03.04.2013 Views

A Judge’s Guide

A Judge’s Guide

A Judge’s Guide

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

RECURRING ISSUES<br />

50 Id. at 210.<br />

51 LEMON, supra note 18, at 68.<br />

52 LEMON, supra note 18, at 68.<br />

53 Janet R. Johnston & Linda K. Girdner, Early Identification of Parents at Risk for<br />

Custody Violations and Prevention of Child Abductions, 36 FAM. &CONCILIATION<br />

COURTS REV. 392, 405 (1998).<br />

54 Id.<br />

55 Id.<br />

56 Id.<br />

57 Id.<br />

58 BARBARA STARK,INTERNATIONAL FAMILY LAW:AN INTRODUCTION 201 – 203<br />

(2005).<br />

59 Lemon, supra note 18, at 68.<br />

60 Johnston & Girdner, supra note 53, at 405.<br />

61 Johnston & Girdner, supra note 53, at 409.<br />

62 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).<br />

63 Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Protecting Children’s Relationships with Extended<br />

Families: The Impact of Troxel v. Granville, 19 CHILD LAW PRACTICE 66, 70 (2000).<br />

64 See, e.g., In re G.P.C., 28 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)(third-party visitation<br />

order upheld, distinguishing state statute and facts of case from those of<br />

Troxel); Brice v. Brice, 754 A.2d 1132 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999)(while court<br />

overturned grandparent visitation award under Troxel in a factually similar case,<br />

the court rejected claim that the third-party visitation statute was facially<br />

unconstitutional).<br />

65 Troxel, 530 U.S. at n.1; see also Victoria Roth, Grandparents’ Right to Visitation, 1<br />

ELDER’S ADVISOR 51, 52 (1999); see generally Brent Bennett, et al., To<br />

Grandmother’s House We Go: Examining Troxel, Harrold, and the Future of Third-<br />

Party Visitation, 74 U. CIN.L.REV. 1549 (2006).<br />

66 See, e.g., ARK. CODE ANN. § 9-13-103 (statute establishes “rebuttable<br />

presumption” that parent’s decision to deny or limit grandparent visitation is<br />

in child’s best interest; grandparent can rebut presumption if he or she has<br />

“established a significant and viable relationship with the child” and visitation<br />

is in the child’s best interest; statute defines “significant and viable<br />

relationship” and best interest considerations); CAL. FAM. CODE §§ 3103(a),<br />

3104(a)(grandparent visitation is permitted if in chid’s best interest; rebuttable<br />

presumption visitation is not in child’s best interest if parents agree<br />

grandparents should not be granted rights; court must find 1) preexisting<br />

relationship between grandparent and child that has “engendered bond”<br />

rendering visitation in the child’s best interest and 2) “balances” child’s interest<br />

139 139

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!