PA Grandparent Rights

[Rushia]

I think that's presenting a worst case, unlikely scenario (and OP's attorney seems to agree with me).

Realistically, if OP agrees to something and the judge orders it, that is every bit as solid as if OP doesn't agree and the judge orders the same thing. Grandma has no grounds to ask for more in either case.

The appeal argument has some validity, but let's say that OP agrees to supervised visitation of 2 hours every other week. If the judge orders that, why would OP want to appeal it? If the judge orders something MORE than what OP agreed to, then an appeal is still possible. So thinking about it from the basis of appeals doesn't really change my view.

My argument is that judges deal with intransigent people every day - people who are completely unreasonable and refuse to budge an inch. If Grandma comes in all sweet and nice and play the relationship card and then says "I'd be willing to settle for any chance to see my sweet little grandkids, but OP won't even discuss it with me and won't let me even talk to them on the phone", it could look bad for OP. Possibly bad enough that the judge would award grandma more than OP would have agreed to. OTOH, if OP says "your honor, I really don't think that it's a good environment for the kids due to the drug use and convicted criminals there as well as grandma's previous violation of restraining orders (I think that was in there somewhere). However, in order to facilitate the relationship of the kids with their grandmother, I could agree to a max of 2 hours of visitation every other week with a supervisor of my choosing and expenses paid by grandma", it sends an entirely different message.

I'm not suggesting that OP agree to anything that he's truly uncomfortable with. But if he can find SOME amount of relationship between kids and grandma that he's comfortable with, I believe it shows the judge that he's placing the kids' needs above his own - and that has to have a positive effect.

Still, it's a style difference. I won't say that I'm right and you're wrong - because there is no right or wrong. But I think that my approach is every bit as reasonable as yours.

I'm not saying you are wrong BUT I've been there done that. Now, Op takes your approach and agrees to an order of supervised visitation x amount of time in a x period of time. THEN gramma sues her AGAIN for unsupervised visitation and OP is still uncomfortable about the situation. Gramma walks into the court with the approach of "but things are going soooooo well. I don't feel that I need supervision anymore....." OP should NOT agree to an order of anyway shape or form. All she need to repeat is "Gramma is welcome to see the child in my home (or other agreed upon place) and I will NOT agree to an order."

 

[LdiJ]

I think that's presenting a worst case, unlikely scenario (and OP's attorney seems to agree with me).

Realistically, if OP agrees to something and the judge orders it, that is every bit as solid as if OP doesn't agree and the judge orders the same thing. Grandma has no grounds to ask for more in either case.

The appeal argument has some validity, but let's say that OP agrees to supervised visitation of 2 hours every other week. If the judge orders that, why would OP want to appeal it? If the judge orders something MORE than what OP agreed to, then an appeal is still possible. So thinking about it from the basis of appeals doesn't really change my view.

My argument is that judges deal with intransigent people every day - people who are completely unreasonable and refuse to budge an inch. If Grandma comes in all sweet and nice and play the relationship card and then says "I'd be willing to settle for any chance to see my sweet little grandkids, but OP won't even discuss it with me and won't let me even talk to them on the phone", it could look bad for OP. Possibly bad enough that the judge would award grandma more than OP would have agreed to. OTOH, if OP says "your honor, I really don't think that it's a good environment for the kids due to the drug use and convicted criminals there as well as grandma's previous violation of restraining orders (I think that was in there somewhere). However, in order to facilitate the relationship of the kids with their grandmother, I could agree to a max of 2 hours of visitation every other week with a supervisor of my choosing and expenses paid by grandma", it sends an entirely different message.

I'm not suggesting that OP agree to anything that he's truly uncomfortable with. But if he can find SOME amount of relationship between kids and grandma that he's comfortable with, I believe it shows the judge that he's placing the kids' needs above his own - and that has to have a positive effect.

Still, it's a style difference. I won't say that I'm right and you're wrong - because there is no right or wrong. But I think that my approach is every bit as reasonable as yours.

Misto, that is actually not true in a third party case. A parent should NEVER, in a third party case agree to ANYTHING. The parent's options are much stronger if whatever gets ordered, gets ordered against the parent's will

Couple of real life examples:

Parent in IL caved and agreed to limited visitation even though she felt it was not in her children's best interest. However, the gp had spent her into the poorhouse with legal fees and she didn't feel she could continue. Six months later the IL Supreme Court ruled the IL gpv laws facially unconstitutional. Parents were getting gpv orders vacated all over the place. That parent's request to vacate the gpv order was denied because it was an agreement rather than an order made against her will by a judge.

(The above scenario has happened over and over in lots of different states)

Case in PA. Parent followed advice similar to yours and made an agreement. The children were miserable and hated it for various and sundry reasons. Parent went back to court to try to vacate and/or modify. Judge again denied it because it was an agreement and the judge didn't see any significant change in circumstance.

(Again, this scenario has happened over and ever in lots of different states)

It is seriously important that a parent NEVER make an agreement regarding gpv unless they truly have no choice or have a situation where there is no other option. Every parent I know of who has, has eventually had it come back to bite them in the butt.

Heck, I even know of a parent in FLORIDA who was unable to get a gpv order vacated after the FL Supreme court shot gpv down, AGAIN because it was an agreement rather than an order made against her will.

 

[bononos again]

Misto, that is actually not true in a third party case. A parent should NEVER, in a third party case agree to ANYTHING. The parent's options are much stronger if whatever gets ordered, gets ordered against the parent's will

Couple of real life examples:

Parent in IL caved and agreed to limited visitation even though she felt it was not in her children's best interest. However, the gp had spent her into the poorhouse with legal fees and she didn't feel she could continue. Six months later the IL Supreme Court ruled the IL gpv laws facially unconstitutional. Parents were getting gpv orders vacated all over the place. That parent's request to vacate the gpv order was denied because it was an agreement rather than an order made against her will by a judge.

(The above scenario has happened over and over in lots of different states)

Case in PA. Parent followed advice similar to yours and made an agreement. The children were miserable and hated it for various and sundry reasons. Parent went back to court to try to vacate and/or modify. Judge again denied it because it was an agreement and the judge didn't see any significant change in circumstance.

(Again, this scenario has happened over and ever in lots of different states)

It is seriously important that a parent NEVER make an agreement regarding gpv unless they truly have no choice or have a situation where there is no other option. Every parent I know of who has, has eventually had it come back to bite them in the butt.

Heck, I even know of a parent in FLORIDA who was unable to get a gpv order vacated after the FL Supreme court shot gpv down, AGAIN because it was an agreement rather than an order made against her will.

Thank you for this. Such an important part that I never realized and my atty never mentioned.
I certainly believe I have a choice in this and am doing what is safe and best for kiddo.
I also need to mention 2 things:
When I took over the 2 hour visitation supervision I told ex that ONLY he and g-ma could be there, no one else, and she never came to the 7 visits dad came to.
Also, there is another older brother who is married with a family and they do not allow their kids to go to g-ma's house. They have no contact with the "bad" brothers but do allow g-ma to visit them.

Shockingly, g-ma is a nurse of over 30 years and would appear to be a good woman. She just can't stop inabeling her sons at the cost of the safety of kiddo and lost time with her other grandchildren.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you for this. Such an important part that I never realized and my atty never mentioned.
I certainly believe I have a choice in this and am doing what is safe and best for kiddo.
I also need to mention 2 things:
When I took over the 2 hour visitation supervision I told ex that ONLY he and g-ma could be there, no one else, and she never came to the 7 visits dad came to.
Also, there is another older brother who is married with a family and they do not allow their kids to go to g-ma's house. They have no contact with the "bad" brothers but do allow g-ma to visit them.

Shockingly, g-ma is a nurse of over 30 years and would appear to be a good woman. She just can't stop inabeling her sons at the cost of the safety of kiddo and lost time with her other grandchildren.

Then that is another thing that you need to make sure that the judge is aware of. You need to make sure that the non-criminal brother and his wife do not allow their children to go to grandma's house either.

 

[bononos again]

Then that is another thing that you need to make sure that the judge is aware of. You need to make sure that the non-criminal brother and his wife do not allow their children to go to grandma's house either.

Celebration Time!
After the stress, aggravation, and expenses gma has brought upon us, she actually did not show up for conciliation!
Dad also had the option to make arrangements through jail to participate by phone, but he did not.
Full Legal/Physical with no stipulations or requirements of me to do anything!!!!
WHOOOOPPPPIEEEEEE!

 

[Proserpina]

Celebration Time!
After the stress, aggravation, and expenses gma has brought upon us, she actually did not show up for conciliation!
Dad also had the option to make arrangements through jail to participate by phone, but he did not.
Full Legal/Physical with no stipulations or requirements of me to do anything!!!!
WHOOOOPPPPIEEEEEE!

Thanks for the update

 

[Antigone*]

Celebration Time!
After the stress, aggravation, and expenses gma has brought upon us, she actually did not show up for conciliation!
Dad also had the option to make arrangements through jail to participate by phone, but he did not.
Full Legal/Physical with no stipulations or requirements of me to do anything!!!!
WHOOOOPPPPIEEEEEE!

Rest easy now and enjoy your precious time with kid or kiddos.

 

[Rushia]

Celebration Time!
After the stress, aggravation, and expenses gma has brought upon us, she actually did not show up for conciliation!
Dad also had the option to make arrangements through jail to participate by phone, but he did not.
Full Legal/Physical with no stipulations or requirements of me to do anything!!!!
WHOOOOPPPPIEEEEEE!

Excellent!

 

[CSO286]

Celebration Time!
After the stress, aggravation, and expenses gma has brought upon us, she actually did not show up for conciliation!
Dad also had the option to make arrangements through jail to participate by phone, but he did not.
Full Legal/Physical with no stipulations or requirements of me to do anything!!!!
WHOOOOPPPPIEEEEEE!

Thrilled for you!!

 

[Just Blue]

Celebration Time!
After the stress, aggravation, and expenses gma has brought upon us, she actually did not show up for conciliation!
Dad also had the option to make arrangements through jail to participate by phone, but he did not.
Full Legal/Physical with no stipulations or requirements of me to do anything!!!!
WHOOOOPPPPIEEEEEE!

Congrats!! Good for you!

 

[bononos again]

Rest easy now and enjoy your precious time with kid or kiddos.

DONE!
My excitment over the days events and kiddos excellent grades, SURPRISE! I hurried and got tickets to the home opener and showed up at school to get them out early for the ballgame!
They loved it!

 

[bononos again]

It never ends...

Although not on the GP subject, I didn't want to start another thread.

After all this time (5 months when he wasn't incarcerated and 3 months of incarceration) Dad sent a letter from jail to kiddo. Aside from alot of BS and no apology to kiddo, Dad states "when I get out, I'm coming for you", then "As GOD is my witness, nothing will keep us apart".

Of course, I did not allow kiddo to read this and dropped off a copy to my attys office this morning because this is rather threatening, all be it indirectly, but he would obviously know I would read the letter.

Haven't spoken to atty about it yet.

Any ideas if his letters can be controlled while in jail?

It should be a long time till he gets out, maybe a few years, but now I have a fear of kidnapping by these statements. He knows there is a CO in place yet still states "nothing will keep us apart".