? about grandparents rights

What is the name of your state? Mo

My ex will be TPR soon and my husband will be adopting the children. My ex has said that his parents wish to file for grandparents rights when that is over. I have thought about voluntarily giving them some time with the children but the ex has said that they want summers, spring break, and half of Christmas Break with the kids. I am not willing to compromise with giving them that much time so I think we could be in for a battle.

I have read that since Troxel v. Granville in June of 2000 that Kansas, where the grandparents live, has decided that their grandparents rights laws are unconstitutional. Missouri, however, just narrowed thier laws since that ruling.

So my question is which state would have jurisdiction over this matter? I assumed that it would be Mo b/c that's where we have residence and where the adoption will be taking place. And do grandparents have rights after an adoption? Everything I have researched until now talks about parents keeping grandkids from the grandparents, not a voluntary TPR.

Thanks for your input.

Sarah

You seem not to have read or understood Troxel. It ONLY said Oregon's Grandparent rights legislation was unconstitiutional.

It did NOT give a blanket unconstitutional stamp to all Grandparent rights legislation. If the Grandparents have a continuing relationship with the children then they MAY have cause to sue for visitation.

In Missouri, a grandparent can request visitation of a child in four situations:

1. If the parents of the child have filed for divorce;

2. If one parent of the child is deceased and the surviving parent denies the grandparent reasonable visitation rights;

3. If the grandparent has been unreasonably denied visitation with the child for more than 90 days; or

4. The child is adopted by a stepparent, another grandparent or other blood relative.

Thanks Belize, I was having a hard time finding Mo laws reguarding this.

Sarah

GPV in MO

It has been quite some time since I looked at MO law concerning Grandparent Visitation. The last I heard, the statute was amended to exclude intact families from suit. All others were subject to suit provided they withheld visitation for a period of at least 90 days. Try this link:
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C400-499/4520000402.HTM

read it carefully. I suggest --strongly suggest that you consult an atty in MO as I am not one and am therefore can not fully brief you on the statute.
Good luck-
Bay

Bay1954 said:

It has been quite some time since I looked at MO law concerning Grandparent Visitation. The last I heard, the statute was amended to exclude intact families from suit. All others were subject to suit provided they withheld visitation for a period of at least 90 days. Try this link:
http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C400-499/4520000402.HTM

read it carefully. I suggest --strongly suggest that you consult an atty in MO as I am not one and am therefore can not fully brief you on the statute.
Good luck-
Bay

Click to expand...

Is there an echo in here

Mo GPV

I'm the echo--sorry I jumped in last night without first reading your reply. That's what happens when I try to walk and chew gum at the same time!!!

BelizeBreeze said:

You seem not to have read or understood Troxel. It ONLY said Oregon's Grandparent rights legislation was unconstitiutional.

Click to expand...

Belize....It was Washington State, not Oregon. It was the Washington State Supreme Court that found the statute to be facially unconstitutional. The USSC affirmed that decision but declined to address the constitutionality of GPV statutes on an overall basis, as it was unneeded to decide Troxel.

In any case...to the Original Poster: Stand your ground on this one. Basically the grandparents are asking for the full visitation rights that would have normally belonged to their son....which is completely unreasonable and which a court would never give them. There is also no guarantee that they would win at all.

Missouri would have jurisdiction.

LdiJ said:

Belize....It was Washington State, not Oregon. It was the Washington State Supreme Court that found the statute to be facially unconstitutional. The USSC affirmed that decision but declined to address the constitutionality of GPV statutes on an overall basis, as it was unneeded to decide Troxel.

In any case...to the Original Poster: Stand your ground on this one. Basically the grandparents are asking for the full visitation rights that would have normally belonged to their son....which is completely unreasonable and which a court would never give them. There is also no guarantee that they would win at all.

Missouri would have jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

I'll grant you the state. But not the rest. Once the decision was handed down in Troxel, it became the U.S. Supreme Court's citation.

BelizeBreeze said:

I'll grant you the state. But not the rest. Once the decision was handed down in Troxel, it became the U.S. Supreme Court's citation.

Click to expand...

I will agree that it became the USSC's citation.....but here is the paragraph that I interpret to mean that they were unwilling to rule on the constitutionality of grandparent visitation statutes in general:

"Because we rest our decision on the sweeping breadth of §26.10.160(3) and the application of that broad, unlimited power in this case, we do not consider the primary constitutional question passed on by the Washington Supreme Court–whether the Due Process Clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation. We do not, and need not, define today the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context. In this respect, we agree with Justice Kennedy that the constitutionality of any standard for awarding visitation turns on the specific manner in which that standard is applied and that the constitutional protections in this area are best “elaborated with care.” Post, at 9 (dissenting opinion). Because much state-court adjudication in this context occurs on a case-by-case basis, we would be hesitant to hold that specific nonparental visitation statutes violate the Due Process Clause as a per se matter.1 See, e.g., Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 49—50, 622 A. 2d 121, 126—127 (1993) (interpreting best-interest standard in grandparent visitation statute normally to require court’s consideration of certain factors); Williams v. Williams, 256 Va. 19, 501 S. E. 2d 417, 418 (1998) (interpreting Virginia nonparental visitation statute to require finding of harm as condition precedent to awarding visitation)."

LdiJ said:

Belize....It was Washington State, not Oregon. It was the Washington State Supreme Court that found the statute to be facially unconstitutional. The USSC affirmed that decision but declined to address the constitutionality of GPV statutes on an overall basis, as it was unneeded to decide Troxel.

In any case...to the Original Poster: Stand your ground on this one. Basically the grandparents are asking for the full visitation rights that would have normally belonged to their son....which is completely unreasonable and which a court would never give them. There is also no guarantee that they would win at all.

Missouri would have jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the extra info. I am worried that they're asking for all that time so my ex husband can see the kids, not them. They were rarely ever around when their son and I were married. And since the divorce the ex has asked to have extra time or switching weekends, esp around bdays, bc his parents are on vacation or late to visit the kids. So it doesn't seem that they have changed much on how often they see the kids. I have been asking myself why then do they want all this time? I can only assume that the time they ask for will only be going to my ex husband for visits.

I hope I am wrong on this one but I doubt it.

Thanks for all your responses.

Sarah