Where do I file for grandparent visitation if I live in ky, and kids o indians

[Taxing Matters]

A judge must actually violate a parent's constitutional rights in order to give a grandparent a visitation order, so its pretty serious business...and pretty expensive, for the grandparents.

No, a judge does not “violate a parent’s constitutional rights” in granting a visitation order. You may not like grandparent vistation statutes (and I am not a fan of the way some states do it) and you are right that it is not easy for grandparents to win these cases, but your choice of phrase to indicate that is incorrect. Should a judge actually the vioalte the Constitutional rights of the parent, that judge would find his/her ruling readily overturned on appeal. However, the judge must take into account what rights the U.S. Supreme Court has held parents have under the Constitution, and given that those rights generally include the right to determine whom their kids may visit, so a simple decision that grandparent visitation would benefit the kid is not enough to say the visitation is in the child’s best interest. Very generally the grandparent has to make a very strong showing that overcomes the presumption that the parent’s decision on visitation is in the child’s best interest or show that the parent is unfit, thus doing away with the presumption.

 

[stealth2]

I would think that any court would think it would be in the bedt interest of the kids to continue the relationship between myself and the kids, especially when I can clearly show a strong bond since birth and the only stability they have had. She is in jail now and kids are with a guy they barely know. How is that situation better for them? They have never been left with anyone but me before.

Honestly? Any court would think it in the best interests of the children to continue a relationship with their FATHER! Timee to facilitate that by helping your son retain a lawyer himself!

 

[LdiJ]

No, a judge does not “violate a parent’s constitutional rights” in granting a visitation order. You may not like grandparent vistation statutes (and I am not a fan of the way some states do it) and you are right that it is not easy for grandparents to win these cases, but your choice of phrase to indicate that is incorrect. Should a judge actually the vioalte the Constitutional rights of the parent, that judge would find his/her ruling readily overturned on appeal. However, the judge must take into account what rights the U.S. Supreme Court has held parents have under the Constitution, and given that those rights generally include the right to determine whom their kids may visit, so a simple decision that grandparent visitation would benefit the kid is not enough to say the visitation is in the child’s best interest. Very generally the grandparent has to make a very strong showing that overcomes the presumption that the parent’s decision on visitation is in the child’s best interest or show that the parent is unfit, thus doing away with the presumption.

Ok, you basically said the same thing that I said, but in a more comprehensive way. You may not like the way that I said it, but I wasn't wrong. A parent generally has the right to determine with whom their children associate. A judge must violate that right to give a visitation order to a third party. That violation may come with much valid and legal due process and determination under the law, but it doesn't make it less of a violation. It just makes it a legal and permissible violation.

 

[Taxing Matters]

A judge must violate that right to give a visitation order to a third party. That violation may come with much valid and legal due process and determination under the law, but it doesn't make it less of a violation. It just makes it a legal and permissible violation.

No. It makes not a violation of the Constitution at all. That’s why your statement that the judge violates the Constitution in granting the visitation is wrong. No right under the Constitution, express or implied (as are the rights here) are absolute. Parents do not have the absolute right to decide with whom their kids visit. If that were the case no grandparent visitation in the face of parental opposition would ever be possible. Rather, there are limits to the right, like anything else. The Supreme Court has set a fairly high bar for a court to find that granting visitation is Constitutional in the face of parental opposition, which is what makes these cases difficult for grandparents to win. But make no mistake, legally when the grandparent visitation is permitted, there is no violation of the parent’s Constitutional rights. Rather, it is in part a finding that visitation is Constitutionally permitted (along with a determination of meeting the applicable state law, of course). Your premise that it is possible for the government to “legally violate” the Constitution is not one you will find anywhere in the law.

 

[Just Blue]

No. It makes not a violation of the Constitution at all. That’s why your statement that the judge violates the Constitution in granting the visitation is wrong. No right under the Constitution, express or implied (as are the rights here) are absolute. Parents do not have the absolute right to decide with whom their kids visit. If that were the case no grandparent visitation in the face of parental opposition would ever be possible. Rather, there are limits to the right, like anything else. The Supreme Court has set a fairly high bar for a court to find that granting visitation is Constitutional in the face of parental opposition, which is what makes these cases difficult for grandparents to win. But make no mistake, legally when the grandparent visitation is permitted, there is no violation of the parent’s Constitutional rights. Rather, it is in part a finding that visitation is Constitutionally permitted (along with a determination of meeting the applicable state law, of course). Your premise that it is possible for the government to “legally violate” the Constitution is not one you will find anywhere in the law.

Do a search of a member named Rushia ...She and her ex husband lost a GPV case against the ex's parents. Even the children did not want to visit with the GP's. Sometimes GPV is an absolute violation of parental rights.

 

[LdiJ]

Taxing Matters,

A decent number state supreme courts have ruled that their gpv statutes are facially unconstitutional. That is going beyond Troxal vs Granvile. Some states have rewritten them since, some have not and some have been found facially unconstitutional again after being rewritten.

I admit that neither KY or IN have done so, but both states have taken Troxal seriously. Indiana has not had a high profile case since Troxal, and I haven't heard of any grandparents actually winning a case in Indiana since Troxal but some might have.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Do a search of a member named Rushia ...She and her ex husband lost a GPV case against the ex's parents. Even the children did not want to visit with the GP's. Sometimes GPV is an absolute violation of parental rights.

Two points. First, we had only the member’s biased view of the matter. You might feel differently if you heard everything the court did. Second, while you may believe what the courts did was wrong, if the appellate courts held that the grant of visitation to the grandparents was legal then it was not a violation of the parent’s rights. It is important to distinguish between what one thinks is wrong and what the law is. The law is not always fair and not always right. There are decisions of the Supreme Court, for example, that I think are wrong. But I don’t sit on the Court and don’t get to say what the law is. The justices of the Supreme Court do get to say what the law is. What the court says is the law regardless of how I or (anyone else here) feels about it.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Taxing Matters,

A decent number state supreme courts have ruled that their gpv statutes are facially unconstitutional. That is going beyond Troxal vs Granvile. Some states have rewritten them since, some have not and some have been found facially unconstitutional again after being rewritten.

I admit that neither KY or IN have done so, but both states have taken Troxal seriously. Indiana has not had a high profile case since Troxal, and I haven't heard of any grandparents actually winning a case in Indiana since Troxal but some might have.

None of which contradicts what I have said.

It is true that in the wake of Troxel a number of states have seen their grandparent visitation laws either invalidated, redone by the legislature, or reinterpreted to be consistent with Troxel, with the result that it is more difficult today to win a grandparent visitation than it was pre-Troxel (i.e. before 2000). I have said in this thread several times that it is a difficult thing to win. But it is not impossible, even with the Troxel decision. The Supreme Court expressly left the door open to some situations in which it would be permitted:

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.​

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

 

[Just Blue]

Two points. First, we had only the member’s biased view of the matter. You might feel differently if you heard everything the court did. Second, while you may believe what the courts did was wrong, if the appellate courts held that the grant of visitation to the grandparents was legal then it was not a violation of the parent’s rights. It is important to distinguish between what one thinks is wrong and what the law is. The law is not always fair and not always right. There are decisions of the Supreme Court, for example, that I think are wrong. But I don’t sit on the Court and don’t get to say what the law is. The justices of the Supreme Court do get to say what the law is. What the court says is the law regardless of how I or (anyone else here) feels about it.

LEGALLY I agree with you. As a parent the idea that some 3rd party could insert themselves in my families life is disgraceful. Lucky for me I will never go through that...My children actually like my mother and the people that they do not care for would never be bothered with a court action.

 

[Taxing Matters]

LEGALLY I agree with you. As a parent the idea that some 3rd party could insert themselves in my families life is disgraceful. Lucky for me I will never go through that...My children actually like my mother and the people that they do not care for would never be bothered with a court action.

I understand the viewpoint of the parent and largely sympathize with it. Out the the millions of families out there only a very few have conflict over this that rises to the level that a grandparent actually seeks a visitation order, and, even more rarely, actually gets such an order. And that is how it ought to be, I think — an unusual occurrence. But there some situations in which I think granting such visitation is warranted. I would not go so far as to say it should never be granted.

 

[Just Blue]

I understand the viewpoint of the parent and largely sympathize with it. Out the the millions of families out there only a very few have conflict over this that rises to the level that a grandparent actually seeks a visitation order, and, even more rarely, actually gets such an order. And that is how it ought to be, I think — an unusual occurrence. But there some situations in which I think granting such visitation is warranted. I would not go so far as to say it should never be granted.

My issue is if the Judge has preconceived opinions on this matter that impact her/his decision. While I know that there are situations that it is in the childs best interest to see the GP's or Aunts, Uncles, cousins , siblings...Many times that is not the case.

 

[LdiJ]

For some reason I cannot always quote on this thread:

Taxing Matters, I agree with you that THESE days very few people are effected by gpv suits. However, I can tell you that prior to Troxel courts were handing them out like candy. All a grandparent had to do was ask and they would be given the equivalent of non custodial parent visitation. I could tell you horror story after horror story.

Here is a good one, all true: This was Florida before Florida struck down their laws.

Dad abandoned his family (wife and toddler). Mom went ahead and got a divorce. She had a cordial relationship with dad's parents so they were a regular part of the child's life. Dad's parents were divorced as well. A few years later mom met someone else and got engaged. The grandparents completely panicked and hunted down their son and made him file for custody. We it was clear that wasn't going to happen they both, independently filed for gpv. The judge combined the three cases and assigned a guardian ad litem. The guardian ad litem came back with the recommendation that mom have primary custody but dad get one weekend a month and one day a week, and grandma get one weekend a month and one day a week and grandpa get one weekend a month and one day a week. After adding up all of that time, that left one weekend a month and one day a week plus Sunday from 7 till bedtime at 8:30 for mom, the parent who was supposed to have primary custody.

Luckily the judge decided that was absurd and said that dad and the grandparents would have to share every other weekend and one day a week.

Another good one:

A judge stated in court: "I realize that this grandmother badly abused her minor children and had them removed from her custody by CPS, and lost her parental rights. However, that does not mean that she will abuse her grandchildren therefore I have no choice but to give her visitation."

Another good one: This one was Kentucky

A judge interpreted the law to read that a grandparent was still entitled to visitation even after a stranger adoption. The adoptive parents refused to obey the visitation orders. The judge ordered them to spend every weekend in jail. Their children were farmed out to other family members during the weekend. Eventually the weekend jail killed the adoptive mother because she had a heart condition and they frequently denied her, her medication. The order was later overturned on appeal.

Then there was the mom who spent a year in jail in IL until the IL Supreme court struck down their law and her judge vacated the order. There was a judge in PA who heard a motion from grandparents to deny a mom the right to relocate for a new job, who granted the motion on a temporary basis and then worked hard to broker a deal between the mom and the gps because the whole legal community was in a buzz about it...negatively.

I could literally write a huge book and it would contain only a fraction of the stories that I could tell.

 

[quincy]

Two points. First, we had only the member’s biased view of the matter. You might feel differently if you heard everything the court did. Second, while you may believe what the courts did was wrong, if the appellate courts held that the grant of visitation to the grandparents was legal then it was not a violation of the parent’s rights. It is important to distinguish between what one thinks is wrong and what the law is. The law is not always fair and not always right. There are decisions of the Supreme Court, for example, that I think are wrong. But I don’t sit on the Court and don’t get to say what the law is. The justices of the Supreme Court do get to say what the law is. What the court says is the law regardless of how I or (anyone else here) feels about it.

What I have bolded above deserves repeating. It is not only true in this section of the forum but in all sections of the forum.

 

[Rushia]

Two points. First, we had only the member’s biased view of the matter. You might feel differently if you heard everything the court did. Second, while you may believe what the courts did was wrong, if the appellate courts held that the grant of visitation to the grandparents was legal then it was not a violation of the parent’s rights. It is important to distinguish between what one thinks is wrong and what the law is. The law is not always fair and not always right. There are decisions of the Supreme Court, for example, that I think are wrong. But I don’t sit on the Court and don’t get to say what the law is. The justices of the Supreme Court do get to say what the law is. What the court says is the law regardless of how I or (anyone else here) feels about it.

The law hides behind the best interest of the child. My oldest has now aged out of the order and wants NOTHING to do with them. There is something very wrong when a parent has to ask a grandparent for permission to skip a visit for a normal teen experience, ie a dance. They spent YEARS telling my children that I was a horrible person. Encouraged them open fake FB accounts to maintain secret contact and my daughter almost became a victim of child porn. Spent years pestering them about moving in the second that they turned 18.

I hardly think that my view was biased. I KNEW that they were toxic for my children and the court did not listen to me. My son completely unloaded everything that happened since that order was entered. I turned out to be right. My ex and I were completely united in this. WE are the parents and we knew best.

 

[Taxing Matters]

For some reason I cannot always quote on this thread:

Taxing Matters, I agree with you that THESE days very few people are effected by gpv suits. However, I can tell you that prior to Troxel courts were handing them out like candy. All a grandparent had to do was ask and they would be given the equivalent of non custodial parent visitation.

I’ve not done extensive research on how each state handled this pre-Troxel and I’m not going to do it now. You may be correct that in at least some states grandparent visitation was commonly granted before Troxel. But this thread is about the law as it is today, not what the law was pre-Troxel. That case is now 18 years old, so it not like it’s exactly new at this point. So frankly I don’t see the relevance of these pre-Troxel stories to the thread. What I have said in this thread is correct, so I don’t understand all the push back I’m getting from you here. Your post above makes it sound like you are somehow rebutting something I’ve said but if so I don’t get the point you think you are trying to rebut. I can sense you feel very strongly on the issue, but I’m not here to address whether grandparent visitation is morally right or wrong in any given circumstance. I’m simply explaining what the law is, now, in 2018.