Pennsylvania grandparents, young mother died

[LdiJ]

Thank you all. It looks like we really need to secure a good attorney who is fluent in this matter. Sounds like my Uncle David and his wife Jo (my aunt by marriage) have an uphill battle.

At least our family is educated and Paul's family is not. Hopefully we will hire a better lawyer?

Geeze, this still is just an awful situation and a little girl's life and well-being is at stake, case law or whatever. Where was the father in the first 4 years of Karla's life? It is Paul's mother who is driving the situation. She is nasty and fat too.

Oh, ok, I am getting emotional here and I really just wanted to stick to the facts.

Sorry.

You have gotten good advice so far, but I am going to weigh in here as someone with a little more direct experience in this particular arena.

First, while Tigger did post a case where the grandparents won primary custody, there is little chance of that happening with your aunt and uncle's case. Specifically because the child is not living with them anymore, and apparently hasn't been for a while (you really didn't give us the timeline, but I have to guess that when you talk about your aunt and uncle having every other weekend visitation, that its been at least a little while...and it would be significantly longer by the time that they would actually get this in front of a judge).

While at least someone here may argue that your aunt and uncle could get temporary custody, that is very unlikely to happen, because that would be a direct violation of dad's constitutional rights, and rights to due process.

If they absolutely could prove, with hard, cold evidence that dad doesn't live with the child (in his parent's home) that might put them on a more even basis with the other grandparents, However if they attempt to do that, its very likely that his parents will make sure that he does.

Partial custody in PA, in a grandparent visitation case, is different than partial custody in other states. PA defines periods of visitation as "partial custody", so don't get too excited by that. It wouldn't give them any more rights than a simple visitation order would give them in other states.

I will tell you honestly, that while PA tends to give a slight edge to grandparents in these cases, there is almost no chance that your aunt and uncle would recieve more visitation than they already have, and a very good chance that they would recieve less. Plus there is always the risk that if they sue, and lose, that they won't see the child again. Therefore they need to proceed cautiously.

They certainly need to get a consult with an attorney, and speak very candidly. Unless dad truly is unfit, by legal standards...and not just a typical male of his age, with some good and some bad points, then attempting to use "unfitness" is just about the worst thing that they could do. There is very little that a judge dislikes more than people attempting to prove a parent unfit purely as a legal strategy. Your aunt and uncle would simply lose credibility with the judge.

Please realize that it takes really signficant circumstances for a judge to deny custody to a parent. Generally that means that the parent must truly be unfit. Yes, in some circumstances a fit parent can be denied custody if the child has been living with a grandparent for a signficant amount of time, but generally not in the case where the reason why the child was living with the grandparent is because the other parent also lived there too.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

You have gotten good advice so far, but I am going to weigh in here as someone with a little more direct experience in this particular arena.

First, while Tigger did post a case where the grandparents won primary custody, there is little chance of that happening with your aunt and uncle's case. Specifically because the child is not living with them anymore, and apparently hasn't been for a while (you really didn't give us the timeline, but I have to guess that when you talk about your aunt and uncle having every other weekend visitation, that its been at least a little while...and it would be significantly longer by the time that they would actually get this in front of a judge).

While at least someone here may argue that your aunt and uncle could get temporary custody, that is very unlikely to happen, because that would be a direct violation of dad's constitutional rights, and rights to due process.

If they absolutely could prove, with hard, cold evidence that dad doesn't live with the child (in his parent's home) that might put them on a more even basis with the other grandparents, However if they attempt to do that, its very likely that his parents will make sure that he does.

Partial custody in PA, in a grandparent visitation case, is different than partial custody in other states. PA defines periods of visitation as "partial custody", so don't get too excited by that. It wouldn't give them any more rights than a simple visitation order would give them in other states.

I will tell you honestly, that while PA tends to give a slight edge to grandparents in these cases, there is almost no chance that your aunt and uncle would recieve more visitation than they already have, and a very good chance that they would recieve less. Plus there is always the risk that if they sue, and lose, that they won't see the child again. Therefore they need to proceed cautiously.

They certainly need to get a consult with an attorney, and speak very candidly. Unless dad truly is unfit, by legal standards...and not just a typical male of his age, with some good and some bad points, then attempting to use "unfitness" is just about the worst thing that they could do. There is very little that a judge dislikes more than people attempting to prove a parent unfit purely as a legal strategy. Your aunt and uncle would simply lose credibility with the judge.

Please realize that it takes really signficant circumstances for a judge to deny custody to a parent. Generally that means that the parent must truly be unfit. Yes, in some circumstances a fit parent can be denied custody if the child has been living with a grandparent for a signficant amount of time, but generally not in the case where the reason why the child was living with the grandparent is because the other parent also lived there too.

Ldij,
Please inform OP that you are with an organization that advocates against the rights of grandparents. Then would you please READ all of the posts with an unbiased mind.

This happened recently. The only facts we know are mom was <18 when she was pregnant and 22 when she died in late June 2005 of a brain tumor, maternity was established, apparnetly paternity was not established nor any court orders, paternity, custody, child support, visitation. All of these matters have been handled between the parties. Mom and child resided with her parents except for 1 month. with her parents and her mother and sister were primary caretakers of the child, the child was recently removed (Sept 2005) from the maternal grandparents custody under the ruse of a vacation and not returned, that is 2 months after mom died without any court proceedings. Thus, the child's custody/guardianship is not established and the grandparents who have been refered to an attorney do have a good chance of more than everyother weekend visitation! Please refrain from inferring that they shouldn't take action out of fear of losing any contact with their grandchild, or that it has been too long, that is not in the best interest of the child.

I know you just hate grandparents being involved in the lives of their grandchildren because of your own personal history, but please refrain from injecting your personal agenda especially once a question has been answered and the poster approriately refered to attorney and GAL.

Not only have there loving grandparents lost their babygirl but their grandchild as well to as you are so likely to point out, legal strangers!

It is very appropriate for these grandparents to petition the courts for custody or guardianship of this orphan for the best welfare of the child and their chances are good that they will establish some reasonable custody/visitation for this child, what is sure is that if they don't, they will lose that to legal strangers without a fight.

PLEASE read before responding!

Paul and Chrissy were young sweethearts and had a child Karla out of wedlock in their late teens. The relationship did not work out, so Chrissy and Karla lived with Chrissy's parents David and Jo (Chrissy was still a teen). Karla did have visits with her father and paternal grandparents. He did pay some child support.

When Karla was about 2 years old, Chrissy was diagnosed with a brain tumor and battled it for 2 1/2 years. Karla was essentially raised by grandmother Jo. Chrissy recently died at age 22 (late June). Karla is now 4.

Just 2 months after Chrissy died, Paul and his family took Karla on a vacation -- and never returned Karla back to her "home" with Jo and David. Apparently Paul and his parents now want custody of Karla. It is not clear whether Paul lives with his parents, but now that is where Karla lives - with the paternal grandparents. Apparently Jo and David only see Karla a few hours every other weekend! Relations are of course getting hostile between the 2 sets of grandparents.

This does not seem right. The child was abruptly removed from her own home and all within 2 months of her mother dying.

Is there anything that Jo and David can do? Our family thinks that Karla should remain with them!

...........
Chrissy told her older sister Jackie that Paul watched porn in front of the baby at age 1 (Chrissy, Paul, and Karla briefly lived in an apartment). He never came to pick Karla up for his visits, the paternal grandparents did. Chrissy's wishes were that Karla attends Catholic school, but Paul and his family are atheist. I don't myself know how much financial support he provided to Karla, Jackie told me Paul used to bring milk. Yesterday, Jackie witnessed Paul's mother wrestle Karla's hands off Grandma Jo. Paul just sat on the couch, said nothing. (It was a scene when we were dropping Karla to Paul's house.)

............
I don't think paternity was legally established, no. I don't think there was any question that Paul was the father. It sadly is a case where young teens spent way too much time together alone. The situation was a mixed blessing for us. Though our family was quite upset about the teen pregnancy, at least Chrissy left her legacy for us.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Read In the case of K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F..
which has now moved, on appeal, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Grandparents have a 'right' to sue for custody. That is ALL. And KB is only one of many such cases now in the Pennsylvania appeallate system that has overturned rulings for grandparents against biological parents on issues of custody and visitation.

In this case, and in many others, although the grandparents were granted custody based on the child living with them for an inordinate amount of time, the appeals court held in the mother's favor based on the rights of a parent absent a showing of unfitness.

The decision is important because the court, in its ruling, viewed the job of dancing and the late hours kept by the mother to NOT be germaine to the issue of fitness. Nor the young age of the mother, 22 in this case.

IF the father proves paternity then the BEST these grandparents can hope for is to mend the rift and receive some form of visitation. Especially in light of the recent (within the last year) decisions in Pennsylvania.

ALSO, a word of caution. The grandparents may sue for custody and force a paternity test. However, once completed and if it shows the father to be, in this case, the ex, then the annimosity it provides may drive a further wedge between the families.

SUGGEST, do NOT demand a paternity test at this time.

 

[tigger22472]

First, while Tigger did post a case where the grandparents won primary custody, there is little chance of that happening with your aunt and uncle's case. Specifically because the child is not living with them anymore, and apparently hasn't been for a while (you really didn't give us the timeline, but I have to guess that when you talk about your aunt and uncle having every other weekend visitation, that its been at least a little while...and it would be significantly longer by the time that they would actually get this in front of a judge).

Actually the point in putting those cases up was to show that as stated custody is a crap shoot, and show similar cases to the OP's that grandparents aren't getting custody.

Please inform OP that you are with an organization that advocates against the rights of grandparents. Then would you please READ all of the posts with an unbiased mind.

Regardless if she's with an organization or not she stated and addressed the issue at hand. While PA is a slight more pro-grandparents then some states it's still an uphill battle in which she stated.

The decision is important because the court, in it's ruling, viewed the job of dancing and the late hours kept by the mother to NOT be germaine to the issue of fitness. Nor the young age of the mother, 22 in this case..

and to show again...(to add to these thoughts)

Commonwealth ex rel. Zaffarano v. Genaro, 500 Pa. 256

In this case it was eventually ruled that the grandparents were denied custody and any visitation because the courts held that the problems between dad and the grandparents were so bad it wasn't in the child's best interest to continue visits. AND...

"When the judge is hearing a dispute between the parents, or a parent, and a third party, . . . the question still is, what is in the child's best interest? However, the parties do not start out even; the parents have a 'prima facie right to custody,' which will be forfeited only if 'convincing reasons' appear that the child's best interest will be served by an award to the third party. Thus, even before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the parents' side

The OP has already stated there are issues at exchange time and I'm sure things aren't nicey nice between the family. PA courts have held that discord is reason enough to not allow even visitation, let alone custody.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Read In the case of K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F..
which has now moved, on appeal, to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Grandparents have a 'right' to sue for custody. That is ALL. And KB is only one of many such cases now in the Pennsylvania appeallate system that has overturned rulings for grandparents against biological parents on issues of custody and visitation.

In this case, and in many others, although the grandparents were granted custody based on the child living with them for an inordinate amount of time, the appeals court held in the mother's favor based on the rights of a parent absent a showing of unfitness.

The decision is important because the court, in its ruling, viewed the job of dancing and the late hours kept by the mother to NOT be germaine to the issue of fitness. Nor the young age of the mother, 22 in this case.

IF the father proves paternity then the BEST these grandparents can hope for is to mend the rift and receive some form of visitation. Especially in light of the recent (within the last year) decisions in Pennsylvania.

ALSO, a word of caution. The grandparents may sue for custody and force a paternity test. However, once completed and if it shows the father to be, in this case, the ex, then the annimosity it provides may drive a further wedge between the families.

SUGGEST, do NOT demand a paternity test at this time.

January 2, 2004, Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the Superior Court's ruling on the K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F. case. KB II, KB and BBvCBF, 833 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003) Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments from both Attorney Lisa Vari and counsel for the grandparents in September of 2004, but has not yet entered its decision on the case.

The facts presented by OP are considerably different than those in K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F. case which did not involve an orphan who's only legal parent was deceased and no other court orders establishing paternity, custody, child support, visitaiton. These are decided on a case by case basis, this case involved parties where custody between parents was established grandparents were awarded custody and partial custody at different time and mother was deceased, maternal grandparents were awarded partial custody and father lost appeal.
www.romingerlegal.com/pacaselaw/superior/a36038-99.html

The presumed father has had 4 years to establish these and in fact waited 2 months following mother's death, before essentially, abducting/kidnapping the child. According to § 2901. Kidnapping.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of kidnapping if he unlawfully removes another a substantial distance under the circumstances from the place where he is found, or if he unlawfully confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation, with any of the following intentions:

1. To hold for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage.
2. To facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter.
3. To inflict bodily injury on or to terrorize the victim or another.
4. To interfere with the performance by public officials of any governmental or political function.

(b) Grading.--Kidnapping is a felony of the first degree. A removal or confinement is unlawful within the meaning of this section if it is accomplished by force, threat or deception, or, in the case of a person who is under the age of 14 years or an incapacitated person, if it is accomplished without the consent of a parent, guardian or other person responsible for general supervision of his welfare.

While the grandparnets who were persons having general supervision for the child's welfare gave permission in good faith for the child to take vacation with the presumed father and his parents, the fact that they failed to return the child to their care qualifies his/their action as deception etc and kidnapping, in turn it could be argued, that not only is this not in the best interest of the child but is proof of lack of fitness. At this point it is not so much a case of claiming fitness of the presumed father who ahs neglected to establish any claim to parental rights while mother was alive and he had over 2.5 years to do that and instead chose, deception. It is essential to establish at least custody/guardianship of this orphan, thus more than a case of either parental/grandparent's rights, that is why a GAL was reccommonded.

While you cite the above case, the attorney representing the mother also actively solicits grandparent cases because they are decided on a case by case basis based on the best interest of the child and writes elsewhere,

Grandparents' Custody Rights in Pennsylvania

Currently, Pennsylvania recognizes the rights of grandparents to seek visitation, partial physical custody, or primary physical custody of their minor grandchildren. The grandparents must prove that the requested custody would be in the best interests of the minor child or children and would not interfere with the relationship between the parent and child.

One of the most recent cases involving grandparents' rights evolved through the Armstrong County courts. In the case of K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F., the Armstrong County trial court judge awarded primary physical custody of a minor child to his paternal grandparents even though the trial judge found the child's mother to be fit. Attorney Vari was hired to represent the mother to file an appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In the Superior Court, Attorney Vari argued that only if a parent is declared unfit should grandparents have the right to seek primary physical custody of their minor grandchildren. While Attorney Vari was successful in having the minor child returned to the custody of his mother, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that grandparents have the right to sue parents for primary physical custody of their grandchildren even if the parents are deemed to be fit parents. On January 2, 2004, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the Superior Court's ruling on the K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F. case.

After the United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville was decided, some parents have argued that it is unconstitutional for a state court to award even partial custody or visitation to grandparents if the parent disagrees with the grandparents' request for partial custody or visitation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet decided whether Pennsylvania's grandparent visitation statutes are constitutional in light of the Troxel case although there are recent Superior Court opinions finding the statutes constitutional.

1/5/2004 9:00:41 AM K.B., II, K.B. and B.B. v. C.B.F., Pet; No. 562wal2003

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Actually the point in putting those cases up was to show that as stated custody is a crap shoot, and show similar cases to the OP's that grandparents aren't getting custody.

How many of those cases involved an orphan with no legal parent alive? Cases are considered on a case by case basis, where the facts are argued with the best interest of the child as the primary goal, that is not a crap shoot.

Regardless if she's with an organization or not she stated and addressed the issue at hand. While PA is a slight more pro-grandparents then some states it's still an uphill battle in which she stated.

Providing a biased and subjective personal opinion without qualification is not, as in Ldij's own opinion, not debating fairly. She should follow he own rules.


Actually unfitness can be proven in this case, although not for the reasons OP presented, again, one must view the whole picture in an unbiased and objective manner, based on the laws, not personal opinion, agenda and or observations.
and to show again...(to add to these thoughts)

The OP has already stated there are issues at exchange time and I'm sure things aren't nicey nice between the family. PA courts have held that discord is reason enough to not allow even visitation, let alone custody.

I doubt the fact that the child clings to her maternal grandmother who has been her/a primary caretaker for all of her life would be seen in a negative light especially subsequent to kidnapping. If anything it is evidence of who is considering the best interest of the child.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Kidnapping, as one of our usual posters who continues to "ASSUME" facts not in evidence, is a matter of fact for a judge to decide just as is Paternity.

WHEN the alleged father proves that he is the LEGAL father by DNA then any kidnapping charges filed will be dismissed as a matter of LAW.

The case was cited for the reason of GP rights. Once paternity is established it matters not that the GPs had the child.

As discussed ad-nausem on this site and in Pennsylvania case law, they have the right to PETITION ONLY, NOT TO a decision in their favor.

 

[stealth2]

I dunno, Beebs.... compellingly long citations there.

hehehehehehe

 

[tigger22472]

Kidnapping, as one of our usual posters who continues to "ASSUME" facts not in evidence, is a matter of fact for a judge to decide just as is Paternity.

WHEN the alleged father proves that he is the LEGAL father by DNA then any kidnapping charges filed will be dismissed as a matter of LAW.

The case was cited for the reason of GP rights. Once paternity is established it matters not that the GPs had the child.

As discussed ad-nausem on this site and in Pennsylvania case law, they have the right to PETITION ONLY, NOT TO a decision in their favor.

But rmet isn't going to see that because she has to argue her 'statute' that SHE posted and she's obviously the only one that is right. She wants to ignore case law in PA that has been posted showing how they are ruling in PA and their CASE LAW and stance on bio-logical parents rights. Also per usual without more information from the poster she's made her diagnosis of the situation...

And to a side note to LDIJ... I want to say that I am proud of her for not taking the bait that I obviously have this time when it rmet initial post was to attack her!

 

[rmet4nzkx]

But rmet isn't going to see that because she has to argue her 'statute' that SHE posted and she's obviously the only one that is right. She wants to ignore case law in PA that has been posted showing how they are ruling in PA and their CASE LAW and stance on bio-logical parents rights. Also per usual without more information from the poster she's made her diagnosis of the situation...

And to a side note to LDIJ... I want to say that I am proud of her for not taking the bait that I obviously have this time when it rmet initial post was to attack her!

Excuse me, I suppose case law I cited, in which the mother was deceased , custody/partial custody was awarded to the maternal grandparents and withstood apeal, has less weight than other cases with less similar facts when cases are decided on a case by case basis in the best interest of the child? Is that what you are saying? We should only cite the cases that support one point of view/bias? You are comparing apples to oranges, it is not simply an issue of grandparent v parental rights where custody was already established where there was no question as to paternity and an orphan with no living legal parent/custodal parent and if there had been Standby Guardinaship established under § 5601, there would have been no argument.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Pennsylvania Standby Guardianship Act was approved on November 24, 1998. Section 2 of the Act provided that the Act took effect in 60 days, thus the Act was effective on January 22, 1999.

In enacting the Standby Guardianship Act, the General Assembly declared these findings:

(1) Existing law does not provide adequately for the needs of a parent who is terminally ill, or who is periodically incapable of caring for the needs of a minor due to the parent's incapacity or debilitation resulting from illness, and who desires to make long-term plans for the future of a minor without terminating or limiting in any way the parent's legal rights.

(2) It is the intent of the General Assembly to create an expeditious procedure which will enable a parent who is terminally ill or periodically incapable or debilitated to make long-term plans for a minor without terminating or limiting in any manner parental rights.

On June 22, 2000, the Pennsylvania Legislature amended the Act, enacting Act No. 59 of 2000 (Senate Bill No. 1275). The amendments added references to "legal custodian" in §§ 5602 and 5611, giving legal custodians the same rights as granted to parents and legal guardians under the Act.

The only fault here is that the mother and maternal grandparents acted in good faith in this capacity and no one informed them of it's protection.

.

I didn't attack Ldij, I responded. She apparently missed the fact that this occured within the last 6 weeks, so her contention re the length of time the child was removed from the guardianship of the maternal grandparents is less a factor since it was of short duration and done by means of deception. The fact that the presumed father failed to establish any court orders, even after he knew of the impending death of custodial parent, makes it appear that he is not acting in his capacity as a parent, but rather his parents are forcing the issue that they couldn't force while mom was alive for the very reasons you have cites and he is a puppet at best sitting on the couch wastching the child cling to her maternal grandmother as his mother prys the crying child away without intervention. Best interest?

 

[tigger22472]

Rmet:

I don't think paternity was legally established, no. I don't think there was any question that Paul was the father.
I will find out the answer to your question.

Meaning the poster isn't SURE if paternity has been estalished yet as she isn't immediately involved in this and she never came back to confirm or deny.

Karla did have visits with her father and paternal grandparents. He did pay some child support.

This poster never indicated if the CS paid was court ordered or not as she's not even sure that paternity was or was NOT established. She HAS stated that even while mom was alive that dad had visits so this is NOT like some stranger came and took this child when her mother died.

Relations are of course getting hostile between the 2 sets of grandparents.

With this statement, let's play your game in assuming that if things are hostile between the grandparents they obviously would be also with the father... HENCE the reference of the case Commonwealth ex rel. Zaffarano v. Genaro, 500 Pa. 256

I don't myself know how much financial support he provided to Karla, Jackie told me Paul used to bring milk.

yet ANOTHER indication this poster does not know the whole story yet YOU want to persist in telling her things that may or may not apply.

No one here has disputed that they COULD file for visitation of some sort. Hell, nearly every statute ever written tells people they MAY file for something. BUT.. CASE law is what rules and you know that. You also know that if these grandparents take this to court and paternity has NOT been established legally that a judge will order such AND considering the child is in the physical custody of (we'll say) the potential dad AND considering that PA Law CLEARLY states:

Parents have a "prima facie right to custody,"

the child will likely REMAIN in the 'potential' dad's home until the results of the test come back.

Just stop being so Damn argumentive!! You AREN'T the genius you have claimed to be because it takes just a little common sense to figure this one out!!

I didn't attack Ldij, I responded. She apparently missed the fact that this occured within the last 6 weeks, so her contention re the length of time the child was removed from the guardianship of the maternal grandparents is less a factor since it was of short duration and done by means of deception. The fact that the presumed father failed to establish any court orders, even after he knew of the impending death of custodial parent, makes it appear that he is not acting in his capacity as a parent, but rather his parents are forcing the issue that they couldn't force while mom was alive for the very reasons you have cites and he is a puppet at best sitting on the couch wastching the child cling to her maternal grandmother as his mother prys the crying child away without intervention. Best interest?

First off wasn't it you that spouted off yesterday about people making opinions? Here you are claiming but what LITTLE you have heard here that he's not 'acting in his capacity as a parent, but rather his parents are forcing the issue....' Didn't I introduce you to 'kettle' yesterday? Just because he sat on the couch does not mean that he's not a good parent. Hell, all the OP could come up with was he watched porn when the child was a year old.

Now, as far as your attack to LDIJ

Ldij,
Please inform OP that you are with an organization that advocates against the rights of grandparents. Then would you please READ all of the posts with an unbiased mind

I don't know where the hell you grew up but that sounds like an attack to me.

This OP was told several times that the first moves of the grandparents would be to TRY and play nice before going into a legal battle but their

Our family thinks that Karla should remain with them!

and refuses to hear anything but how they should automatically get a lawyer, prove dad unfit because according to you this is an orphan child and fight like cats and dogs to get what they want.

 

[WA_DAD]

rmet4nzkx

Ldij,
Please inform OP that you are with an organization that advocates against the rights of grandparents. Then would you please READ all of the posts with an unbiased mind.

This happened recently. The only facts we know are mom was <18 when she was pregnant and 22 when she died in late June 2005 of a brain tumor, maternity was established, apparnetly paternity was not established nor any court orders, paternity, custody, child support, visitation. All of these matters have been handled between the parties. Mom and child resided with her parents except for 1 month. with her parents and her mother and sister were primary caretakers of the child, the child was recently removed (Sept 2005) from the maternal grandparents custody under the ruse of a vacation and not returned, that is 2 months after mom died without any court proceedings. Thus, the child's custody/guardianship is not established and the grandparents who have been refered to an attorney do have a good chance of more than everyother weekend visitation! Please refrain from inferring that they shouldn't take action out of fear of losing any contact with their grandchild, or that it has been too long, that is not in the best interest of the child.

I know you just hate grandparents being involved in the lives of their grandchildren because of your own personal history, but please refrain from injecting your personal agenda especially once a question has been answered and the poster approriately refered to attorney and GAL.

Not only have there loving grandparents lost their babygirl but their grandchild as well to as you are so likely to point out, legal strangers!

It is very appropriate for these grandparents to petition the courts for custody or guardianship of this orphan for the best welfare of the child and their chances are good that they will establish some reasonable custody/visitation for this child, what is sure is that if they don't, they will lose that to legal strangers without a fight.

PLEASE read before responding!

Orphan? HOW DARE YOU. The CHILD has a FATHER. Are you "Another" Man-Hater who post here? U got some nerve. WA_DAD

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Orphan? HOW DARE YOU. The CHILD has a FATHER. Are you "Another" Man-Hater who post here? U got some nerve. WA_DAD

I strongly suggest you remove your post. Take the HINT!

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Orphan? HOW DARE YOU. The CHILD has a FATHER. Are you "Another" Man-Hater who post here? U got some nerve. WA_DAD

This is not the same situation as you where you were married/divorced/custody, you were the legal father. The LEGAL definition of orphan is

or·phan
n.

A child deprived by death of one or usually both parents; broadly A child without a parent or guardian

In this case there is a man believed to be the father without court orders, a man who has not attempted, as soon as he learned that mom was dying to legaly exercise his parental rights in a legal sense and chose instead to remove, by deception, the child from the persons acting in good faith and as allowed by state law, her legal guardians. Big difference.

I am not a man-hater, although there definatey are some on these forums. I take an objective view, which is not always popular with those who are subjective. No, I do not have a biased view as you. If you will look at threads by DadDenied and Unbornchild, you will see how your statement is totally false and that if anything, your remarks should be directed at others.

I expect an apology.