Great-Grandparents May Be Great but Not for Child Visitation Rights

E and Y are the paternal great grandparents of S and D. F is the F of S and D and also the grandson of E and Y. M is the mother of S and D and the former wife of F.

Sadly, the marriage of M and D was not successful, and M and their children moved in with F’s grandparents (E and Y). She and the children stayed with E and Y from 2009 until 2013. She finally filed for divorce from M in 2013. After, she and the children moved out, E and Y would come to visit them.

Shortly after filing for divorce, M went back into court and got a restraining order against F. She later obtained full custody of the children with no visitation rights for F. At the same time, E and Y’s visits with their great-grandchildren ended.

In 2015, E and Y went into court and requested great-grandparent visitation rights under California’s Family Code Sections 3100, 3101, 3102 and 3104. Because they had a long-standing relationship with their great-grandchildren – in fact, they help raised the children for four years! – they should be entitled to maintain that relationship. E and Y told the court that they had attempted many times to contact M to see the children, but she did not respond to their requests. M argued that she would not let the children stay with their great-grandparents because F was living with them and the children were scared to death of their father (plus there was a restraining order in place). She further argued that she was not preventing E and Y from seeing the children, but they’d only contacted her once in two years to do so. She also argued that the family code sections E and Y cited only referred to grandparents – not great grandparents, and they were not entitled to help under the law. The trial court agreed with M, stating the Family Code did not recognize great-grandparent rights. E and Y appealed.

The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court:

“…We presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning . . . governs… Thus, when a statute is clear and unambiguous, we may not insert or delete words to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on its face or from its legislative history." In other words, if the legislature, when writing the laws, wanted to include great-grandparents in allowing visitation rights, it would have done so.

Categories: Child Custody
Internet Marketing Experts

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.