Grandparents' rights?

Grandparents fight mother for three-year-old

Long story short-widow is planning to remarry, wants to move from Pittsburgh to North Carolina, taking her three year old son with her.

Former in laws are suing her to stop the move, stating that she is depriving them of their grandson, even though there is no reason whatsoever for them to think that she will not let them see him.

There is now a temporary order, forbidding the mother from leaving the area.

What gives?

Should grandparents have that much control over their grandchildren?

Would this set a dangerous precedent?

This issue actually pops up from time to time. Grandparents should not have any right to see or participate in the lives of their grandchildren.

Marc

The main issue being discussed around here, though, is the temporary stay. Could it lead to her being forced to stay here?

No, I’m surprised that it has gone this far.

Our daughter died leaving two girls to be raised by the father. They live on welfare and the last time we saw them, the smallest had lice. Some people seem to wonder why we don’t have them live with us. Fact is that we have no rights and except for offering help, we cannot do anything except go along with their father.

When we were foster parents, we had a little girl who was placed with her grandparents, even though the father and mother (separately) wanted her. Extreme abuse and desertion were involved in this decision. It doesn’t appear that anything close to this exists in the case being discussed.

The grandparents have made allegations that the mother is mentally unstable; I can see the courts putting a temporary stay on the mother’s relocation until a psychological evaluation can be completed. That temporary stay shouldn’t become permanent if the mother is found to be stable.

While the whole thing may just be a desperate attempt to keep their grandson (who has probably become a “replacement” figure for their dead son) nearby, there may also be validity to the claim of instability and the courts have a duty to the child to investigate. If they find no evidence of the supposed instability, then the courts should not allow the farce to continue.

The SCOTUS in Troxel v. Granville limited grandparents rights as to their grandchildren So even if the judge finds for the grandparents it would be overturned on appeal.

Personally, as a widow with two young kids, this story scares the hell out of me. I have a good relationship with my in-laws, but I did make a very unpopular decision to move 2500 miles away to be close to my parents and brothers. Previously we lived 800 miles away from my in-laws. I hope Reeder is correct and it gets overturned, but in my opinion the damage has been done. I am not sure that the daughter-in-law could ever forgive them for this. Lawsuits are no fun and can drag on and on … oh, and they can be expensive, too. The grandparents have done nothing to foster good will in this situation. As usual I hope for common sense to prevail but find it woefully lacking in the real world. Sigh.

No, they should not. I don’t see why parents should be tied down to a place they want to move away from for 18 years just to please the grandparents.

No, precedant was already set in the Troxel case.

Is that you dad? Just checking. I was deprived of my one and only living grandfather. It was my mothers father. She never went to see him or anything. They had some sort of dispute and my mother never took us kids around him nor ever mentioned him. I did finally get to meet him when I was about 16. He died less than a year later. :frowning: It was the most saddest thing. I still resent my parents to this day for not letting us kids have our time with him. It still cuts like a knife even after all these years.

But to answer the OP. No, grandparents shouldn’t have that much control over their grandchildren. I see no reason to stop her from starting a new life, but I would certainly let the kid be involved with the grandparents even if there was some distance between them.

:o

I remeber first seeing this some time ago. Parental rights should exclude the grandparents from having any say in the decision. These days, it seems like a dangerous intervention into a personal decision should the court get involved.
What would be next?

In Pennsylvania, there is a law which explicitly grants that grandparents may seek partial custody/visitation rights in cases when their child has died. There is also a law which says that a parent who shares custody of a child can seek to prohibit the other parent from moving a great distance away with the child.

However, no court has ever held that a grandparent had standing to prevent a move even if they had been granted partial custody in place of a dead child. The grandparents in the Miller v. Miller case are hoping to change that. The mother is clearly relying upon this precedent to have this case found in her favor.

There has been no order for evaluations at this time. The injunction was granted in a preliminary hearing, any such order would have to come in a future hearing. Personally, I doubt that it will come to that.

I say that because I’m leaning toward the grandparents’ allegations being simply fodder for their useless case. They’re making lots of allegations, trying to make her look as bad as possible in order to paint themselves as a “stable” influence in this child’s life. (Not dissimilar to the way divorced parents desperately try to tear one another down in custody disputes.) But if they really believed the litany of troubling things that they’ve claimed about the mother, there would be no reason why they wouldn’t be pressing for full custody. If they are to be believed, she’s beyond unstable and she wants to deprive the child of any connection to any of his family, especially the grandparents who practically raised him.*

(*Until the child’s father became ill and the mother stopped working, the grandparents babysat him three days each week. After the father’s death, the child spent one day and one overnight with the grandparents each week. Now, in addition to the injunction prohibiting the mother from moving, the grandparents have been granted visitation for 72 straight hours every other week. I cannot begin to imagine what kind of trauma it would be for a three year old to be away from his mother for that period of time unexpectedly and in a time of such upheaval in his young life.)

I heard the mother, her attorney and a member of the Miller family (grandparent sympathizer) on the radio a couple of days ago (I was back in Pittsburgh for a couple of days and still didn’t get a chance to meet Guin or cjhoworth, grr grr grr) and it stood out that the mother and her attorney (who were on-air separately) were very interested in simply stating her case, including the fact that she’s made a number of suggestions of ways in which the relationship between the child and his grandparents can be maintained despite the distance. (Monthly visits, several weeks during summer, unlimited phone calls, installation of DSL to facilitate live webcam chatting and so on.) The only time she made any judgments about the grandparents at all was to describe the grandmother as a “homebody” who liked to stay at home and wouldn’t be very happy if she had to travel to North Carolina, even in order to visit with the child.

Meanwhile, the family member who called in immediately went on the offensive, suggesting that not only is the mother mentally off, she had also done all kinds of unacceptable, uncouth things – including committing adultery while her husband lay dying in the hospital, with a man whose wife was also terminally ill. He also insinuated that her new fiance was a man she met (altogether too soon after her husband died – never said but strongly implied) in a cybersex chatroom.

I gathered strongly that in this particular case, the grandparents simply want their way. They disapprove of the mother’s decision to get on with her life, they don’t want to travel to see the child, they don’t like the mother’s morals and they’re willing to use the courts and trample her name in public in order to get what they want. The best interests of the child aren’t even in consideration.

Sorry, did I rant?:rolleyes:

Well my question is- If the woman wasn’t a widow and they were still planning to move, would the grandparents still be doing this? Hmmmmmmmmm…