Can a Stepparent Receive Visitation With a Child After Divorce

My question involves a child custody case from the State of: California
My husband and I are entering the beginning stages of divorce and I would like to stay in my stepdaughters life. Is it possible to be awarded visitation even though she has two active parents. I am very involved in my stepdaughters life during my husband custody time, we are also very close. She even refers to me as Mom. My husband currently has joint legal and joint physical custody which he shares with the birth mother. All custody time is split 50/50 down the middle. My stepdaughter lives with my husband and I, 50 percent of each week. Is it possible that I can receive visitation rights to still be a part of my stepdaughters life who I have grown to call, daughter.

Visitation will be at Dad's discretion.

Though third party visitation is possible under certain circumstances, it is very costly to accomplish successfully, suing the parents (because both parents would need to be sued) is likely to alienate you from them permanently and the visitation itself would be very difficult to enforce.

At best you'd be looking at one or two visits per month, at worst never seeing the child again.

Your best bet is to remain on good terms with Dad.

- - - Updated - - -

(An example of what can happen:

You sue, and somehow manage to get two visits per month. Dad is furious, and relocates. You cannot stop him, the court cannot stop him and there's absolutely nothing you can do)

That really sucks because that means I would have to delay my divorce until my daughter get 18. How long does a typical divorce take? My daughter is now 15 turning 16 at the end of the year. next year she begins the 11 grade this fall. I ask how long a divorce on average can take to complete uncontested with minor property disputes, nothing major or of too much value and easily and agreeably split. it is very unlikely my husband and I would reconcile but it is possible to prolong it if filed at the right time?

California is a bit unusual, in that it does allow for visitation to a stepparent - although there are hurdles that must be crossed.

Quote:

---

Quoting California Family Code, Sec. 3101.

---

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may grant reasonable visitation to a stepparent, if visitation by the stepparent is determined to be in the best interest of the minor child.

(b) If a protective order, as defined in Section 6218, has been directed to a stepparent to whom visitation may be granted pursuant to this section, the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child requires that any visitation by the stepparent be denied.

(c) Visitation rights may not be ordered under this section that would conflict with a right of custody or visitation of a birth parent who is not a party to the proceeding.

(d) As used in this section:

(1) "Birth parent" means "birth parent" as defined in Section 8512.

(2) "Stepparent" means a person who is a party to the marriage that is the subject of the proceeding, with respect to a minor child of the other party to the marriage.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Chalmers v Hirschkopf, 213 Cal.App.4th 289 (2013)

---

A custodial parent's decisions regarding visitation are entitled to presumptive validity and must be accorded "`special weight,'" but they are not immune from judicial review. (Fenn, at p. 1479.), The court in Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176 held that the nonparent must overcome the presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of the child by "clear and convincing evidence." (Id. at p. 1180 [applying this burden of proof to a grandmother seeking visitation under section 3102].) This standard is necessary, the court reasoned, to protect the parent's constitutional right to raise a child, and "a `mere preponderance' burden as to `best interest' is not sufficient. The `clear and convincing' burden, i.e. evidence `"`"so clear as to leave no substantial doubt,"'"' promotes a parent's constitutionally protected `first' choice." (Rich, at p. 1181.)

---