Re: Laws concerning a relatives (non-parent or GParent) requ

More | Report Post

>
> If I understand correctly, in your case, both biological
> parents are living together as a family and still married.
> Courts always consider the best interest of a child but must
> also observe the constitutional rights of the parents to
> raise their child without undue interference.

I guess I should have been more specific. We are the biological
parents, together for 16 years and still married in a stable
relationship.
>
> If the person in your case had a significant role in the
> upbringing of the child (if they had custody for years before
> you resumed custody) and a meaningful bond had formed that
> would cause the child trauma if severed, an argument could be
> made for continued visits. But it would a weak case.

The person requesting visitation rights is a child from a
previous relationship prior to meeting my husband, which makes
the petitioner a half sibling. The oldest child moved out,
about 11 years ago, when my youngest was a few months old, and
my other child was only a few years old. They moved out of
state, so the visits were normally just holidays, and birthdays,
or if money was needed.
>
> Off-hand I see little possibility that a court could force
> you to share custody or grant visitation without a compelling
> case for the child's best interest. The interest of the
> party seeking visitation is of absolutely no consequence in
> determining visitation.

This is the most interesting paragraph so far. I have told the
referee that the children do not wish to see their sibling, and
this has also been stated to the judge by the childrens lawyer,
which was required by the courts. The kids lawyer met with my
kids and determined them to be stable, lovely children who
expressed their wish for no contact very clearly.

The referee then told us that therapy is required to resolve the
differences between me and my oldest child, and if they cannot
be resolved, it WILL go to trial. The ref basically said that
they will force my kids to see my oldest child. Does a referee
really have that much power? What are the limits of a ref's
power. I really think that the case has been decided by the ref
already, and I am in no way the winner....not that there really
are any winners in this case.

Right now I am thinking that while it has been pretty hard to
find a lawyer that is experienced in my particular case, it is
also going to be almost impossibleto find a lawyer willing to go
up against the ref and take the case for fear of getting on the
wrong side of a ref that will be deciding future cases.

>
> As for court ordered sessions in the interest of the child;
> Yes, you would normally be responsible to pay the cost of a
> court ordered treatment/counseling program.

This is where I am a bit confused. The sessions have nothing to
do with a traumatized child. They have been ordered so that I
may rekindle a relationship with my oldest that is not
wanted...on both sides. The ref said if this can not be
resolved...ie. I OK visits.....then he will make sure it will go
to trial.

What if there is no money for these sessions? My husband has
been on a reduced work week for a bit, as his company lost a lot
of contracts due to the economy and we are currently hanging on
by the edge of our pants. We could be without income very
shortly. How can an agency sworn to protect children expect me
to take food out of their mouths for therapy that is basically
going to put us in the same place we are currently?