To IAAL--I have a couple of questions for you, if you don't mind. First, I am kind of curious if you are a member of that "parental coalition" site that you directed me to? I'm assuming not, but again just curious. As I said before, it will take me some time, well, a day or two maybe to go through the cases on this.
MY RESPONSE: I got a chuckle out of that ! Thanks. But, no, I have no connection whatsoever with this, or any other fanatical group - - unless you include the State Bar of California as a fanatical group. Seriously though, my connection to that group is merely a "click" on my keyboard or mouse, and that's it. It was a place that had the full text of Troxel, and other cases, for you to read. That's all.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree or disagree with that site, or Troxel, or anything else having to do with your issue. My views are not in question. All I'm doing is helping you to come together, and get closer to, the things you should read so that you can make a decision for yourself.
I was wondering if you knew if any of the cases specifically mentioned "de facto" or " in loco parentis" status? It seems that most of these cases, including the main one, are specifically about grandparents. I did see one that specifically mentioned "third party visitation" that I'll be especially interested in. I was also quite interested in the amicus curiae brief that was issued (I can't remember by who at this time.)
MY RESPONSE: While these are "grandparent" cases, remember there is a "penumbra" that comes with all of these cases; and that is, 3rd party visitation, whether by Grandparents or otherwise. The thrust of all of the decisions is that it is the parent(s) who have the "last word" when it comes to whom they want to allow to see their child.
It unfortunately looks like the mom is going to fight me on this. I have no idea why. I'm pretty sure it's just b/c she doesn't like the fact that I will sue her over this, but as I explained to her, it's only b/c I care so much for her son. They were in town from early Saturday morning until early this morning, and she only allowed me to see him for 4-1/2 hours last night total. I understand that she has bad feelings towards me regarding our failed relationship, but to put the child in the middle is ridiculous & wrong.
MY RESPONSE: I can thoroughly understand why "Mom" wants to fight you in this matter. She couldn't care less about the love you and the child shared, and couldn't care less about the mental harm she may be doing to her child. She's selfish, and doesn't want you in her life anymore. Simple.
And, the law appears to be in her favor.
Another question I have is, would it help it I was able to get permission from the biological father for visitation? I know that it's not a nail in the coffin, but could it help? I figure that it can't hurt.
MY RESPONSE: I don't believe that would help. She's the custodial parent, and what she says, goes - - according to the current state of the law.
Regarding the stance of that "parental coalition", I just don't think that they are understanding that there are certain circumstances where parents are just doing things out of spite. I do understand why a parent would want to keep a child away from bad people. I would do the same thing. But I don't understand why parents would want to keep their child away from good people.
MY RESPONSE: Putting my "empathetic hat" on, I agree with you in your argument, with the exception that she, on the other hand might be thinking to herself, "Why should I be saddled with having to see someone I no longer want to see, and then to allow to see my child, when that person isn't even a blood relative?".
It reminds me of when I worked in child support enforcement. And this is no bash on women, but it just happened this way most often b/c the woman is usually the custodial parent. I can't even count how many times I heard the mom say, "I want that ******* in jail" or "I'm going to get that guy." That's just not the issue. The issue is getting the child support, not hurt the other party. Anyway, guess I'm blabbing. Thanks to everyone for your help.
MY RESPONSE: I agree with you again. But, as you and I both know, some marriages end up on the dumper because one or both people feel they've been "stabbed in the back"; e.g., adultery, and want nothing better than to have "justifiable homicide" decriminalized.
I know you have a lot of reading to do.
Fight the good fight. Who knows, you just might get her to agree voluntarily.
IAAL