• 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.

Paternal Grandparents need help

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

Tim Sunderland

Junior Member
My wife and I live in Southern California. We are the paternal grandparents of a four-year-old boy. Our son and the mother never married. They have not lived together since the child was six months. He does not pay child support and is marginally employed (although he and the mother do get along). She has since had a second child, a one-year old boy from another man, who also does not support the child and has a criminal history.

My wife and I have been involved in our grandson's life since day one, and we have him for the weekend several times a month, and we have also had to come to the rescue with the mother has had problems, although we do not financial support her. She gets county aid (San Bernardino County). Maternal grandmother has MS and cannot handle the kids on her own.

Until recently mother was living with her mother, but was thrown out for drug abuse and associated problems. She has been living on and off with a male drug abuser, along with the two little boys.

Lots of bad stuff, but nothing consistent enough to manage to get custody of our grandson (the other child's extended paternal family will gladly take him if they could). Mother is currently employed as a hairdresser, but has had problems keeping a job and is having the same problems now.

Child Protective Serves has several files on her, but nothing active. A CPS caseworker told us that she knows (in her heart) that the mother is abusing drugs, but has been unable to catch her. CPS caseworker says that she suspects the mother will eventually lose her job and will probably go on a drug binge and not pick up the kids for an extended period of time.

She advised us that at that time we need to file an emergency order for temporary custody to get custody of our grandson.

Mother got arrested for DUI last week. Now is out of jail and is driving the kids around in an unregistered, uninsured car, and her license is suspended. While she was in jail, the children were left with the boyfriend for 36 hours. He later left them with his aunt.

How does the procedure for temporary emergency custody work? Does anybody know the procedure? I write well (published many times) but I want to make sure that I provide the judge with the he material he/she needs to make a decision.

My wife and I are financialy okay, but I don't want to have to pay a lot of money to an attorney if I don't have to.

By the way, we have the support of the maternal grandmother. The extended family of the younger child is also more than willing to take over his care. Our son probably will not get involved. He does not want the responsibility.
 


rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Is CPS aware of the recent DUI?
It is best with an attorney although not impossible.
I suggest you contact the other grandparents and as a group petition the courts for the emergency orders CPS suggested you file.
You may call legal aid and also contact the Family Law Facilitator's office of the Superior court, Thank you for providing the county http://www.sbcounty.gov/courts/
Click on "FAMILY" forms are also available on that site.
Keep us updated.
 

Tim Sunderland

Junior Member
CPS is aware of the DUI, but the caeworker said she cannot do anything unless another case is opened. Of the three CPs workers I have dealt with, she is the most helpful, but my wife still refers to themn a "Mother Protective Services."

Thanks for the referrals on the other stuff.
 

Tim Sunderland

Junior Member
CPS is aware of the DUI, but the caseworker said she cannot do anything unless another case is opened. Of the three CPs workers I have dealt with, she is the most helpful, but my wife still refers to themn a "Mother Protective Services."

Thanks for the referrals on the other stuff.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Tim Sunderland said:
CPS is aware of the DUI, but the caseworker said she cannot do anything unless another case is opened. Of the three CPs workers I have dealt with, she is the most helpful, but my wife still refers to themn a "Mother Protective Services."

Thanks for the referrals on the other stuff.
I think that you should get a consult with an attorney. I see some potential problems. I am not sure that you have enough for the judge to consider it an emergency (at least not enough that you can prove). If the judge doesn't, then the mom is likely to cut you off from having any contact with your grandchild. Talk over the pros and cons with an attorney before taking any action.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Tim Sunderland said:
CPS is aware of the DUI, but the caeworker said she cannot do anything unless another case is opened. Of the three CPs workers I have dealt with, she is the most helpful, but my wife still refers to themn a "Mother Protective Services."

Thanks for the referrals on the other stuff.
You are welcome, please remember the information you get from an intake worker at CPS is not the final word. Go to the same SB court site and search under her and the boyfrined's name also check the master file which may contain other records, check in adjacent counties, thins may help with developing child endangerment case, it will also tell you when she has court for the DUI. The local police may keep an eye out for her driving on a suspended license in an unregistered and uninsured car. That could result in a CPS case in and of it's self without any reflection on you.

I didn't say not to use an attorney, I said it is possible and where to go to explore your options and for more referals. It is best to work together and even enlist your son's help, this is separate from child support isues.

I have no bias here and only look at the best interest of the child. Whereas Ldij in her own words states her bias on a locked thread
09-21-2005
I am the webmaster and chairperson for a national support group for parents fighting visitation lawsuits with dysfunctional grandparents or other third parties. I was an active lobbyist for change because of the way that the laws were being applied pre-Troxel. ........
I tend however to be more focused on what really happens out there, as opposed to what is necessarily moral or fair. I have found that information to be so valuable in fighting court cases, (I have been involved directly in several hundred over the last 10 years, and indirectly involved in many more) that I feel compelled to respond that way.

In addition, I have some views regarding joint custody and infants that isn't necessarily mainstream for this board, so with those two issues sometimes people misunderstand and think that I have a bias towards mothers.
 

Tim Sunderland

Junior Member
Thank you for your input. We are really torn about this. As long as the mother is reasonably taking care of the kids, my wife and I seriously feel as if the best thing to do is leave them with her. We see our grandson several times a month, so we can monitor the situation.

And even though he enjoys being with us, he is four years old and he is protective of his mother. He only knows that she is Mom, and not that anything is going on that might hurt him. I know that if we file for custody when she can't do it anymore, it is going to traumatize him.

Our concern is if she gets arrested again, goes on a binge, loses her job, or just gets to the point where the drugs and alcohol are ruling her life.

Our plan is to research out and have everything ready so that if that happens, we can move quickly to get it done.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
rmet4nzkx said:
You are welcome, please remember the information you get from an intake worker at CPS is not the final word. Go to the same SB court site and search under her and the boyfrined's name also check the master file which may contain other records, check in adjacent counties, thins may help with developing child endangerment case, it will also tell you when she has court for the DUI. The local police may keep an eye out for her driving on a suspended license in an unregistered and uninsured car. That could result in a CPS case in and of it's self without any reflection on you.

I didn't say not to use an attorney, I said it is possible and where to go to explore your options and for more referals. It is best to work together and even enlist your son's help, this is separate from child support isues.

I have no bias here and only look at the best interest of the child. Whereas Ldij in her own words states her bias on a locked thread
Rmet, this grandparent obviously isn't dysfunctional...and mom clearly is. We are talking about apples and oranges.

My advice was right on target. There may not be enough here for a judge to make emergency orders, and if the judge refuses, mom is very likely to cut them off from the child.

A local attorney is the best person to advise him whether or not there is enough to take the risk. Neither you nor I are in the best position to do that.
 
Last edited:

LdiJ

Senior Member
Tim Sunderland said:
Thank you for your input. We are really torn about this. As long as the mother is reasonably taking care of the kids, my wife and I seriously feel as if the best thing to do is leave them with her. We see our grandson several times a month, so we can monitor the situation.

And even though he enjoys being with us, he is four years old and he is protective of his mother. He only knows that she is Mom, and not that anything is going on that might hurt him. I know that if we file for custody when she can't do it anymore, it is going to traumatize him.

Our concern is if she gets arrested again, goes on a binge, loses her job, or just gets to the point where the drugs and alcohol are ruling her life.

Our plan is to research out and have everything ready so that if that happens, we can move quickly to get it done.
That is a good plan. Again, I suggest a consult with a local attorney. Sometimes they will give free initial consults, but even if they don't, paying for 30 minutes to an hour of one's time would definitely help you prepare.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
LdiJ said:
Rmet, this grandparent obviously isn't dysfunctional...and mom clearly is. We are talking about apples and oranges.

My advice was right on target. There may not be enough here for a judge to make emergency orders, and if the judge refuses, mom is very likely to cut them off from the child.

A local attorney is the best person to advise him whether or not there is enough to take the risk. Neither you nor I are in the best position to do that.
You are right, this grandparent isn't dysfunctional but you tend to discourage most grandparents just as you did here, that is bias.

OP wasn't looking for your opinion about what he should or shouldn't do, he was looking for advice related to the legal process for custody and or guardianship of this child with whom he has a close relationship and concurance between all the grandparents. A part of that concern was whether or not an attorney is required. I very objectively and knowledgeably answered those questions in some detail so that depending on the facts after his research he and all the concerned parties could proceed in an informed manner. Who knows what he might uncover just searching the SBCO website. This is far different than not addressing the question and voicing your biased opinion, remember what IAAL has asked you re CA law questions.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
rmet4nzkx said:
You are right, this grandparent isn't dysfunctional but you tend to discourage most grandparents just as you did here, that is bias.

OP wasn't looking for your opinion about what he should or shouldn't do, he was looking for advice related to the legal process for custody and or guardianship of this child with whom he has a close relationship and concurance between all the grandparents. A part of that concern was whether or not an attorney is required. I very objectively and knowledgeably answered those questions in some detail so that depending on the facts after his research he and all the concerned parties could proceed in an informed manner. Who knows what he might uncover just searching the SBCO website. This is far different than not addressing the question and voicing your biased opinion, remember what IAAL has asked you re CA law questions.
Ok, now I am going to get "nasty"...I have promised Mary that I won't challenge without cause but I can't let this go.

You can "pound sand" when it comes to grandparent issues...CA or not. I have no issue with IAAL and gpv issues in CA...and you are well aware of that. When did IAAL last challenge me on gpv in ANY state, let alone CA? You are being childish in even referencing that.

You are completely biased on gp issues. You continue to insist on your incredibly biased point of view despite the fact that case law, all across the country and including the USSC, completely contradicts your opinion. As a professional, you insist on giving grandparents parity with parents, even though you know perfectly well that case law all across the country (since 2000) says differently. That alone makes your advice on any grandparent issue without credibility. You demonstrate a fundamental refusal to understand the legal issues.

You have given this grandparent PISS POOR advice.

I, on the other hand actually understand where this grandparent is coming from and sympathize. I recognize this grandparend as a good one who wants the best for his grandchild. I am suggesting that this grandparent consult with a local attorney to make sure that his strategies have a chance of producing the right results....WITHOUT potentially estranging him from his grandchild permanently. You refuse to even acknowledge that permanent estrangement can happen.

Sadly, many grandparents listen to people like you, and end up permanently estranged from their grandchildren. Others, who are wiser, listen to people like me.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Child endangerment not GP rights.

LdiJ said:
Ok, now I am going to get "nasty"...I have promised Mary that I won't challenge without cause but I can't let this go.

You can "pound sand" when it comes to grandparent issues...CA or not. I have no issue with IAAL and gpv issues in CA...and you are well aware of that. When did IAAL last challenge me on gpv in ANY state, let alone CA? You are being childish in even referencing that.

You are completely biased on gp issues. You continue to insist on your incredibly biased point of view despite the fact that case law, all across the country and including the USSC, completely contradicts your opinion. As a professional, you insist on giving grandparents parity with parents, even though you know perfectly well that case law all across the country (since 2000) says differently. That alone makes your advice on any grandparent issue without credibility. You demonstrate a fundamental refusal to understand the legal issues.

You have given this grandparent PISS POOR advice.

I, on the other hand actually understand where this grandparent is coming from and sympathize. I recognize this grandparend as a good one who wants the best for his grandchild. I am suggesting that this grandparent consult with a local attorney to make sure that his strategies have a chance of producing the right results....WITHOUT potentially estranging him from his grandchild permanently. You refuse to even acknowledge that permanent estrangement can happen.

Sadly, many grandparents listen to people like you, and end up permanently estranged from their grandchildren. Others, who are wiser, listen to people like me.
Biased and nasty as usual and why? Because I answered OP's question without bias and gave specific direction to the resources in his jurisdiction so that he can make informed decisions and collect evidence to take to an attorney for the best possible advice. If you didn't notice I included all interested parties including the child's father. While this was posted on the grandparent's rights forum, it is more about child custody and abuse/neglect for which CA has some very specific laws meant to protect, children and their best welfare.

My advice was based on the laws of the State of CA and the specific jurisdiction. IAAL doesn't have to break in because I already provided links for OP. We don't have enough facts to predict how mom or a judge may/will act because we don't have the facts and we can't predict. Many things might happen, that is no reason to have a closed mind at this point. You are the one with bias against grandparents even when you sympathize with them, but this is a legal site not a support group to be clouded by bias and or sympathy.

Do I have personal biases, sure I do, but you don't know what they are.
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Tim,
I did some research re another possibility, appointment of a GAL for the child this can aid in both future visitation and custody issues.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
CA CODES
FAMILY.CODE 3150-3153

3150. (a) If the court determines that it would be in the best
interest of the minor child, the court may appoint private counsel to
represent the interests of the child in a custody or visitation
proceeding.
(b) Upon entering an appearance on behalf of a child pursuant to
this chapter, counsel shall continue to represent that child unless
relieved by the court upon the substitution of other counsel by the
court or for cause.

3151. (a) The child's counsel appointed under this chapter is
charged with the representation of the child's best interests. The
role of the child's counsel is to gather facts that bear on the best
interests of the child, and present those facts to the court,
including the child's wishes when counsel deems it appropriate for
consideration by the court pursuant to Section 3042. The counsel's
duties, unless under the circumstances it is inappropriate to
exercise the duty, include interviewing the child, reviewing the
court files and all accessible relevant records available to both
parties, and making any further investigations as the counsel
considers necessary to ascertain facts relevant to the custody or
visitation hearings.
(b) At the court's request, counsel shall prepare a written
statement of issues and contentions setting forth the facts that bear
on the best interests of the child. The statement shall set forth
a summary of information received by counsel, a list of the sources
of information, the results of the counsel's investigation, and such
other matters as the court may direct. The statement of issues and
contentions shall not contain any communication subject to Section
954 of the Evidence Code. The statement of issues and contentions
shall be filed with the court and submitted to the parties or their
attorneys of record at least 10 days before the hearing, unless the
court orders otherwise. At the court's request, counsel may orally
state the wishes of the child if that information is not a privileged
communication subject to Section 954 of the Evidence Code, for
consideration by the court pursuant to Section 3042. Counsel shall
not be called as a witness in the proceeding. Counsel may introduce
and examine counsel's own witnesses, present arguments to the court
concerning the child's welfare, and participate further in the
proceeding to the degree necessary to represent the child adequately.
In consultation with representatives of the Family Law Section of
the State Bar and the Senate and Assembly Judiciary Committees, the
Judicial Council may specify standards for the preparation of the
statement of issues and contentions and may promulgate a model
statement of issues and contentions, which shall include simple
instructions regarding how to subpoena a witness, and a blank
subpoena form.
(c) The child's counsel shall have the following rights:
(1) Reasonable access to the child.
(2) Standing to seek affirmative relief on behalf of the child.
(3) Notice of any proceeding, and all phases of that proceeding,
including a request for examination affecting the child.
(4) The right to take any action that is available to a party to
the proceeding, including, but not limited to, the following: filing
pleadings, making evidentiary objections, and presenting evidence
and being heard in the proceeding, which may include, but shall not
be limited to, presenting motions and orders to show cause, and
participating in settlement conferences, trials, seeking writs,
appeals, and arbitrations.
(5) Access to the child's medical, dental, mental health, and
other health care records, school and educational records, and the
right to interview school personnel, caretakers, health care
providers, mental health professionals, and others who have assessed
the child or provided care to the child. The release of this
information to counsel shall not constitute a waiver of the
confidentiality of the reports, files, and any disclosed
communications. Counsel may interview mediators; however, the
provisions of Sections 3177 and 3182 shall apply.
(6) The right to reasonable advance notice of and the right to
refuse any physical or psychological examination or evaluation, for
purposes of the proceeding, which has not been ordered by the court.

(7) The right to assert or waive any privilege on behalf of the
child.
(8) The right to seek independent psychological or physical
examination or evaluation of the child for purposes of the pending
proceeding, upon approval by the court.

3151.5. If a child is represented by court appointed counsel, at
every hearing in which the court makes a judicial determination
regarding custody or visitation the court shall consider any
statement of issues and contentions of the child's counsel. Any
party may subpoena as a witness any person listed in the statement of
issues and contentions as having provided information to the
attorney, but the attorney shall not be called as a witness.

3152. (a) The child's counsel may, upon noticed motion to all
parties and the local child protective services agency, request the
court to authorize release of relevant reports or files, concerning
the child represented by the counsel, of the relevant local child
protective services agency.
(b) The court shall review the reports or files in camera in order
to determine whether they are relevant to the pending action and
whether and to what extent they should be released to the child's
counsel.
(c) Neither the review by the court nor the release to counsel
shall constitute a waiver of the confidentiality of the reports and
files. Counsel shall not disclose the contents or existence of the
reports or files to anyone unless otherwise permitted by law.



3153. < >
----
During the 36 hours mom was in jail, no doublt there was no authorization under the following statute, which could in turn be used to demonstrate child endangerment since the child was not placed with his relative.

CA CODES
FAMILY.CODE
6550-6552

6550. (a) A caregiver's authorization affidavit that meets the
requirements of this part authorizes a caregiver 18 years of age or
older who completes items 1 to 4, inclusive, of the affidavit
provided in Section 6552 and signs the affidavit to enroll a minor in
school and consent to school-related medical care on behalf of the
minor. A caregiver who is a relative and who completes items 1 to 8,
inclusive, of the affidavit provided in Section 6552 and signs the
affidavit shall have the same rights to authorize medical care and
dental care for the minor that are given to guardians under Section
2353 of the Probate Code. The medical care authorized by this
caregiver who is a relative may include mental health treatment
subject to the limitations of Section 2356 of the Probate Code.
(b) The decision of a caregiver to consent to or to refuse medical
or dental care for a minor shall be superseded by any contravening
decision of the parent or other person having legal custody of the
minor, provided the decision of the parent or other person having
legal custody of the minor does not jeopardize the life, health, or
safety of the minor.
(c) A person who acts in good faith reliance on a caregiver's
authorization affidavit to provide medical or dental care, without
actual knowledge of facts contrary to those stated on the affidavit,
is not subject to criminal liability or to civil liability to any
person, and is not subject to professional disciplinary action, for
that reliance if the applicable portions of the affidavit are
completed. This subdivision applies even if medical or dental care
is provided to a minor in contravention of the wishes of the parent
or other person having legal custody of the minor as long as the
person providing the medical or dental care has no actual knowledge
of the wishes of the parent or other person having legal custody of
the minor.

(d) A person who relies on the affidavit has no obligation to make
any further inquiry or investigation.
(e) Nothing in this section relieves any individual from liability
for violations of other provisions of law.
(f) If the minor stops living with the caregiver, the caregiver
shall notify any school, health care provider, or health care service
plan that has been given the affidavit. The affidavit is invalid
after the school, health care provider, or health care service plan
receives notice that the minor is no longer living with the
caregiver.
(g) A caregiver's authorization affidavit shall be invalid, unless
it substantially contains, in not less than 10-point boldface type
or a reasonable equivalent thereof, the warning statement beginning
with the word "warning" specified in Section 6552. The warning
statement shall be enclosed in a box with 3-point rule lines.
(h) For purposes of this part, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Person" < >
(2) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, stepparent, brother,
sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, uncle,
aunt, niece, nephew, first cousin, or any person denoted by the
prefix "grand" or "great," or the spouse of any of the persons
specified in this definition, even after the marriage has been
terminated by death or dissolution.
(3) "School-related medical care" < >
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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