• Announcements

    • LatoyaADMIN

      What to do if you get a "Wrong Password" message   01/21/16

      You must reset your password (even if you know it's the right one) before you can sign into the community. Thanks to the upgrade, there's an issue with passwords and signing in. The good news is that you can click here: http://community.grandparents.com/index.php?/lostpassword/ to change your password (it'll let you reuse your old one). If you can't reach the email address connected to your account then please contact the admin at latoya@grandparents.com and I'll help you sort it out. 
    • LatoyaADMIN

      Anonymous posting is back   01/21/16

      We've removed the extra step that required you to go to the full-page editor to access the anonymous post option. Now, you can reply to a post and toggle the button to post anonymous (see photo below).    Read more on anonymous posting here:    In short, the mods can see who posts as anonymous, we moderate anonymous posts the same as revealed posts, you can reply anonymously to your own topic, you may report anonymous posts.
RoseRed135

A line in the sand: Part 3 - Petitions for GVR Laws

20 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Ok, it doesn't surprise me that more GPs favor petitions to create GVR laws than younger parents, and more EGPs than non- GPs. What has taken me by surprise is the difference in the interpretation of these petitions.

Often, younger adults and even some GPs will point out that such a petition is too broad in some ways - doesn't exclude abusive GPs. for example - or too narrow in other ways - doesn't cover issues such as parents wanting to relocate, etc. These issues can come up, I've noticed, whether a petition is introduced on an EGP or any other parent or GP site. What's different on EGP sites is often the reaction. There I've seen some GPs totally flabbergasted that such questions/objections are raised. Sometimes, an EGP (or even a non-EGP) will simply exclaim, "What ??? Who's talking about abusive GPs?! Of course, they don't deserve access!"  But other times, they will argue, "A petition is just to get something started. They can work out the details when they write up the law."

In the first case, I just figure they didn't stop to think that the general term "grandparents" includes "abusive GPs," too, unless otherwise stipulated. But as for the second response... do they have a point? Legislators do often amend a bill before it becomes a law (if it does). Perhaps that means it doesn't matter how broad or narrow a petition is?

Thoughts?

Edited by RoseRed135
to reorgainze paragraphs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a case where people don't really understand the process of how things become law. Laws can't be general, they need to be specific, so there just can't be a law that says GPs have visitation rights. It's a slippery slope really, and often people don't think about that. They are asking that the government take away a parent's right to make decisions for their family. If they can take away that right, what other rights can be taken away? Would the GP be very happy with a law that took away their rights to make decisions for themselves if they are of sound mind? Those petitions are often reactionary, and very emotional, so it never seems like anyone thinks about the actual process and what the consequences are. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entitled GP cause AC legal expense for no reason.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the desire for GPRs sometimes but I can't think of any situation other than abusive, neglectful  parents (which with the drug epidemic happens far too often) where it can actually work and if abuse and neglect are the case then the kids need another home period, not just more time with GPs . If parents are fit then they are responsible for their kids including who spends time with them. I don't think courts can regulate GP relationships, it's hard enough with parents who split.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, that unless parents are in a situation where them retaining custody is to the detriment of the child, that the courts should not be stepping on parental rights.

I mean, let's look at this realistically.

Mom and Dad divorce.

Now Dad's Mom, who's also divorced wants GVR.

And so does Dad's Dad.

Oh, and Mom's Mom, who's still married to Mom's Dad.

When, exactly, do the PARENTS get to have their own child(ren)? You know, the folks that are to be the children's main caregivers, the primary adults for these children?

Even if Mom and Dad weren't divorced, and all the grandparents were together, that means HALF of all wknds would be away from parents. And oh, dear holy cheezits, let's think about holidays, right? Would the parents even be able to get a meal in with their own children on Christmas? What does that sort of instabilty do to children, constantly being shuffled about and away from their parents?

I think in cases of simple estrangement, hauling parents to court is an incredibly selfish act on the grandparents'. "Sorry, Honey, I know you want to play hockey/do ballet, but Grandma and Grandpa are suing Mommy and Daddy, and we're just trying not to lose the house to legal bills right now..." Not to mention the emotional stress. The children have to LIVE through that. Their grandparents are actively HARMING them by hauling parents to court. I don't understand why ppl who claim to love these children so much want to put them through this. It's no little thing!

And the other aspect? You can pretty much be guaranteed that ANY hope of reconciliation is dead, burned, buried, dug up, burned again, ashes spread on several different bodies of running water. There's no coming back from that for most ppl. Even just THREATENING GVR is enough for most folks to say, "Nope. We're done here."

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rosered135, by petition I think you are referring  to one of two things. 

1) an initiative-in some states voters have the ability to directly legislate, bypassing the legislative process and elected officials. It usually begins by a person writing an initiative-a legal document similar to a bill, that would amend current law. This has to be done by a lawyer specializing in administrative codes and legislation. Then they attempt to get the voters of the state to sign it. If they can get a specific number-usually a few 100,0000- it goes on the ballot and voters vote. If it passes, it is law. No legislators or governors. This would mean no amendments by legislators to add in details like abusive grandparents don't qualify. 

2) a petition can also be a letter signed by multiple people that might be sent to a legislator, governor, newspaper or published online. This is a suggestion and request for a legislator to sponsor a bill about the issue. The legislator might do it or might decide not to. They might add details the petitioners like or not. Other legislators might make amendments. It might get introduced but never passed

 

initiatives are hard to write, require lots of money, volunteers, campaign coordinators, and generally require experts in multiple fields to be successful. Even then they may fail if voters say no. 

Petitions are basically sending a letter to your legislator and hoping they will do something. Even if they do, it might not be the law GP want. The new law may have qualifications that exclude the grandparents who sign the petition.

Many laws require GP to have been de facto parents or the parents must be divorced, or full estrangement. Very few GP fit the requirements for the visitation in their state. The laws give false hope, especially when the GPs don't understand it. This results in lawyers getting money off of desperate GP who have little chance of success. And parents having to pay for lawyers to defend themselves resulting in a worse relationship than they started in.

The best option is tilo maintain a good relationship with your children and to file for custody if the parents are unfit.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, darkprincess said:

Rosered135, by petition I think you are referring  to one of two things. 

1) an initiative-in some states voters have the ability to directly legislate, bypassing the legislative process and elected officials. It usually begins by a person writing an initiative-a legal document similar to a bill, that would amend current law. This has to be done by a lawyer specializing in administrative codes and legislation. Then they attempt to get the voters of the state to sign it. If they can get a specific number-usually a few 100,0000- it goes on the ballot and voters vote. If it passes, it is law. No legislators or governors. This would mean no amendments by legislators to add in details like abusive grandparents don't qualify. 

2) a petition can also be a letter signed by multiple people that might be sent to a legislator, governor, newspaper or published online. This is a suggestion and request for a legislator to sponsor a bill about the issue. The legislator might do it or might decide not to. They might add details the petitioners like or not. Other legislators might make amendments. It might get introduced but never passed

 

initiatives are hard to write, require lots of money, volunteers, campaign coordinators, and generally require experts in multiple fields to be successful. Even then they may fail if voters say no. 

Petitions are basically sending a letter to your legislator and hoping they will do something. Even if they do, it might not be the law GP want. The new law may have qualifications that exclude the grandparents who sign the petition.

Many laws require GP to have been de facto parents or the parents must be divorced, or full estrangement. Very few GP fit the requirements for the visitation in their state. The laws give false hope, especially when the GPs don't understand it. This results in lawyers getting money off of desperate GP who have little chance of success. And parents having to pay for lawyers to defend themselves resulting in a worse relationship than they started in.

The best option is tilo maintain a good relationship with your children and to file for custody if the parents are unfit.

I'm referring to the petitions you (general) sometimes see online, so I guess that falls under category # 2 (I wasn't even aware of # 1)?

So, apparently, they could be amended. But, of course there's no guarantee as to how they would be amended.

They might add details the petitioners like or not.

The new law may have qualifications that exclude the grandparents who sign the petition.

Interesting ^^^^. I wonder how many petitioners think about the above 2 points.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RoseRed135 said:

I'm referring to the petitions you (general) sometimes see online, so I guess that falls under category # 2 (I wasn't even aware of # 1)?

So, apparently, they could be amended. But, of course there's no guarantee as to how they would be amended.

They might add details the petitioners like or not.

The new law may have qualifications that exclude the grandparents who sign the petition.

Interesting ^^^^. I wonder how many petitioners think about the above 2 points.

Most petitions online aren't written to be bills. They really are just letters or resolutions. They are ideas that an elected official can use to be inspired to make a law. The legislator will- for good or not- write it with details that the petitioner may not like

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GVR is pretty much the only situation I can think of that ppl want to take rights away from one group and give it to another.

It's also the only one I can think of where ppl are actively advocating for their children to have *less* rights than they did.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, darkprincess said:

Most petitions online aren't written to be bills. They really are just letters or resolutions. They are ideas that an elected official can use to be inspired to make a law. The legislator will- for good or not- write it with details that the petitioner may not like

 

Thanks for the information!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GPR advocates want to police where their adult children move to now, too?  That's infuriating.  There's absolutely no way that should be allowed, in any way, shape, or form.  That's a disgusting amount of entitlement.  

Earlier this year, one of the GPR groups I follow (hey, a girl needs some rage clean inspiration sometimes!) started making noise about going for a federal GPR law, or possibly an executive order for GPRs.  I couldn't rage clean for that one- there will NEVER be a nationwide law on GPR, as it is a state rights issue.  The federal government doesn't handle family law.  

I'm a good mom, and I got stuck with crap ILs.  They're out of our lives.  My kids don't miss out on anything positive by keeping them out of our lives.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, shoppingninja said:

GPR advocates want to police where their adult children move to now, too?  That's infuriating.  There's absolutely no way that should be allowed, in any way, shape, or form.  That's a disgusting amount of entitlement.  

Earlier this year, one of the GPR groups I follow (hey, a girl needs some rage clean inspiration sometimes!) started making noise about going for a federal GPR law, or possibly an executive order for GPRs.  I couldn't rage clean for that one- there will NEVER be a nationwide law on GPR, as it is a state rights issue.  The federal government doesn't handle family law.  

I'm a good mom, and I got stuck with crap ILs.  They're out of our lives.  My kids don't miss out on anything positive by keeping them out of our lives.  

Well, when parents have a custody agreement, relocation can be contested in courts. Visitation is a custodial arrangment, so of COURSE grandparents would want veto power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ImpishMom said:

Well, when parents have a custody agreement, relocation can be contested in courts. Visitation is a custodial arrangment, so of COURSE grandparents would want veto power. 

And yet, I've never seen that mentioned in any GVR petition I've ever seen. For some reason, these petitioners don't generally think about that. If the issue is raised by someone questioning the petition, it's another one that gets the, "Oh, that would be worked out later" response.

Whatever the reason they've been CO, I suspect that some GVR-seekers are, sadly, so desperate, they don't really think through the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not thinking out the details probably contributed to them being CO.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SueSTx said:

Not thinking out the details probably contributed to them being CO.

    Exactly.

Anonymous poster hash: ea945...f93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of these EGP's, especially the GM's, would feel if a law of this type was around when they were raising their own children? If you asked them how they would have felt if their MIL decided she was not getting enough visits with their children and sued for more time?  I have feeling they would be highly opposed to the whole idea. I think people should really tread lightly when asking the government to interfere in family life, excluding of course abusive situations.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, lovinben said:

I wonder how many of these EGP's, especially the GM's, would feel if a law of this type was around when they were raising their own children? If you asked them how they would have felt if their MIL decided she was not getting enough visits with their children and sued for more time?  I have feeling they would be highly opposed to the whole idea. I think people should really tread lightly when asking the government to interfere in family life, excluding of course abusive situations.

I wonder how any of the EGPs would feel if someone took them to court b/c they wanted to use their home, or car, or money.

"I need $500."

"No. I loaned you money before, and you didn't repay me."

"I'm suing you! You loaned me money before, you're not  ALLOWED to say no!"

***

"I'm staying in your home next weekend."

"I'm sorry, that doesn't work for us."

"Too bad. You let me stay before, you have to let me stay again."

Person shows up, refuses to leave, cops get involved. "Well, you have let them stay before, and you're causing a disturbance, so how about you just let them stay once a month. You don't have to be here when they are, just go somewhere else while they use your stuff. It's not like they're being destructive with your things, right?"

***

"I'm using your truck next week."

"No, we're using it."

"You'll have to make other arrangments. I'm moving and need your truck. You let me use it before, you can't say no now! How am I supposed to move, I'm DEPENDING on using your truck! If I can't use your truck, you have to rent me one, b/c it's YOUR FAULT I don't have a truck to move with now!"

Makes as much sense, really.

Edited by ImpishMom
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and we're back to the ridiculous sense of entitlement that so many, many people suffer from. Deflection, blame shifting, anything but owning your own ****. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think GVR and taking your children to court because you want to play a part in your grandchildren's lives, however understandable, is wrong.  Yes, it is heartbreaking to be excluded from your child's family and to lose your grandchildren, but the parents have no legal obligation to meet your demands.  How can anything loving and good come from taking them to court?  An exception would be if the children are endangered.  If that's the case, they need to be removed for their safety, not visit their GPs by court order.  Another exception would be if the GC'd parents are divorced and out of spite the custodial parent cuts ties with the ex's parents.  But sadly, if GP's desires and needs aren't important to their offspring, they will have to learn to live with it.  For the sake of their GC if for no other reason.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Suzreads - Kudos to you for being able to be so reasonable and objective in the face of your own difficult situation!

I'm not sure how often a custodial parent can really CO their ex's parents, however. After all, the ex generally has the option of sharing some of their own visitation time w/ their own parents.

Perhaps a more cruel situation is when, sadly, a younger parent dies and their parents/FOO are suddenly CO from the GC, as well.

Edited by RoseRed135
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now