A court may award visitation rights if the child's parent is deceased or declared legally incompetent, a grandparent is the parent of the deceased or incompetent parent to the grandchild, and visitation is in the child's best interest.
Grandparent Rights: State by State - Grandparents.com
www.grandparents.com/family-and...rights/grandparent-rights-united-states
Grandparents only have the right to ask for visitation. They do not have a guaranteed right to visit and see their grandchildren. If you currently have a visitation court order, you have the right to have that order enforced.
How do I get to visit my grandchildren?
Every family is different and you know your family best when it comes to deciding how to resolve any family problems. It is recommended to first try to work out visits with the child’s parents. Talk to the parents and tell them you miss your grandchild. You may also try to have a neutral person, such as a mediator, help you with this. Each Family Court in New York City has a mediation program. If you can’t agree or think that you can’t talk about the problem with each other, then go to court and file papers for visitation.
What do I have to show the court in order to have visits with my grandchildren?
You must first show that you have what “standing.” Standing gives you the right to ask for visitation with your grandchild. If one of the parents is deceased, then you have standing to ask for visits without having to show anything else. If both parents are living, you must show that you either have a positive existing relationship with your grandchild but are not allowed to see your grandchild or that the parents have not allowed you to have a relationship with your grandchild but that you have tried to have one. Once you show you have a relationship or that you haven’t been allowed to have one, you must then show it is in the “best interests” of the child to visit with you.
What does “best interests” mean?
There is no one way to define this. The court will look at what you’ve done to be part of your grandchild’s life. Did you call, visit, and spend time with your grandchild? Do you know what your grandchild likes? Do you help your grandchild with school or try to help him or her learn? Did your grandchild enjoy time with you?
Do the parents have to be divorced or no longer together for me to go to court to seek visitation with my grandchildren?
No. A court can order visitation even when parents are together with the children if the parents won’t let the grandparents visit the grandchild
How do I show I have a relationship with my grandchild if the parents won’t let me spend
time with my grandchild?
You must show that you’ve made enough of an effort to try to have a relationship with your grandchild.
The court may look at several things to find out whether or not you’ve done this. You can do this by
sending them birthday cards or gifts. You can write them letters. You can call them and try to let them
know that you love them. Do your best to say good things about the parents, even if you are not getting
along. Do not make your grandchildren feel like they have to choose between their parents or
grandparents. The court wants to see that the child won’t be harmed by visiting with you.
What if the parents are strongly opposed to my seeing my grandchildren?
This is not enough. The court will consider what the parents want and will look at why the parents don’t
want you to visit with the child. The court may look at what has happened between you and the parents.
Each case is different and you should speak to an attorney if you are unsure about your case.
Honest attorneys all over America fighting for justice led by Andy Ostrowski. Thank you Andy Ostrowski:"Below is a...
Posted by Mario Alberto Jimenez Jerez on Monday, March 21, 2016
Do Grandparents Have the Rights They Should?The experts report on the state of grandparent rights in the U.S....
Posted by Grandparents4Justice Access & Visitation Worldwide on Wednesday, January 6, 2016
One grandmother comments about her fight with CAShttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvAFLYHdPHw This grandmother describes how she spent $30,000 an
Posted by Grandparents4Justice Access & Visitation Worldwide on Monday, March 21, 2016
Grandmother speaks about family court in Canadahttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExDZLsmqQpY One grandmother has her...
Posted by Grandparents4Justice Access & Visitation Worldwide on Monday, March 21, 2016
Real Fathers for Justice - News » Jimmy Deuchars passes away
ReplyDeleteMany followers of Children's Rights will know of Jimmy Deuchars and the magnificent campaigning he did for many years on behalf of grandparents, seeking a right to be involved in the lives of their grandchildren. Jimmy died last Thursday.
To most of us, he was the voice of the Scottish Charity, Grandparents Apart (http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk), which did much to further the cause, not just of grandparents, but of fathers also.
Jimmy's Funeral will take place on Friday 8th March, 2.30PM at Graigton Crematorium in Glasgow.
Our thoughts and prayers go to his wife Margaret, his family and to all of his friends.
RIP Jimmy, you will be sadly missed.
http://www.realfathersforjustice.org/news/index.php?itemid=710
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel, they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeletePRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."