Grandparents Rights

[lillygator]

I think what people have a hard time wraping their heads around is that there is a world of difference between what is right and what is legal.

It is right that loving, stable GP's be able to see their grandkids as much as can reasonably be expected given individual circumstances. However, in most cases it is simply not legal if the parent(s) do not wish to allow it. We all hope that people will make the right choice and allow stable GP's access to the grandkids, unfortunatly that doesn't always happen.

IMO the courts should stay out of it, even if the parent(s) have no real good reason to prevent visitations. The courts should not be allowed to second guess a fit parent. Neither my DF nor my MIL should have ANY say what so ever on if/when they can see my kids (if I had any). I consider myself pretty liberal on most issues, this is not one of them. Fit parents have (or should have, IMO) the absolute legal right to decide who is around their children, and that includes GP's.

And no, my opinion would not change if I had a problem with my own grandkids. While I'd be heartbroken over it, I'd respect the wishes of my child or son/daugher-in law. IMO I have no right to force visitation on a competant adult and otherwise fit parent.

sorry, but I don't think it is a "right" of any family member to visit my child. Who we choose to have in our children's lives is up to us..andthank god we live in FL.

 

[mickeywho?]

The sperm and egg did not come from grandma and grandpa.

OR in case of adoption--

IF they are not listed on the adoption papers--the court doesn't recognize them as the adoptive parents.

While i would never dream of being spiteful for no reason--I will protect my children. They are NOT product of any grandparent's DNA. They are descendents and that is it.

Grandparents had the opportunity to rear their children and the children have left the nest and started families of their own.

LEGALLY--they should never be automatically entitled to any legal right to a child on blood relation (or adoptive relation) alone. The child simply is not theirs.

While there may be moral considerations and what is "just" in terms of keeping family ties, there should never be an automatic granting of 'grandparent rights' just b/c one possesses the title and the proper bloodline/adoptive line.

It undermines the rights of the parents to parent as they see fit and make the decisions to raise their children.

There are some families who are just not touchy feely. There are some loving grandparents who--are a bit pushy when it comes to their demands. I see this with my sister in law. Her mother is as sweet as pie--but I personally think she's a little cuckoo for cocoa puffs in her expectations on seeing her grandchild. It is b/c she misses her own daughter--but she's a bit pushy for my taste.

I could see one day that she would be a candidate to litigate (I rhymed HAH!)--and she would be smoking crack if she did as it wouldn't be necessary. But I could see her insisting that she has to be uber close to her grandchildren. She coddle the baby as though it were her own--but we know she doesn't actually think that.

Too much--relationship can be just as unhealthy. In fact--they are grateful for the distance (nearly 3 hour drive) as that affords the grandmother some proximity restraint.

I see perfectly "good" grandparents behave abnormally when it comes to the grandkids. And when they begin (playfully/part seriously) having "demands" or "expectations" (rights) to the child--to me that is just plain creepy.

They've had their kids--they've raised them. They're done. Plain and simple. To give them automatic legal rights to another set of kids that they in no way raise from moment of conception/foster parentage/adoption--until they are 17 and 354 days, is unconstitutional IMHO.

A child is unable to make educated opinions on what is in their best interest.

I'm sorry--they weren't there witnessing what I witnessed in my rearing to have enough knowledge on whether or not a relationship can be healthy with grandma or grandpa.

I've been following this thread...an interesting debate. Just wanted to say to a well thought out and articulate response. I couldn't agree more!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The sperm and egg did not come from grandma and grandpa.

OR in case of adoption--

IF they are not listed on the adoption papers--the court doesn't recognize them as the adoptive parents.

While i would never dream of being spiteful for no reason--I will protect my children. They are NOT product of any grandparent's DNA. They are descendents and that is it.

Grandparents had the opportunity to rear their children and the children have left the nest and started families of their own.

LEGALLY--they should never be automatically entitled to any legal right to a child on blood relation (or adoptive relation) alone. The child simply is not theirs.

While there may be moral considerations and what is "just" in terms of keeping family ties, there should never be an automatic granting of 'grandparent rights' just b/c one possesses the title and the proper bloodline/adoptive line.

It undermines the rights of the parents to parent as they see fit and make the decisions to raise their children.

There are some families who are just not touchy feely. There are some loving grandparents who--are a bit pushy when it comes to their demands. I see this with my sister in law. Her mother is as sweet as pie--but I personally think she's a little cuckoo for cocoa puffs in her expectations on seeing her grandchild. It is b/c she misses her own daughter--but she's a bit pushy for my taste.

I could see one day that she would be a candidate to litigate (I rhymed HAH!)--and she would be smoking crack if she did as it wouldn't be necessary. But I could see her insisting that she has to be uber close to her grandchildren. She coddle the baby as though it were her own--but we know she doesn't actually think that.

Too much--relationship can be just as unhealthy. In fact--they are grateful for the distance (nearly 3 hour drive) as that affords the grandmother some proximity restraint.

I see perfectly "good" grandparents behave abnormally when it comes to the grandkids. And when they begin (playfully/part seriously) having "demands" or "expectations" (rights) to the child--to me that is just plain creepy.

They've had their kids--they've raised them. They're done. Plain and simple. To give them automatic legal rights to another set of kids that they in no way raise from moment of conception/foster parentage/adoption--until they are 17 and 354 days, is unconstitutional IMHO.

A child is unable to make educated opinions on what is in their best interest.

I'm sorry--they weren't there witnessing what I witnessed in my rearing to have enough knowledge on whether or not a relationship can be healthy with grandma or grandpa.

Great response...

 

[Took]

THe only downside to the "grandparents should have no legal rights" argument (although I personally agree with it) is that so many parents clearlly aren't raising the children very well and yet are defiant of any "interference" from "the old folks." I want to agree that each parent has the right (even the responsibility) to raise kids as they see fit, but then I see the absolutely crappy job many of them make of the effort and watch as good-hearted grandparents (who could provide a good influence, perhaps) are told to mind their own business.

Ultimately, I'd like the courts, in some cases, to be able to interfere a bit, I think. However, I'm reading this debate with interest, too.

I might mention that none of this is a personal issue for me. DD has 4 wonderful grandparents.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Here's a link to Pennsylvania's laws regarding grandparents rights. It cites actual case law in Pennsylvania and Federal ruling of the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.pafamilylawyers.com/CM/FamilyLawPractice/FamilyLawPractice57.asp

Don't quote me on this ( ), but if I remember correctly the case cited in Pennsylvania had to do with a widowed mother wanting to move out of state and her in-laws suing to get custody of the child because they didn't want her to move??? (I know there was something big like that in the news a few years back).

From the citation I quote, "Generally, grandparents can seek partial custody or visitation of their minor grandchildren in one of three circumstances: (1) if either of the child's or children's parents are deceased; (2) if the parents have never married, are married but separated for more than six months, or are divorced; or (3) the grandchildren have resided with the grandparents for more than 12 months and then were removed from the home. There is no right to compel grandparent partial custody or visitation if the parents are residing together in an intact marriage."

Thankfully, none of these requirements are met in my case but the death part is probably why I was advised to mention my wishes in my Will. I suspect this ruling was meant to grant a continued relationship with Grandparents who either had a history of being close to their Grandchildren which has been disrupted because the parents are troubled or who are being excluded because of illegitimacy or death. This does not seem to include Grandparents who are rejected because they are disruptive in some way.

 

[mhsjax]

The sperm and egg did not come from grandma and grandpa.

OR in case of adoption--

IF they are not listed on the adoption papers--the court doesn't recognize them as the adoptive parents.

While i would never dream of being spiteful for no reason--I will protect my children. They are NOT product of any grandparent's DNA. They are descendents and that is it.

Grandparents had the opportunity to rear their children and the children have left the nest and started families of their own.

LEGALLY--they should never be automatically entitled to any legal right to a child on blood relation (or adoptive relation) alone. The child simply is not theirs.

While there may be moral considerations and what is "just" in terms of keeping family ties, there should never be an automatic granting of 'grandparent rights' just b/c one possesses the title and the proper bloodline/adoptive line.

It undermines the rights of the parents to parent as they see fit and make the decisions to raise their children.

There are some families who are just not touchy feely. There are some loving grandparents who--are a bit pushy when it comes to their demands. I see this with my sister in law. Her mother is as sweet as pie--but I personally think she's a little cuckoo for cocoa puffs in her expectations on seeing her grandchild. It is b/c she misses her own daughter--but she's a bit pushy for my taste.

I could see one day that she would be a candidate to litigate (I rhymed HAH!)--and she would be smoking crack if she did as it wouldn't be necessary. But I could see her insisting that she has to be uber close to her grandchildren. She coddle the baby as though it were her own--but we know she doesn't actually think that.

Too much--relationship can be just as unhealthy. In fact--they are grateful for the distance (nearly 3 hour drive) as that affords the grandmother some proximity restraint.

I see perfectly "good" grandparents behave abnormally when it comes to the grandkids. And when they begin (playfully/part seriously) having "demands" or "expectations" (rights) to the child--to me that is just plain creepy.

They've had their kids--they've raised them. They're done. Plain and simple. To give them automatic legal rights to another set of kids that they in no way raise from moment of conception/foster parentage/adoption--until they are 17 and 354 days, is unconstitutional IMHO.

A child is unable to make educated opinions on what is in their best interest.

I'm sorry--they weren't there witnessing what I witnessed in my rearing to have enough knowledge on whether or not a relationship can be healthy with grandma or grandpa.

WOW, I am very sorry that you have had some issues with grandparents, but not all of them are out for control. Such bitterness. I never said that a grandparent has legal rights, but IF the grandparents are fit, then they should be allowed to visit. True, they didn't contribute the egg or sperm, however, they did contribute it to make you ( you in general) and if not for them you wouldn't have children, you wouldn't be here.

I am in no way saying that grandparents who are unfit, or those that endanger the child, or have the idea that the child is theirs and they have a say in raising the child, should have visitation. I am talking about normal grandparents, that are loving and no the boundaries. I believe that they should be allowed visits. Sorry but I saw this happen to a grandmother, and the DDIL used the child as a weapon to get what she wanted from the grandmother in terms of material things. In other words you buy my baby this and you can come visit. Now you tell me which person is fit, the parent or the grandparent.

 

[Planogirl]

Good grandparents have a moral right to see their grandchildren and nothing will change my mind about that. If my parents had for some reason kept me away from my grandmothers after I had a relationship with them I would have done what I could to see my grandmothers anyway and I would have definitely had a relationship with them when I became of age.

My mother and I had a falling out and haven't spoken in years. In spite of that I did all I could to make sure that DS and her had the chance to have a relationship. I feel that it's right.

Sometimes what is right and what is legal don't necessarily mean the same thing. And again, I am not talking about bad people here.

 

[Nancyg56]

Good grandparents have a moral right to see their grandchildren and nothing will change my mind about that. If my parents had for some reason kept me away from my grandmothers after I had a relationship with them I would have done what I could to see my grandmothers anyway and I would have definitely had a relationship with them when I became of age.

My mother and I had a falling out and haven't spoken in years. In spite of that I did all I could to make sure that DS and her had the chance to have a relationship. I feel that it's right.

Sometimes what is right and what is legal don't necessarily mean the same thing. And again, I am not talking about bad people here.

The same thing happened to me. My Mom and my Aunt had a falling out as well. My Memere lived with my Aunt and they live 1/4 mile away. We were too young to make a decision to go see her. Gifts from my Aunt who was my sister's Godmother, would appear on the doorstep and would be sent back. My cousins who were older would call and try to get my Mom to relent at least for us to see my Memere but my Mom would not. We had no other relatives living close by, so we had no extended family here to fill in the void.

My Mom had a right to feud with my aunt if she wanted to. I have always resented that she dragged us into that fued. My Aunt was not a bad woman, she just held a different position on a huge strike that my parents were involved in. My Memere did nothing wrong but she lived in the same house as the offending Aunt, did not drive and only spoke French. They wanted nothing more than to love us and to be a part of our lives. Even as young children my sister and I knew that we were being punished for something we had no control of. This went on for over 15 years. Once we were old enough to go visit we did but we were never able to form the bond with my grandmother that we should have had. That loss was ours. My Aunt and cousins missed us and my Memere did as wel but they filled the void with other relativesl. My Mom was secure in knowing she had the "right". Gail and I had no rights, we were too far from the rest of the family to fill that void with them so we just plain lost. It is always the children that lose the most.

I loved my Mom and have grown wanting to emulate her in many ways but in this one area I learned what not to do. Children only thrive when family surrounds them with love. Adults need to nuture that and encourage it. As other posters have pointed out, this is nto about keeping children away from family who are not fit or are simply bad people. I have kept my kids from family who I felt I could not trust on one way or another to keep my children safe, emotionally or physically. Never from people whose only sin was to be related to the spouse who died.

 

[PaddingtonBear]

In all the histronics of doggedly defending parental rights- which I believe in- the thing that is getting lost is the child's rights.

I really think these things depend on the situation. In my family we have a situation going on where there was a divorce. Mom has full custody simply becuase her parents hired her a divorce attorney and Dad did not have the resources to do so. Mom's parents are at the house all the time, so the child has a very strong relationship with maternal grandparents. Dad's parents are fabulous people and grandparents- very respectful of mom's rights and wishes, they adore the child. But mom is bitter at dad for leaving, and therefore she cut off contact with dad's parents. Dad gets visitation weekly for three hours (criminal! don't get me started on the courts decision here. The dad got screwed in the divorce) in Mom's home, and she has said he can't bring the grandparents over to her house.

In this situation the grandparents are fit and loving. Both parents do NOT want to cut off contact with the grandparents, only the mom, who has more resources and therefore has custody. It is certainly within the mom's rights to limit the grandparents access to the kid- but is it in the child's best interest? No. The parent, even a good parent, is not always emotionally able to determine what is in the child's best interest. I'm not saying that the grandparents should have 'rights'. I am saying I can see why a court might intervene - and be right to do so- in a situation like this where the child should have a right to develop a relationship with a wonderful grandparent.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The harsh reality is that children have no "rights" in this situation. If a child has a toxic friend, the parent has the right to end all contact with that friend. Same goes for anyone else, whether they be toxic or not. The child has no right to contact with others without approval of their parents. In fact, this is an important part of parenting - teaching children to make wise decisions and to limit contact with those who would do them harm.

In the end, it is the parent's decision. Sadly, parents make mistakes and sometimes hurt their children - but it is still the parent's decision to make.

I just hope that I never face something like this, as it would break my heart if I were unable to build relationships with my grandchildren (assuming I ever have any), just as it would break my children's hearts should my wife and I feel compelled to remove their grandparents from their lives...

 

[C.Ann]

What about the rights of the children(I mean, if there is no problem with the grandparents), but for a parents right to overstep the kid's rights, just because a parent may want to get back at an ex's family, just isn't right, I don't care what the parents rights are.

I would have never stopped her from seeing the kids. to do so would be taking something wonderful away from the kids. I don't care what my rights as a parent are.

HOwever, I do believe that it is morally wrong for a parent to keep a child away from a grandparent just to get back at a spouse, that is what I was talking about. And if a parent did that, then IMHO then that person doesn't deserve to be a parent, (assuming that the grandparents are "fit grandparents")

While I do agree with you on paper, I just can't believe that there are people out there who refuse to let the grandparents see their grandchildren. Again, I am talking about "fit" grandparents. We all have disagreements on how we raise out kids, but unless it is life threatening, then really just let it go. (and I am not speaking to you but in general) I think that any child who refuses visitation by grandparents , when there isn't anything wrong with the grandparents, Wasn't raised right.

I know, I don't understand how people could do it either. God knows I disagree with my MIL on just about everything. But at heart she is a decent loving person and there is no reason for her not to see our grandkids (once we have them). And with my father I have no issues about at all, neither does DH. To prevent either of them from seeing their grandkids is just a totally foreign concept to me.

WOW, I am very sorry that you have had some issues with grandparents, but not all of them are out for control. Such bitterness. I never said that a grandparent has legal rights, but IF the grandparents are fit, then they should be allowed to visit.

I am in no way saying that grandparents who are unfit, or those that endanger the child, or have the idea that the child is theirs and they have a say in raising the child, should have visitation. I am talking about normal grandparents, that are loving and no the boundaries. I believe that they should be allowed visits..

Good grandparents have a moral right to see their grandchildren and nothing will change my mind about that. If my parents had for some reason kept me away from my grandmothers after I had a relationship with them I would have done what I could to see my grandmothers anyway and I would have definitely had a relationship with them when I became of age.

Sometimes what is right and what is legal don't necessarily mean the same thing. And again, I am not talking about bad people here.

. Once we were old enough to go visit we did but we were never able to form the bond with my grandmother that we should have had. That loss was ours.

Children only thrive when family surrounds them with love. Adults need to nuture that and encourage it. As other posters have pointed out, this is nto about keeping children away from family who are not fit or are simply bad people..

In all the histronics of doggedly defending parental rights- which I believe in- the thing that is getting lost is the child's rights.

The parent, even a good parent, is not always emotionally able to determine what is in the child's best interest. I'm not saying that the grandparents should have 'rights'. I am saying I can see why a court might intervene - and be right to do so- in a situation like this where the child should have a right to develop a relationship with a wonderful grandparent.

To keep a grandchild away from grandparents who are loving, stable people - just because a parent may disagree with them over very minor issues (and I've seen some of those minor issues posted time and time again on the DIS) is a terrible injustice to the children involved.. Part of a parents job is to teach their children how to give - and receive - love.. If those same children are being kept from extended family members who love them dearly, how can a parent say they are doing what's "best" for their children?

The parents are doing what is "best" for them - with no regard to their children's feelings.. Very disturbing and very sad..

 

[jrmasm]

To keep a grandchild away from grandparents who are loving, stable people - just because a parent may disagree with them over very minor issues (and I've seen some of those minor issues posted time and time again on the DIS) is a terrible injustice to the children involved..

Just because you (generic) think you're stable and loving doesn't mean everyone else shares your (generic) opinion.

And what about aunts and uncles???

Ideally children would have a relationship with their extended family members however, I do not think that courts should EVER get involved with visitation beyond the mother and father.

 

[Chicago526]

sorry, but I don't think it is a "right" of any family member to visit my child. Who we choose to have in our children's lives is up to us..andthank god we live in FL.

Which is 100% exactly what my post stated, so I don't know what your arguement is.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I have a neighbor that actually tried to stop his son from moving out of state so he could stay close to his grandson. He went so far as to hire a lawyer to determine whether or not he could petition the court to keep him from moving. Imagine that?

 

[S. C.]

I have a neighbor that actually tried to stop his son from moving out of state so he could stay close to his grandson. He went so far as to hire a lawyer to determine whether or not he could petition the court to keep him from moving. Imagine that?

I wonder if the grandparent was use to seeing the grandchild on a daily basis? Maybe even babysat everyday? Grandchildren is just like your own children only you have no say over things. So yes if the grandparent was involved on a daily basis I can understand why they would be upset enough to do that.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the grandparent in the above situation. Just saying I can understand why they did it.

 

[lillygator]

Which is 100% exactly what my post stated, so I don't know what your arguement is.

I think what people have a hard time wraping their heads around is that there is a world of difference between what is right and what is legal.

It is right that loving, stable GP's be able to see their grandkids as much as can reasonably be expected given individual circumstances. However, in most cases it is simply not legal if the parent(s) do not wish to allow it. We all hope that people will make the right choice and allow stable GP's access to the grandkids, unfortunatly that doesn't always happen.

IMO the courts should stay out of it, even if the parent(s) have no real good reason to prevent visitations. The courts should not be allowed to second guess a fit parent. Neither my DF nor my MIL should have ANY say what so ever on if/when they can see my kids (if I had any). I consider myself pretty liberal on most issues, this is not one of them. Fit parents have (or should have, IMO) the absolute legal right to decide who is around their children, and that includes GP's.

And no, my opinion would not change if I had a problem with my own grandkids. While I'd be heartbroken over it, I'd respect the wishes of my child or son/daugher-in law. IMO I have no right to force visitation on a competant adult and otherwise fit parent.

I was not in agreement with you - I don't think it is their "right", (which you stated above) that GP's see their grandchildren.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Just peeking back in here...
Haven't joined in the fray.

I just wanted say...
DisneyBamaFan..... Is this something we can agree on!!!!

 

[Chicago526]

I was not in agreement with you - I don't think it is their "right", (which you stated above) that GP's see their grandchildren.

Which again is not what I said. The first line of my post stated that there is a difference between what is right (morally right, not legal right. I didn't think the need to point that out as most people can figure that out from context) and what is legal.

Let me spell it out for you.

It is (morally) right that loving, stable GP's be able to see their grandkids as much as can reasonably be expected given individual circumstances.

Is that better?

I would have thought that even if that sentence as I had orginally writen was unclear, that the rest of my post would have made it obvious. Guess not.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Just peeking back in here...
Haven't joined in the fray.

I just wanted say...
DisneyBamaFan..... Is this something we can agree on!!!!

We are both very strongly opinionated. That means that we will butt heads, but I will respect your opinions - even when I disagree with them (which will mean that you are wrong )...

 

[NHdisneylover]

After sitting back and thinking about it and reading along here is what I am comming to:
I do not think the government should be getting invovled in child rearing beyond protecting children from blatant abuse and neglect (as we do).

I think it is dispicable of parents to deny children and their grandparents a relationship when those grandparetns are good people who will not cause harm to the children. Children should not be pawns in an adults' petty battles. Denying children access to their grandparents, in normal circumstances, is not in their best interest.
However, it is not MY right to decide what is in the best interest of other people's children--nor should it be the governments. Why? Largely because it is too subjective. Some parents see a child in dance classes 5 nights a week and competitions on the weekends and say the child is over scheduled and parents are not acting in her best interests. Other see a child who desperately wants to dance and whose parents could afford it but will not pay for lessons and say the child is being denied a chance to grow and learn. Some poeple think it is in a child's best interest to be raised with a strong faith. Others think it is better to raise a child aware of many faiths and allow him to choose as an adult what to believe in. Some people believe spanking helps a child best learn to avoid dangerous situations. Others think spanking teaches a child violence. The list goes on and on and on. Short of abuse or neglect it is up to the parents to decide what is in the best interest of their child and sometimes the best interests of the FAMILY (yes I think sometimes the individual interest of a child is less important than the interest and dynamics of the family unit as a whole).