evidentiary hearing

[aarennels]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV
Nobody asked "new" judge to vacate prior court's orders. Is this a rule 60 (b) violatoin? Can I ask for evidentiary hearing to see if anything wrong with prior Court Order? Nobody has alleged "changed circumstances" to vacate prior court order (or is changed circumstances only for custody)? ---- Mine is grand parent visitation. To discontinue visitation "new" judge said "parent's determination (they gave no reasons) must be respected and given deference" and to insure no more visitation 'new' JUDGE ruled to no longer enforce "stipulated agreement" (Court Order of prior judge).

If this is confusing to you -I'm more confused. WHAT HAPPENED? The "new" judge "ruled" without an evidentiary hearing ---- that is what went wrong but he denied my reconsideraton/rehearing requesting an evidentiary hearing. I have filed an appeal but until I know WHAT "new" judge CAN do --- I have no appeal. My new hired appeal attorney doesn't know answers to my questions ---

Sad grandma

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV
Nobody asked "new" judge to vacate prior court's orders. Is this a rule 60 (b) violatoin? Can I ask for evidentiary hearing to see if anything wrong with prior Court Order? Nobody has alleged "changed circumstances" to vacate prior court order (or is changed circumstances only for custody)? ---- Mine is grand parent visitation. To discontinue visitation "new" judge said "parent's determination (they gave no reasons) must be respected and given deference" and to insure no more visitation 'new' JUDGE ruled to no longer enforce "stipulated agreement" (Court Order of prior judge).

If this is confusing to you -I'm more confused. WHAT HAPPENED? The "new" judge "ruled" without an evidentiary hearing ---- that is what went wrong but he denied my reconsideraton/rehearing requesting an evidentiary hearing. I have filed an appeal but until I know WHAT "new" judge CAN do --- I have no appeal. My new hired appeal attorney doesn't know answers to my questions ---

Sad grandma

You would have to explain the background to get a clear answer, but absolutely no, in a third party visitation case a change in circumstances is NOT required for a visitation order to be vacated.

And...if the parent(s) was in enough agreement that a stipulated order was made, and is now no longer in agreement...something had to have happened.

 

[Gracie3787]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV
Nobody asked "new" judge to vacate prior court's orders. Is this a rule 60 (b) violatoin? Can I ask for evidentiary hearing to see if anything wrong with prior Court Order? Nobody has alleged "changed circumstances" to vacate prior court order (or is changed circumstances only for custody)? ---- Mine is grand parent visitation. To discontinue visitation "new" judge said "parent's determination (they gave no reasons) must be respected and given deference" and to insure no more visitation 'new' JUDGE ruled to no longer enforce "stipulated agreement" (Court Order of prior judge).

If this is confusing to you -I'm more confused. WHAT HAPPENED? The "new" judge "ruled" without an evidentiary hearing ---- that is what went wrong but he denied my reconsideraton/rehearing requesting an evidentiary hearing. I have filed an appeal but until I know WHAT "new" judge CAN do --- I have no appeal. My new hired appeal attorney doesn't know answers to my questions ---

Sad grandma

Some kind of motion or petition must have been filed, that led to the hearing where the new Judge vacated the order.

What was the motion/petition requesting, and who filed it?

 

[lkdhope]

Some kind of motion or petition must have been filed, that led to the hearing where the new Judge vacated the order.

What was the motion/petition requesting, and who filed it?

Hope the op comes back with more details as I would certainly be interested with hearing what was filed to vacate the original order.

 

[aarennels]

motion, then opposition and counter-motion filed.

Nevada

I filed a motion to request Court to order respondents "comply" with the stiuplated agreement - the Court Order (by a prior judge). Case shuffled to new judge.

respondents filed opposition to "not comply" and counter-motion titled "to terminate grandparent visitation" and argued by their "opinions" from the USSC in Troxel. Nobody asked New Judge to not enforce prior Court Order. I met requirements to petition pursuant NRS125C.050 (2) & (3) in 2005 and before the scheduled evidentiary hearing in June 2006 respondents and I settled on limited/restricted visitation. They argued to keep visitation "restricted" and requested visitation at "their discretion"

Judge ruled I had not met the "requisite legal standard" (RLS) to continue visitation and he ruled "to no longer enforce prior Court order"

My point == I cannot meet the RSL without an evidentiary hearing. Nobody asked to evaporate the entire prior Court Order. Judge determined "parents' decision must be respected and given deference" but the NRS125C allows deference/respect to the parents' presumptive rebuttable decision BUT I "thought" I was entitled to evidentiary hearing as stated in subsections (4) & (5) and IF I overcome their reasons and provide clear and convincing evidence to continue visitation the judge "shall" pursuant subsection (6) make the final determination. I “think” word “shall” requires judge to follow the statute; and (6) can only happen after (4) & (5) which require an evidentiary hearing.

The ruling by the judge is not based on the preponderance of evidence – because for 3 years the visits have gone “without incident” (in his final decision) and the psychologists we’ve been to (at respondents’ request ALL say keep contact – I raised child from age 2-5 years after her natural mother died.)

I filed appeal but (here is my confusion) -- what abuse of discretion applies? I want my day in Court to rebut the presumptive parental decision (stated in statute) and "NOBODY" asked Judge to evaporate the prior Court Order (I think he went past what was in the pleadings) -- I am confused.

IF the judge can remove my visitation just because the parents say to do it then WHY am I paying attorneys to follow the NRS125C.050?

 

[LdiJ]

Nevada

I filed a motion to request Court to order respondents "comply" with the stiuplated agreement - the Court Order (by a prior judge). Case shuffled to new judge.

respondents filed opposition to "not comply" and counter-motion titled "to terminate grandparent visitation" and argued by their "opinions" from the USSC in Troxel. Nobody asked New Judge to not enforce prior Court Order. I met requirements to petition pursuant NRS125C.050 (2) & (3) in 2005 and before the scheduled evidentiary hearing in June 2006 respondents and I settled on limited/restricted visitation. They argued to keep visitation "restricted" and requested visitation at "their discretion"

Judge ruled I had not met the "requisite legal standard" (RLS) to continue visitation and he ruled "to no longer enforce prior Court order"

My point == I cannot meet the RSL without an evidentiary hearing. Nobody asked to evaporate the entire prior Court Order. Judge determined "parents' decision must be respected and given deference" but the NRS125C allows deference/respect to the parents' presumptive rebuttable decision BUT I "thought" I was entitled to evidentiary hearing as stated in subsections (4) & (5) and IF I overcome their reasons and provide clear and convincing evidence to continue visitation the judge "shall" pursuant subsection (6) make the final determination. I “think” word “shall” requires judge to follow the statute; and (6) can only happen after (4) & (5) which require an evidentiary hearing.

The ruling by the judge is not based on the preponderance of evidence – because for 3 years the visits have gone “without incident” (in his final decision) and the psychologists we’ve been to (at respondents’ request ALL say keep contact – I raised child from age 2-5 years after her natural mother died.)

I filed appeal but (here is my confusion) -- what abuse of discretion applies? I want my day in Court to rebut the presumptive parental decision (stated in statute) and "NOBODY" asked Judge to evaporate the prior Court Order (I think he went past what was in the pleadings) -- I am confused.

IF the judge can remove my visitation just because the parents say to do it then WHY am I paying attorneys to follow the NRS125C.050?

If the parent filed a motion to "terminate grandparent visitation" then that absolutely was a motion to terminate/evaporate the previous order. Apparently the judge applied the Troxel standards and ruled against you.

If you intend to pursue this further, then you need an appellate attorney who is well versed in grandparent visitation laws, and that will not be cheap.

I don't see any abuse of discretion on the part of the judge, but your post was a little disjointed and unclear. Its clear that you do not undertand how the law works if you did not understand that there was a motion in place to terminate the original agreement/court order.

 

[aarennels]

thanks

I just want to know "why I didn't get an evidentiary hearing" to show pursuant subsections (4) & (5) that visitation is in child's best interests. You mentioned Judge ruled by troxel - but I didn't read that Troxel gave parents' "unfettered rights" to terminate visits? I have an appellant attorney (don't know him well) who said he would "appeal" to try to get an evidentiary hearing (but if the judge can rule to terminate because parents say they want it -- then I think I've lost. But Parents' used this Troxel argument in prior court and that judge dismissed their argument (opinions actually) -- and scheduled evidentiary hearing. Are you saying the prior court goofed? One of these judges is wrong!

 

[Just Blue]

Nevada

I filed a motion to request Court to order respondents "comply" with the stiuplated agreement - the Court Order (by a prior judge). Case shuffled to new judge.

respondents filed opposition to "not comply" and counter-motion titled "to terminate grandparent visitation" and argued by their "opinions" from the USSC in Troxel. Nobody asked New Judge to not enforce prior Court Order. I met requirements to petition pursuant NRS125C.050 (2) & (3) in 2005 and before the scheduled evidentiary hearing in June 2006 respondents and I settled on limited/restricted visitation. They argued to keep visitation "restricted" and requested visitation at "their discretion"

Judge ruled I had not met the "requisite legal standard" (RLS) to continue visitation and he ruled "to no longer enforce prior Court order"

My point == I cannot meet the RSL without an evidentiary hearing. Nobody asked to evaporate the entire prior Court Order. Judge determined "parents' decision must be respected and given deference" but the NRS125C allows deference/respect to the parents' presumptive rebuttable decision BUT I "thought" I was entitled to evidentiary hearing as stated in subsections (4) & (5) and IF I overcome their reasons and provide clear and convincing evidence to continue visitation the judge "shall" pursuant subsection (6) make the final determination. I “think” word “shall” requires judge to follow the statute; and (6) can only happen after (4) & (5) which require an evidentiary hearing.

The ruling by the judge is not based on the preponderance of evidence – because for 3 years the visits have gone “without incident” (in his final decision) and the psychologists we’ve been to (at respondents’ request ALL say keep contact – I raised child from age 2-5 years after her natural mother died.)

I filed appeal but (here is my confusion) -- what abuse of discretion applies? I want my day in Court to rebut the presumptive parental decision (stated in statute) and "NOBODY" asked Judge to evaporate the prior Court Order (I think he went past what was in the pleadings) -- I am confused.

IF the judge can remove my visitation just because the parents say to do it then WHY am I paying attorneys to follow the NRS125C.050?

**********************************************************************....

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NV
Nobody asked "new" judge to vacate prior court's orders. Is this a rule 60 (b) violatoin? Can I ask for evidentiary hearing to see if anything wrong with prior Court Order? Nobody has alleged "changed circumstances" to vacate prior court order (or is changed circumstances only for custody)? ---- Mine is grand parent visitation. To discontinue visitation "new" judge said "parent's determination (they gave no reasons) must be respected and given deference" and to insure no more visitation 'new' JUDGE ruled to no longer enforce "stipulated agreement" (Court Order of prior judge).

If this is confusing to you -I'm more confused. WHAT HAPPENED? The "new" judge "ruled" without an evidentiary hearing ---- that is what went wrong but he denied my reconsideraton/rehearing requesting an evidentiary hearing. I have filed an appeal but until I know WHAT "new" judge CAN do --- I have no appeal. My new hired appeal attorney doesn't know answers to my questions ---

Sad grandma

******************************************..

 

[Just Blue]

I just want to know "why I didn't get an evidentiary hearing" to show pursuant subsections (4) & (5) that visitation is in child's best interests. You mentioned Judge ruled by troxel - but I didn't read that Troxel gave parents' "unfettered rights" to terminate visits? I have an appellant attorney (don't know him well) who said he would "appeal" to try to get an evidentiary hearing (but if the judge can rule to terminate because parents say they want it -- then I think I've lost. But Parents' used this Troxel argument in prior court and that judge dismissed their argument (opinions actually) -- and scheduled evidentiary hearing. Are you saying the prior court goofed? One of these judges is wrong!

****************************************************************************************************************..

 

[mistoffolees]

**********************************************************************....

What's with the necroposting?

 

[LdiJ]

What's with the necroposting?

She has a brand new thread that is worse (more disjointed) than this one. I think that Meanie was bringing this one to the top so she would see it and review it.

 

[Just Blue]

She has a brand new thread that is worse (more disjointed) than this one. I think that Meanie was bringing this one to the top so she would see it and review it.

PHx...,,,,,,,,,,