LegalMatch: Family Law

Significant Number of Grandparents Seeking Visitation Rights for Grandchildren

It should be obvious that most child custody and visitation disputes are between the parents of the child or children at the heart of the dispute.

This makes perfect sense, as biological or adoptive parents have the strongest interest in being able to visit their children, and it is usually assumed that it is generally (though certainly not always) in the best interests of the children to have both of their parents involved in their lives, regardless of the marital problems that the parents are going through.

However, according to recent LegalMatch case data, there are also a significant number of grandparents fighting for the right to visit their grandchildren. The law on this subject is fairly complex, and varies from state to state. The first, and most important, consideration is consistent, however: before granting child visitation rights to anybody, including grandparents, a court must determine that it would serve the best interests of the child to do so.

In making this determination, courts will consider a number of factors, such as the nature of the relationship between the grandparent and grandchild, whether the grandparent has assumed certain roles normally taken on by parents, whether both parents are currently involved in the child’s life, and several other factors.

The fact that a relatively large number of grandparents are seeking visitation rights raises some interesting questions about society’s concept of family, especially when we let the law define a term which means so many different things to different people.

Do grandparents have some inherent right to visit their children? I would say probably not, or at least not as strong a right as parents have.

On the other hand, grandparents often serve very important roles in the family, which go way beyond spoiling their grandkids at Christmas. After all, older people obviously tend to have more life experience than younger people – this is valuable to children and their parents. Grandparents, who, by definition, have raised children before, can often impart some wisdom onto their children, who can in turn use that to better raise the grandchildren.

Of course, this is not always the case, and every family is different. It seems that if the parents of a child decide, for whatever reason, that a grandparent is not a positive influence in the child’s life, their decision should be granted substantial weight by the courts. However, as mentioned earlier, the ultimate consideration in such decisions should be the best interests of the child. 

In the end, the decision to grant someone a right to visit the child against the wishes of the child’s parents is not one to be made lightly. It is well settled that parents have a fundamental right to control how their children are raised. However, this right is not absolute – hence laws against child abuse and neglect. The needs of a child can sometimes outweigh the rights of the parents. This holds true when it comes to visitation – if a grandparent has become an essential figure in a child’s life, they should be allowed to visit the child, the preferences of the parents notwithstanding. Whatever reasons the parents have for opposing visitation should be worked out between the parents and grandparents. After all, every responsible parent sometimes does things they don’t like for the sake of their children (thanks for taking me to see the Power Rangers movie when I was 9, Mom).

Men's Rights Activists Want To Be On The RADAR

Ok so there is a reason that radar is spelled in all caps on the title. RADAR actually stands for Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting. Men’s rights activist groups like RADAR have made quite the stir in headlines lately.

RADAR recently rallied on the steps of congress to encourage their elected representative to look at the problems with domestic violence.  Specifically, they claim that, “false allegations are rampant, that a feminist-run court system fraudulently separates innocent fathers from children, that battered women’s shelters are running a racket that funnels federal dollars to feminists, that domestic-violence laws give cover to cagey mail-order brides seeking Green Cards, and finally, that men are victims of an unrecognized epidemic of violence at the hands of abusive wives.” These men are angry and want legislative action on their behalf similar to the laws that have been effectuated to protect their female counterparts.

One article notes the reason for the recent success of male rights activist groups- they have worked hard to clean up their image from angry ex-husbands forced to pay child support to potential victims of domestic violence.

In my opinion, their focus should be more on ensuring proper protection for men that are abused rather than on bringing attention to any discrepancies in protection there are between male and female victims.

Unfortunately, the movement had a major setback when Men’s rights activist George Sodini opened fire in a Pittsburgh gym, killing three and injuring nine others. The purpose of the rampage was chronicled in his online journal in which he wrote about his lifelong rejection by women.

A recent study conducted by LegalMatch found an increase in male inquires in all areas dealing with domestic abuse, disputes, and sexual harassment. I recently blogged about the increase in male sexual harassment cases at work here. This figure is not surprising as the more socially acceptable it becomes to report these problems, the more men will report them. I also think that this type of increased visibility of the victims of these crimes and false accusations will serve as a catalyst for increased protection.   I think that this is a really interesting aspect of society to follow both from a legal standpoint and from a political one.

Gay Marriage In The News Again - Is Anyone Dropping Their Jaw In Shock?

We’re in the midst of autumn.  It’s a beautiful time of the year.  Birds are chirping, farmers across the country are eagerly anticipating the year’s harvest, leaves are falling off trees like nobody’s business (probably because they’re infested with ladybugs), and of course, same-sex marriage is under attack.  Yep, you just can’t call it autumn without an argument over gay marriage.

 

Alright, maybe making the connection between autumn and the fact that California’s Proposition 8, which passed last November and effectively prohibits marriage between same-sex couples in that state, is back in the news again was a little tenuous.  But hey, I’m complicated, like opening a banana monkey-style.

 

Anyway, the debate whether to allow gay marriage in California seems to rage on with no end.  The federal district court is set to hear a challenge to the controversial proposition this January, but it appears that supporters of Prop 8 are trying to cut the courts off before then by bring a motion to dismiss the case all together.  What grounds are they employing you ask?  Why the same ones that every person against gay marriage has been using since this whole debate began: that there is no violation of a person’s constitutional rights because marriage has traditionally always been between a man and a woman.  We’ve all heard it before, however this time they’re also throwing in some case precedent from Minnesota that upholds the constitutionality of Prop 8.

 

Now just to recap for you guys not following this mess of a situation, California itself has had a sorted history with same-sex marriage.  First the mayor of San Francisco allows it to be performed and recognized in San Francisco.  Shortly afterward, the rest of California catches on to him and shuts it down.  Then the California Supreme Court allows it, resulting in gay marriages across the yin yang.  Then Prop 8 cans it again and upon doing so, has a lawsuit brought against it in federal court.  Bringing us back to the seemingly never-ending question, “Should gay marriage be allowed?”

 

And the answer is: Yes.

 

Why yes?  Without trying to get too tangled up in the politics of such an answer (which is near impossible, I know) from a purely legal perspective it should be allowed simply because of equal protection and the inalienable right of every citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness as allotted by our country’s constitution.  Right now, California is an odd state with three classes of people when it comes to marriage.  Heterosexual people who are allowed to get married, homosexual people whose marriages are recognized as legal since they became married while it was still legal in that state, and finally homosexuals who cannot get married.  I don’t know about you, but on its face that seems like a violation of equal protection.  Three classes of people, really?  There aren’t supposed to be any classes since wear all supposed to be equal right?  Because, I mean, if these classes are okay, why not just call them separate, but equal, too?

 

I was trying to not get political, but like I said, near impossible…