googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
[quote]While those are the laws pertaining to Nevada on GPV, case laws usually prevail state laws. Since Troxel went through, any fit parent has a right to raise their child as they deemed fit. Many factors can mitigate the cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Washington state case law has no bearings on the laws of Nevada . Secondly , Troxel involved the parents of a deceased mother , most of the GP visitation statutes call for visitation after divorce or separation , death of a parent isn't addressed .
|
MTmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/07
Posts: 2711
Loc: MT
|
|
Troxel is not just WA caselaw. It was a decision handed down by the USSC, and it most certainly does effect NV, as well as 49 other states.
Tommie Grandville didn't die, her drug abusing ex husband Brad Troxel did. He was the NCP to their 2 daughters at the time he died. Tommie's 2nd husband (Kelly Wynn) had already adopted the girls when the Troxel's filed. In the year leading up to Brad's death, Tommie had been very generous to his parents with the time she gave them with the girls.. and she had well documented the fact that they refused to follow the guidelines she imposed during their time (for example, she did not want Brad's friends with drug convictions around the girls period. She did not want Brad's current gf, who the Troxel's admitted to Tommie had addiction problems, around the girls without Brad or his parents also present. Their parenting plan placed the same restrictions on Brad, she just asked that his parents abide by them too, they consistly refused.)
There are only 4 states that specifically prevent gp's from filing suit agains married parents. While the intent of "most" logical people might be to ensure visitation after divorce, that's NOT how the courts have interpreted the statutes. With the exception of the few states that state in black and white that married parents are exempt from litigation.. grandparents continue to be allowed their day(s) in court, and otherwise FIT parents have to find the money and the stregnth to fight it.
The process leading up to a hearing on gpv is devastating to the families of the children being fought over. In many ways, it's worse than the emotional and financial turmoil of a custody case between parents.
Regardless of what HAS to be done, what SHOULD be done by ALL gps wanting visitation is to first find out why the parent(s) oppose it. If more gps took that step before running off to court many families and their children would be protected from the horrible aftermath these lawsuits cause.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
[quote]Troxel is not just WA caselaw. It was a decision handed down by the USSC, and it most certainly does effect NV, as well as 49 other states.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup , a decision affirming the Washington SC decision which struck down only Washington's overly broad visitation rights statutes . It was stated in the decision that the ruling ONLY applied to the WA statute . While other state courts ( in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas , South Dakota , Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington) have interpreted Troxel to declare their GP visitation statutes unconstitutional , GP visitation has been affirmed in Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
MTmom
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/23/07
Posts: 2711
Loc: MT
|
|
Ok - only because I'm in a rotten mood courtesy of ds' sm and my ex. mil today, and because my family have all suffered immensely due to a "grandparent grandchild contact" lawsuit, I'm going to continue arguing with you. I'm not an attorney, and I don't think I'm the foremost authority on grandparent visitation case law and statutes.. but I disagree with you completely.
First of all, here is a linke to the troxel v. grandville suppreme court decision: http://parentsrights.org/states/wa/wa73197.html
Please show me where in that decision (or in your own link to the decision if you prefer) It says that the USSC was only applied to the WA statute. I am certain it does not say that.
The statutes in the states you reference as having been affirmed were actually decided “as applied” rather than on their face, meaning the court did not interpret the constitutional issues of the statute itself, only as applied to the cases it referenced. Troxel has been cited and applied in court decision in each of those states.
For an example, Mass- Blixt v Blixt for instance. Yes, they stated the statute itself was constitutional, but outlined the criteria that was to be applied to GPV based on Troxel and to date. The GPs did get visitation in that decision but the court was so specific in what it deemed to be proper standing to be granted visitation as to have practically rewritten the statute in the ruling. Every case that I’m aware of in MA since Blixt has ruled in favor of the parent citing Blixt and Troxel. That case was actually a great win for parents.
In Maine, Conlogue v Conlogue the statute was challenged both facially and as applied. The court ruling indicated that the appeal could be decided on an as applied basis and chose not to address the facial issue. Troxel is cited in that case and the decision rendered was in favor of the parent specifying how Troxel applied.
CT did not rule it’s statute unconstitutional either. Roth v Weston was one of the first CT cases to come after Troxel. Troxel was heavily cited and once again the decision rendered, in favor of the parent, on an as applied basis. Factors applying to the case specific to the Troxel decision are cited. To my knowledge a GP has not effectively waged a GPV suit against a parent in CT since that decision. The Denardo v Bergamo case in which the parents filed to terminate a visitation order due to the Roth decision was found in favor of the parent and affirmed by the appeals court.
The only states that have ruled their statutes unconstitutional based on Troxel are WA, MI and IL & IA. The remaining states you have referenced have all ruled in the favor of the parents in the precedent caselaw based on citations from Troxel even though the statutes were not ruled unconstitutional, I could look up links to all the relevant case law if you're interested.
You might also be interested the Dodge v Granville USSC writ which was remanded back to the AZ appeals court for a ruling consistent with Troxel. The USSC chose not to hear that case itself as they felt their ruling in Troxel already applied to the case at hand and issued a strongly worded writ to that effect, which is also citable in all 50 states.
I maintain that for this particular grandparent - the first step is to first find out WHY the bio dad who she admits has sole custody of the child over her biological daughter doesn't want her to have vistiation. Does he oppose ALL visitation? Or does he just insist on being the parent and she becoming a grandparent. Does he allege abuse, or is he mentally unstable?
That's a lot of if's, and even to pursue a court order for grandparents visitiation - her pleadings will have to establish what she believes to be the reason for the restrictions (that's in the NV rules of civil procedure).
Why put the whole family and most importantly the children through an ugly court fight with out first behaving like a grown up and asking what the problem is?
I'm very passionate about this issue as you've probably noticed. And I believe very strongly that parents are the parents. period. If grandma wanted to assert her claims about acting in loco parentis, she had her opportunity.. and dad is now acting like a dad.. she needs to respect that.
Not that she should never be allowed to see the kids again, but a parents decision needs to be given "special weight" in these instances.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Please show me where in that decision (or in your own link to the decision if you prefer) It says that the USSC was only applied to the WA statute. I am certain it does not say that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Your link is to the Washington Supreme Courts decision . The actual US Supreme Court decision can be found here :
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html
The majority opinion was drafted by Justice O'Conner . To quote ;
"Because we rest our decision on the sweeping breadth of §26.10.160(3) and the application of that broad, unlimited power in this case, we do not consider the primary constitutional question passed on by the Washington Supreme Court–whether the Due Process Clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation. We do not, and need not, define today the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context. In this respect, we agree with Justice Kennedy that the constitutionality of any standard for awarding visitation turns on the specific manner in which that standard is applied and that the constitutional protections in this area are best “elaborated with care.” Post, at 9 (dissenting opinion). Because much state-court adjudication in this context occurs on a case-by-case basis, we would be hesitant to hold that specific nonparental visitation statutes violate the Due Process Clause as a per se matter.1 See, e.g., Fairbanks v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39, 49—50, 622 A. 2d 121, 126—127 (1993) (interpreting best-interest standard in grandparent visitation statute normally to require court’s consideration of certain factors); Williams v. Williams, 256 Va. 19, 501 S. E. 2d 417, 418 (1998) (interpreting Virginia nonparental visitation statute to require finding of harm as condition precedent to awarding visitation)."
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
aarennels
recently joined
Reged: 02/01/07
Posts: 3
|
|
I am also in a GPV in Las Vegas. Father (my son)full custody in 2001 and involved me with my granddaughter for next 34 months (His wife died). (Granddaughter was with me in CA about 40% of time. In June, 2004, his gf accused me of something and visitation was denied. I filed for visitation in Sept, 2005. December, 2005, the accusation was determined UNFOUNDED (by Court obtaining official records). Also Judge granted my visitation status would remain if son married gf and she adopted granddaughter. Both occurred in early 2006. June, 2006, Settlement agreement (Stip & Order) and we agreed to 4 supervised visits per year (6 days). We reassinged to new Judge in January, 2009, when I filed motion and asked Court to Order son to comply with Court Order - since I followed rules for unsupervised visitation. Son opposed and counter-filed to terminate visits. Visits have gone without incident for 3 yrs. Judge rules terminate. SHOCKED. I am asking for reconsideration. Judge does not mention NRS125C.050. I petitioned (2). Stip & Order cancelled evidentiary hearing because no longer had to prove "best interests" (etc.) when parents ageed. I am filing a reconsideration of Court's Decision - pointing out "established relationship" & "acrimony" which was ONE reason Judge gave -- comes FROM son (we had counselors involved).
Any advice on how you either got visitation or why you werer refused? This is not a case of trampling on the parents' rights. Son GAVE child to me - so he "could have time away from being parent" (his words) and reaons they denied was shown in Court (unfounded.)
The child is now 9. She lost her mom (age2) and had only me til age 5. We have had contact all along (although sometimes irregularly). She has also lost contact with her cousins because son does not speak with his brothers since gl is now wife. Without tellng Judge it began with gf (now wife) - and son will (should) stick by his wife, it is up to judge to balance between "best interests" of child and parents' rights (although technically my case is not an intact family - since I petitioned and met requirements before marriage & adoption.)
My granddaughter loves me and the supervisores who take notes wrote same to Court. Help. Let me know of any GP who, like me, does not want to abandon their grand child.
This is clearly NOT a case of a grandparent who showed up with child was 5 and said "let me visit with grand child" -- relationship is love, bond and attachment.
Even if you feel strongly against gp visitation - tell me your reasons. Mostly -- if you are for gp visitation (in cases like mine) -- please give me cases with similar situations. P.S. Son & wife are drinkers (we had evaluations) and they were told to find way slow down (stop). Son is also heavy marijuana user. Wife, if at all, is light user of the drug.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
