Visitation with grandchild

[Proserpina]

Ok well I dont see the need to bicker about that. My concern was the apotive father wanting visitation.

There is no bickering; you understanding was incorrect.

If you had custody then yes, they would generally have to prove that they are now fit (assuming their fitness had been in question to begin with).

But guardianship? They can - quite literally - walk down to the courthouse first thing in the morning and file to have that revoked without reason. The only exception to this would be if child services had been involved from the beginning, and Mom & Dad needed to submit to a reunification or other plan in order to regain the children. That does not appear to be the case here (otherwise you would have mentioned it).


And your other question was answered.

Incidentally, the difference IS important, because it MIGHT have made a difference to the answer.

 

[Just Blue]

Ok well I dont see the need to bicker about that. My concern was the apotive father wanting visitation.

Yeah...This is that jerk on the other thread.

https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-custody-visitation-37/18-month-old-boy-534036.html

 

[CourtClerk]

That's custody. Guardianship can be revoked at anytime without reason by the parents.

That... is unequivocally incorrect... on so many levels.

 

[Just Blue]

That... is unequivocally incorrect... on so many levels.

Read the other thread.

 

[CourtClerk]

Read the other thread.

I did... and that statement is STILL incorrect, no matter which thread he posted to.

 

[Just Blue]

I did... and that statement is STILL incorrect, no matter which thread he posted to.

Ahhh...Never mind. I know what you mean.

 

[CourtClerk]

There is no bickering; you understanding was incorrect.

Actually, I don't think it is....

If you had custody then yes, they would generally have to prove that they are now fit (assuming their fitness had been in question to begin with).

But guardianship? They can - quite literally - walk down to the courthouse first thing in the morning and file to have that revoked without reason.

Anyone can file anything for any reason, however, if the Probate court gave guardianship of a child to someone, you just don't go, file to terminate, wipe your hands and scream "easy peezy cotton breezy" and it's done. Doesn't work that way. Termination of guardianship requires a hearing, a visit from a probate investigator... a report to the court...

 

[sometwo]

Also OP understand that your custody that you have does not take rights away from mom and dad. Mom and dad are still mom and dad. They can also certainly let other grandparents and whoever else visit the child on "their" time and with their child.

 

[Proserpina]

Actually, I don't think it is....

Anyone can file anything for any reason, however, if the Probate court gave guardianship of a child to someone, you just don't go, file to terminate, wipe your hands and scream "easy peezy cotton breezy" and it's done. Doesn't work that way. Termination of guardianship requires a hearing, a visit from a probate investigator... a report to the court...

Did OP ever answer the question of whether child services were involved or not?

 

[CourtClerk]

Did OP ever answer the question of whether child services were involved or not?

In this case.... if it's court ordered guardianship, wouldn't make too much of a difference.

DCFS doesn't give guardianship of anyone, anyway.

 

[Proserpina]

In this case.... if it's court ordered guardianship, wouldn't make too much of a difference.

DCFS doesn't give guardianship of anyone, anyway.

Fair enough, thank you!

I wasn't suggesting that the parents would go to court 9am and walk home with the kid at 3:30, but surely two previously fit parents shouldn't have to prove that they're now fit before a guardianship may be revoked? I'm honestly curious (and willing to learn), because so often here parents are told that they don't need a reason to revoke a guardianship unless there are formal conditions attached (such as CPS involvement or similar).

WA doesn't work that way (nor does ND); is this something a little unique to CA?

 

[CourtClerk]

Fair enough, thank you!

I wasn't suggesting that the parents would go to court 9am and walk home with the kid at 3:30, but surely two previously fit parents shouldn't have to prove that they're now fit before a guardianship may be revoked? I'm honestly curious (and willing to learn), because so often here parents are told that they don't need a reason to revoke a guardianship unless there are formal conditions attached (such as CPS involvement or similar).

WA doesn't work that way (nor does ND); is this something a little unique to CA?

Here's what you're missing... guardianship is about the CHILD... not about the adult.

Giving someone guardianship of a child gives the guardian all the rights and responsibilities of being a parent, without making them a parent. The court takes it just as seriously as modifying custody orders:

1601. Upon petition of the guardian, a parent, the ward, or, in the
case of an Indian child custody proceeding, an Indian custodian or
the ward's tribe, the court may make an order terminating the
guardianship if the court determines that it is in the ward's best
interest to terminate the guardianship.

Just last week, my judge entertained a petition to terminate guardianship from dad. The petition was denied, but dad was given visitation of his own child.

 

[ecmst12]

In this situation, since the parents have been living with the child and the grandparents the whole time, and the grandparents are now wanting to kick the parents out but keep the child, I can definitely see that a judge could find it in the child's best interests to allow him to remain with his PARENTS over the grandparents.

 

[CourtClerk]

In this situation, since the parents have been living with the child and the grandparents the whole time, and the grandparents are now wanting to kick the parents out but keep the child, I can definitely see that a judge could find it in the child's best interests to allow him to remain with his PARENTS over the grandparents.

Actually, I see it the other way around. If the parents saw fit to give the grandparents guardianship, and the courts approved said guardianship - and if grandparents have been making all of the decisions regarding the child regardless of where the parent(s) have been living, I can see the courts leaving the child with the guardians...

The parents are going to be able to have to prove that they are financially and otherwise capable of taking care of the child before guardianship is terminated.

 

[birdbrain53]

I'm siding with Court Clerk on this one.

She and I are both in California and she is more intimately involved in Family Court cases here than I or posters from other states.

I don't see how 2 unemployed and uninterested parents will be able to prove they are ready to parent full time.