3rd party visitation rights

I have recently broken up with my girlfriend of almost 4 years. When I first entered the relationship, her son, that she had by another man (who is in prison), was around 3-1/2 years old. I was with them for around 4 years, and have been the main male figure in the childs life. They have recently moved to Colorado. I am in Nebraska. She has been back to Nebraska twice, and both times I have only gotten very brief periods of time with her son. I am going to pursue a legal visitation order with her, but am not sure she will cooperate, unfortunately. I have found some information that shows that I do have visitation rights, especially since she is only doing this out of spite.

What I am looking for is anyone who has been in the sort of situation that I am in and what have you done in order to receive visitation? I have no kids of my own, and he is the closest thing that I have to a son. I love him very much and just want to be able to see him on a more consistent basis. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

ps--whoever made the comment about "what happened to parents making the correct choices for their child?" obviously hasn't been in the type of situation that I am in. If you can't realize that some parents just do things out of spite, then you shouldn't even bother being on this website!!!!!!!!

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by ARCHON3
I have recently broken up with my girlfriend of almost 4 years. When I first entered the relationship, her son, that she had by another man (who is in prison), was around 3-1/2 years old. I was with them for around 4 years, and have been the main male figure in the childs life. They have recently moved to Colorado. I am in Nebraska. She has been back to Nebraska twice, and both times I have only gotten very brief periods of time with her son. I am going to pursue a legal visitation order with her, but am not sure she will cooperate, unfortunately. I have found some information that shows that I do have visitation rights, especially since she is only doing this out of spite.

What I am looking for is anyone who has been in the sort of situation that I am in and what have you done in order to receive visitation? I have no kids of my own, and he is the closest thing that I have to a son. I love him very much and just want to be able to see him on a more consistent basis. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

ps--whoever made the comment about "what happened to parents making the correct choices for their child?" obviously hasn't been in the type of situation that I am in. If you can't realize that some parents just do things out of spite, then you shouldn't even bother being on this website!!!!!!!!

My response:

Unfortunately, a boyfriend, ex or otherwise, has no rights to visitation any longer, and not since June 2000. See the United States Supreme Court decision in "Troxel vs. Granville" decided June 2000 (a Grandparent's Rights case), Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the majority opinion for the Court.

And, unfortunately or fortunately (depending on which side of the fence you're on) the decision is now the "Law of the Land".

In short, the Court recognized a parents' role in the rearing of a child, and stepped away from Governmental intrusion upon that relationship. Parents now have the final say-so whether to allow anyone (Grandparents, Uncles, Aunts, or anyone) to see or talk to their children. If a parent says "No", and in the absense of a dire reason, that parent's decision will stand.

So, anything in this regard "after" Troxel (after June 2000) would not be allowed by the court - - especially for a non-relative.

Parenthetically, this is the law for all 50 States no matter what else you've read on this, or any other, site.

I wish you well.

IAAL

BW -

Thank you so much for finding that info. I would be more than happy to become part of your support group during this thing if you would be for me. Also I wasn't able to find anything at this site but I did hear of the term "psychological parent" this may help you as well anyone else at this site. Does anyone know anything about this term? Please help!

Thanks
Mom23

First to IAAL, thanks for the case information. I will look into that case, and see what the decision was exactly. You can let me know if you think I'm not correct about this, but I am taking it directly from the "Nala manual for legal assistants." I understand that this case may have been decided in the U.S.S.C., but at the same time, 1) It is a very recent ruling, and I'm sure that I could find many, many more cases that have been in favor of someone in my situation than not, and 2) "Be aware that the courts, at both the federal and state levels, must apply statutory law where applicable, even in the face of contradictory case law."
I am pretty confident that just because Troxel vs. Granville may have been decided the way that it was, that every state or federal statute that gives me visitation rights didn't just automatically get changed. As a matter of fact, I doubt that any of them changed, therefore I still have legal grounds on which to sue (and win) for visitation. Furthmore, I'm sure that I can find a case or two that has already gone against Troxel etc. The first type of law that is looked for is always statutory law, then secondly, case law. But again, thank you for the information. It may come in handy.

To Mom23, thank you very much for your support, and you are welcome for the info that I gave you. I would love to be in any sort of support group. I also appreciate the "pschological parent" term that you provided. I had not heard of that, and I will look into it as well. Thanks again, and keep in touch.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

If you wish to read the entire decision in Troxel vs. Granville, please click on this:

[url]http://www.parentsrights.org/[/url]

then click on "For the Full Story on Troxel v. Granville Click Here"


Then, click on "Cases dependent on Troxel"
for a listing of all cases decided, and those still in the Appellate stage, since "Troxel".

Good luck to you.

IAAL

Thanks again IAAL. Hope I didn't come off as rude. I will take a good look at all of the information that you have provided. Once again, sorry if I came off wrong. It's just been an emotional night regarding all of this.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by ARCHON3
Thanks again IAAL. Hope I didn't come off as rude. I will take a good look at all of the information that you have provided. Once again, sorry if I came off wrong. It's just been an emotional night regarding all of this.

My response:

Hey, it's okay. I understand your pain, and I can empathize with you on this. Human relations are extremely emotional - - ESPECIALLY when one bonds with a child.

I tried to stay as "bland" as I could in my posting, and not wishing to "challenge" you on any points, knowing the pain you must be going through.

All I want to do is bring the facts to you, whether good or bad. You need to know both ends. As you read Troxel, and the cases decided since, please keep in mind that there were, and are still, others like yourself going through the pain - - and on top of that, they've fought a court case too !

When you've come to your own conclusions, based upon what you've learned, I hope that you'll come back and let me know.

Be strong. Be well.

IAAL

I appreciate your understanding, and professionalism. I have taken a small look at that site that you provided. I had no idea that this was such a big issue. There is quite a bit of info there, so it could take me a while, but I will return and inform you of what I think. I did notice that there were a hand full of states where their current statutes seem to be constitutional. One of them is Nebraska, and that's where I am. We'll see. I'll be back. Thanks.

[LegalBeagle]

FL took 6 months to 'confirm' the GP's have no rights. The FL Supreme Court ruled on a case in Jan2001.


[Edited by LegalBeagle on 03-13-2001 at 12:27 PM]

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by ARCHON3
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

I'm going to keep looking into this, but it's not something that I'm going to rush into. I think cooler heads will prevail in the long run (hopefully). I will continue to try talking, but with her mother though; the grandma. Unfortunately, the mother and I just can't talk right now without hurting eachother. Thanks.