Fighting Grandparents Visitation

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

I was taught this information by a constitutional law professor and an appellate attorney. According to them, many people make the same mistake that you are making in not understanding that some violations of constitutional rights are necessary and legal, but due process is required to make those violations necessary and legal.

I am going to continue to rely on my sources.

Either way, I don't see how happy, well adjusted children who have voiced their opinions against visitation should be put through all of this. That in & of itself is not in the best interest of the children.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4mom

---

Either way, I don't see how happy, well adjusted children who have voiced their opinions against visitation should be put through all of this. That in & of itself is not in the best interest of the children.

---

I agree...and that is one of the arguments that you have to make to the court. Again, make the court decide the case on its merits, and push the issue of the best interests standards with the court. Have a copy of them printed out to use as an exhibit in court, and argue your case based on those standards.

Quote:

---

Quoting EA1070a

---

The most pertinent line in there is this:

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.

---

The Q&A llworking cites indicates, in relation to grandparent visitation, "Or (assuming your son’s ex-wife has custody of your granddaughter), if your granddaughter’s mother remarries, her new husband may wish to legally adopt your granddaughter. If this step-parent adoption is granted, your right to visitation is terminated and the child becomes a “legal stranger” to you because under current law, there is no difference between stranger adoptions and step-parent adoptions when it comes to the rights of relatives to maintain familial ties." However, I would agree that if the adoption proceedings are the impetus for seeking grandparental rights, the statute would give the granparents no right to intervene in the adoption proceedings for that purpose. I would also agree that in the absence of an existing order, if the grandparents' only basis for asserting rights under the statute is "we're grandparents" they would no longer have that status post- step-parent adoption (with their child's parental rights terminated in that proceeding), but in such a circumstance they would also lose on the merits.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I was taught this information by a constitutional law professor and an appellate attorney. According to them, many people make the same mistake that you are making in not understanding that some violations of constitutional rights are necessary and legal, but due process is required to make those violations necessary and legal.

I am going to continue to rely on my sources.

---

You haven't cited any sources, and even if you told me, "Moses came down from the mountain and handed me a tablet engraved with this information", making an appeal to authority is something entirely different from presenting a citation to authority.

Quote:

---

Quoting 4mom

---

Either way, I don't see how happy, well adjusted children who have voiced their opinions against visitation should be put through all of this. That in & of itself is not in the best interest of the children.

---

If the children are old enough to state an opinion, and their opinion is known to the court, it's reasonable to expect that the court will consider their opinion when evaluating what is or is not in their best interest. But if this were an easy case, I would have expected it to be resolved in far less than a year - there are facts and issues involved that are not known to us.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

You haven't cited any sources, and even if you told me, "Moses came down from the mountain and handed me a tablet engraved with this information", making an appeal to authority is something entirely different from presenting a citation to authority.
.

---

I'm not trying to stir anything up here, but I'm missing where you yourself have made a citation that shows llworking is incorrect. She may have made an appeal to authority, but I don't see where you have done anything that lends credibility to your position.

I'm not.saying anything about the accuracy of either of either of your positions.



Your link discusses the fallacy of appealing to authority when the authoritative figure is not actually an expert on the subject in question. Since we don't know llworking's authoritative figures, I don't think we can make the claim that we know they are not as knowledgable as they claim to be. We can only say we don't know, and either trust/not trust her judgment of these people as we opine.

Every single case we have discussed proves llworking to be incorrect. Every single one of them, including Troxel.

You are free to search for cases that support the notion that child custody laws, child visitation laws and child protection laws are unconstitutional, but that states are free to ignore the federal constitution and to violate parents' constitutional rights when deciding those matters. To the extent that you find one, you should anticipate that it will be a judge's expression of incredulity that an attorney would be so inept as to raise that claim on appeal.

Those are standard Q&As, obviously, and each case is unique. While the most prominent answer seems to be that a step-parent adoption makes the biological grandparents legal strangers, the bit I quoted (" Not all step-parents terminate a grandparent's ability to see their grandchildren after an adoption.") demonstrates that a step-parent adoption doesn't always automatically strip the biological grandparents of their visitation rights.

Given that dad has died and his parents are the only remaining link to dad's family, I find it difficult to believe that the Court would effectively cut them out of the children's lives. Obviously a judge could make that decision, but as Mr. KIA pointed out, there are facts we don't know and this case has been ongoing for a long time.

Re: taking the children's wishes into account - OP has four children under the age of 10. That may very well be a factor in the court disregarding (is that the term OP used?) what they have to say. They are awfully young.

This isn't a legal opinion, just some food for thought: Mom - in-laws can be difficult, but have you thought about what they're going through? Their son has died, they presumably love their grandchildren, the only remaining link to their son. Imagine how you would feel if, god forbid, in 20+ years, YOU are that grandparent in the same position. A bit of empathy goes a long way. Put yourself in their shoes. You may eventually win in court, but in the long run, you could actually be hurting your kids. They deserve to be loved by as many family members as possible. They've lost their father. Perhaps their attitude is merely a reflection of YOUR attitude and hostility towards your ex in-laws. Kids are like sponges and they want to make you happy.

What actual harm do you think could come to the kids by maintaining a relationship with their grandparents? Maybe you should step back a bit and think about how YOU would feel in their position.

I think the whole situation is sad.

Some grandparents are toxic - sometimes parents have good cause to want a parent or parents out of their lives and their children's lives. I am reluctant to make any assumptions, beyond inferring from the duration of the litigation that the court does not see the case as clear-cut.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Some grandparents are toxic - sometimes parents have good cause to want a parent or parents out of their lives and their children's lives. I am reluctant to make any assumptions, beyond inferring from the duration of the litigation that the court does not see the case as clear-cut.

---

Agreed. Just trying to play devil's advocate a bit.

I am not claiming that her position could or could not be used for an appeal.

Courts justify and uphold compromises to people's constitutional rights every day, especially to the extent that they interfere with others' rights. Indeed, a major debate within our nation is the balance between upholding people's rights and protection/security. If you believe your constitutional rights have been upheld without exception or condition, you are a fool.

However, I wasn't trying to get into all of that. I'm really not even interested in the finer differences between her position and yours. I think its largely semantical and not effectively much different anyway. My main point is, that it is incumbent on llworking to "prove" her position by citing sources only to the extent that it is incumbent on you to do the same. You haven't.