Manipulating Grandparents with no biological ties

undefinedWhat is the name of your state? Texas
I have a 6yr old son. The man who we thought was his biological father is not and is now terminating his rights for my husband to adopt. We have known since I found I was pregnant with my son he may not be the alleged fathers baby. But out of immaturity I let the alleged father's family talk me out of having the DNA test done when my son was a newborn. My husband has been in my son's life since he was 18mths old. Now that we have petitioned the courts to terminate the alleged father's rights his parents have stepped in and petititoned the court for visitations. I have heard they have no legal grounds to stand on. Please someone help me. If they can petition the court for visitations stating they have been his grandparents for 6 yrs. Why can't my husband's parents petition the court for visitations since they have also been his grandparents for 5 yrs.
My question really is though without any kind of biological ties can these people who just want control have the visitations with my son? Even though they have not seen him in 7 mths?

chany13 said:

undefinedWhat is the name of your state? Texas
I have a 6yr old son. The man who we thought was his biological father is not and is now terminating his rights for my husband to adopt. We have known since I found I was pregnant with my son he may not be the alleged fathers baby. But out of immaturity I let the alleged father's family talk me out of having the DNA test done when my son was a newborn. My husband has been in my son's life since he was 18mths old. Now that we have petitioned the courts to terminate the alleged father's rights his parents have stepped in and petititoned the court for visitations. I have heard they have no legal grounds to stand on. Please someone help me. If they can petition the court for visitations stating they have been his grandparents for 6 yrs. Why can't my husband's parents petition the court for visitations since they have also been his grandparents for 5 yrs.
My question really is though without any kind of biological ties can these people who just want control have the visitations with my son? Even though they have not seen him in 7 mths?

Click to expand...

I think that you should challenge their standing to sue for visitation rights. In order to have standing they have to be either the biological grandparents or grandparents by virtue of adoption. Since it appears that they are neither you may have a shot at challenging their standing. The law is pretty specific on that issue.

How many times have the grandparents performed caretaker duties? how often have they been allowed to keep junior overnight? What other relationship have they had with the child?

They have every right to petition for visitation. Whether or not they will receive it, regardless of legal standing or not, will depend on the existing relationship.

Although termination of rights usually requires ALL such relative contact, that isn't necessarily the case when a relationship has been established with third-party petitioners.

BelizeBreeze said:

How many times have the grandparents performed caretaker duties? how often have they been allowed to keep junior overnight? What other relationship have they had with the child?

They have every right to petition for visitation. Whether or not they will receive it, regardless of legal standing or not, will depend on the existing relationship.

Although termination of rights usually requires ALL such relative contact, that isn't necessarily the case when a relationship has been established with third-party petitioners.

Click to expand...

Belize, I have to tell you that you truly aren't correct on that one. In third party cases the relationship with the child IS important....but not unless it is first determined that they have standing to sue.

I am personally familiar with many cases where the children had long term relationships with a third party, and that party was denied standing and the cases could not be heard.

LdiJ said:

Belize, I have to tell you that you truly aren't correct on that one. In third party cases the relationship with the child IS important....but not unless it is first determined that they have standing to sue.

I am personally familiar with many cases where the children had long term relationships with a third party, and that party was denied standing and the cases could not be heard.

Click to expand...

You can think anything you want, but the fact is, you would be wrong, regardless of any case you are personally familiar with.

nope

ny-since they are not biologically related to the child,they have no rights of visititation,theyre legal strangers to the child.

BelizeBreeze said:

You can think anything you want, but the fact is, you would be wrong, regardless of any case you are personally familiar with.

Click to expand...

Belize, I appreciate how much knowledge you have. However this is one area of the law where I truly am an expert. Their case cannot be heard unless they have standing. Now if the parent doesn't challenge their standing the judge will give them standing anyway. In this case, they are not biological relatives nor adoptive relatives. The only possible gray area is that their son was the legal father for a period of time. That may convince a judge that they are entitled to standing. However, technically, they are step-grandparents and would not have standing. Therefore its a very valid argument for the parent to use, and it SHOULD be used.

LdiJ-
I know you may think you know what you are saying to be correct but I also have first hand knowledge that what you are saying is incorrect. A co-worker of mine went through almost the excact same thing and the man who turned out not to be the father's parents took her to court for visitation and won because of the fact that the judge stated that the child had a strong relationship with them. The "grandparents" have always had wednesday visits with the child and atleast one weekend day. When they went to court the judge ordered that same visitation schedule to continue even though biologically they were not the childs "real" grandparents. After all it was in the best interest of the child due to his strong ties to those people. Personally I agree with the judge. There is no greater gift you can give your child to surround them with people who love them the more the better.

Hisbabygirl77 said:

LdiJ-
I know you may think you know what you are saying to be correct but I also have first hand knowledge that what you are saying is incorrect. A co-worker of mine went through almost the excact same thing and the man who turned out not to be the father's parents took her to court for visitation and won because of the fact that the judge stated that the child had a strong relationship with them. The "grandparents" have always had wednesday visits with the child and atleast one weekend day. When they went to court the judge ordered that same visitation schedule to continue even though biologically they were not the childs "real" grandparents. After all it was in the best interest of the child due to his strong ties to those people. Personally I agree with the judge. There is no greater gift you can give your child to surround them with people who love them the more the better.

Click to expand...

I did say that there was a grey area within the case, in that their son had been the legal father for a period of time. I didn't guarantee that the parent could successfully challenge standing, I said that the parent should try. My argument with Belize was over the importance of standing and the fact that the case could not proceed if it was determined that they didn't have standing. However, I suspect that the case that you are talking about didn't take place in Ohio (no two states have totally identical third party visitation statutes, and they vary greatly. Some states grant standing to a wider range of people than others). It also wouldn't surprize me if the case took place prior to June 2000.

I also suspect its a case that your co-worker probably could have won on appeal.

Let me give you another example. A woman was engaged and her fiance died in a car accident. While she was finishing college she allowed the paternal grandparents to have the child every weekend. She got to spend alot of time with her child during the week, and used the weekends to be a server in a fancy restaurant, doing double shifts, which earned her enough to support herself and her child. When she graduated she got a very good 8-5 job. As a result she explained to the grandparents that she no longer got to spend much time with her child during the week, therefore the grandparent's weekends were being cut to once a month, but that they could come over in the evenings and visit whenever they wished.

The grandparents felt that they had the right to continue to have every weekend despite the fact that it gave the mother very little time with her child, so they sued. Her lawyer told her that the grandparents were going to win for sure. She found me and asked my advice. I asked her if the father had ever legally established paternity. She said no, because he died before the baby was born. I told her that the grandparents didn't have standing to sue (in her state paternity must previously be established, in a court of law, before paternal gps can sue). She told her attorney, her attorney looked up the law (which the duffus should have already done) said I was right and asked the judge to dismiss the case because the gps didn't have standing. The judge dismissed the case.

Because the mom felt the same way you do, she still continued to give the grandparents one weekend a month despite the fact that they sued her and cost her a ton of money that she couldn't afford.

No it was not in Ohio and No it was just this year that the court case happened. Either way though it depends on the judge. I was just saying that this case could go either way and you were making it sound like the grandparents didnt stand a chance in hell. Not true, As to the woman who posted this post. Why would you NOT want your child to have a relationship with the people who have been their grandparents in almost every sense of the word? That to me seems cruel to the poor child.

I am correct that he has been the LEGAL father? If so, biological or not, they have been the child's grandparents.

lonelyandsad said:

ny-since they are not biologically related to the child,they have no rights of visititation,theyre legal strangers to the child.

Click to expand...

One need not be biologically related to be LEGALLY related. Heck, I'm not biologically related to my kid either.

Hisbabygirl77 said:

No it was not in Ohio and No it was just this year that the court case happened. Either way though it depends on the judge. I was just saying that this case could go either way and you were making it sound like the grandparents didnt stand a chance in hell. Not true, As to the woman who posted this post. Why would you NOT want your child to have a relationship with the people who have been their grandparents in almost every sense of the word? That to me seems cruel to the poor child.

Click to expand...

First, if you will go back and re-read my post to the OP, you will see that I did not indicate that the grandparent had no chance....and no, in third party cases it doesn't just depend on the judge. The judge has far less leeway in a third party case than a judge has in a parent vs parent case. That is particularly true in the central portion of the US where most state laws governing third party cases are more restrictive, and where there has been a lot of case law narrowing the use of the statutes even further.

No matter what state your co-workers case took place in, she would have had a decent shot of overturning that judge's decision on appeal. Not a guaranteed win, but a decent shot.

nextwife said:

I am correct that he has been the LEGAL father? If so, biological or not, they have been the child's grandparents.


One need not be biologically related to be LEGALLY related. Heck, I'm not biologically related to my kid either.

Click to expand...

The issue is that most state's laws regarding third party visitation are very narrowly written. Third parties don't have rights under common law or the constitution. Their rights (or rather their right to file suit) are strictly statutory. The statute in ohio requires that the grandparents either be biological grandparents or grandparents by virtue of adoption. There is no provision for them to be grandparent by virtue of the fact that their son was temporarily considered the legal father although not biologically related to the child or an adoptive parent. I have seen many parents successfully challenge standing in similar circumstances.

Therefore, its a valid legal strategy for this mother to attempt...that has the possibility of ending the case before more serious legal costs come into play. Even if the judge decides to give them standing, and to hear the case, it also sets the stage for an appeal, therefore the judge would be extra carefully in making his/her rulings.

Many of the parents who lose gpv cases turn around and win them on appeal since the Troxel decision came out. Therefore setting the stage for an appeal is also an important part of the strategy of litigating a gpv case.

What people reading Ldij's posts have to realize is that she has an axe to grind. Ldij is associated with an adveserial support group of angry self-centered controling parents who want to deny their children visitation with their grandparents, legal, biological and or adoptive, in addition to persons who have in good faith served as such by reasons of fraud by the parent.

It doesn't matter the facts of the case she will twist them around to make her point and tell everybody else that she is right and knows more than them and that they are wrong. She will advise them to break the law and to defy the lawful order of the court, based on her biased and non professional opinion.

Ldij is not an attorney although she claims to know more than them and to have assisted hundreds, thousands of clients. Most of her dealings are done offline because she advises her "clients" to defy the court and willfully breaks the terms of service of this and other forums.

Here are some of her recent posts from elsewhere:

LdiJ said:

Re: It would never
From: Laura
Date: 06 Nov 2004
Time: 15:59:05
Remote Name: 64.12.116.74
Comments

Ok guys...I have to interject a little realism here. This child is in a 50/50 timeshare with the parents. That means that each parents has their child only about 15 days per month and in all but one or two months a year, only 2 weekends per month. Therefore if grandma wants one weekend, then grandma's child (the parent) is only going to get to spend one weekend a month with their child. Since most parents are working parents...and don't get much "quality" time with their children on weeknights (between dinner, homework and baths) AND its a 50/50 timeshare to boot... its pretty darned selfish of grandma to think that she should get half of her child's quality time with the kid(s)! Lets be real here....."one weekend a month isn't much"...well yeah, its really is LOTS if a parent only gets two of them...and even more so in a 50/50 timeshare. In any case...it isn't going to happen. This one isn't a "winner" for grandma. This is one where I would be advising the parent to join one of the parent's right's groups who fight grandparent visitation so that they can learn how to represent themselves in court and avoid having to spend money on attorneys....because its a "no-brainer". The original poster can contact me at [email protected] if she wants help. Laura

Re: Blagoyavich passed the Law for GP Visitation
From: Laura
Date: 02 Sep 2004
Time: 21:37:12
Remote Name: 205.188.116.135
Comments

Marc, its both more complicated than you are thinking and less complicated than you are thinking. Contact me at [email protected] and tell me your situation and we can talk about it. I am part of a parents rights activist group that was instrumental in getting the original IL statute declared unconsitutional. Please don't panic. The new IL law isn't perfect, and will probably eventually fail before the IL Supreme Court again (because it doesn't correct the original problems) but its better than the previous law. Larua

Re: WHAT???
From: Laura
Date: 04 Nov 2004
Time: 15:32:07
Remote Name: 64.12.116.70
Comments

Rick, I honestly believe that you may not need to do that. Please email me at [email protected] I understand how frustrated you are with the situation with your daughter...but you CAN just stick with visitation and your child support CAN be adjusted if you retire, even if you retire a little early. Please at least consider talking to me before you make any real decisions on this issue. You and I don't see eye to eye on some issues, however I am firmly convinced that you are a good father who loves his child, and who is loved BY his child. The judges and courts who "raped" you over the other issues will NOT be the same judge's and courts that make child support decisions. Again...please talk to me. I DO care. Laura

Click to expand...

LdiJ said:

Sadly, many gpv cases are just like your potential one. They are about control (in cases of parents suing their own children). Grandparents discover that they can no longer control their adult children, and therefore try to control them via the grandkids. Its a really sad situation.

Click to expand...

Why does she say these things? Because

LdiJ said:

I myself had an excessively controlling grandmother and have an excessively controlling brother....so I know that it doesn't ALWAYS work that way...LOL Sometimes its just people that want to lives their lives without being "micro-managed".

Click to expand...

LdiJ said:

To: BB
Belize, I appreciate how much knowledge you have. However this is one area of the law where I truly am an expert. Their case cannot be heard unless they have standing. Now if the parent doesn't challenge their standing the judge will give them standing anyway. In this case, they are not biological relatives nor adoptive relatives. The only possible gray area is that their son was the legal father for a period of time. That may convince a judge that they are entitled to standing. However, technically, they are step-grandparents and would not have standing. Therefore its a very valid argument for the parent to use, and it SHOULD be used.
(This is very bad advice and inacurate to the facts of the case. It is not a matter of the father only being the legal father for a period of time, HE IS STILL THE LEGAL FATHER HAVING DECLINED DNA TEST RESULTS at infancy, the grandparents have standing because the father is still the legal father and in the process of terminating parnetal rights, they have been grandparents to this child for 6 years and by OP's own admission both legal father and his parents have been involved since birth, father attending the birth. Ldij, when you lose your objectivity and superimpose your personal bias, it only confuses the issues. You are so scattered in your posts you even confuse yourself! But your need to control come through every time.)

and to Hisbabygirl,
I did say that there was a grey area within the case, in that their son had been the legal father for a period of time. (He is still the legal father and has been since birth) I didn't guarantee that the parent could successfully challenge standing, I said that the parent should try. My argument with Belize was over the importance of standing and the fact that the case could not proceed if it was determined that they didn't have standing.(Ldij was wrong on the matter of standing) However, I suspect that the case that you are talking about didn't take place in Ohio (no two states have totally identical third party visitation statutes, and they vary greatly. Some states grant standing to a wider range of people than others). It also wouldn't surprize me if the case took place prior to June 2000. (And this case takes place in Texas not Ohio, however in another case where a biological grandmother successfully won visitation rights Ldij told OP to defy the court's order because it wasn't valid, when the court had both jurisdiciton and the grandparent had standing.)

The issue is that most state's laws regarding third party visitation are very narrowly written. Third parties don't have rights under common law or the constitution. Their rights (or rather their right to file suit) are strictly statutory. The statute in ohio (Case is Texas)requires that the grandparents either be biological grandparents or grandparents by virtue of adoption. There is no provision for them to be grandparent by virtue of the fact that their son was temporarily considered the legal father although not biologically related to the child or an adoptive parent. I have seen many parents successfully challenge standing in similar circumstances. (But those are not the facts of the case, the legal father's parents have standing, and he was not "Temporarily" the legal father, he has been since birth. Convoluting the facts to support Ldij's faulty logic won't stand up in court.)

Therefore, its a valid legal strategy for this mother to attempt...that has the possibility of ending the case before more serious legal costs come into play. Even if the judge decides to give them standing, and to hear the case, it also sets the stage for an appeal, therefore the judge would be extra carefully in making his/her rulings. (Your advice is faulty and sets OP up for and expensive and needless court battle and is a bad strategy, this is an issue that might be settled through mediation because the child is 6 yo, they are old enough to know their legal father and grandparents, how is it in the best interest of the child to totally cut out lifetime relaitonships simply to serve the control issues of the mother? This child can benefit from having many adults available to provide love and support throughout their lives.)

Many of the parents who lose gpv cases turn around and win them on appeal since the Troxel decision came out. Therefore setting the stage for an appeal is also an important part of the strategy of litigating a gpv case.

Click to expand...

Intentionally setting a "Stage" for appeal may turn out to be a very bad strategy.

Texas provides that grandparents may obtain visitation in the following circumstances:
(1) incarceration, incompetence, or death of the grandparent’s child;
(2) divorce or separation of the parents;
(3) abuse or neglect of the child by a parent;
(4) adjudication that the child is in need of supervision;
(5) termination of parental rights; or
(6) the child has lived with the grandparent for al least six months during the twenty-four month period preceding filing of the petition.
The petition can either be by way of an original suit or a suit for modification.

In Roby v. Adams, the 15th District Court of Grayson County expanded on this statute by explaining:

"Tex.Fam.Code Ann. ? 153.433 (Vernon Supp. 2002) governs the granting of grandparent access to a child in this case:

The court shall order reasonable access to a grandchild by a grandparent if:

(1) at the time the relief is requested, at least one biological or adoptive parent of the child has not had that parent's parental rights terminated; and

(2) access is in the best interest of the child, and at least one of the following facts is present:

(A) the grandparent requesting access to the child is a parent of a parent of the child and that parent of the child . . . has been found by a court to be incompetent or is dead . . . .

Tex.Fam.Code Ann. ? 153.002 (Vernon 1996) states that the best interest of a child should "always be the primary consideration of the court in determining the issues of conservatorship and possession of and access to the child." A trial court has wide discretion in determining the best interest of a child. See Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). The decision of a trial court will be reversed only if, after considering the record as a whole, it is clear that the trial court abused its discretion. See id.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed. 49 (2000), the presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of his or her child. See id. at 69-72, 120 S.Ct. at 2062-63 (holding the trial court's order granting visitation to grandparents against the parent's decision was unconstitutional).

Heeding the holding in Troxel, we will consider the evidence in its entirety in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in holding that grandparent access was in the best interest of the Roby children, against the presumption that Roby acted in the best interest of his children. During trial, the testimony and evidence directly conflicted."

So, for this case, once one parent terminates their parental rights, the other parent holds sole legal custody and if that parent deems it not in the best interest of the child to accept visitation, the grandparents hold all burden of proof. In this case, not much.