Fighting Grandparents Visitation

4 under 10 years & had been over a year until I agreed to meet for a handful of dinners during the court proceedings. My kids hated it & the 3 oldest were interviewed by the court & expressed their feelings of not wanting contact but it was just basically brushed off.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4mom

---

4 under 10 years & had been over a year until I agreed to meet for a handful of dinners during the court proceedings. My kids hated it & the 3 oldest were interviewed by the court & expressed their feelings of not wanting contact but it was just basically brushed off.

---

That is too bad. Normally judges won't brush off the wishes of children in gpv cases these days....because the cases are truly all about the children. The main requirement of a gpv case is that cutting the grandparents out of the children's lives will demonstrably harm the children. If the children don't want it or are not interested, then it shouldn't be ordered.

The one thing that I can tell you that is critical, is to NEVER negotiate an agreement regarding gpv. Force the judge to rule on the case based on its merits. It is difficult for a judge to make a ruling in favor of the grandparents. It is also much easier to eventually vacate a ruling than an agreement.

You need to pay attention to what Mr. Knowitall is saying. He's giving you much more accurate and thorough information about grandparent's rights in Ohio.

Read this article.

Thank you for the article, I have read that one. I'm just trying to make sure I look at all options. I had never heard of grandparent's rights until this.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4mom

---

Thank you for the article, I have read that one. I'm just trying to make sure I look at all options. I had never heard of grandparent's rights until this.

---

If you aren't currently represented by counsel I honestly think you should make an appointment for a consult with an attorney who regularly practices in the court where this case will be heard. S/he will have a much better feel for how the judges are inclined to rule in these cases and you can get good, accurate answers to your questions re: relocating, any negative impact that could have, etc.. And you should get a few opinions. A lot of family law attorneys will provide a free consult.

In more complicated cases I tend to advise posters here to do this because every court, every judge is different. Family law lawyers spend a lot of time in court, they become very familiar with the judges, and while nobody can accurately predict how a court will rule 100% of the time, the local attorneys will have greater insight for you than people here.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4mom

---

Thank you for the article, I have read that one. I'm just trying to make sure I look at all options. I had never heard of grandparent's rights until this.

---

That article is six years old...

I don't know if you have remarried or not, but this article may be of some interest to you, and it was just published in June of this year.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Re...anUse-312.aspx

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Not accurate. An originating state absolutely can lose jurisdiction over a gpv case. I have seen it happen dozens of times.

---

But, alas, you are unable to identify any cases or legal authority relating to when or why this may happen. Don't make me roll my eyes at you.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Also, it is virtually impossible for a judge in an originating state to enforce sanctions against a parent in a gpv case. Their power ends at their state border.

---

Which is to say, if you run away from your home state and never look back.... You assume a lot.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

The great majority of parental moves in gpv cases are specifically to frustrate gpv. I have worked with literally thousands of parents fighting gpv cases and I don't know of a one of them who had a judge successfully order them to provide any of the transportation.

---

Which doesn't either support your claim or provide even slight refutation of what I stated.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

There is no way to make gpv constitutional. Hence Troxel.

---

As anybody competent to participate in this discussion should know, grandparent and third party visitation statues exist post-Troxel, and have survived challenge in both state and federal court.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Pretty much all state legislatures have re-written the statutes to help make them conform with Troxel, but WA and TN are both examples of states where their courts keep striking down the rewritten laws.

---

So you're admitting that you were wrong, and that most states now have constitutional grandparent visitation statutes? Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

But my statement was 100% correct. The state overrides parent's constitutional rights in many ways.

---

Nope - quite the opposite. You are 100% wrong. You should start by reading Troxel, as you don't understand its holding or its application. The state cannot overrule a parent's constitutional rights and, when they grant third party access within the confines of Troxel, they do not do so.

You are an advocate against grandparents rights - I get that. But you are letting your role as advocate interfere with your ability to accurately describe the law which, when you are less emotionally invested, is usually pretty good.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

The state cannot overrule a parent's constitutional rights and, when they grant third party access within the confines of Troxel, they do not do so.

---

Overrule, was a bad choice of words. I should have said violate. I have probably read Troxel more than a dozen times.

The courts violate parent's constitutional rights all the time. Most of the time its due to competing constitutional rights where its not possible to uphold the rights of one parent without violating the rights of the other, but it happens all the time. The fact that its acceptable and legal does not make it less of a violation, it only means that the violating is a necessary evil.

When CPS yanks a child from a parent's home its a violation of that parent's constitutional rights. That doesn't make it illegal or inappropriate, but it doesn't change the fact that its a violation...that is about the most understandable example I can give.

GPV is a violation of a parent's right to the custody and control of their children. Troxel did not rule that the WA state law was unconstitutional as applied. WA ruled that their statute was facially unconstitutional, and Troxel affirmed that ruling.

Not all states have revised their statutes since Troxel. A good number of them have, based on rulings by their individual state supreme courts, but others have simply had the use of their statutes limited by state supreme court rulings.

Ohio has a completely different set of best interest standards that are used in gpv cases and that is where their statute has been saved.

They are as follows:

The wishes and concerns of the
child's parents;
•
The prior interaction and
interrelationships of the child with
parents and other relatives;
•
The location of the grandparent’s
residence and the distance between it
and the child’s residence;
•
The child's and parents' avail-
able
time;
•
The child's age;
•
The child's adjustment to home,
school, and community;
•
The wishes of the child if the
court has interviewed the child in
chambers;
•
The health and safety of the child

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

The courts violate parent's constitutional rights all the time. Most of the time its due to competing constitutional rights where its not possible to uphold the rights of one parent without violating the rights of the other, but it happens all the time. The fact that its acceptable and legal does not make it less of a violation, it only means that the violating is a necessary evil.

---

No, that remains incorrect. Child custody orders are consistent with the constitution, even though they inevitably burden the rights that one or both parents would enjoy had they remained married or had their spouse passed away, but that is 100% consistent with the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

When CPS yanks a child from a parent's home its a violation of that parent's constitutional rights.

---

No, it is not. As long as the parent's Due Process rights are respected, emergency removal is constitutional. As long as Due Process is observed and the law and evidence support the outcome, long-term removal is constitutional, foster care placement is constitutional, and even termination of parental rights is constitutional.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

GPV is a violation of a parent's right to the custody and control of their children. Troxel did not rule that the WA state law was unconstitutional as applied. WA ruled that their statute was facially unconstitutional, and Troxel affirmed that ruling.

---

Balloons filled with helium float in the air - that doesn't mean that the law of gravity no longer exists. The exception doesn't prove the rule. Again, as you admit, states across the nation have amended their grandparent and third party visitation statutes to be consistent with Troxel, and most of those statutes have since been upheld by state and federal courts as constitutional.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

Not all states have revised their statutes since Troxel.

---

States whose statutes were not impacted by Troxel had no need to amend their statutes. As you note, if the statute can be applied consistent with Troxel - and again you're admitting that these statutes have faced post-Troxel review and have been upheld as constitutional in their application - the legislature may see no need to amend it.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

That article is six years old...

I don't know if you have remarried or not, but this article may be of some interest to you, and it was just published in June of this year.

https://www.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Re...anUse-312.aspx

---

The most pertinent line in there is this:

Quote:

---

Not all step-parents terminate a grandparent's ability to see their grandchildren after an adoption.

---

Given that dad has died, even if mom remarries and her husband adopts the children the Court could find that it's in the best interests of the children. To maintain contact with their deceased father's family.

This could all go either way, but absent abuse or neglect, the grandparents probably have a pretty strong case in light of their son's death. And even though the article I linked to is a few years old, I haven't found any statutory or case law that overturns the cases discussed therein.