So the between the LRS title 9 Sec 344 I posted and the CC Art. 136. Award of visitation rights you posted. The answer to the OP's question is yes, under extraordinary circumstances...there could be sibling visitation.BelizeBreeze said:There was something in the thread that isn't there anylonger.
ANYWAY.
Art. 136. Award of visitation rights
A. A parent not granted custody or joint custody of a child is entitled to reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing, that visitation would not be in the best interest of the child.
B. Under extraordinary circumstances, a relative, by blood or affinity, or a former stepparent or stepgrandparent, not granted custody of the child may be granted reasonable visitation rights if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child. In determining the best interest of the child, the court shall consider:
(1) The length and quality of the prior relationship between the child and the relative.
(2) Whether the child is in need of guidance, enlightenment, or tutelage which can best be provided by the relative.
(3) The preference of the child if he is determined to be of sufficient maturity to express a preference.
(4) The willingness of the relative to encourage a close relationship between the child and his parent or parents.
(5) The mental and physical health of the child and the relative.
C. In the event of a conflict between this Article and R.S. 9:344 or 345, the provisions of the statute shall supersede those of this Article.
Acts 1993, No. 261, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, No. 57, §1.
Sibling and/or GP visitation is allows only under certain circumstances as listed above.
TLWE said:So the between the LRS title 9 Sec 344 I posted and the CC Art. 136. Award of visitation rights you posted. The answer to the OP's question is yes, under extraordinary circumstances...there could be sibling visitation.
That would be one he!!uva court fight I would love to watch.
Pretty much. You might consult an atty, though.indian spirit said:thanks for the replies. As the children have never met and dont know one another now I assume it would be impposiable and costly to attempt.
CALIF-LAWPRO23 said:Sorry for the confusion (this would be for Stealth too). I just wanted Kelly to know that her cookie cutter answer is not going to work. I just used NY as a reference for Kelly, since she's claimed to live in NY.Rushia said:My response:
Please post the link, or copy and paste the law, to which you refer. I'd be interested seeing it.
Thanks.
IAAL
IAAL, please don't make me look things up. I'm sick, I have strep throat. NY Domestic Relations 71 pertains to sibling visitation and 72 to GP's. It simply means that (in NY) under certain circumstances that siblings and GP's have standing to sue.
Though I'm unfamiliar with LA law specifically~ I do have a friend in LA who fought for, and won, sibling visitation in 2002. However, in their case they had an "existing bond"...the court did make the visitations at a center initially- then a public park (designated)- then eventually at the sister's home.indian spirit said:What is the name of your state? Louisiana
Are there any guidelines regarding half-sibling visitation?
Like perhaps at a local park over seen by mutual grandparent?
It would be VERY UNwise to post any links which contain personal information~ Perhaps you'd consider Personal Messaging shay instead?indian spirit said:i am not kelly and these are 2 seperate issues.
And because I have lost 2 children, I want my kids to be able to know their sibling. As you never know what will happen tomorrow.
And shay if you need proof that I am not Kelley I can give you a link to newspaper article regarding my boys.