Does my step mother have grandparents rights to my children?

What is the name of your state?
I live in Pennsylvania. My problem is with my step-mother. She owns the house that my husband and I and our 4 children live in. The other night we had a big fight and she threatened to put a For Sale sign in our front yard. My husband came back at her with "you do and you won't see our four kids again". She said that she has grandparents rights, but she only has interest in one of the children. What are her rights in my state? Does she have any even though she is only a step mother?

jenniferlong said:

What is the name of your state?
I live in Pennsylvania. My problem is with my step-mother. She owns the house that my husband and I and our 4 children live in. The other night we had a big fight and she threatened to put a For Sale sign in our front yard. My husband came back at her with "you do and you won't see our four kids again". She said that she has grandparents rights, but she only has interest in one of the children. What are her rights in my state? Does she have any even though she is only a step mother?

Click to expand...

My response:

I don't care if she's a step-mother or a natural mother - - she has no rights to the children if the parents say, "No way, Jose".

Tell her to read Troxel vs. Granville. As a matter of fact, we have discussed Troxel to the point of vomiting on these forums. So, use the search function and look up Troxel. Read all the posts.

IAAL

no stepmom they aint your kids what mom and dad say goes!

ny-tell her no,she doesnt have any rights to the kids,and to go jump off the brooklyn bridge-head first!

sillydad said:

I think if she was your real Mom she could request visitations to the court

Click to expand...

My response:

Do you really "think" that?

What did I say in my initial response? Did you read it? Did you read "Troxel"?

Until you do, you need to stop "thinking".

IAAL

sillydad said:

I think if she was your real Mom she could request visitations to the court, but as a Step-Mom I think she has no right. However, if she tries to sell the house she will have to give the appropiate eviction papers for your state.

Click to expand...

And she will live up to every stereotype for Mother-in Laws and Step-Mother's!

sillydad said:

I think if she was your real Mom she could request visitations to the court, but as a Step-Mom I think she has no right. However, if she tries to sell the house she will have to give the appropiate eviction papers for your state.

Click to expand...

My response:

Parents have a 14th Amendment substantive due process "fundamental right" (a "liberty interest") to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. A state law that, as applied, allows trial courts to grant nonparent visitation rights over a parent's objection whenever the court determines such visitation may serve the child's best interest, unconstitutionally infringes on that right. [Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060-2062]

IAAL

sillydad said:

Well I can see you are a stupid lawer, and also fit the jerky stereotype.

Click to expand...

If you hate stupid people then it must be hell looking into the mirror. You were wrong. Blatantly so. And on this forum, when people come here for valid legal advice, and when a responder gives out what is blatantly false and perhaps dangerous advice, they WILL be called on it.

Next time, (if you're here long enough to respond again) either research your 'thoughts' more thoroughly or don't bother responding.

jenniferlong said:

She owns the house that my husband and I and our 4 children live in. The other night we had a big fight and she threatened to put a For Sale sign in our front yard. My husband came back at her with "you do and you won't see our four kids again".

Click to expand...

The practical issue is that she indeed DOES have the right to sell this property if she so desires. Unless you have a lease, you can end up with legal notice to vacate. So, yeah, she has no LEGAL right to visiation, but she has every right to "punish you" is she so chooses for denying her access to her grandkids by evicting you at the end of your rental term. So you can quote as much case law to her as you wish, but it won't change her rights to sell the place if she's ticked off at you..

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Do you really "think" that?

What did I say in my initial response? Did you read it? Did you read "Troxel"?

Until you do, you need to stop "thinking".

IAAL

Click to expand...

Although you don't care for me. I really do need to correct something here. I can actually be considered to be an "expert" on the issue of Troxel and gpv.
I have spent over 10 years studying this issue and financed one of the amicus briefs in the Troxel case.

PA is a state where grandparents (bio and adoptive) DO have the statutory right to petition for visitation. Troxel is a defense to that however many of the judges in PA "buck" the Troxel decision and award visitation anyway even when the case doesn't meet Troxel standards.

The highers courts in PA have ruled inconsistantly on the issue, therefore in PA there is no clearcut answer. The same problem exists in NY. Most other states have clearer rulings from their higher courts. However no two states are the same in how they have handled this or in how they have specifically defined that the statutes may be used.

There are only two states currently where grandparents have no valid statutory right to petition for visitation. Those states are Florida and Michigan. There is current legislation ongoing in Michigan to attempt to re-write the laws to meet Troxel standards and consitutional muster, however it is stalled.

The Florida legislators attempt a new bill each year, but it never goes anywhere.

Illinois used to be included with Florida and Michigan but a bill did pass this year. The new statute however is expected to eventually get struck down by the Illinois Supreme Court again as it did not correct the deficiencies in the previous bill.

In the rest of the states it is still possible for grandparents to petition for visitation, but it is much harder for them to win and the use of the statutes have been narrowed by the higher courts. In quite a few states a parent with the ability to finance an appeal will almost always win.

My response:

Oh, please! When the hell are you leaving?

Show me ANY Pennsylvania Appellate Court decision that is inconsistent with the following:

Parents have a 14th Amendment substantive due process "fundamental right" (a "liberty interest") to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. A state law that, as applied, allows trial courts to grant nonparent visitation rights over a parent's objection whenever the court determines such visitation may serve the child's best interest, unconstitutionally infringes on that right. [Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060-2062]

This is ESPECIALLY so when we're discussing an intact family, as is our original poster's.

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

Oh, please! When the hell are you leaving?

Show me ANY Pennsylvania Appellate Court decision that is inconsistent with the following:

Parents have a 14th Amendment substantive due process "fundamental right" (a "liberty interest") to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. A state law that, as applied, allows trial courts to grant nonparent visitation rights over a parent's objection whenever the court determines such visitation may serve the child's best interest, unconstitutionally infringes on that right. [Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060-2062]

This is ESPECIALLY so when we're discussing an intact family, as is our original poster's.

IAAL

Click to expand...

sigh.....I wasn't basing my remarks on the original poster...I was attempting to educate you on the status of gpv nationwide. I did that only because you appeared to feel that Troxel cancelled all ability for a gp to recieve visitation. I assumed that because you are an attorney you would be interested in knowing what the true legal status of gpv was on a nationwide basis. Please understand I am an advocate and activist OPPOSED to gpv orders. Otherwise why would I have financed an amicus brief to the USSC on the behalf of the parent?

Despite how you feel about me this is an issue that I have studied seriously and continue to study seriously.

The members of our group (parents) generally win their cases. They win because we know the law, know how to apply it, and know when its necessary to take it to the higher courts. However we are realitistic enough to know that not all parents can win at the trial court level (because judges continue to "buck" Troxel and sadly, many attorneys continue to treat parent vs grandparent disputes as similar to parent vs parent disputes and force their clients into "settling")....and know that in the majority of states the gps still have the statutory right to sue.

I am not trying to give you a hard time here....I am trying to allow you to understand the reality of gpv in the US at this point.

The original poster has nothing to worry about because the "grandmother" is a step grandmother. She has no legal standing to sue for grandparent visitation in PA...therefore Troxel is irrelevant to her situation.

My response:

You know, I'm getting real tired of reading your curriculum vitae, and I'm also tired of reading your, as yet, unfounded rhetoric and opinion.

I asked you, and you have failed to address, my question to you. I'll repeat:

Show me ANY Pennsylvania Appellate Court decision that is inconsistent with the following:

Parents have a 14th Amendment substantive due process "fundamental right" (a "liberty interest") to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. A state law that, as applied, allows trial courts to grant nonparent visitation rights over a parent's objection whenever the court determines such visitation may serve the child's best interest, unconstitutionally infringes on that right. [Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060-2062]

This is ESPECIALLY so when we're discussing an intact family, as is our original poster's. So, stay focused, leave out your Curriculum Vitae, and address the 14th Amendment issue in relation to PA law, and any other State. Please cite actual case law.

This, I've GOT to read!

IAAL

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE said:

My response:

You know, I'm getting real tired of reading your curriculum vitae, and I'm also tired of reading your, as yet, unfounded rhetoric and opinion.

I asked you, and you have failed to address, my question to you. I'll repeat:

Show me ANY Pennsylvania Appellate Court decision that is inconsistent with the following:

Parents have a 14th Amendment substantive due process "fundamental right" (a "liberty interest") to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children. A state law that, as applied, allows trial courts to grant nonparent visitation rights over a parent's objection whenever the court determines such visitation may serve the child's best interest, unconstitutionally infringes on that right. [Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-70, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060-2062]

This is ESPECIALLY so when we're discussing an intact family, as is our original poster's. So, stay focused, leave out your Curriculum Vitae, and address the 14th Amendment issue in relation to PA law, and any other State. Please cite actual case law.

This, I've GOT to read!

IAAL

Click to expand...

Here is a link to a case recently decided (February 2004) in PA

http://parentsrights.org/states/pa/pa22394.html

If you would prefer to read the case on another site the exact citation is:

02/23/2004 Darlene A Bishop v Lisa Marie Piller

There is nothing in the case that you cited which goes against IAAL's premis. In fact, if you read the case correctly, you'll see that although the father has no 'legal relationship' with the child, the courts (both the supreme and appellate) stipulate that the defendant was the father of the child.

Another point in the case you seem to have glossed over was the interpretation of the ground used by the appellant to deny grandparent rights: i.e., the separation clause of Grandparents' Visitation Act, 23, P.S. §§ 1511-1514.

In the majority decision this separation is well-discussed and it would behoove you to read it again.

Just because these grandparents won visitation rights doesn't make your argument solid. The father's relationship with the child was intact (not severed by the courts or himself although in jail) and for that reason the courts denied the 'separation' argument used by appellant.

Nice try though.

LdiJ said:

Here is a link to a case recently decided (February 2004) in PA

http://parentsrights.org/states/pa/pa22394.html

If you would prefer to read the case on another site the exact citation is:

02/23/2004 Darlene A Bishop v Lisa Marie Piller

Click to expand...

My response:

Well, you did it. You found a PA case that flies in the face of Troxel, and the 14th Amendment - - in fact, it mentions neither. While it's inopposite to our original writer's situation, and not at all helpful to those issues, it's still a recent case - - and for that, I applaud you for locating it.

How much would you like to bet that the Bishop case is further appealed on the grounds stated above?

IAAL