Shouldn't have to "co-parent" with grandparents
My DH has sole physical custody of his(our)daughter and tries desperately to coparent with his ex but she wants nothing to do with it. She doesnt want to be a mom, as a matter of fact SD7 calls her by name and me mom. BM parents want a redo bc they raised such a fantastic daughter (sarcasm intended) and are forcing BM to maintain custody. BM refers everything to her parents , we send a message grandma sends response. We are currently taking her, them, back to court to modify custody and it just frustrates me that they think we are being unfair. These people get 3 weekends a month, and every freaking holiday is split, I mean even halloween, and summer is every other week. This is crazy to me, why should grandparents get more quality time with the child over the father that wants everything to do with this little girl? In the latest deposition the mother admitted she is uninvolved and has no desire to be involved. She flat out said her parents are the one that keep SD, which we obviously know, but the point is they claim she wants to be a better mom but she does nothing with this child, when she does it's always with her parents, there is no one o one time between SD and BM.
More of a rant than questions, but does anyone else run into a situation like this.
- AL6214's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Does BM have primary? What is
Does BM have primary? What is the visitation schedule like?
No dad has sole physical/
No dad has sole physical/ joint legal, she lives with us.
Her parent does have more
Her parent does have more time with her.
The only change that should be made is every other weekend instead of 3 weekends a month.
I wonder how much time the child spends with the OP vs. dad. If the OP is doing parenting stuff for dad, then she's a hypocrite.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the girl's RELATIVES having an active role in her life.
"OP. Keep track of the fact you message Bm and GBM responds. That shows an unwillingness to coparent from BM. Judges don't like that (normally...)"
How many SMs here do the exact same thing? Many posters here take over communication with BM because dad can't/won't. Why is it OK when a SM does it, but not grandparents?
Dad is very involved
I do not message or deal with BM or her parents it is a through DH. BM claims DH refuses to coparent, but when he notifies her of important things she will either not respond or we get a response from her parents. And as far as being a hypocrite my husband gets home in the morning wakes her up pushes her through her morning routine, puts her on the bus. Then in afternoon gets up gets her off the bus and we go through our evening routine. I help her with homework while I make dinner but he is very active in her life. Goes to gymnastics with us and they play video games or board games or read together when we have free time.
Again I'm not saying relatives shouldn't have a role but BM will eat dinner with child maybe one time in the 3 weekends the rest of the time she spends no time with her, SD is with her GPs.
Dad should request a
Dad should request a traditional every other weekend visitation schedule. If mom wants have the kid spend her parenting time with the grandparents, then so be it.
The fact that a 7 year old is
The fact that a 7 year old is allowed ti call her mom ( who is a dead beat but still present) by her name while calling the OP is mom ridiculous.
Calling the child OUR daughter is also wrong. If dad dies right now, the OP would no longer have contact with that child. As a matter if fact, the very grandparents that she is trying to marginalize will more than likely end up with the little girl.
If BM doesn't mind (she doesn
If BM doesn't mind (she doesn't specify here, The Psycho in my life would throw a rage fit) then no harm no foul I guess? That all depends on what BM wants... If she likes it that way (oddly enough I've heard about some BMs that encourage being called by their first name because they just want to be the cool best friend vs. parent) then it's whatever. However if she's voiced dislike to it, then OP and her DH should support the BM on that one and strongly discourage and enforce that. It's important a child learns and recognizes respectful behaviors like that one.
I disagree with the our daughter comment as well. Dh and I call the skids OURS. Doesn't mean we're marginalizing, yes I'm aware if something happens to Dh I lose them. HOWEVER, for the time being, they are being treated as and loved as OURS. Doesn't mean I'm alienating, doesn't mean I'm causing issues. So long as I'm not s*** talking the Psycho to them, or withholding visitation, or teaching them to be disrespectful little s***s to Psycho, it's not alienating. It's a choice I've made.
Based on your blogs, it's
Based on your blogs, it's clear that you do all you can to keep those girls connected to their family and their goofy mom. Nothing you've posted give off the vibes that this blog does.
Agree completely! I don’t
Agree completely! I don’t really see why people get so upset when an OP says ‘our kids’ or ‘our daughter’. As long as boundaries & respect for the BP’s is intact, isn’t it actually better for the skid to be seen as ‘ours’ by any SP’s in their lives?
We’re all on this site because of issues we have, or have had, or because we like the camaraderie of people understanding our struggles of being a SP. but isn’t the ideal where ALL involved parents love the skid, and can deal with the situation maturely? Isn’t it the ideal to have respect between parties who are helping raise the child?
I don’t see an issue with the grandparents here wanting to spend time with their GC, though 3 weekends a month is a bit much. 2 weekends a month & split holidays seems reasonable. Even if the BM isn’t actively involved, and unless the GP’s are trying to alienate the child, how can having more people in this kids life who love & help raise her be a bad thing?
I say "our kids" but that's
I say "our kids" but that's in reference to all 3 one of which is my BS. I don't say that about his two sons.
I don't even call him my
I don't even call him my stepson, I'm not calling him my son. (I use SS on here, but not in real life).
He's my husband's son.
I think the "our" kid thing implies ownership that's not there. And a sense of being an equal parent to the bio parents. I don't get it, he's not my kid, period. Even when I liked him, I didn't call him "my son".
Now, if you both have bios and they are all together, I can see saying "our kids" as a group - but my husband and that narcissistic bitch made SS, not me.
Read up on grandparent's
Read up on grandparent's rights. Especially if there is a chance this could escalate into the courts.
In theory, grandparent's rights extend only into the extreme circumstances of parental death or incapacitation. That's not necessarily the way the rulings are guided in all states that recognize grandparent's rights, though. For example, NY is extremely liberal with grandparent's rights.
Check into whether or not your location recognizes grandparent's rights and go from there. If your location does recognize grandparent's rights, a consult with a lawyer well versed would serve you well. If your location does not recognize them then you're free to handle any which way you choose.
Either way, I would recommend updating the CO to reflect the actual visitation schedule with BM as she is currently the only other party.
Once that's properly addressed you can work out an appropriate and agreeable arrangement with the GPs. Just be conscientious if you're in a location where GP rights are recognized. An established relationship and status quo are huge factors in such cases.
OP, I'm assuming you're in
OP, I'm assuming you're in Alabama by your name?
Grandparents rights DO exist in Alabama. However, they're not overly liberal. Several conditions have to be met before grandparents really have a shot to "win" the rights through court.
They're visitation rights though, not custody. Typically they only award one weekend a month and 1-2 weeks during the summer.
Our state has grandparent
Our state has grandparent rights. The grandparent is doing nothing wrong in asking to implement visitation.
Your Dh does not have the right to decide the visitation, the court does. Instead of fighting against them, he might try working with them. Every other weekend and one weekday evening dinner hour would give each household quality weekend time.
You do say the BM does participate at times the grandparents have the child. It doesn't matter how unloving/uncaring you believe the BM to be, the bottom line is the woman is her mother. You calling the child "our daughter" and letting her call you "mom" doesn't change that.
You might try for a better summer schedule, but remember if the child is spending her days with you and not her father , she might as well also be spending days with grandparents instead of a SM. However requesting a block of weeks to allow travel/summer vacation of longer than unloving/uncaring would not be unreasonable.
You don't mention how long you've been with the father nor whether your bio-children are the girl's siblings or step siblings. When did the father get primary custody? Did these grandparents play a role in raising this child prior to you coming along? All of these things can also be in consideration when going before a judge.
No Grandparents rights here
He has had custody since BM left, he and I have been together for 3 years now and bio kids are her SBs.
He has tried working with them and they are unwilling to compromise unless it benefits them.
Well, I can kind of see the
Well, I can kind of see the OP's point, that if BM is not the main caretaker, why aren't they with the other parent the majority of the time, while GPs can still have some time with them, but not splitting holidays, every other week in the summer etc.
Though someone made a good point, that if DH wants custody just to have his wife take care of the kids, that's the same (maybe worse) than them being with GPs and not BM.
Don't be so sure you will win - courts like to keep things the same if there are no ill-effects on the kids shown from an arrangement.
The courts may also see that
The courts may also see that the grandparents have been an equally stable part of the kid's lives... and not want to disrupt that as well. It sounds complicated.. and I can understand to a point that the visitation disrupts your lives to a point. But, I do think that the grandparents are likely a good influence.. My SD''s spent a lot of time with my DH's parents.. it was a positive and stable factor in their lives.
Read:
Grandparents DO not have any rights. You do not have to run anything by them ever.
Any visits that mom has, she can hand the kids to Granny.
Read Troxel V. Granville .https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html
Very short story Grandparents wanted visitation with GK's.
Court said Nope. Interferes with parents rights.
Also, In the Court of Appeals’ view, that limitation on nonparental visitation actions was “consistent with the constitutional restrictions on state interference with parents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.”
Also:The liberty interest at issue in this case–the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. More than 75 years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own.”
-------------------
IF bm wants the kids to see HER parents that is on her, on her time and all arrangements need to be decided between bm and HER parents. YOU dont have to pick up the phone actually.
Tell granny to work it out with her wonderful daughter.
Third party (non-parent)
Third party (non-parent) visitation statutes exist in every state.
Troxel v. Granville was decided by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds (the fundamental right of parents to parent their children as they see fit) so it applies to every state and every jurisdiction.
Here is the standard: (1) In order to establish Grandparent's rights, a grandparent must first establish that the parent is unfit. (2) If this is accomplished, then it must be shown that a relationship with the grandparent is in the BIOC (best interests of the child).
The effect of Troxel on these statutes is that if a parent is fit, his/her wishes on non-parent visitation are constitutionally protected and MUST be given "special weight".
Alabama's 2010 law was struck down as unconstitutional. Revised and signed into law in 2016. This one is also likely to be ruled unconstitutional but to my knowledge that hasn't happened yet.
2016 Code of Alabama
Title 30 - MARITAL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS.
Chapter 3 - CHILD CUSTODY AND SUPPORT.
Article 1 - General Provisions.
Section 30-3-4.2 - Grandparent visitation.
... (c)(1) There is a rebuttable presumption that a fit parent's decision to deny or limit visitation to the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.
(2) To rebut the presumption, the petitioner shall prove by clear and convincing evidence, both of the following:
a. The petitioner has established a significant and viable relationship with the child for whom he or she is requesting visitation.
b. Visitation with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child.
(d) To establish a significant and viable relationship with the child, the petitioner shall prove by clear and convincing evidence any of the following:
(1) a. The child resided with the petitioner for at least six consecutive months with or without a parent present within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.
b. The petitioner was the caregiver to the child on a regular basis for at least six consecutive months within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.
c. The petitioner had frequent or regular contact with the child for at least 12 consecutive months that resulted in a strong and meaningful relationship with the child within the three years preceding the filing of the petition.
(2) Any other facts that establish the loss of the relationship between the petitioner and the child is likely to harm the child.
(e) To establish that visitation with the petitioner is in the best interest of the child, the petitioner shall prove by clear and convincing evidence all of the following:
(1) The petitioner has the capacity to give the child love, affection, and guidance.
(2) The loss of an opportunity to maintain a significant and viable relationship between the petitioner and the child has caused or is reasonably likely to cause harm to the child.
(3) The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the parent or parents if visitation with the child is allowed...
Now that's not to say that it wouldn't ultimately get tossed as unconstitutional if a case ran through the courts. Fourteenth Amendment and what not.
However, as it is written it does not prevent a suit from being filed requiring an expensive (financially, emotionally, mentally) defense against said suit. The existence of such a law suggests the Alabama courts are willing to at least entertain the notion.
It's certainly not something I would blow off as an impossibility (or improbability for that matter) because of Troxel v Granville if I thought GPs might seek legal remedy to what they feel is "unfair."