Grandma Wants Custody

[iblisa]

What is the name of your state? California

My husband and I are a fos-adopt family with our county. We adopted one child through fos-adopt with the county last year. In October of last year we had a one month old baby boy placed with us in a fos-adopt situation. The baby was basically abandoned at birth and the birth mom has been unable to be reached, but she was offered reunification services. The baby was placed with us at one month old, with CPS pretty certain that the birth mom would not come forward, and even if she does, she has too many criminal and mental issues that would keep her from getting custody or even visits with this child.

When the baby was three months old the maternal grandmother contacted CPS and now wants custody of the baby. The maternal grandmother claims she did not know her daughter was pregnant and had just found out about the baby. The grandmother lives out of state and claims that the baby has lots of family in her resident state of Ohio. CPS has ordered an assessment on the grandmother. My husband and I filed for defacto parent status and had our first hearing earlier this month. It was continued for two weeks because they found the birth mom incarcerated under an alias name and she was unable to be transported to the hearing due to medical reasons. The grandmother showed up at our defacto hearing with an attorney of her own and requested and received a visit with the baby.

We have hired our own attorney to be present at our defacto hearing this week and we will possibly retain her until the next hearing for the baby in April. We are told that the reunification services should end in April and the case should be moved into adoptions. We have the baby’s attorney and his social worker both saying they recommend the baby stay with us, but that it is ultimately up to the judge to decide.

My question is what kind of rights does the maternal grandmother have? We have had this baby for three months and have every intention of adopting him. We are hopeful that everything will work in our favor, but are scared at the possibility of losing our child.

 

[fairisfair]

it is impossible for us to guess at the chances of the maternal grandmother being successful. You must be prepared however for the court deciding in favor of a family member. This is not your child, not until the adoption is final.

 

[pegmatite9999]

What is the name of your state? California

My husband and I are a fos-adopt family with our county. We adopted one child through fos-adopt with the county last year. In October of last year we had a one month old baby boy placed with us in a fos-adopt situation. The baby was basically abandoned at birth and the birth mom has been unable to be reached, but she was offered reunification services. The baby was placed with us at one month old, with CPS pretty certain that the birth mom would not come forward, and even if she does, she has too many criminal and mental issues that would keep her from getting custody or even visits with this child.

When the baby was three months old the maternal grandmother contacted CPS and now wants custody of the baby. The maternal grandmother claims she did not know her daughter was pregnant and had just found out about the baby. The grandmother lives out of state and claims that the baby has lots of family in her resident state of Ohio. CPS has ordered an assessment on the grandmother. My husband and I filed for defacto parent status and had our first hearing earlier this month. It was continued for two weeks because they found the birth mom incarcerated under an alias name and she was unable to be transported to the hearing due to medical reasons. The grandmother showed up at our defacto hearing with an attorney of her own and requested and received a visit with the baby.

We have hired our own attorney to be present at our defacto hearing this week and we will possibly retain her until the next hearing for the baby in April. We are told that the reunification services should end in April and the case should be moved into adoptions. We have the baby’s attorney and his social worker both saying they recommend the baby stay with us, but that it is ultimately up to the judge to decide.

My question is what kind of rights does the maternal grandmother have? We have had this baby for three months and have every intention of adopting him. We are hopeful that everything will work in our favor, but are scared at the possibility of losing our child.

This is a tough one. By now you have heard the "best interest of the child" thing about a thousand times. It's great that both you and the baby have attorneys. I would go ahead and retain the attorney you had for the hearing NOW. Hire a Private detective and see if the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Courts do tend to favor on the side of blood relatives when possible. California does have laws concerning grandparent visitation, and Granny could start pushing for that right away to establish a bond. This is a heartbreaking situation and I wish you the very best of luck. Please keep us posted.

 

[ezmarelda]

This is a tough one. By now you have heard the "best interest of the child" thing about a thousand times. It's great that both you and the baby have attorneys. I would go ahead and retain the attorney you had for the hearing NOW. Hire a Private detective and see if the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Courts do tend to favor on the side of blood relatives when possible. California does have laws concerning grandparent visitation, and Granny could start pushing for that right away to establish a bond. This is a heartbreaking situation and I wish you the very best of luck. Please keep us posted.

Could you please show me these laws that you do speak of...and explain how they would pertain to OP's situation.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Could you please show me these laws that you do speak of...and explain how they would pertain to OP's situation.

Kudo's to you Eme for putting up with him and correcting him,(Like so many other's). I have taken the easy way out and put the rock on ignore.

OP, ignore the rock, he is clueless.

 

[ezmarelda]

Could you please show me these laws that you do speak of...and explain how they would pertain to OP's situation.

Kudo's to you Eme for putting up with him and correcting him,(Like so many other's). I have taken the easy way out and put the rock on ignore.

OP, ignore the rock, he is clueless.

Thanks Shay

 

[pegmatite9999]

Could you please show me these laws that you do speak of...and explain how they would pertain to OP's situation.

Uh, hire a PI, get a Lawyer, know that granny can get visitation. You are actually arguing with that? Do you EVER read the paper and see the reality of what happens to people in these pre-adoption situations when a blood relative comes out of the woodworks?

OP wants to fight to keep the baby. Legally these people are in a tough spot. Are they supposed to sit back and wave statutes and case laws when they go in to have this infant ripped from their arms, or should they take some serious pro-active steps to try to keep the baby? There are laws about grandparents rights in California

California law confers discretion on the court to grant "reasonable visitation" rights "to any other person [a nonparent] having an interest in the welfare of the child." [Ca Fam § 3100(a) --"reasonable visitation may be ordered to any other person . . ." (emphasis added); Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 393, 398, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 167, 170]

What COULD happen:

Granny gets visitation. Granny develops bond. Granny gets custody.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Uh, hire a PI, get a Lawyer, know that granny can get visitation. You are actually arguing with that? Do you EVER read the paper and see the reality of what happens to people in these pre-adoption situations when a blood relative comes out of the woodworks?

OP wants to fight to keep the baby. Legally these people are in a tough spot. Are they supposed to sit back and wave statutes and case laws when they go in to have this infant ripped from their arms, or should they take some serious pro-active steps to try to keep the baby? There are laws about grandparents rights in California

California law confers discretion on the court to grant "reasonable visitation" rights "to any other person [a nonparent] having an interest in the welfare of the child." [Ca Fam § 3100(a) --"reasonable visitation may be ordered to any other person . . ." (emphasis added); Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 393, 398, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 167, 170]

What COULD happen:

Granny gets visitation. Granny develops bond. Granny gets custody.

And the world could end, George W. could grow a brain and you COULD maybe, perhaps make a LEGAL point?

 

[pegmatite9999]

And the world could end, George W. could grow a brain and you COULD maybe, perhaps make a LEGAL point?

Granny can, by law, get visitation rights to that child, who has not yet been adopted.
Once she does that, she can slow down the adoption process and file for custody of the child.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Granny can, by law, get visitation rights to that child, who has not yet been adopted.
Once she does that, she can slow down the adoption process and file for custody of the child.

Are you completely void or legal knowledge? This case has nothing to do with visitation. It's CUSTODY. now give back the law degree.

 

[ezmarelda]

Uh, hire a PI, get a Lawyer, know that granny can get visitation. You are actually arguing with that? Do you EVER read the paper and see the reality of what happens to people in these pre-adoption situations when a blood relative comes out of the woodworks?

OP wants to fight to keep the baby. Legally these people are in a tough spot. Are they supposed to sit back and wave statutes and case laws when they go in to have this infant ripped from their arms, or should they take some serious pro-active steps to try to keep the baby? There are laws about grandparents rights in California

California law confers discretion on the court to grant "reasonable visitation" rights "to any other person [a nonparent] having an interest in the welfare of the child." [Ca Fam § 3100(a) --"reasonable visitation may be ordered to any other person . . ." (emphasis added); Barkaloff v. Woodward (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 393, 398, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 167, 170]

What COULD happen:

Granny gets visitation. Granny develops bond. Granny gets custody.

I am not arguing anything and you need to learn how to keep reading
3104. (a) On petition to the court by a grandparent of a minor
child, the court may grant reasonable visitation rights to the
grandparent if the court does both of the following:
(1) Finds that there is a preexisting relationship between the
grandparent and the grandchild that has engendered a bond such that
visitation is in the best interest of the child. (2) Balances the interest of the child in having visitation with
the grandparent against the right of the parents to exercise their
parental authority.
(b) A petition for visitation under this section may not be filed
while the natural or adoptive parents are married, unless one or more
of the following circumstances exist:
(1) The parents are currently living separately and apart on a
permanent or indefinite basis.
(2) One of the parents has been absent for more than one month
without the other spouse knowing the whereabouts of the absent
spouse.
(3) One of the parents joins in the petition with the
grandparents.
(4) The child is not residing with either parent.
(5) The child has been adopted by a stepparent.
At any time that a change of circumstances occurs such that none
of these circumstances exist, the parent or parents may move the
court to terminate grandparental visitation and the court shall grant
the termination.
(c) The petitioner shall give notice of the petition to each of
the parents of the child, any stepparent, and any person who has
physical custody of the child, by personal service pursuant to
Section 415.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) If a protective order as defined in Section 6218 has been
directed to the grandparent during the pendency of the proceeding,
the court shall consider whether the best interest of the child
requires that any visitation by that grandparent should be denied.
(e) There is a rebuttable presumption that the visitation of a
grandparent is not in the best interest of a minor child if the
natural or adoptive parents agree that the grandparent should not be
granted visitation rights.
(f) There is a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of
proof that the visitation of a grandparent is not in the best
interest of a minor child if the parent who has been awarded sole
legal and physical custody of the child in another proceeding, or the
parent with whom the child resides if there is currently no
operative custody order objects to visitation by the grandparent.
(g) Visitation rights may not be ordered under this section if
that would conflict with a right of custody or visitation of a birth
parent who is not a party to the proceeding.
(h) Visitation ordered pursuant to this section shall not create a
basis for or against a change of residence of the child, but shall
be one of the factors for the court to consider in ordering a change
of residence.
(i) When a court orders grandparental visitation pursuant to this
section, the court in its discretion may, based upon the relevant
circumstances of the case:
(1) Allocate the percentage of grandparental visitation between
the parents for purposes of the calculation of child support pursuant
to the statewide uniform guideline (Article 2 (commencing with
Section 4050) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 9).
(2) Notwithstanding Sections 3930 and 3951, order a parent or
grandparent to pay to the other, an amount for the support of the
child or grandchild. For purposes of this paragraph, "support" means
costs related to visitation such as any of the following:
(A) Transportation.
(B) Provision of basic expenses for the child or grandchild, such
as medical expenses, day care costs, and other necessities.
(j) As used in this section, "birth parent" means "birth parent"
as defined in Section 8512.

 

[ezmarelda]

to BB

I know that OP's question was/is one of custody not visitation I was just trying to make a point...but I think you beat me to it

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I know that OP's question was/is one of custody not visitation I was just trying to make a point...but I think you beat me to it

And guess what everyone is missing here....

try Sections 7610 to 7670 of the California Civil Code

 

[ezmarelda]

And guess what everyone is missing here....

try Sections 7610 to 7670 of the California Civil Code

...we need a smilie that is a guy slaping his palm to his forehead...duh &thank you

 

[pegmatite9999]

Thanks. Already read it. Birthparent still alive, and could clean up. Who/where is the bio dad? Poster can go ahead and waive your paper law around in court and see what happens, or she can take as many pro-active steps as possible and cover all bases to see that the adoption will stand. How many times do these custody laws say "best interest of the child"? Those are TERRIBLY DANGEROUS WORDS. Cover your ass poster!