• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

fighting without an attorney

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Rushia

Senior Member
I was going to ask about your case I saw in other threads you ask ppl to pm
I do, so that I can give them my private info, be a friend to talk to and a shoulder to cry on as you go through this. I will happily do the same for you, if we can figure out how you can PM me on this site. For obvious reasons I don't post my private info on websites such as this.

I just tried to pm you and it says that you've chosen not to set that up.
 
Last edited:


LdiJ

Senior Member
No they did not "adapt", they found a way around it.

Once again, so the state can determine what is best for your child against your wishes.
There are quite a few states that have re-written their gpv laws to conform to the Troxel standards...and a few have struck down their statutes entirely.

Its PA and NY that are the truly "problem" states.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
No they did not "adapt", they found a way around it.

Once again, so the state can determine what is best for your child against your wishes.
Ld Is correct with what she said. Many states have rewritten their statutes and others have struck them down entirely.
 

Rushia

Senior Member
Ld Is correct with what she said. Many states have rewritten their statutes and others have struck them down entirely.
Yes, she is. However, I am as well. Any state that has any law that allows a gpv case adapted their law to overrule the wishes of the parent.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Yes, she is. However, I am as well. Any state that has any law that allows a gpv case adapted their law to overrule the wishes of the parent.
That is NOT finding a way around Troxel. The holding of Troxel did not outlaw or find unconstitutional visitation statutes entirely or state that the wishes of the parent are the ony thing that matters. What it did was hold:
The court must accord at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination.
If a parent's wishes are given some special weight then it is possible for others to get visitation.
 

Rushia

Senior Member
That is NOT finding a way around Troxel. The holding of Troxel did not outlaw or find unconstitutional visitation statutes entirely or state that the wishes of the parent are the ony thing that matters. What it did was hold:

If a parent's wishes are given some special weight then it is possible for others to get visitation.
Any way you try to slice it, any court that gives an order for GPV did NOT take the parents wishes into consideration. The Court decided that it knows better than 2 fit parents to overrule their wishes. Esp if both parents are in agreement. The end. Even if. I have seen TOO many cases, talked to too many people, read too many court docs at a level that YOU will never see. Not once has the court ever taken the wishes of 2 fit parents into consideration.
 

single317dad

Senior Member
Any way you try to slice it, any court that gives an order for GPV did NOT take the parents wishes into consideration.
That's a bit of a leap. The intent of the law is to protect the relationship between GP and child (which is in the child's best interest) in situations where parents dump the kids off on the GPs and spilt, then show up later wanting to "exercise their rights". While I agree the courts have gone far beyond that original intent (on GPV as well as a great many other things), to say that no court ever considered the parents' wishes is much too broad. Wishes, rights, or otherwise, when one dumps their kid off at grandma's then scoops them up the next time they sober up, there can and well should be some consideration given. In the clear cases of overstepping GPs, there should not. Unfortunately, that line is broad and blurry.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
That's a bit of a leap. The intent of the law is to protect the relationship between GP and child (which is in the child's best interest) in situations where parents dump the kids off on the GPs and spilt, then show up later wanting to "exercise their rights". While I agree the courts have gone far beyond that original intent (on GPV as well as a great many other things), to say that no court ever considered the parents' wishes is much too broad. Wishes, rights, or otherwise, when one dumps their kid off at grandma's then scoops them up the next time they sober up, there can and well should be some consideration given. In the clear cases of overstepping GPs, there should not. Unfortunately, that line is broad and blurry.

But that would be more about custody, not visitation. When the parents up and leave for any significant amount of time, there is (generally) a remedy available - a third party custody suit.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
That's a bit of a leap. The intent of the law is to protect the relationship between GP and child (which is in the child's best interest) in situations where parents dump the kids off on the GPs and spilt, then show up later wanting to "exercise their rights". While I agree the courts have gone far beyond that original intent (on GPV as well as a great many other things), to say that no court ever considered the parents' wishes is much too broad. Wishes, rights, or otherwise, when one dumps their kid off at grandma's then scoops them up the next time they sober up, there can and well should be some consideration given. In the clear cases of overstepping GPs, there should not. Unfortunately, that line is broad and blurry.
Actually...that is not quite accurate.

The original intent of the laws, back in the 1960's, was to preserve a child's connection with their grandparents in the case where their parent had died. From there it morphed, over time, into state laws being so broad that basically judges were giving ncp style visitation to any grandparent who asked for it...and in WA state, into ANYBODY asking for visitation getting ncp style visitation. In many states judges even gave ncp style visitation to grandparents of children who were not even born yet. I could tell you some real horror stories.

In the 1990's parents finally decided to seriously fight back. There were many successes at the state level in the 90's. Troxel happened in 2000, and since that time, gradually state laws were challenged to the point that a gpv is completely gone in many states, and an award of gpv is rare in all other states other than PA and NY.

Some examples of horror stories:

A woman in WA receiving visitation with her former housekeeper's child.

A man in OR receiving visitation with his former girlfriend's daughter when he and the mother had only been dating for a year and had never lived together.

A mother in KY dying in jail (due to being denied her medication) because she refused to obey a gpv order to give ncp style visitation to the grandparent of her adopted daughter (stranger adoption).

Paternal grandparents in TX being given visitation in a case where their son was caught in the act of sexually molesting his daughter, and were proven to have left the child alone with him on a regular basis while he was out on bail.

Paternal grandparents in MI doing essentially the same thing, but also who harassed the child constantly to recant and say that that it never happened...even though the child's testimony wasn't necessary as dad had been caught in the act.

Grandparents in multiple states who were given visitation of children they had flat out kidnapped from parents.

A grandmother in FL whose son had died, who was clearly unstable, who was awarded visitation and on the first weekend alone with the child killed herself and the child.

Parents in multiple states who were prohibited from relocating in order to facilitate grandparent visitation. One man lost a 100k job over a relocation denial.

The above are simplistic explanations and are only the tip of the iceberg. I was actively involved with each and every one of those families so none of it is urban legend. Its all real.
 

Rushia

Senior Member
That's a bit of a leap. The intent of the law is to protect the relationship between GP and child (which is in the child's best interest) in situations where parents dump the kids off on the GPs and spilt, then show up later wanting to "exercise their rights". While I agree the courts have gone far beyond that original intent (on GPV as well as a great many other things), to say that no court ever considered the parents' wishes is much too broad. Wishes, rights, or otherwise, when one dumps their kid off at grandma's then scoops them up the next time they sober up, there can and well should be some consideration given. In the clear cases of overstepping GPs, there should not. Unfortunately, that line is broad and blurry.
Yeah, if that were only true. I never dumped my kids anywhere. I do not nor did I ever need to sober up. I got sued cause I said no to a sleepover for 3 weekends in a row. Not that they weren't seeing them, they just we busy little kids and a sleepover wasn't possible. THEN grampa won visitation cause he had more money and a judge who before he was a judge made it clear that he was in favor of GPV.

And now my kids HAVE to go at certain times and are unable to join any extracurriculars cause they HAVE to go as the GP's just can't manage to have a normal relationship.

It put us in debt attempting to defend our rights. So now we still live in an apt cause our credit fall apart and we are still trying to pick up the pieces. The kids had to do without things they wanted and could have had cause we had to spend money on this.

SO tell me again how it's in their best interests?
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top