]

40. I thank whatever gods may be

that my only biological granddaughter is the daughter of my oldest child, and his wonderful wife, who would no more deny me my rights as a grandmother than they would...well, I can't even say...they just wouldn't do it. I also have three step-grandchildren, as far as a strict interpretation of relationships would be concerned. who are always joyously included in everything, thanks to my beautiful step-daughter. She would never deny her dad and me the right to be around, and love, her children.

These relationships are bonds of love, and of the desire of each of us to provide the children with as much love and nurturing as possible. All of us have one overwhelming desire, and that is for all of the children to feel loved, and cherished, as unique and beautiful creations of the universe, entitled to love and protection by the adult members of their families. What's wrong with that?

My grandchildren, four in all, are all loved, cherished, and protected by all of us. It doesn't matter whether the relationship is of blood, or marriage, they are all equal and valid. My family will love and protect the children in the family to the dying breath. The family is truly a large, extended, blended one, and others would do well to steer clear of trying to harm any of our children. Not trying to sound bellicose, just stating a family fact.

[davsand]

59. What an awful and painful situation!

I was reading thru the responses to this thread and I realized that not only is this issue a very visceral one, it is deeply personal. I was absolutely struck by the level of pain shown in here. Small wonder it is such an intense dialog...

As was stated earlier in the thread, this ruling flies in the face of a previous one that, essentially, establishes that a surviving parent IS the final authority in determining the welfare of their child (at least in terms of visitation.)

While this ruling makes for some great headlines and spurs some pretty intense debate, I suspect that it will not hold up. (Time to insert the obligatory disclaimer: I have not read this case and I do not know the intimate details--I could be dead wrong here!)

It is a source of sadness to me that our lives have become so complicated that something as fundamental as the best interests of a child have become a matter of such extended and vituperative debate.

While every case is different(you see it illustrated here)and every situation is NOT solved using a cookie cutter approach, you'd think that at some point the humanity would kick in and the "adults" would make some attempt to remember that the CHILD's interests have got to come before anything else. I'd hope for that for my child should anything ever happen to her father or myself...

Peace to you all.


Laura

[Robert Cooper]

70. Thank you...

...that was a sensitive and balanced response, and you're right. It is a painful issue for some.

Peace

Robert

[mondo joe]

69. Dead wrong. This should be the decision of the parent(s). n/t

[bleedingheart]

89. I have some personal experience with this...

my cousin "betty" got pregnant out of wedlock with a man married to another woman. The fellow rejected her and she ended up living with her mother and aunt. She bore twin daughters and when they were two years old she got cancer and she died.

And then when the little gals were three ....in swept my cousin's old boyfriend and his wife...you see his name was on the birth certificate and so he got a judge to rule that the girls and their mother's social security check were now his.

My aunts nearly lost everything fighting him and they lost anyways...

All of this disaster could have been avoided if my cousin had just designated that her mother and aunt should be the guardians.

in the end my aunts wanted to visit those girls they had diapered and loved and taught to walk ...the last reminder of my dead cousin and they got shit on. So in retrospect I think each case should be handled separately.

[LisaL]

92. Even that might have not helped, because biological parents

are considered more important than the rest of the relatives. So, all you fellas that are arguing that father always know best-in a case such as this, where the father didn't even raise the kids for the first three years of their lives-I guess as soon as he decided he wants to raise them-the grandmother and grand aunt should have just given the kids to him, because grand parents should have no rights whatsoever?
According to some of you, the grandparents shouldn't even be allowed to go to court if they want to sue for visitation rights, custody, etc. As soon as the father decides he wants to raise the kids, that's it?
Cause he knows best what's good for them? Even though for the first three years of their lives, he apparently didn't care about them at all?

[bleedingheart]

97. My aunts were heartbroken for years and to be honest I think that

the jerky lawyers they hired knew all along that they wouldn't get the children back but they milked my aunts for the cash.

Note..my father-in-law is an attorney and is the one that told me to tell them that they should stop the legal action because precedent was against them....

[LisaL]

99. It is a sad, sad, sad story.

[Robert Cooper]

102. Troxel v. Granville: SCOTUS 2000

"I'll draw your attention to those claiming the SCOTUS decision in 2000 on Troxel v. Granville. According to Sandpiper: "The court decided 6-3 that the custodial parent has the right to exclude non-custodial grandparents from their child's life.""

Note that the parent does not have the right to exclude -custodial- grandparents by this decision.

I haven't seen anyone argue the matter beyond this decision.

I suspect bleedingheart's story occurred before 2000. I note no follow-up on the quality of life of the child involved after the father took custody. It appears to me Troxel v Granville would have helped.

[bleedingheart]

109. yes it was way before 2000

in fact the girls are now 18 years of age.

[Robert Cooper]

110. Thanks BH...

...I hope we all have a heart for custodial care-givers.

:grouphug:

[mondo joe]

115. That's simply false, since the grandparents in this case were custodial.

Try to stay on track, please - thanks!

[TankLV]

103. Good! There's more than the children affected by stupid parents bad

decisions that hurt everyone BUT themselves.

I can see the need for this.

[mondo joe]

113. Really? You think someone other than parents should decide

who they spend time with?

If a lesbian's homophobic parents want access to her son to tell him how evil his mother is, that's fine?

[LisaL]

118. We no longer have two married biological parents

raising kids- in many cases. So, why should biological parents be always one to decide? What if biological parent wasn't raising the kid for years and years, but then decides to show up and wants custody. What if two lesbians were raising the child-only one is a biological mother. If they split, does the other have no rights because she is not related to the child? What about adoption? If two people unrelated to the child are raising the child, and biological parents decide they want the child back-I guess the adoptive parents better return the child ASAP? I mean, it doesn't make any sense to declare that biological parent is the only one who has a right to decide for the child in every case.

[Robert Cooper]

123. Troxel v. Granville: SCOTUS 2000

"I'll draw your attention to those claiming the SCOTUS decision in 2000 on Troxel v. Granville. According to Sandpiper: "The court decided 6-3 that the custodial parent has the right to exclude non-custodial grandparents from their child's life.""

Note that the parent does not have the right to exclude -custodial- grandparents by this decision.

I haven't seen anyone argue the matter beyond this decision.

So the answer to your questions depends upon whether any of the individuals are legal guardians of the children in question. Those who are must negotiate their visitations/custody upon break-up, to the approval of a court. Those who are not should have no say in the matter, and SCOTUS agrees.

Just how many times are you going to repeat this straw man?

[LisaL]

125. You have now two courts in Alabama allowing

visitations rights to grandparents, because it's in the best interest of the children. So, whatever SCOTUS has ruled must not apply to all cases.

[Robert Cooper]

130. The Alabama decisions were based on state law. SCOTUS trumps it nt

[mondo joe]

132. Irrelevent to my question. Try again.

If two lesbians raise a child they are either legally or nominally both custodial parents, depending on their circumstance.

You're the one stuck on biology - not me. My conern is who is legally responsible for the child/ren.

So if the lesbian mom has religious reich parents who demand access to their grandson so they can tell him what a sin homosexuality is, you have no problem with it?

[DaDeacon]

121. This case is NOT about parent rights!

After reading many post on this issue it hs come to my attention that this case is really more about parental preference than rights. Let me explain. As a parent I dislike my in-laws and if I were to lose my wife i doubt highly I would be the biggest fans of letting my children see them often. Are they bad people ? No. Are they mean to them? No. Do they spoil them are give them gifts? Not any more than my parents. So why not? I just don't like them, they are very old fashioned and smell funny. Now is that really a reason for me to deny them a chance to see their grandchildren. I would say no and perhaps the courts feel the same way. Not knowing the age of the people in this case waiting for the kids to be 18 to make that choice on their own may be a moot point and thus the courts felt that this was a better decision to "force visitation" than side with the father.

What is it in us, all of us that leans to something more sinister in this story. The idea that the father and grandparents have some petty thing between them that will not allow then to see eye to eye on simple visitation seems odd ,but way more likely than say "he killed wife" or "The Grandparents will force the kids to become Christians <noooooooooo lol>". The courts did make a choice, is it right or wrong until overturned i will say it was right. I will say that a parent must show just cause to prevent visitation of surviving family members, not for the courts sake but for the kids. They want to see the grandparents this is not the same as burning the carpet or writing on the wall this is a want to connect to other family members. The court took the high ground and sided with family! Not right-wing or left but family! The kids have every right to see their DEAD MOTHERS PARENTS if they wish (and they do), the father is being a monster in this story and beyond all the "big brother court" talk he's out of line!

[Robert Cooper]

124. "the father is being a monster in this story"...

...so take custody away from him.

You've said nothing about the damage this does to the parent-child relationship, and that is -the- issue in this case. Does the decision damage the parent-child relationship? I'd say "obviously yes".

If the court wishes to over-rule the father's decision in this matter, there are -lots- of more important matters where his judgment will be required to make a decision on behalf of his children. If he can't be trusted to make this decision, how can he be trusted to make any of the more important decisions? If you're going to teach a child to not trust his/her father's judgment, take custody.

'Twould be a kindness.

You wish to disagree?

[LisaL]

127. And the kids wanting to see the grandparents, but father refusing-

that doesn't damage the parent child relationship?
The court ruled that seeing the grand parents is in the best interest of the children. The children want to see the grand parents. Father is the one refusing to allow children to see their grand parents. But that is just peachy rosy, and the children's relationship with the father is just great?
But if courts interfere, that is going to damage that relationship? Somehow I doubt that.

[Robert Cooper]

129. so take custody from the father nt

[mondo joe]

133. Since we don't know the details of any of it, if a parent is competent to

maintain custody it should be his or her choice to decide. And the SCOTUS maintains this as well.

[mondo joe]

135. Exactly. If he's not competent to make this choice then he's not

competent and should lose custody.

On the other hand, if he is a competent parent then this should remain his choice.

[LisaL]

138. So, if two parents are divorced, and the custodial parent

wants to refuse the other parent visitation rights-that should be his/her choice, right? I mean, he should decide what's best for the children, and the other parent shouldn't be allowed to visit.

[mondo joe]

141. In such cases the parents both already have rights - custody is

an arranngement, not a power over each other.

[oldcoot]

142. The relationship between a parent and a child is different

There is a difference between the relationship between a parent and child and a grandparent and grandchild. Parents have a right to have access to their children unless they are abusive. Grandparents do not have the same right. In my state, a family was prevented from moving to Japan because the wife's ex-husband would not be able to see his kids if they moved to Japan. So far, the courts have not prevented a family from moving overseas because the grandparents would not be able to see the kids.

[Robert Cooper]

145. Straw man ...

:banghead:

[mondo joe]

134. A parent need not show any "just cause" other than his or her

determination.

There is nothing monstrous about it -- it's just a choice.

[LisaL]

139. And so, if your ex-wife didn't want you to visit the kids (if you

had an ex-wife, that is), that should be her choice too?

[mondo joe]

140. If I had an ex wife and kids iy wouldn't be up to her, it would be up to

US.

[Robert Cooper]

146. Straw man...

:banghead:

[happyslug]

136. This may be the case, I copied it from Lexis.

But it is from LAST JANUARY not Last Friday, but the situation looks to be the same, Mother is dead, Maternal grandparents want Visitation but Father is saying no. Also on appeal from the same County (Madison). What seems to have happen is the Grandparents brought the action in Alabama Juvenile Court instead of Circuit Court of Madison County Alabama. Last January the Court of Civil Appeals ruled that when it comes to Custody where the child is NOT a dependent child, the court of Jurisdiction is the Circuit Court NOT Juvenile Court. Thus the case was DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. I suspect the Grandparents re-filed the case in the Circuit Court of Madison County after this decision and the case was appealed back to the Circuit Court of Appeals and thus the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is from this later lawsuit.

NOTE TO MONITORS, THIS IS A LEGAL OPINION AND AS SUCH IS NOT COPYRIGHT ABLE (I.e. any one can copy), through the Lexis information is Copyright-able (and I have removed them). I will not post most of the Opinion for it goes into the legal details of Jurisdiction between the two court (Juvenile and Circuit Court) but I will copy what the court says about the facts of the case which is what people are debating:

J.W.J., Jr. v. P.K.R. and P.H.R.

COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA

906 So. 2d 182; 2005 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 12

January 14, 2005, Released

PRIOR HISTORY: <**1> Appeal from Madison Juvenile Court. (CS-00-306.01). J.W.J. v. P.K.R., 2004 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 628 (Ala. Civ. App., Aug. 20, 2004)

This is a grandparent-visitation case. J.W.J., Jr., is the father of P.F.R. ("the child"), a four-year-old girl. P.K.R. and P.H.R. are the child's maternal grandparents. P.E.R., the child's mother, died in December 2002, when the child was two and one-half years old.
The child's parents were never married. In January 2001, when the child was six months old, J.W.J., Jr., filed a paternity complaint in the Madison Juvenile Court, seeking to have himself named the father of the child. n1 On January 26, 2001, the juvenile court entered a judgment, pursuant to a settlement agreement between P.E.R. and J.W.J., Jr., determining that J.W.J., Jr., was the father of the child, awarding custody of the child to the mother, granting visitation rights to the father, and ordering the father to pay child support pursuant to Rule 32, Ala. R. Jud. Admin. The child was not a party to the paternity action.

n1 The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction in proceedings to establish the paternity of a child born out of wedlock. § 12-15-31(2), Ala. Code 1975.

During the mother's pregnancy and after the child's birth, the mother and the child lived in the maternal grandparents' home. The maternal grandparents cared for the child while the mother attended college and worked part-time. After the mother's death, the father assumed custody of the child and brought the child to live with him in the home of his parents (the child's paternal grandparents).
In January 2003, the maternal grandparents petitioned the Madison Juvenile Court for grandparent-visitation rights pursuant to § 30-3-4.1, Ala. Code 1975. The juvenile court entered a pendente lite order granting the maternal grandparents visitation with the child on the first and third weekends of each month. After a hearing, the juvenile court entered a judgment on November 7, 2003, granting the maternal grandparents visitation on

"the second weekend of each month and the fifth weekend of each month (during 2004 the months of January, May, July and October, each of which have a fifth week). Visitation shall begin at 6:00 p.m. on Friday and continue until 7:00 a.m. on the following Monday. Upon enrollment of the child in school, the grandparents may pick the child up at school/day care on Friday, and return the child to school/day care on the following Monday morning. At all other times the child shall be picked up at the home of her father/paternal grandparents and returned to the same."

The juvenile court also granted the maternal grandparents one week of visitation during the Christmas season, daytime visitation on Mother's Day, and two weeks of visitation in the summer, beginning on the Monday immediately following Father's Day. The judgment further provided:

"In addition to the schedule of visitation, the grandparents shall be allowed reasonable telephone contact with the minor child. Such telephone contact may not exceed two (2) telephone calls per week of a reasonable duration, unless more contact is agreed upon by the parties. Neither the father nor the maternal grandparents shall participate in, listen in on, or illegally record any telephone calls to the child."

[LisaL]

137. It's definetly not the same case.

In the original case, the parents were married and had three children.

[Robert Cooper]

148. Thanks for the clarification...

...I'd overlooked that.

[Robert Cooper]

147. Interesting...

...I'd be very curious to know whether this is the same case or not.

In the case you've cited, it appears to be a clear cut case in favour of Troxel v Granville. The cite doesn't say how they work that "one week of visitation during the Christmas season": does this mean the father loses his child over the Christmas holidays?

At any rate, this looks like the way Troxel v Granville is supposed to work. I don't see a problem with this (aside from my question about Christmas).

(edit: typo)

[AzDar]

143. Bottom line here...unless the children are somehow being abused or

endangered, the father of the children has a right to raise HIS children for whom HE is responsible, however he chooses.It's undoubtedly an unfortunate situation; but that's the price you pay in an (allegedly) free society.
The Government needs to stay the f*&k out peoples' lives.