Is There a Right to See Your Grandchildren?
There is one case that most often comes up when discussing grandparents’ rights: Troxel vs. Granville. Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel were the unmarried parents of two girls. The relationship ended and Troxel would often take his daughters to see their grandparents at their home. He eventually committed suicide, and Tommie got remarried. After her marriage, her new husband legally adopted the two girls, and she tried to limit visits from the Troxels. The Troxels responded by filing suit based on the Washington state statute, which didn’t specifically address grandparents, but allowed third parties to file for visitation. The state Supreme Court ruled that the statute was too broad; the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Court found that the state should not inject itself into family affairs, that fit parents should be trusted that they are acting in the best interests of their children, and that is not the place of government to question parents’ decisions.
In an interview with PJ Media, Stephen T. Priestap, an attorney specializing in divorce and family law, explained the Troxel decision and how it impacted state statutes:
This is a state law issue and will always be a state law issue, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Troxel case; that’s because virtually every state has its own “grandparents’ rights” statute. To broadly generalize, there are basically two types of grandparents’ rights statutes — restrictive and permissive. The law from Washington that was struck down was a permissive statute, and the problem with it basically was that it created a legal presumption that grandparent visitation was in the best interests of children, thus putting a burden on parents to show that it wasn’t. The Court felt the presumption should be in the parents’ favor, and that the grandparents should have to show that it’s in the children’s best interest. The ruling had little effect on more restrictive statutes, which generally say that grandparents can get visitation only in the event of the parents’ divorce or death of one parent. These types of laws are still viable and are still widely enforced in many states. As to the more permissive statutes, they have generally still been upheld as long as the burden is put on the grandparents to show that it’s in the child’s best interests to maintain contact, and since often this burden can be met fairly easily, grandparents’ rights are still alive and well in these states, but generally the actual visitation is limited to one or two nights in a month and perhaps some holiday contact. Any more extensive visitation beyond that may well risk a challenge based on the Troxel ruling. So, to summarize: restrictive state, probably no visitation unless there’s a death or divorce; permissive state, you can probably get some visitation but it will be pretty limited.
So it seems that courts aren’t out to completely cut off grandparents, but that they will, in most cases, rule against them.
That isn’t acceptable to some. There are those who fight for the so-called right of grandparents to have access to their grandchildren. The Grandparents Rights Organization, for example, believes that the bond between grandparent and grandchild should never be broken, and strives to confront what it sees as an attack.
But should grandparents really have a right to do any of this?
I’m involved in family court. Grandparents have an indisputable right to access.
btw, I take any British review with a salt lick… those fabian socialists will try anything to continue to take a pick axe at the traditional family structure..
due to the degradation of the ‘family’ in general, grandparents are using their only recourse against the SELFISH SELF-CENTERED public union educated parents of their grand children to hold on to the last vestiges of traditional family life.
admission: I have a NO ACCESS order against the grandmother of my children on the mother’s side.. as well as her boyfriend.. I hate the kids grandmother’s guts.. but.. I will not allow her to be cut off.. as long as I am supervising, the kids need their grandmother in their life..
Grandparents DO NOT! have an indisputable right of access to their grandchildren, see Troxel V. Granville.
I guess I should explain before somebody jumps on me about the interpretation of Troxel V. Granville.
That access is conditional, the conditions varying by state and individual instance.
Yes, I am engaging in pedantry, but indisputable has a specific definition, ie: “unable to be challenged or denied”.
I dunno, van. Where does such a right come from? Locke said natural rights come from God. (Life, liberty, and the pursuit, right?) Adding new “rights” is an old scam to divert us while our real rights are trampled upon.
But let’s consider families. Taking care of kids is instinctive behavior – we all find puppies and kittens cute. Caring for the elderly isn’t any fun – it must be inculcated as a duty. There’s a Commandment that touches on this: “Honor your father and mother.” (No Commandment to take care of children was necessary.)
(Dennis Prager said something similar to this – his show is great.)
Those who turn their backs on parents are Commandment breakers. I can see it if the parents were abusers, but most weren’t. Mostly it’s selfishness – why should I make time in my life for someone who irritates me? (Don’t befriend this kind of person.)
If you have kids now, get out of bed on Sunday and take them to Sunday school. Don’t, and you may be cut off from your grandchildren 30 years down the road.
There are several commandments to take care of children. Try making it to your church assembly more often, and listen closely. Since you can type, you can read- your bible?
But this article is filled with sweeping generalities; implying falsities.
Drug abuse is but one of myriad factors which motivate parents to refuse visitation with THEIR children. For example, is it possible that grandparents might insist on teaching the children a religion contradictory to the religion practiced by the parents? Or that the grandparents might habitually fail to provide an appropriate balance of affection, attention, discipline and supervision? Or that grandmas’ notion of proper nutrition is not acceptable to the parents? Or that some of the grandparents friends and visitors are objectionable to the parents? Or that one or both grandparents demean and disrespect one of the parents?
I can’t help but notice that Ms. Fiano doesn’t offer any biographical information about herself. Such as her age or the number of children or grandchildren she has.
I must say that Ms. Fiano makes a wonderful, conservative, constitutional argument here. I agree with her that this isn’t a problem the federal government should be dealing with. It should be left to the states, the courts and the people. I agree with her again with her statement that parents should, largely, be left alone to raise their children as they see fit as long as no abuse or drug use is taking place.
Which presents me with a large problem since I completely disagree with her stand on the issue. I think grandparents, especially those who have been involved in a child’s life should have the right to to visit with a grandchild.
Ms. Fiano mentions death and divorce a number of times in her column. She never explains who has died.
In most cases, if a grandparent is being denied the right to visit their grandchild, it’s their son or daughter who has died and it is the partner of the recently deceased who is trying to deny them their visits. This is understandable on both sides.
The partner has just lost the love of their life. They are in a great deal of pain and seeing the parents, siblings, nieces and nephews of the recently deceased spouse would do nothing but pour salt on that still-fresh wound. It is a very emotional time. Often in-laws don’t get along and simply put up with each other for the sake of the spouse or the children. Why continue that painful, sometimes uncomfortable relationship?
But, look at it from the grandparents point of view for a moment. These people have just lost their son or daughter – possibly their only child. They have pictures and memories and memorabilia from their child’s life that they can use to remember him or her. They have something even better too. They have their grandchildren. Literally, these are tiny people who have some of their son or daughter in them. The child may look just like their deceased parent.
I don’t have children but, having witnessed my mother’s devastation at the death of my then 30 year old brother, losing a child is one of the worst things that can happen to a person. Shall we punish them again by allowing a grieving or spiteful parent to deny them the right to visit their grandchildren?
Both the spouse and the grandparents are suffering? Who can say who is suffering more.
My mother was a foster parents, off and on throughout my childhood and after President George H.W. Bush’s “Thousand Points of Light” speech, Social Services got this idea ingrained that it was always best to reunite a child with its parent. The results of this were children being removed from foster care and returned to parents who were not fit, or even capable, of properly caring for a child. Most of these kids wound up back in foster care within a year, and occasionally dead or seriously injured at the hands of their mother or father.
I do not delude myself that there aren’t exceptions. If A grandparent is abusive to a child, that grandparent should be kept as far away from any child as possible. If a grandparent cannot visit with their grandchildren without talking badly of the parent or guardian, they should be denied the right to visit but if a grandparent simply wants to visit, hold, kiss and spoil their grandchildren, I don’t see why they can’t be accommodated.
Jeff, I am 27 years old. My husband is a Marine, and we have one son, Benjamin, who is almost nine months old and another baby on the way.
And while I don’t necessarily agree with whatever the reasons might be to keep children away from their grandparents, my point is simply that while it might not be the right thing to do, unless the parents are unfit then they can choose to raise their children how they want to, including choosing who is and isn’t allowed to be in their lives. If the parents are not unfit parents, then I don’t think it is for the courts to decide.
Because “spoiling” destroys the children.
And because children are the responsibility of their parents They are under the authority of their parents unless the parents require disobedience to God- or so says the Scripture.
Let’s be practical, here: Grandparents must get along with their own children if they want access to their grandchildren. Why should the law offer grandparents the right to neglect one generation of children to get at the next?
I know a grandmother of 13 who physically and mentally abused her five children. Not surprisingly, her five children don’t visit her much, and they won’t leave their young children alone with her. If grandma ever filed a petition seeking non-parental visitation rights, all of her children would oppose her. What visitation she gets is up to them, and that’s the way it ought to be in a free country. The law should have nothing to do with it.
I’m a grandparent, and Lavaux’s comment is absolutely right: “Grandparents must get along with their own children if they want access to their grandchildren.”
It is ridiculous to say that grandparents have any sort of rights that supersede those of the parents. If you want to see your grandchildren, then you should have the self-discipline and insight to inspect and evaluate your own behavior with your children and revise that behavior so that your own children trust you enough to allow you to visit with your grandchildren. Grandparents have no right to interfere with how their children raise their offspring.
What a crock of irrationality fringed with bathos!
A right is something it would be just to attain or defend with force. When a grandparent demonstrates to me — and not by citing some man-made “law” — that he would be justified in killing anyone who blocks his access to his grandchildren, I’ll listen to his claim. Until then, no deal.
So you are saying that a divorced parent going to pick up the kids from the ex is justified in killing the Ex.. on the spot if said Ex refuses to release the kids to said parent?
Or would the parent denied access have to rely on man made law to resolve the dispute?
I think the GrandParents who’s son died and the wife remarried have every right to reasonable access with the kids. It is just, and it is right for both them and the kids.
This discussion does not concern rights of divorced parents.
It is your privilege, of course to feel that grandparents should have access to their grandchildren.If your feelings were made a legal principle, then parents could not refuse the intrusion of hostile grandparents into their home and into the lives of their children. That hostility might be evidenced in religious, ethical, political values; in standards of personal conduct; in ettiquette; in verbal attacks or slights foreign to the parents perspectives. What if, eg, Ron Paul is grampa, and he tells your kids that it is ok for them to smoke dope? Or grand dad Obama insists that homosexual perversions are good and true? May parents raise their children according to their own beliefs?
What is being discussed is not a right, it is a privilege.
This is something that has long worried me. My wife’s father has become more and more belligerent and manipulative. I put up with it for a long time, but when my wife finally got tired of it too, we greatly restricted contact. After that, he became even more belligerent and even violent on one occasion. We’ve now cut him off almost completely. Fortunately, he lives 500 miles away, but even still I worry about him trying to file a suit to demand access to our daughter. Even if we won, he can afford the lawsuit far better than we can.
I understand that there are instances where the parents decision to cut off a grandparent’s access may seem cruel or unnecessary, but at the end of the day, if the parents haven’t been deemed unfit to be the guardians of their children, it seems to me that they should be in charge of who their children do and do not see.
Reading the article, it seems to me that these suits are possible only when everyone is in the same state. As long as the feds have a “hands off” policy (and they certainly should), parents can keep grandparents away simply by moving to another state.
As an example, do grandparents living in Oregon really think they should have the right to legally force their grandkids in Georgia to make regular flights to the Left Coast (being sexually molested twice by TSA perverts in the process)? Even if an Oregon court were loopy enough to grant such a demand, it would be unenforceable,and therefore null and void, in Georgia. At any rate, as Delia (#11) noted, the 2nd Amendment is the ultimate nullification.
In general, grandchildren should have access to their grandparents. Unless the grandparents have done or are likely to do something which will be harmful to the grandchildren, their parents or will undermine the relationship of the children and their parents it is usually in the best interest of grandchildren to have access to their grandparents. Parents are usually in the best position to judge what is in the best interest of their children and the state should only interfere in exceptional circumstances.
I must say as a grandparent I can’t imagine not being in my granddaughters lives. However as a parent of another more wayward child, I can see him never bringing his child around us. Not because we’re bad parents/grandparents but because we don’t agree with the life he’s chosen for himself. As the loss of that child in my life would hurt me deeply as long as abuse isn’t involved then it’s not my business.
I wanted to raise my children as I saw fit and I did so. My parents didn’t always agree and I never cut off contact. But I can see the desire to cut off that contact if it becomes ever more difficult to parent when your parents constantly interrupt and intervene.
So as grandparents we have responsibility to support our children as parents, as long as abuse isn’t involved, no matter if we agree or not with their parenting styles. As long as we’re supportive our children should allow us access to our grandchildren. If they don’t, sadly, it’s our not choice and we have to accept it, pray they will change their minds and find ways of loving them even from far away.
In cases of divorce or death, then I think we may seek some sort of visitation through the court. However, it’s a good reason to do our best to have a good relationship with our son/daughter-in-law. If we have a good relationship with our grand-children’s parents it’s good for the kids and good for our relationship with our grand-children.
As a parent the hardest lesson I’m having to learn is to let go. They were mine for 18 years, now it’s time to let them fly. No matter what path they chose (as long as they aren’t a danger to themselves or others) it’s their path, not mine. If I can survive this lesson I will have done a service to my relationship with my children.
That’s my 2 cents for all it’s worth.
Very sensible comments and as a grandparent myself I agree with them. It’s pretty much how I handle relations with my own kids and grandkids. It’s indeed time to let my kids fly and I and my grandchildren are very fortunate that my kids take their child rearing responsibilities seriously.
“And while much has been made about the importance of grandparents, the negative aspects are rarely discussed. The main reasons grandparents’ rights usually seem to be an issue are in cases of divorce or death.”
Well, I think that this should really be a family matter, although all cases are different. For example, if the grandparents raise grandkids because the father has run away and the mother is a drug addict, then yes, the grandparents should have a lot of say in how the kids are brought up. And if that drug addicted mother suddenly wants her kids back, then it should be up to a court to decide whether or not she’s competant enough to do so. But courts generally make lousy decisions when it comes to kids, so it really should be up to the families to settle the dispute. If the parents, for whatever reasons, do not want their kids to see their grandparents, it may be a lousy thing to do, it may be selfish thing to do, and it may be downright mean, but it’s not breaking the law, nor should it be. Unless the life of the child is directly threatened by the parents, let the families work it out themselves.
Each case turns on it’s own set of facts. As a basic rule if parents are doing their jobs and taking care of their responsibilities there is no basis for any sort of suit affecting a parent child relationship. Basic rule of thumb is the courts/government have no sasis to be involved in most parenting decisions.
On the other hand when people have chosen to have children outside of marriage and divorce, they open themselves up to the suits affecting parent child relationships, (Court orders) orders that deal with custody, decision making, support, periods of possession. Even then a well written court order dealing with possession (visitation) will start with language that provides something like…”unless otherwise agreed to by the parties” (usualy parents)the court order will lay out specific periods of possession.
I have found that in general family law is one place where good old fashion common sense usually prevails.I said usually.
Grandparents have NO EFFING ‘rights’ to the children of their children.
My mother was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE parent and so was my completely non-existent sperm donor of a father.
This is retarded. Seriously retarded.
NO. Just NO.
If my idiot, drunken, rapist scumbag father had come marching into my life demanding to see my child because he felt he had ‘rights’ I would have put the barrel of a gun to his ugly face before I allowed him access to MY child.
My grandparents were wonderful people. I’m not hating on ALL grandparents but access to someone’s children should be up to the parents to decide.
The few times I allowed my daughter to be alone with my mother, my mother would interrogate her for ‘information’ about me and her father to the point where my daughter would come home in tears. My daughter thanks me to this day for keeping that psychotic b*tch out of her life.
No. There shouldn’t be any such thing as ‘grandparent’s rights’.
I think you are right. The broader issue should be who gets first consideration when parents die and they haven’t left a will to declare guardianship. Aside from that situation, there should be no question that parents have total custody.
Thank you and I concur. I probably could have been less vitriolic with my post but this kind of thing can get my blood boiling.
I’m thankful my daughter is a full grown adult now but if something would have happened to us both we would have put her with my husband’s parents or my sister (we had that in a living will at one time). I thank GOD I had such wonderful grandparents but not everyone is so fortunate.
Sweet, you are entitled to your vitriol! Perhaps your wounded psyche will bear the scars of your abuse for your lifetime. Jesus hates evil, Heb.1.9, and we are commanded to imitate Him. There can be no punishment sufficiently severe for those who abuse children in the manners you imply. Your stand is mine also, as we shared similar experiences.God be with you!
The sad thing is that the case for the majority is being made at the margins- where common sense and decency aren’t operating in the first place. Mr Troxel did not see fit to offer marriage to his girlfriend. By any normal reading of common-law, up to the last few decades, he had failed as a husband and a father, and was no better than a pimp. Ms. ? accepted a marriage proposal to another man. As Mr Troxel had not made their relationship visible to the community- which would involve marriage, and banns, and so on-the community hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
The Troxels raised a failed human being- he can’t bother to stay alive, he can’t bother to marry the mother of his children- why should these people have any access to other human beings? They’d already proven themselves failed. Besides, they’d went to court for overnight visits with toddlers, and a nursing infant. These people were willing to break a nursing bond, harass a newly-wed wife, and capture toddlers overnight. There aren’t strong enough words in my vocabulary to show how much contempt I have for them. I don’t care that they were grieving, and supposedly missing their son: ruining other people’s lives is not a fitting monument to put on anyone’s grave.
Parents get one crack at a childhood. Then, it’s a responsibility. Past that, any other children are a privilege. May they live their life that their own children would rejoice to share children with them.
Really? I could believe there are one or two with fledgling membership, more driven by politics than genuine interest. Not counting AARP of course, which is a hideous democrat racket in my view…
Generally speaking, there is no “right” for grandchildren to see their grandkids. Mostly these issues are in the arena of people simply getting along and if you are not getting along with your kids you can’t do an end around those parents using law. In such cases, the law has no business getting involved in the smallest way. This stuff ain’t the West Bank and some people just need to swallow pride and behave. If not, sayonara grandkids.
This is of course aside from other issues addressed above which then will involve the courts, willful custody bestowal, drugs, violence, etc. but which are nevertheless an great exception to the rule. Just get along and enjoy.
West Virginia has a Grandparent Visitation Rights Act. If the children have an ongoing relationship with the grandparents and they would be harmed by not being allowed to see them, then the court can order visitation.
People who “fight” for predetermined “rights” should be careful what they wish for. They may be injecting themselves into a situation where their favored assumptions do not apply.
I divorced my husband for good and substantial reasons, and I tried to keep contact with everyone for the sake of our son. I lived in another town, but both sets of grandparents lived in the same town, so when he visited my parents, they would share. It turns out that the paternal grandparents did not take good care of my boy. For example, if he didn’t want to go in at twilight, they’d let him stay outside, and because he loved crackers, they’d let him eat nothing but crackers, if he wanted. Then they would return him to my parents itching of lots of mosquito bites and constipated. This happened over and over.
They tried to use the boy to persuade his father to visit. They were dissatisfied because my little boy was happy, so they told him how sad it was that he didn’t continue to live with his father. I could tell what was going on, and I even asked his dad to get them to change the way they talked to our son, and he did co-operate, but it didn’t do much good. I finally told my parents not to bother with sharing, because my son began to misbehave and have nightmares.
The last visit with my son’s paternal grandparents was on a weekend when my ex had come to visit them. They dropped my son off at preschool, telling him over and over how sad it was, and how it would be such a long time before he got to see his daddy again. My son pitched a fit after they left, and the school had to call my parents to pick him up. One of the teachers had observed the leave-taking, and she told the whole thing to my father.
My father then had a discussion with the paternal grandparents, telling them how they would have to treat the child in order to continue to see him. They never asked to see him again.
My dad later told me that, although I’d told him what was going on, he didn’t believe me. He thought I was just a bitter divorced woman.
I know other grandparents who spent years trying to protect and nurture their grandchildren when the parents were addled.
The title of “mother” or “grandparent” is just a biological term. It says nothing about the actual situation. If a situation gets so rancorous that it lands in front of a judge, the judge should adhere to one standard: the best interests of the child, strive to understand the situation, and pray for wisdom.
Crackers and mosquitos – and a repeating pattern of this? Guess what, you’re part of the problem. With that kind of “abuse” magnified into resentment, who wouldn’t have problems with you?
In my world if that happened, it would be of less interest than a cloud passing over the sun.
Weldon, have you taken leave of your senses? The erring grandparents refused to discipline, they did not provide proper nutrition,exposed him to terrible diseases via insect bites, repeatedly tried to convince the child that Mom was the bad guy and was keeping him from seeing his wonderful daddy- and all this “don’t make no nevermind” to you?
Then, what does? Does anything?
By the nature of my job, I had an access to several grandparents’ rights cases in New Jersey where I live. None of them involved a deceased parent a la Troxel vs. Granville, or a grandparent being a criminal, drug addict, or having an abusive, violent personality. Here are the cases: (i) personal dislike: a case of a mother who disliked her mother-in-law and was teaching the latter a lesson by not allowing her to see the grandson; (ii) generational differences between parents and grandparents: a case where the parents loved the Smashing Pumpkins and wouldn’t let the grandparents to see the grandkids because they considered them “retards still in love with Elvis”; (iii) social differences: a case of highly educated, PhD grandparents who were filing against their son, a truck driver. The son was afraid that the mere presence of the grandparents around the kids would put him down in the kids’ eyes; (iv) religious issues: a case of grandparents, devoted Christians, who filed against the parents, hardliner Buddhists. The parents wouldn’t let the grandparents to see the kids afraid of possible Christian indoctrination; (v) ethnicity: a case of a white Caucasian man married to a Japanese woman. The wife had poor English, and the husband forbade his mother and father to talk to his wife and their twin daughters (let alone visit) expecting miscommunication and tension. Can anybody say that in all those cases the parents were really motivated by “the kids’ best interests”?
Laws and statutes pertained to the grandparents visitation rights (civil, not criminal and mostly based on precedents) are introduced and evolving in many states, especially in the North-East. In some NJ cases, the judge ordered consultations with a psychologist. Some cases were settled by the judge advising, not ruling, in favor of grandparents’ visitations. In all cases, however, the parents were asked to explain the reason for their restrictions, and some of them just couldn’t.
Apparently, most of the talkbackers support the author’s view: yes, it can be unfair and cruel to the grandparents, but the parents have a right to arrange or annul visitation as they please, in the name of the kids’ best interest, and they are not obliged to give any reason for their decision. These talkbackers cannot imagine that one day they themselves will become grandparents.
“These talkbackers cannot imagine that one day they themselves will become grandparents.”
Derp. Derp. Derp.
Sorry. If my child decided to not allow me access to HER offspring she has that right. Period. If I did such a sh*tty job as a parent that she was concerned about me being around her children, that’s HER RIGHT.
*I* do not OWN rights to my child’s children. I also can’t force my child to ‘give me grandchildren’ either for that matter if she chooses to never have them.
Honestly, if my child no longer wanted me in her life I’d be more concerned about THAT.
We are in the situation where we have been cut off from my husband’s two grandchildren. We took in my step-daughter and her two babies when she wanted to leave her drug-abusing husband. She stayed with us for six weeks, and ended up quitting her job and taking the babies, and going back to her husband. We believe she was and may still be a drug addict. She cut off contact completely with us, and we don’t have a phone number or address for her. We’ve heard that she has divorced her husband and is living with a friend.
It broke our hearts when she left with those babies, and not being able to see them again is a terrible situation. She’s in another state, so we’re probably out of luck as far as trying to visit them. It’s been a nearly year and a half since she went back, and we pray for those babies all the time. Maybe someday we’ll see them again.
Oh, I HOPE so! Somehow I really doubt you’re a “mean” granny — you sound much more concerned with the kidlets than either so-called parent. Just remember, everyone at sometime is weird, funky, or flat-out crazy.
It pays to know the family that your are marrying into. I think it was Ari who described nibbling around the edges of the issue. Very true. My parents are deceased but I am blessed with the knowledge that my in-laws are fine, loving grandparents. Why wouldn’t they be? I dated their daughter for years. I knew them for YEARS.
What is being described, here, is small world thinking by spouses who thought they understood things that, actually, never crossed their minds. A parent’s job is to love, guide, grow if-you-will, an autonomous human being. If we are blessed with grandchildren, we can only hope that our children will want us in the picture. We are entitled to do the best we can with our own children. Our perview does not extend beyond them, to their children.
Parenting is a risky undertaking at best. Good parents, in good measure, allow their children to discover the world as it is. Good parents act as interlocutors and, over time, get out of the way. My hope is that someday our children will look at their parents as elder peers and will want to share a part of their lives and their children’s lives with us.
Grandparents should NOT have any rights BUT children should have rights to participate and feel loved by their grandparents and extended family. It is instrumental to a child’s emotional development and it is necessary for a child to have contact in order for him to form and accept his identity. This promotes self-esteem. Childen are individuals and NOT OWNED by a parent or caregiver. Parents have obligations, grandparents have roles!
Interesting take on the subject and one I had not thought of. I agree. After a certain age, whatever that might be, the children should have the right to have contact with their grandparents if the grandparents are trustworthy and not a danger to the children.
Children can’t ‘demand’ they want to see someone simply because Grandma and Grandpa give them extra treats and spoil them.
OH MY GOD.
Delia, Thank you for injecting some sanity into this discussion. Why should grandparents, or any one else, be able to force themselves on your child or mine? I have seen first hand how family court judges work. They have more individual discretion than just about any other court, and as often as not, they impose their biases without actual consideration for “the best interests of the child”.
That said, even the best judges can only go by the limited information provided to them, and often the grandparents will have more financial resources than the parents, allowing them to afford better attorneys and, thus, be able to force their way into the life of a child for their own selfish reasons.
Something is very wrong with the relationship between grandparents and parents if the grandparents have to resort to the courts to force their way into the lives of their grandchildren.
Only in the most extreme cases should a judge be allowed to decide the “best interests” of someone else’s child.
For the record, I am a parent and a grandparent and I have seen first hand that just because someone is biologically a grandmother or grandfather that doesn’t automatically make them the wise, wonderful, loving grandma and grandpa.
There are many individuals who are just as bad at being grandparents as they were at being parents. Sometimes the adult children of bad parents are trying to spare their children the damage they suffered at the hands of those now purporting to be concerned grandparents.
The mere biological fact of being a grandparent should confer no rights at all.
Most parents are happy to include grandparents in their children’s life. There are extenuating circumstances when the visits are cut off. I provided so much of the baby gear, clothing, and even a car to help my daughter and her bum of a boyfriend. The twins loved coming to my house to spend about one night per week. I was the only one who ever took them to the zoo, the pool, or anywhere. Most of all I offered them unconditional love and a break off their selfish parents. I was threatened more than once that the visits could be terminated. I refused to be bullied by the substance abusing parents, and I was cut off. The grandchildren miss me terribly, and they have been threatened by their parents that they will be punished if they ever talk to me again. In the eyes of my state legislation, I’m just some stupid woman who offered free babysitting and gifts. The children would have had to live with me for me to have any rights. The saddest thing is the CHILDREN have no rights. My daughter and her boyfriend seem to have the right to be bullies, while the taxpayers are paying for their subsidized rent and food stamps. I’m just waiting for them to get in trouble with the law, at which time I will jump in and take custody of the kids. I think I could handle not having visitation, if my daughter and son weren’t such bad parents. But how can I prove they abuse drugs, and how can I prove that the restrictions on visitations are providing substantial harm to my grandchildren? I am so much better off financially than my daughter and her bum boyfriend, but I disagree with the argument that the financially well off grandparents will always win. I don’t think parents are entitled to using their children as objects or leverage to punish the grandparents. As painful as it is to the grandparents, the children have the most to lose. That’s okay, because I’m cutting my daughter out of my will, and I’m leaving her share of my estate to her children.
I’d say that barring complications yes Grandparents should be allowed to see their grandchildren.
If it will not cause issues with the child then the grandparents should be allowed to see them.
No one is demanding that the parents and grandparents powwow with eachother but unless one can show that there is a reason behind witholding that visit beyond “So and so did this and I’m upset” then it should be allowed.
What about adopted children? Foster children?
This is stupid. Grandparents don’t have any ‘right’s to anyone’s children. Nor does my next door neighbor who might have ‘watched after my child’.
Please.
Grandparents have had years to get their act together, to build up resources, to appear mature. My grandparents thought my parents were unfit, and sued for custody. And won.
My parents are not paragons of humanity, by any stretch. There was a fairly vicious multi- year custody battle. They brought in all the usual heavies: child psychologists, court appointed special advocates, everything. I spent two years every last single week ( i’m shaking just writing about this) at an appalling child psych group practice getting interrogated- I don’t care how many crappy wooden dollhouses you put around your office- you’re still an evil person- about who I chose to live with, and why. Now, I’m in the hands of my grandparents, asked if I want to live with my mother. How do I know I’ll get food and water if I answer anything at all? And there’s no guarantee that my preference will get listened to. They were very upfront about that.
So, wealthier, more stable, more mature, more appealing people with good careers stole two children from unsuitable parents with the connivance of one of the wildly irresponsible parents ( the one they had raised. they thought they could get it right the second time) They got traumatized little kids severed from the world they knew and took for granted- the kids who’d lost their souls in Phillip Pullman’s book sound about right to me- who were no longer pleasing, pleasant and secure. They’ve regretted winning ever since.
I grew up thinking anyone with enough money could steal my children. So I worked fairly hard to only date men who had enough money that nobody could take my children. I didn’t care about the money- I cared about keeping my children. It took my friend, an adoptee, to walk me through the fact that most people don’t steal babies- she was poor, and nobody had taken hers, her friend X was poor, and nobody had taken hers, Y was poor and nobody had taken hers…..I finally could think about marrying a good guy, rather than a rich guy.
He sent me to his mother’s house for the first six weeks after my first child. He thought he was being a loving, caring dad. He had to finish his degree, his mother would care for me, and let me care for the baby. I was in hysterics, enough that the hospital had to call a social worker. I was so afraid that she was going to steal my baby. Why not? I’d been stolen. I went to her house for six weeks, and literally did not let go of that child. He would come for weekends, and pry the baby out of my hands, and then walk me out of the room, and then return and hand the baby to her. Then, he’d have to go back to whereever and hold me, b/c I was shaking and crying. I was a basket-case for the next few years. The moment I calmed down: my mother called up about her new wheelchair, my grandmother got a cane, her husband died and she started coughing from emphysema, and my MIL started showing visible Alzheimer’s. That’s what it took. The aging and frailing of my potential child thieves.
be careful of what you wish for. sometimes someone else pays for your triumph.
my parents were guilty of immaturity and some mental illness. The mentally ill one had been raised by a mentally ill parent, herself. She had a mentally ill sister. None of them had lost children. The other children turned out fine. They’d had practice dealing with this sort of thing. The immature parent has stayed that way. Possibly, being forced to raise his own children might have helped his character. He’s the one that engineered the whole thing, to escape his responsibilities. I can’t say he’s had a better life, escaping from the burdens of typical humanity.
And, all the grandparents, they have money, resources, fine clothes, excellent toys, houses in good neighborhoods with good schools. They got this by focussing on their careers, rather than balancing anything. They’d look fabulous in court. Right now, they’re trying to be good grandparents by showering gifts and visits on my children. They comment about what terrific, charming, well-behaved, well- loved children I have. No sh**. My kids are my job. which means, btw, that I’m not in a dual- income career family. And my husband has to balance kid stuff with work- coaching baseball, taking off on the middle kids’ birthday, spreading his income around five wardrobes, instead of just his own. We’d look poor and vulnerable, if anyone took us to court, and laid their financials out on the table.
Parenting is a responsibility. Grandparenting is a privilege.Anyone who deliberately puts another in the way of family court for anything less than child endangerment is an evil, blighted, awful, foolish human being. Words fail me. They really do.
The AARP is a fascist/socialist organization. This has nothing to do with made-up “grandparents rights” and everything to do with taking all power away from the family and putting that power in the hands of the government, specifically, the courts where “we the people” have no direct representation. That’s it. They and so many other groups like them want to destroy the family and establish an all-powerful government. And they are succeeding because useful idiots like some of the bloggers here buy in to their BS for purely selfish reasons. Pathetic.
I’m torn. I’m a firm believer in the rights of parents to decide who they want in their children’s life. I understand there are some tough cases, and I would agree that grandparent visitation should be considered on the same level of third-party visitation – it’s an important relationship that should be preserved, but like all visitation cases, I believe it should be on a case by case basis. That being said, I can see why you wouldn’t want to say “no, it’s always the parent’s right to say no.” As someone said, children have the right to an extended family, and typically, a child that doesn’t want their child to see their grandparents can provide a very good reason.
Since we are telling anecdotes, I know of a woman who divorced her husband for good reasons – he was a drug addict who lost his job, and accordingly they lost their house while she was home with an infant. I agree the divorce was totally appropriate. However, the husband is now sober, and has been clean for nearly four years. He’s remarried, and has another child. Even though he has been sober for years, he’s still not allowed unsupervised visitation. His parents, in order to have any access to his first child at all, had to file separately (which was appropriate because at the time they filed, their son had only been clean for a short period of time). They do have visitation rights, but I believe they are also supervised visits only.
I feel bad for the child, and I feel bad for the child’s mother. The mother hasn’t remarried, and the husband’s second child may be the child’s only sibling. How can they be close in such restricted circumstances? What about cousins? I know most of my cousins only because we went to see our grandparents when they did. This child will be cut off from an entire section of their history – medical, social, personality things – because sometimes those things only come up accidentally. For example, my sister knew my grandfather while driving my aunt someplace, and she had to bring the car to a stop. I knew it was cerebral hemorrage and about the family history of anxiety and depression. Both of these are crucial parts of our family history, but neither of us had the full picture, because we found them out because of different life events. I feel bad for the mother, because she’s harming the child without realizing it, and she might to need to know these things one day. I understand why she’s angry – her ex fractured her trust in a most basic way, and why should he trust him? The answer is because he’s never harmed their child, and their child needs her father and her sibling, and her grandparents.
children have survived quite nicely without elders for centuries. America is the first country to have widespread grandparents. Specifically, Puritan New England is the first realm to have widely dispersed grandparents. The southerly plantations had horrendous rates of parental death. It’s part of why they emphasized manners in children- the children would be beholden for survival on strangers. The great family fortunes of the south were accumulated male to female to male again based on early mortality and re-marriage.
this is an argument among wealthy, foolish elders. In the original case- the two parents were not married. By any reading of Anglo-Saxon law prior to one particular case of the supremes ( ann coulter goes over the history in Guilty) the father himself would have no rights to his children, even if he were alive. He hadn’t married the mother of his children. She didn’t even have the benefit of SSI for dependents who lose their parent. Legally, she was uncovered, and left bereft, and adrift. No benefits, no legal marriage, no legal standing, no dignity. The grandparents ought to have been ashamed to have raised a bounding, irresponsible cad and a suicide. They should let go, as the girl had built an honorable life for herself and her children after having extricated herself from the scoundrel’s clutches. Her HUSBAND has ADOPTED her young, illegitimate children. He had provided dignity, and legal standing, and marital protection for them. They are trying to steal from him, in the most archaic of ways.
The grandparents are uncivilized, on the level of grendel and his mother.
So many of these comments seem to be about grandparents being so horrid to their own children, any other circumstances don’t matter — it’s all about the parents’ rights, being able to decide who/what/where/when/how in relation to their childrens’ lives.
What about situations where the grandparents are good people with just enough $ to go visit the child occasionally? My son just came home from Iraq. After 5 great days, his wife lowered the boom, and said she was moving to her folks (they live where son is stationed). She’s now demanding a divorce. There is proof she’s having an affair, and intended meeting her … um, “lover” in their house, their bed, on Dec. 21.
You can be sure we won’t ever get to see my grandson, NOT because we are bad people. Neither is my son. The grandson is still so young I wouldn’t *want* him subjected to TSA, but would fly there to spend time w/him. We’re in the middle of the country; they’re on the east coast. How do just write-off my first grandchild?! Because my d-i-l has gone crazy, I never get to see my darlin’ little boy again? It makes me weep. I’ve spent the last 4 days alternating between trying to be optimistic, and oceans of tears. I grew up on a lg. ranch in western Nebraska — my own kids have wonderful memories of their grandparents and loved spending time with them. This homestead is still in the family, and great-grandpa is still living there, doin’ his thing. D-i-l knows all this (and has been there), and has stayed with us in Denver multiple times as well.
Do I not have rights? Should my grandson never know us as he grows up? I do understand the diff. btwn. rights & privileges, but holy my gosh … do I suffer forever, and my grandson also, because his mom’s gone nuts? I really do care that she doesn’t appear to know WHAT she’s doing right now — it’s best for a kiddo to grow up with both parents if at all possible. But if the talked-about divorce becomes reality, and she remarries (as she will), why should her new husband’s parents become the ONLY “dad’s side grandparents” to my grandson? If this happens, yes, I will try for visitation if she attempts to cut us off completely. I don’t want to make things worse, but neither will I just try hiding my face. I’m not ashamed of my son, husband or self. We do deserve some interaction with the cutey, not to trash or bad-mouth anyone, but to give him the best of ourselves. THAT is what grandparents do best anyway!
You can put the blame for this situation on no-fault divorce laws. But this is not an issue that can hinge on any particular tragic story or any number of them. This is about how much power the state should have over how people run their daily lives and families. We’d better not take this step. We’re close enough already to losing ALL of our rights and freedoms. We had better start moving things back the other direction.