PA Grandparent Rights

[bononos again]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA
As some of you longtime members see, I am back again with new troubles, but, do have an attorney. Just here for some advice from outside parties. Sorry to have 2 threads, but this is a seperate matter.
So, brief rundown, ex is incarcerated, 4 felony and 1 mis. drug charges. It's not his first time, but, it's the worst he's done.
August 2008, I received full custody due to ex having kiddo in the car while he was purchasing heroin (supposed to be supervised by g-ma, ex's mom). After he was let out of jail he had 2 hours supervised (by whom I choose or me) per week.
Seemed to go well allowing g-ma supervising for the mere 2 hours till April, 2010 when I happened to run into ex, some girl, and kiddo out and about without g-ma so I ended allowing her to supervise and took over.
Ex visited 7 more times from May - Aug 2010 then stopped.
So, g-ma has had no contact with kiddo since April 2010. Ex since Aug 2010.
Ex was arrested and is looking at serious jail time.
Low and behold, a week after ex's arrest, I receive papers that g-ma is suing for PARTIAL CUSTODY, not even visitation!!!
She cites her reasons as "she was caregiver and playmate to kiddo when ex had his time."
So, at the motion hearing, Judge says she must allow her to continue her filing simply based on the fact that ex and I have been seperated for more than 6 months as per statue. (we've been divorced for 7 years) The Judge also commented to her that "she is letting her continue, but not telling her she'll get anything."
The kicker, g-ma has allowed ex and his brother, both over 30 year old men live in her home. The bro was also arrested on felony drug charges, released on ROR, then rearrested on theft/receiving stolen, trespass and is back in jail.
The period bro was on ROR, he again lived with g-ma before being rearrested.
Their histories include posession charges and gun charges as well.
Anyways, with her poor supervision leading to kiddo to be put in bad situations, her constant allowing her 2 sons with so many issues in her home, the time frame since she's been incontact with kiddo, and her lack of reasoning to want partial custody, whatare your thoughts on chances? Certainly I don't think she'll get any custody, but visitation? I DO NOT want kiddo in her home and that unsafe environment and do not want a CO telling me I have to.
What are my chances if I just say NO at the concilliation in April to any visitation?
Thanks as always for your thoughts!

 

[Rushia]

PA doesn't use the term visitation. They use the partial custody. What does your attorney say cause I'd say her chances are slim.

ETA: It sounds like the judge has granted standing to the gp and that is why the case is going forward.

 

[Hot Topic]

You go by what the court rules.

 

[stealth2]

And while PA may have statues, I doubt they have anything to do with the law. (Hint, bononos - the word you're looking for is *statute*.)

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA
As some of you longtime members see, I am back again with new troubles, but, do have an attorney. Just here for some advice from outside parties. Sorry to have 2 threads, but this is a seperate matter.
So, brief rundown, ex is incarcerated, 4 felony and 1 mis. drug charges. It's not his first time, but, it's the worst he's done.
August 2008, I received full custody due to ex having kiddo in the car while he was purchasing heroin (supposed to be supervised by g-ma, ex's mom). After he was let out of jail he had 2 hours supervised (by whom I choose or me) per week.
Seemed to go well allowing g-ma supervising for the mere 2 hours till April, 2010 when I happened to run into ex, some girl, and kiddo out and about without g-ma so I ended allowing her to supervise and took over.
Ex visited 7 more times from May - Aug 2010 then stopped.
So, g-ma has had no contact with kiddo since April 2010. Ex since Aug 2010.
Ex was arrested and is looking at serious jail time.
Low and behold, a week after ex's arrest, I receive papers that g-ma is suing for PARTIAL CUSTODY, not even visitation!!!
She cites her reasons as "she was caregiver and playmate to kiddo when ex had his time."
So, at the motion hearing, Judge says she must allow her to continue her filing simply based on the fact that ex and I have been seperated for more than 6 months as per statue. (we've been divorced for 7 years) The Judge also commented to her that "she is letting her continue, but not telling her she'll get anything."
The kicker, g-ma has allowed ex and his brother, both over 30 year old men live in her home. The bro was also arrested on felony drug charges, released on ROR, then rearrested on theft/receiving stolen, trespass and is back in jail.
The period bro was on ROR, he again lived with g-ma before being rearrested.
Their histories include posession charges and gun charges as well.
Anyways, with her poor supervision leading to kiddo to be put in bad situations, her constant allowing her 2 sons with so many issues in her home, the time frame since she's been incontact with kiddo, and her lack of reasoning to want partial custody, whatare your thoughts on chances? Certainly I don't think she'll get any custody, but visitation? I DO NOT want kiddo in her home and that unsafe environment and do not want a CO telling me I have to.
What are my chances if I just say NO at the concilliation in April to any visitation?
Thanks as always for your thoughts!

If it were me...I would say GP(s) can visit at my home under my supervision. Nothing else due the the hX of supervision neglect.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? PA
As some of you longtime members see, I am back again with new troubles, but, do have an attorney. Just here for some advice from outside parties. Sorry to have 2 threads, but this is a seperate matter.
So, brief rundown, ex is incarcerated, 4 felony and 1 mis. drug charges. It's not his first time, but, it's the worst he's done.
August 2008, I received full custody due to ex having kiddo in the car while he was purchasing heroin (supposed to be supervised by g-ma, ex's mom). After he was let out of jail he had 2 hours supervised (by whom I choose or me) per week.
Seemed to go well allowing g-ma supervising for the mere 2 hours till April, 2010 when I happened to run into ex, some girl, and kiddo out and about without g-ma so I ended allowing her to supervise and took over.
Ex visited 7 more times from May - Aug 2010 then stopped.
So, g-ma has had no contact with kiddo since April 2010. Ex since Aug 2010.
Ex was arrested and is looking at serious jail time.
Low and behold, a week after ex's arrest, I receive papers that g-ma is suing for PARTIAL CUSTODY, not even visitation!!!
She cites her reasons as "she was caregiver and playmate to kiddo when ex had his time."
So, at the motion hearing, Judge says she must allow her to continue her filing simply based on the fact that ex and I have been seperated for more than 6 months as per statue. (we've been divorced for 7 years) The Judge also commented to her that "she is letting her continue, but not telling her she'll get anything."
The kicker, g-ma has allowed ex and his brother, both over 30 year old men live in her home. The bro was also arrested on felony drug charges, released on ROR, then rearrested on theft/receiving stolen, trespass and is back in jail.
The period bro was on ROR, he again lived with g-ma before being rearrested.
Their histories include posession charges and gun charges as well.
Anyways, with her poor supervision leading to kiddo to be put in bad situations, her constant allowing her 2 sons with so many issues in her home, the time frame since she's been incontact with kiddo, and her lack of reasoning to want partial custody, whatare your thoughts on chances? Certainly I don't think she'll get any custody, but visitation? I DO NOT want kiddo in her home and that unsafe environment and do not want a CO telling me I have to.
What are my chances if I just say NO at the concilliation in April to any visitation?
Thanks as always for your thoughts!

There is a "quirk" in PA third party law that I do not totally understand, but every single gpv case in PA that I have ever seen was a partial custody case.

You simply need to emphasize to the judge that grandma has not seen the child for a year, that grandma, when she was supposed to be supervising dad's visitation with the child allowed dad to take the child alone out of the house, and that it resulted in dad purchasing heroin with the child in the car. You need to emphasize the fact that grandma's criminal family members live in her home. You need to emphasize all of the reasons why you believe that grandma should not have contact with your child, and particularly unsupervised contact. You should even let the judge know that you gave grandma a second chance at supervising the visits, because you thought she had learned her lesson, but she did it again.

I won't lie to you, PA is one of the two worst states in the US for parents, when it comes to gpv. However, if you can prove that grandma is not fit to have unsupervised gpv you still have a decent shot at winning the case.

 

[mistoffolees]

If it were me...I would say GP(s) can visit at my home under my supervision. Nothing else due the the hX of supervision neglect.

I agree - and it sounds like the judge may be reasonably sympathetic from his comment "not telling her she'll get anything."

Obviously, you need to do whatever your attorney says. I would suggest that you ask your attorney about:

- GAL. It may be a case where you would benefit from having a GAL ordered. A GAL is bound 100% by what is best for the child and isn't going to be as swayed by grandma's claim that she wants time (unless there's strong evidence that it would be good for the child)

- Start gathering witnesses. Your statement that ex and the brother are convicted felons and living in the same house as grandma isn't very useful. If, OTOH, you have EVIDENCE of that, it would help. So make sure you have copies of EVERYTHING. Check the court records for proof of convictions. Plan to bring in witnesses to demonstrate that they are living there (you can also get some information by subpoena - such as asking grandma who else lives in the house - and then separately asking ex and bro for proof of where they're living).

- When is ex supposed to get out of jail? And what does that translate to with good behavior and early release? If it's a short time, grandma may have a better chance - because of maintaining relationships with that side of the family.

- You mentioned 'conciliation' in April. I believe that's something like mediation where you don't have to agree with anything - and the case would then go to trial. You have every right to not agree, however, I would suggest that it looks better if you find SOMETHING you can agree to. For example, as Blue Meanie suggested, maybe you agree to supervised visitation in your home (or in a paid supervision center). Or agree to video cam communication between grandma and child. Or something. It just seems to me that if you are willing to do SOMETHING, it comes across differently than if you just say 'no' (even if what you agree to is quite restrictive).

Good luck and please keep us posted.

 

[bononos again]

And while PA may have statues, I doubt they have anything to do with the law. (Hint, bononos - the word you're looking for is *statute*.)

Picking on me for my slip of the finger!

 

[Rushia]

I agree - and it sounds like the judge may be reasonably sympathetic from his comment "not telling her she'll get anything."

It sounded to me as if the judge granted standing to the gp. OP will have to clarify.

Obviously, you need to do whatever your attorney says. I would suggest that you ask your attorney about:

- GAL. It may be a case where you would benefit from having a GAL ordered. A GAL is bound 100% by what is best for the child and isn't going to be as swayed by grandma's claim that she wants time (unless there's strong evidence that it would be good for the child)

This is not necessarily true. I'm only saying from personal experience.

- Start gathering witnesses. Your statement that ex and the brother are convicted felons and living in the same house as grandma isn't very useful. If, OTOH, you have EVIDENCE of that, it would help. So make sure you have copies of EVERYTHING. Check the court records for proof of convictions. Plan to bring in witnesses to demonstrate that they are living there (you can also get some information by subpoena - such as asking grandma who else lives in the house - and then separately asking ex and bro for proof of where they're living).

Agreed

- When is ex supposed to get out of jail? And what does that translate to with good behavior and early release? If it's a short time, grandma may have a better chance - because of maintaining relationships with that side of the family.

Actually grandparents don't get that right with a visitation order. It is visitation ONLY the grandparent and they don't have the right to determine who will associate with the child.

- You mentioned 'conciliation' in April. I believe that's something like mediation where you don't have to agree with anything - and the case would then go to trial. You have every right to not agree, however, I would suggest that it looks better if you find SOMETHING you can agree to. For example, as Blue Meanie suggested, maybe you agree to supervised visitation in your home (or in a paid supervision center). Or agree to video cam communication between grandma and child. Or something. It just seems to me that if you are willing to do SOMETHING, it comes across differently than if you just say 'no' (even if what you agree to is quite restrictive).

Good luck and please keep us posted.

It is better to make the judge ORDER something as the problem is if OP agrees to anything it opens the door for gramma to come back and ask for more. Further, then the OP can appeal a judges decision but not one she agreed to.

 

[mistoffolees]

It sounded to me as if the judge granted standing to the gp. OP will have to clarify.

From what OP said, the judge said to grandma 'you do have standing to sue, but that doesn't mean you're going to win'. That sounds like grandma's got a fairly large hill to climb.

It is better to make the judge ORDER something as the problem is if OP agrees to anything it opens the door for gramma to come back and ask for more. Further, then the OP can appeal a judges decision but not one she agreed to.

That's the way conciliation works in PA - if I understand it correctly. If the parties can reach an agreement, it is affirmed by the judge and has the same weight as any other judicial order.

 

[Rushia]

From what OP said, the judge said to grandma 'you do have standing to sue, but that doesn't mean you're going to win'. That sounds like grandma's got a fairly large hill to climb.

Ok, then we were saying the same thing. Silly me.

That's the way conciliation works in PA - if I understand it correctly. If the parties can reach an agreement, it is affirmed by the judge and has the same weight as any other judicial order.

I understand that and I should have clarified that I did not agree with your prior advice of agreeing to something. If she agrees to something then it becomes an order and she cannot appeal. If she agrees to anything at all even something like supervised, it opens the door for gramma to sue again for MORE. It is far better in a gpv suit to not agree to anything and make the judge rule.

 

[bononos again]

I agree - and it sounds like the judge may be reasonably sympathetic from his comment "not telling her she'll get anything."

Obviously, you need to do whatever your attorney says. I would suggest that you ask your attorney about:

- GAL. It may be a case where you would benefit from having a GAL ordered. A GAL is bound 100% by what is best for the child and isn't going to be as swayed by grandma's claim that she wants time (unless there's strong evidence that it would be good for the child)

- Start gathering witnesses. Your statement that ex and the brother are convicted felons and living in the same house as grandma isn't very useful. If, OTOH, you have EVIDENCE of that, it would help. So make sure you have copies of EVERYTHING. Check the court records for proof of convictions. Plan to bring in witnesses to demonstrate that they are living there (you can also get some information by subpoena - such as asking grandma who else lives in the house - and then separately asking ex and bro for proof of where they're living).

- When is ex supposed to get out of jail? And what does that translate to with good behavior and early release? If it's a short time, grandma may have a better chance - because of maintaining relationships with that side of the family.

- You mentioned 'conciliation' in April. I believe that's something like mediation where you don't have to agree with anything - and the case would then go to trial. You have every right to not agree, however, I would suggest that it looks better if you find SOMETHING you can agree to. For example, as Blue Meanie suggested, maybe you agree to supervised visitation in your home (or in a paid supervision center). Or agree to video cam communication between grandma and child. Or something. It just seems to me that if you are willing to do SOMETHING, it comes across differently than if you just say 'no' (even if what you agree to is quite restrictive).

Good luck and please keep us posted.

I have provided my attorney with both ex and bro's criminal records with all past convictions and current pending charges. PA is available online. Yeah!

Because of previous domestic violence from ex (since even in jail he is a party to the action) my atty. was able to get mediation canceled and straight to conciliation, so attys can be present.

Ex's charges are still pending,but, from a source in his family, they believe he is looking at 3-5 years due to recent charges and history.

 

[bononos again]

It sounded to me as if the judge granted standing to the gp. OP will have to clarify.



This is not necessarily true. I'm only saying from personal experience.



Agreed



Actually grandparents don't get that right with a visitation order. It is visitation ONLY the grandparent and they don't have the right to determine who will associate with the child.



It is better to make the judge ORDER something as the problem is if OP agrees to anything it opens the door for gramma to come back and ask for more. Further, then the OP can appeal a judges decision but not one she agreed to.

On the papers she filed, she did have an option to choose visitation or partial custody.
Also, the court denied her interim visits at the motion hearing.
By my attorney, she had kind of leaned toward agreeing to something, if only a few hours a week, but, as the extremes of ex's charges and the brothers moving back in then getting arrested again, she is now leaning me towards agreeing to nothing.
I am thinking it best to not agree. I don't want to be held to do anything that I am uncomfortable with when it comes to kiddo. And I think your point is so valid... I don't want to agree then end up with regret and causing myself another battle.
Who knows, maybe she could do right by kiddo, earn some trust back and realize and admit to her mistakes and her sons mistakes, I would consider setting up supervised zoo trips or "play dates" for g-ma and kiddo, but, I just want it on my terms and when I feel its safe.
She's just making matters worse by choosing this path.

 

[mistoffolees]

I understand that and I should have clarified that I did not agree with your prior advice of agreeing to something. If she agrees to something then it becomes an order and she cannot appeal. If she agrees to anything at all even something like supervised, it opens the door for gramma to sue again for MORE. It is far better in a gpv suit to not agree to anything and make the judge rule.

I think that's presenting a worst case, unlikely scenario (and OP's attorney seems to agree with me).

Realistically, if OP agrees to something and the judge orders it, that is every bit as solid as if OP doesn't agree and the judge orders the same thing. Grandma has no grounds to ask for more in either case.

The appeal argument has some validity, but let's say that OP agrees to supervised visitation of 2 hours every other week. If the judge orders that, why would OP want to appeal it? If the judge orders something MORE than what OP agreed to, then an appeal is still possible. So thinking about it from the basis of appeals doesn't really change my view.

My argument is that judges deal with intransigent people every day - people who are completely unreasonable and refuse to budge an inch. If Grandma comes in all sweet and nice and play the relationship card and then says "I'd be willing to settle for any chance to see my sweet little grandkids, but OP won't even discuss it with me and won't let me even talk to them on the phone", it could look bad for OP. Possibly bad enough that the judge would award grandma more than OP would have agreed to. OTOH, if OP says "your honor, I really don't think that it's a good environment for the kids due to the drug use and convicted criminals there as well as grandma's previous violation of restraining orders (I think that was in there somewhere). However, in order to facilitate the relationship of the kids with their grandmother, I could agree to a max of 2 hours of visitation every other week with a supervisor of my choosing and expenses paid by grandma", it sends an entirely different message.

I'm not suggesting that OP agree to anything that he's truly uncomfortable with. But if he can find SOME amount of relationship between kids and grandma that he's comfortable with, I believe it shows the judge that he's placing the kids' needs above his own - and that has to have a positive effect.

Still, it's a style difference. I won't say that I'm right and you're wrong - because there is no right or wrong. But I think that my approach is every bit as reasonable as yours.

 

[bononos again]

I think that's presenting a worst case, unlikely scenario (and OP's attorney seems to agree with me).

Realistically, if OP agrees to something and the judge orders it, that is every bit as solid as if OP doesn't agree and the judge orders the same thing. Grandma has no grounds to ask for more in either case.

The appeal argument has some validity, but let's say that OP agrees to supervised visitation of 2 hours every other week. If the judge orders that, why would OP want to appeal it? If the judge orders something MORE than what OP agreed to, then an appeal is still possible. So thinking about it from the basis of appeals doesn't really change my view.

My argument is that judges deal with intransigent people every day - people who are completely unreasonable and refuse to budge an inch. If Grandma comes in all sweet and nice and play the relationship card and then says "I'd be willing to settle for any chance to see my sweet little grandkids, but OP won't even discuss it with me and won't let me even talk to them on the phone", it could look bad for OP. Possibly bad enough that the judge would award grandma more than OP would have agreed to. OTOH, if OP says "your honor, I really don't think that it's a good environment for the kids due to the drug use and convicted criminals there as well as grandma's previous violation of restraining orders (I think that was in there somewhere). However, in order to facilitate the relationship of the kids with their grandmother, I could agree to a max of 2 hours of visitation every other week with a supervisor of my choosing and expenses paid by grandma", it sends an entirely different message.

I'm not suggesting that OP agree to anything that he's truly uncomfortable with. But if he can find SOME amount of relationship between kids and grandma that he's comfortable with, I believe it shows the judge that he's placing the kids' needs above his own - and that has to have a positive effect.

Still, it's a style difference. I won't say that I'm right and you're wrong - because there is no right or wrong. But I think that my approach is every bit as reasonable as yours.

I've had those same thoughts. Will it look bad if I won't budge?
But, after seeing kiddo have to empty his pockets and be detector scanned in at the Generations class today, it's hard to be nice. People arguing at check in, a man being made to leavecause he was hopped up on something. It was just a horrible experience.
Generations is what courts order for a 3 hour parenting class and kiddos have a group session.
He's dealing with a Dad in jail whose caused so much drama to this 8 year old and now this.