Parental Rights

[mikepd]

This was a new one to me. Bonnie Miller has a 3yo son and her husband died a year ago of leukemia. She has met someone new, wishes to move to North Carolina and start a new chapter in her life. There is only one problem, the parents of her late husband, the grandparents of her son object. They have gone to court and obtained a temporary order restraining her from moving until a hearing can be held. It also gives them increased visitation time. Under the terms of the order, she can move no more than 25 miles from her present location.

Are we entering a new age where everyone that can claim any right by blood can say what happens to a child? What of the parent? The mother was willing to let them have the child for the summer, have them go visit but not good enough. 'Small town is not good enough, they don't know enough about her fiancé, they don't want the child removed from his extended family'- all this was from another interview.

Excuse me, my parents separated when I was 13. Ok, big difference than 3. But I saw my 'extended family' a lot. There is such a thing as a phone and you can write. There is such a thing as get togethers.

There is such a thing as being self-centered, selfish and way over the top.

Grandparents Rights? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/21/grandparents.rights.ap/index.html)

[Biker]

Originally posted by mikepd

There is such a thing as being self-centered, selfish and way over the top.

There's also such a thing as the court being totally clueless when it comes to parental rights. I certainly hope the judge is taken to task over this ruling.

[limeygit]

If they can afford the lawyer, they can afford to travel...

[Biker]

I suspect it's more the grandparent's objection of the grandchild moving "south".

[limeygit]

I suspect it is more the fact the Grandparents lost their son at a young (32) age, and are terrified they will lose all they have left of him. So they think they can somehow stop reality, and force the ex-daughter-in-law to live in stasis so they can see the offspring of their dead son regularly.
The time, money and effort put into a case, that they will never in a million years win, could have been spent forging bonds and planning on their regular visits, etc...

[mikepd]

I hope this case does not turn into a real messy battle as some parental custody battles can degenerate into. Those are lose-lose situations. Limeygit raises a very valid point. They see their son through the grandson. Cut that tie by moving and it is like he dies all over again.

I hope all concerned can come to a sensible arrangement that returns control to the mother where it belongs.

[Vicky]

It seems the concept of grandparent's rights have come into play a great deal recently. It may have something to do with the fact that many grandparents are now acting as the carers of their grandchildren while their parents both work.

I can understand how they may feel about never seeing their grandchildren after a new life is established somewhere else. I have seen it happen to the point that the surviving parent becomes resentful of the reminder of the past which comes with the contact and involvement of the grandparents.

Try to see both side of the arguement, not from a legal standing, but people with feelings. Both side need to be respected.

[Cariad]

That's disgusting, and should have been thrown out of court. Allowing the grandparents to dictate where a mother and her child can and can not live is outrageous. Your constitution is huge, isn't there a right in there being infringed upon somewhere?

[ethics]

I agree with Cariad, this should not even last 1 hour in court before the judge throws it out. Grandparent rights are secondary to parent's UNLESS there's clear indication of molestation, abuse, rape, or other such things. Moving South is definitely not one of them.

[Cariad]

Originally posted by ethics
UNLESS there's clear indication of molestation, abuse, rape, or other such things.

Exactly. What kind of grandparents are these people when they make an accusation that the mother <i>might</i> be unstable.

Their reasons seem to be purely selfish, and the court pandering to their ramblings.

[HaYwIrE]

Originally posted by Cariad
Their reasons seem to be purely selfish, and the court pandering to their ramblings.
That's the American way.

[cdw]

Well, when they lose, they will only have themselves to blame for having destroyed the last bit of relationship they have with their daughter inlaw. I doubt this will help their cause to see the grandson in the future.

[ethics]

The more I think about it the more I am becoming a bigger advocat of punitive repercussions to the losers of those that brought up the issue.

It would make people think twice before suing.

[Fiona]

I've heard this argued many times. I understand it from all "3" sides. STILL, the parent is the parent is the parent. If the parents were alive and moved out of state, this would not be an issue. The death of the father, does not grant the grandparents rights in his stead.
BOGUS!

[Coriolis]

Originally posted by ethics
The more I think about it the more I am becoming a bigger advocat of punitive repercussions to the losers of those that brought up the issue.

It would make people think twice before suing.
Not sure I'd be willing to go that far. There are probably many legitimate cases where someone may have a tough go at it in court because they are financially dwarfed by the people they are sueing for damages -- if you threw the possibility of having to pay punative damages on top of what you loose in legal fees, you'd be less likely to take action. Acting to prevent a frivolous lawsuit is fine, but when it prevents legit law suits, it is not ok. Not that I have a better solution in mind.

The current case is pretty bogus though, assuming there's no history of abuse or negligence on the part of the mother. From the g-parents POV though, they just lost their son, now they will loose the contact they've become accustomed to with their son's child. I think their concern and selfishness is somewhat justifiable, but that's where it should end. Taking it to court is damaging for all concerned, IMO.

[ethics]

Yah, I know Cor, I was exagerrating out of frustration.

[Cariad]

Originally posted by fiona_campbell
If the parents were alive and moved out of state, this would not be an issue. The death of the father, does not grant the grandparents rights in his stead.
BOGUS!

Exactly, well said.

[Wacko]

Some quick search on Google for Grandparnets Rights, and I found this article: Grandparents Rights (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june00/grandparents.html)

It seems that the Constitution gaurantees the right of parents to raise their children free from government interference, and as such the Supreme Court Rules in favor of parents.

[Misu]

Originally posted by limeygit
I suspect it is more the fact the Grandparents lost their son at a young (32) age, and are terrified they will lose all they have left of him. So they think they can somehow stop reality, and force the ex-daughter-in-law to live in stasis so they can see the offspring of their dead son regularly.
The time, money and effort put into a case, that they will never in a million years win, could have been spent forging bonds and planning on their regular visits, etc...

I agree with this.

It's hard for a parent to lose their child - it's not "natural" is what many parents report. It's not the parent that should bury the child type thing.

It's a whole mess of things, I think. From grieving and anger to selfishness and jealousy. And they involved the courts.

[Snugglebunny]

I'm sorry, I really am, but I can't just sit back and let what is obvious be overlooked.&nbsp; There is a definate problem here.&nbsp; The problem is not just with the grandparents.&nbsp; The problem is not just with the parent, or who ever else.&nbsp; The problem the way I see it runs deeper than that.

It comes down to the way we are heading in this society.&nbsp; It is becoming easier and easier to sue for what ever reason, and there is a very good reason why.&nbsp; Though it may not be all of the reason, a good part of the reason is, because there is not acountability outside of the courts anymore for a great amount of the population.&nbsp; When I say accountability, I mean, not to man, but to God.

Yes, I said the G word.&nbsp; But, believe it or not, when God had more power over our actions, there was less of these things going on, for there was less of a reason for them to go on.&nbsp; I will admit, America has never been perfect.&nbsp; And to everyone who chooses not to believe that God exists, well, the idea of him being the main source of accountability is something if anything, at least, offensive.&nbsp; I realize that.

I have to say this though.&nbsp; If we all were under God's influence, none of this would be an issue, for anyone truly acting on the behalf of Christ, is one who would not be quick to wrong someone else, but quick to help instead.&nbsp; The homeless would have more of a voice, if this were the case too.&nbsp; Just as, those who struggle with what ever is going on in their life, we all would be willing to lend more of a hand, including myself.

I do not say I am perfect, just because I believe in God, and try to let him be my source of accountability.&nbsp; I am not perfect, and I have plenty of flaws.&nbsp; But I am almost sure that if I ever were in the grandparent's shoes, I would not think of doing something like what has happened, for I would be thinking of all involved.

To me, the issue at hand is accountability.&nbsp; Now, for those who wish not to let God enter into it, fine, find your own source of accountability, but this increasing relience on the courts to do what we can not is not the way to go.&nbsp; This would not happen, if everyone was accountabile to something.&nbsp; That is all I can say.

&nbsp;:woopee:

[ShinyTop]

I will not get into a god issue with you. I will, however, remind you that when you state god was more active, that more people allowed god to determine their behavior we had slavery. We had Chinese brought to build railroads and treated in many respects as slaves. We had women without any rights and completely subservient by law and practice and church to man. We had the KKK deciding if blacks even saw a court. If this is the good influence of god I hope we never again see the bad, the Crusades and the Inquisition. I think when I say god had little to do with it I am honoring your god, not putting him down.

[cdw]

To me, the issue at hand is accountability. Now, for those who wish not to let God enter into it, fine, find your own source of accountability, but this increasing relience on the courts to do what we can not is not the way to go. This would not happen, if everyone was accountabile to something. That is all I can say.

And you said it quite well! Thank you.:)

[Wacko]

From the link in my post above
The court said the most important aspect of the argument is the right of parents to raise their children free from government interference.

The Constitution still "leaves room for states to consider
the impact on a child of possibly arbitrary parental decisions that neither serve nor are motivated by the best interests of the child," wrote one of the six Justices in the majority. In other words, the government can still get involved if parents make decisions which might harm their children.

From the original article posted by Mike
They have gone to court and obtained a temporary order restraining her from moving until a hearing can be held. It also gives them increased visitation time. Under the terms of the order, she can move no more than 25 miles from her present location.
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot get involved unless there is abuse. This means that the laws regarding grandparents rights are illegal in the first place, as government is not allowed to interfere unless child abuse is going on. It's definitely a shame that the grandparents are doing this, and hopefully they will wake up before it's too late.

[cdw]

UPDATE:

Judge Rita Donovan Hathaway brokered an agreement between the mother, Bonnie Miller, and her in-laws, Ronald and Rose Miller of Plum, under which the older Millers will get their 3-year-old grandson, Kevin, 33 days a year, including Christmas Eve.
"I am glad I am free," Bonnie Miller said yesterday evening. "I am pleased with the agreement. Judge Hathaway really did a good job with this."
The Millers were less delighted. Crying during a telephone interview, Rose Miller said, "I think if she had thought about it a little longer, she wouldn't have decided to move. There is nothing there, no one. Her family is all here. Kevin's family is all here."

judge lets mom leave (http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030523millerr3.asp)

I have no doubt at all we will be hearing about these people again... either the mother will not send the kid up to the grandparents, or the grandparents will not send the kid back home.

[ethics]

I can't believe the mom is happy about this. Thirty three days is over a month out of the year, and if I am moving somewhere, I will be visiting because I WANT to not because I was ordered by the court of law.

[Coriolis]

While she may be happy it's only 33 days per year, this does not imply she's happy that it had to dragged through court. I suppose she was fearful of losing more, and the outcome was much better than that... Just guessing.

[cdw]

What I got out of it was that she was happy because she can go now. It cost her quite a bit of money since all her stuff was down at the new place and she was paying rent already. It's also possible that the laws in N.C. are not the same as in Pa and once there she can do what she wants. We'll see if they end up in the news again. I know that I wouldn't trust the grandparents to return the kid after a visit. I watch Lifetime TV... I've seen the stories rofl

Edit: spelling