I posted this not too long ago and didn't really elaborate on the whole situation. So here you go:
My dearer friend got her son(i don't know if I can say taken from her or what but basically) her parents filed for custody after they threw her and her at the time 7 month old son out. (because theyre in such a rural area she couldnt find a job nor had a way to get around since she didnt have a car)Since they made her leave he was staying with me til she got on her feet. She had her own room for her and the baby. My house was the safest environment for her and the baby. Hence why I insisted on having her stay with me. Anyway she got summoned to court for a custody hearing because her parents went behind her back and filed insisting that she had noplace to do and that she was unstable and moving from place to place.(which was far from the truth) She told her story to the judge and for some reason since she had just got hired on at her now job of 2 years and didn't her enough for daycare at the time(But told the judge that I as her new roommate would watch him while she was at work because I had only had online classes and worked from home) the judge ruled in her parents favor.(the father of the child is deceased so that's not a choice for assistance) So here's my q's!
If her parents and she hase joint legal custody and she has visitation rights as both parties agree. Do the parents have the right to "TELL" her they only can see her child once a week for 30 minutes? Is that legal? It says in their paper work "joint legal custody with the parties- to the grandparents and to this person- primary physical custody to the grandparents and visitation as the parties may agree." Im confused cuz there is nothing in the paperwork stating that the visitation had a time limit and that it only has to be for one day a week. If the other "party"/ she doesn't agree with that can't that be brought before a judge?
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
Of course it can be taken back before the judge. The stipulation requires the "parties" to agree - this means the grandparents and the mother. If the parties cannot/do not agree, it is appropriate to go back before the judge for a more formalized agreement.
Does she have a history of drug and/or alcohol abuse? Any arrests? Any involvement with DV? ANY allegations of abuse or neglect?
If the answer is no to all of these questions, my guess is that the grandparents are trying to rigidly restrict visitation to prevent her from getting custody of the child later on. (If she was getting liberal visitation with her child she could go back to court and argue she is well bonded with the child and spends a great deal of time caring for his day-to-day needs. This could cause the judge to eventually give her primary custody. But 30 minutes a week isn't enough to be able to bond with a child.)
Is the child receiving survivor benefits as a result of his father's death?
Well, I don't think there's a time limitation for those visits, but the welfare of the child can always be used as an arguement!!
It's important to know the reason the parents are keeping their own daughter from her child!! Usualy this situations presents when a mother is troubbled, drugs, alcohol, parties. It doesn't sound to me like that, I think you jave a strong possitive opinion from her!!
A parent should be able to cater to his child echonomically but also with time, education, formation. If there's a "better" possibility for.the child, the court must rule in it's favor.
Your friend needs to contact the local Legal Aid office. She needs a lawyer. She should be prepared to prove that she is employed and that she has a stable home,and reliable child care.
588 W 6th St
San Bernardino, CA 92410
(909) 889-7328