Questions about Grandparental Visitation

[LdiJ]

Utah's grandparent visitation law is in direct opposition to Troxel:

In essence I am correct that Grandparents in Utah can petition for visitation, and can gain rights.

Read this again

Following Troxel, the Utah courts have decided limited cases of Grandparent rights. In all of them the following premis has been forwarded by the courts in one form or another:

Visitation may be granted if the grandparent's child is dead or if the child's parents are divorced or legally separated. The visitation must also be found to be in the best interest of the child. Title 30, Chapter 5, Section 30-5-1 (U.C. §30-5-1 et seq.). (See also U.C. §30-3-5.)

The definative case law on the subject in Utah is Campbell v. Campbell, 896 P.2d 635 (Utah Ct. App. 1995).

Briefly;

Appellant grandparents had sought formal visitation rights with their five grandchildren. Finding that the parent-child relationship is the primary relationship that should be enhanced and questioning whether it had discretion to award grandparent visitation despite the statute’s language, the trial court granted grandparents only those minimal visitation rights which mother had previously agreed were appropriate. On appeal, grandparents challenged the adequacy of the trial court’s findings and claimed that the court’s analysis and resulting order were skewed by its view that the state’s grandparent visitation statute was unconstitutional. The appellate court held that the statute, which provides that courts “may grant grandparents and other immediate family members reasonable rights of visitation if it is in the best interests of the children,” is constitutional.
__________________

You are also ignoring your own posting which outlined the rebuttable presumption regarding fit parent's decisions. When you are talking about BOTH fit parents having the same decision and still stating that the grandparents can gain visitation rights..you aren't really understanding how the law works in third party cases.

If you still don't understand, then its probably better if you refer people to attorneys rather than "weighing in" on this particular issue.

I am not saying this to "slam" you....I am merely trying to make you understand that its a complicated issue legally...and completely and TOTALLY different than parent vs parent cases...and you could easily be leading parents or grandparents down the wrong path.

 

[kidoday]

I beg to differ with you, but I didn't post the rebuttle, Belize did.

My posts states that the grandparent can petition for visitation rights. I would suggest finding what I actually posted and read it again. Line 2 clearly states this: (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent's decision with regard to grandparent visitation is in the grandchild's best interests. However, the court may override the parent's decision and grant the petitioner reasonable rights of visitation if the court finds that the petitioner has rebutted the presumption based upon factors which the court considers to be relevant, such as whether:

I would also suggest you read this:

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/child_custody/grandparents_visitation_rights.htm

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/grandparents.php/UT/UT-DO-30-FF.htm

If you still don't understand, then its probably better if you refer people to attorneys rather than "weighing in" on this particular issue.

I understand completely, that I can find more than one article citing UT statute that state the parents do not have to be seperated, divorced, or deceased to have the court grant visitation rights to the grandparent.

and you could easily be leading parents or grandparents down the wrong path. Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[LdiJ]

I beg to differ with you, but I didn't post the rebuttle, Belize did.

My posts states that the grandparent can petition for visitation rights. I would suggest finding what I actually posted and read it again. Line 2 clearly states this: (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent's decision with regard to grandparent visitation is in the grandchild's best interests. However, the court may override the parent's decision and grant the petitioner reasonable rights of visitation if the court finds that the petitioner has rebutted the presumption based upon factors which the court considers to be relevant, such as whether:

I would also suggest you read this:

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/child_custody/grandparents_visitation_rights.htm

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/grandparents.php/UT/UT-DO-30-FF.htm

If you still don't understand, then its probably better if you refer people to attorneys rather than "weighing in" on this particular issue.

I honestly know more about this particular issue, nationwide, than anyone else participating on this board.

I understand completely, that I can find more than one article citing UT statute that state the parents do not have to be seperated, divorced, or deceased to have the court grant visitation rights to the grandparent.

and you could easily be leading parents or grandparents down the wrong path. Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black?

You are still not understanding the difference between parent vs parent cases and parent vs third party cases. The very fact that you state "the parents do not have to be seperated, divorced or deceased to have the court grant visitation rights to the grandparent"...shows that you don't understand this difference. Which is why is so important that you read Troxel.

If a parent can sue for visitation then unless the parent is seriously unfit, the parent WILL be granted visitation rights....because the parent has fundamental rights.

It is NOT the same in parent vs third party cases (and a grandparent is a third party).

While there appears to be some possibility that a grandparent might be able to gain "standing" to sue in Utah...even with an intact family situation....The grandparents still must overcome the rebuttable presumption that fit parents act in their children's best interest...in other words, must overcome the parent's fundamental rights. That is NOT easy to do and quite frankly would be next to impossible if both parents (which includes their OWN child) object.

Therefore, is it wise to advise a grandparent that they "can" get visitation in Utah over the wishes of both parents? Particularly when if they lose (and they almost certainly will) they will have destroyed any hope of reconciling wtih their child and of ever seeing the grandkids again? No, its not.

What's more, if a judge WERE to make an order over the objections of both parents, it would be highly appealable based on Troxel. The definite majority of appellate cases in this country since Troxel have gone in favor of the parents.

That is one of the fundamental differences in parent vs third party cases....when the third party loses....its DONE...for good.

 

[kidoday]

You are still not understanding the difference between parent vs parent cases and parent vs third party cases. The very fact that you state "the parents do not have to be seperated, divorced or deceased to have the court grant visitation rights to the grandparent"...shows that you don't understand this difference. Which is why is so important that you read Troxel.


I never stated that this was parent vs. parent. The question was GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS. And if you don't understand that Grandparents can petition for visitation rights in Utah and the courts have the final say even in intact family you are giving the wrong hope having her read Troxel.

So to OP, yes she can file for visitation rights in your state, it will be up to the judge to decide.

LDIJ what about that don't you understand?

 

[casa]

"Happening more and more often in the courts"???? Sorry, but you are way out of the "loop" on this particular topic. Since the USSC decision in Troxel vs Granville its harder than heck for a grandparent to win visitation.....and visitation over the objection of BOTH parents is next to impossible.

If you had made that statement prior to June 2000...you might have been accurate...however since then you are simply not.

Please re-read Troxel if you haven't done so....then read as much case law as possible in the 50 states since that ruling was made.

If this grandmother is even able to find an attorney to take her case....it will be one that will charge a huge retainer.

Within the last 16 months I know personally of 2 sets of grandparents (2 different families) who have filed for visitation- based on the parents previousl allowing ongoing visitations and unilaterally stopping, as the OPs post indicates- and won visitation rights. These cases were both in Utah.

A judge will take into account the fact that OP allowed (along with her husband) grandparents a "minimum of 2 times a month" visitation- and suddenly cut all contact off from the grandparents because she and husband were mad at them- not that they were dangerous to the children.

Again, I didn't say it WOULD happen- I said it COULD happen, and it can. I also stated in my original response that parents rights trump grandparents rights <legally>.

The OP should know that there is a chance of it happening- slim or not, there is a chance.

 

[msfurman]

Since yall have so much info on Grandparent visitation, can you possibly look at my post headlined "Paternity Help".
A quick run down is my 4 yr old is probably not the son of the man that is ordered to pay. were awaiting blood tests. Ive been told the courts can force visitation between my son and him. But I dont feel there is a paretn son bond. However, my sons Guardian ad Litem in court, told me he will be pushing for grandparent rights so that my son can have ordered visitation with his mother, the grandmother. But the man lives with his mother! So this is crazy to me. Also, She tried for gparent visitation and lost of course. But since I moved out of state, I allowed visitation with the father but since he could not provide visitation, his mother provided it and would pick up my son. Since I filed for paternity testing and moved he all of a sudden wants to be in my sons life. So his mother has been picking my son up. Well, when we showed for court for her gparent motion for visitation, they used that saying that Grandma has had regular visitation, not dad. And she cried in court when the judge said that i did not have to have visitation with grandma. And asked the judge to ask me if she could continue everyother weekend visitation. STUPIDLY I said yes. With gma crying in court, I would have looked like a b***. But I dont really want to. And now I feel it will be used against me when we go back to court for the paternity test. Becasue if he is not the father, they will now have the several months that we have waiting for a court date to get the test back, of everyother weekend visitation. The judge did say that I did not have to but I almost feel forced or something. I guess I also feel forced becasue "dad" lives with gma. And i feel that I should not deny him in case he is the childs father. I have sole custody with no visitation order for the father.