S. Hrg. 98-620
GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION RIGHTS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. Con. Res. 40
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT A UNIFORM STATE
ACT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND ADOPTED WHICH PROVIDES
GRANDPARENTS WITH ADEQUATE RIGHTS TO PETITION STATE
COURTS FOR PRIVILEGES TO VISIT THEIR GRANDCHILDREN FOLLOW-
ING THE DISSOLUTION (BECAUSE OF DIVORCE, SEPARATION, OR
DEATH) OF THE MARRIAGE OF SUCH GRANDCHILDREN'S PARENTS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
NOVEMBER 15, 1983
Serial No. J-98-81
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-610 0 WASHINGTON : 1984
S. Hrg. 98-620
GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION RIGHTS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEPARATION OF POWERS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. Con. Res. 40
EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT A UNIFORM STATE
ACT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AND ADOPTED WHICH PROVIDES
GRANDPARENTS WITH ADEQUATE RIGHTS TO PETITION STATE
COURTS FOR PRIVILEGES TO VISIT THEIR GRANDCHILDREN FOLLOW-
ING THE DISSOLUTION (BECAUSE OF DIVORCE, SEPARATION, OR
DEATH) OF THE MARRIAGE OF SUCH GRANDCHILDREN'S PARENTS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
NOVEMBER 15, 1983
Serial No. J-98-81
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-610 O WASHINGTON : 1984
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
PAUL LAXALT, Nevada EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROBERT DOLE, Kansas HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming DENNIS DeCONCINI, Arizona
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E GRASSLEY, Iowa MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Vinton DeVane Lide, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Deborah K. Owen, General Counsel
Shirley J. Fanning, Chief Clerk
Mark H. Gitenstein, Minority Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers
JOHN P. EAST, North Carolina, Chairman
JEREMIAH DENTON, Alabama MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
Steven R. Valentine, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Thomas A. Bovard, General Counsel
(ID
CONTENTS
STATEMENT
Page
East, Senator John P. (opening) 1
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Levin, Hon. Carl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan 13
Kornhaber, Arthur, M.D., president, Foundation for Grandparenting, Mount
Kisco, N.Y.; Lee and Lucille Sumpter, Grandparents'-Children's Rights,
Inc., Haslett, Mich.: Roberta Teverbaugh, Richland, Wash.; Martin G. and
Gerrie Highto, Baltimore, Md.; and Richard S. Victor, attorney at law,
Birmingham, Mich 28
Mullenix, Linda S., visiting assistant professor of law, Columbus School of
Law, Catholic University of America 152
ALPHABETICAL LIST AND SUBMITTED MATERIAL
East, Senator John P.:
Statement of National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws
Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 9
Highto, Gerrie: Testimony 123
Highto, Martin G.: Testimony 123
Kornhaber, Arthur, M.D.:
Testimony 28
Prepared statement, with charts 32
Booklet: Grandparents-Grandchildren, The Vital Connection, by Arthur
Kornhaber, M.D., and Kenneth L. Woodward 44
"Unwilling Grandparent-Grandchild Divorce, Prevention and Treat-
ment," by Arthur Kornhaber, M.D 48
"Grandparents: The Other Victims of Divorce," by Arthur Kornhaber,
M.D., from Readers' Digest, February 1983 65
Levin, Senator Carl:
Testimony 13
Prepared statement 16
Listing of existing uniform State laws 21
Letter: To Senator East from Senator Levin et al., October 21, 1983 26
Mullenix, Linda S.:
Testimony 149
Prepared statement 154
Prepared statement of Robert A. Destro 173
Sumpter, Lee:
Testimony 69
Prepared statement, with table, jointly with Lucille Sumpter 71
"Baby Boom Casualties," article, by Al Rossiter, from Kingsport (Tenn.)
Times News, July 29, 1981 73
Sumpter, Lucille: Prepared statement, jointly with Lee Sumpter 71
Teverbaugh, Roberta:
Testimony 73
Prepared statement 76
Letter to:
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, from Ruth E. Robinson,
November 7, 1983, with enclosures 100
Court decision: Henry and Ruth Robinson v. John Westphal 104
mil
IV
Page
Teverbaugh, Roberta — Continued
Findings of fact and conclusions of law 110
"Custody Fight Ends in Court," news article, by Richard Wagoner, with
comment 113
Letter from Rose Bicknell, October 27, 1983 114
Articles from Society of Neglected Grandparents 117
Victor, Richard S.:
Testimony 126
Prepared statement 130
APPENDIX
Additional Submissions for the Record
Statements:
Edith S. and Henry W. Engel 187
Ruth Warren, president, Christian Civil Liberties Union, with poem 190
Mr. and Mrs. E. G. Christianson, September 4, 1983 192
Harvey Kudler to Senator Strom Thurmond, October 19, 1983 192
GRANDPARENTS' VISITATION RIGHTS
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1983
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in room
SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John P. East
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Staff present: Thomas A. Bovard, general counsel, and Scott L.
Wilkinson, Jr., chief clerk.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN P. EAST
Senator East. I would like to convene, please, this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers so that we might promptly
take testimony this morning regarding Senate Concurrent Resolu-
tion 40.
I am going to be very brief in my comments, because of the time
constrictions under which we operate.
I would like to say that I think the subject matter is very impor-
tant: The question of grandparents' visitation rights in the case of
the contemporary broken home. I believe that grandparents are
among the greatest victims of the disintegration of the American
nuclear family. Under the new morality, the divorce rate has ap-
proached nearly 50 percent at times.
Of course, other problems such as widowhood can create visita-
tion rights problems for grandparents. Probably the single greatest
contributing factor is the divorce rate, and though we are justifi-
ably solicitous of the problems of the children with regard to
proper custody and care, and of the rights of the respective parents
as regards visitation, we have neglected the rights of affected
grandparents. And I am sure they feel badly victimized by it.
The purpose of this hearing is to listen to some testimony perti-
nent to this problem. What the U.S. Senate can do, I do not know,
but I certainly come to this task of the hearing with a sympathetic
ear and a deep and profound interest. I can sympathize with them.
I am not yet a grandparent, but I hope I will be, and I know at
some point I would be deeply and profoundly hurt and disappointed
if I learned I could not visit my grandchildren. This relationship is
one of the great joys of the nuclear family and of the process of
aging.
It is a very legitimate issue, and I am happy that the Subcommit-
tee on Separation of Powers can contribute in some small way to
its solution. So I wish to open on that positive, constructive note.
(l)
I would like to submit for the record, please, and without objec-
tion, a statement from the National Conference of Commissioners
on Uniform State Laws, concerning grandparents' rights, and I
would like for this report and a copy of Senate Concurrent Resolu-
tion 40 to be made a part of the permanent record.
[The following was received for the record:]
3
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
645 North Michigan Avenue. Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois 6061 1 -(312) 321-9710
John M. McCabe
Legislative Director
MEMO TO: Subcommittee on Separation of Powers
FROM: John M. McCabe QSOW/orJ
DATE: November 11, 1983
SUBJECT: National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws (ULC) Position on Grandparents'
Rights
INTRODUCTION
The ULC appreciates the request of the Subcommittee on
Separation of Powers to appear on the issue of the
grandparent's right or privilege of visitation with
grandchildren. Since the Resolution before the Subcommittee
urges the ULC to take on a drafting project for a Uniform
Act pertaining to this issue, some statement of ULC
functions would be appropriate for the Subcommittee to
consider.
The ULC is an organization of the legal profession and
a state service organization. It is a confederation of
individual state commissions that are officially appointed
from the legal profession in each state and member
jurisdiction. By statute, most states delegate the
appointment power to the governor. A few states provide, by
statute, for appointment by other state officials. The
states, also, provide funding for the operation of the ULC
as a whole, and for the attendance of their own commissions
to the yearly Annual Meeting of the ULC. Commissioners
receive no compensation for their service to the ULC. Their
time and expertise is contributed as a part of the public
service obligation of the legal profession. The ULC was
organized in 1892, and every state had joined by 1912. The
states are not the only members, though. The District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico participate in the ULC as full and
equal partners with the states.
The ULC has one mission on behalf of state government.
It is commissioned by its members to review state law and to
consider those subject areas in which uniformity of law best
serves the interests of the states and member jurisdictions.
It then prepares drafts of legislation which the states and
member jurisdictions may consider to establish uniformity
between them. It must be emphasized that the ULC can
propose, but the states must dispose. There is no uniformity
in fact until they adopt the Acts proposed.
One of the ULC's primary areas of interest over the
years has been family law. The current list of Acts
available to the states includes the Uniform Marriage and
Divorce Act, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support
Act, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Uniform
Parentage Act, the Uniform Recognition of Foreign Divorces
Act, and, in 1983, the Uniform Marital Property Act and the
Uniform Premarital Agreement Act. Clearly, the states have
come to expect substantial family law legislation from the
ULC.
Because the ULC has proposed much legislation in this
field, the issue of the grandparent's right or privilege of
visitation with grandchildren is of natural interest to the
organization. It bears directly on existing Uniform Acts,
especially on the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act.
Therefore, the ULC has, already, charged a Study Committee
with the responsibility for looking at this issue and of
making recommendations to the ULC Executive Committee with
respect to a ULC response to it. The Study Committee is
likely to make an initial report by July, 1984, in
preparation for the ULC Annual Meeting in late July.
If the ULC decides to draft an Act or to amend any
existing Act, its work will commence following the ULC
Annual Meeting. By the ULC Constitution, every new Act must
have one interim reading before final promulgation. This
means, for any proposed Act, at least two years of work
before completion. I point out these procedures so that
everybody interested in the grandparent's right or privilege
of visitation with grandchildren will be aware of them.
Of course, no decision has been made to draft, nor can
I assure anybody that such a decision will be made. The
decision will come in the orderly course of ULC activities,
and will be based upon the usual factors the ULC considers
in making such decisions. i.e., what is the need for
uniformity, what should the scope of such legislation be,
etc. The process, which has already been initiated, will be
unaffected by any congressional action. In effect the
Resolution before this Committee has, already, had the
maximum impact it can have upon the ULC process. The
initial action in the House of Representatives served to
bring the issue to the attention of the ULC, and encouraged
the assignment of the issue to the ULC Study Committee. The
federal influence can extend no further, since the matter is
purely a state matter and the ULC is purely an institution
of state government.
RELEVANT ISSUES IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO DRAFT LEGISLATION
What I propose to do in the rest of this statement is
preview the decision-making process of the ULC Study
Committee. I emphasize that I cannot commit the ULC to
anything, nor can I tell you exactly what the Study
Committee will do. What I can do is review the issues that
the Study Committee is likely to consider, so that
interested persons may have some idea of what to expect.
Please recognize that the following is speculative, at best.
I will proceed, based on questions that, I believe, the
Study Committee will be asking itself in the coming year:
1 . Should there be any legislation providing visitation
rights to grandparents at all?
Common sense would tell most of us that most children
benefit from contacts with grandparents. Such connections
are likely to promote healthy growth and a general sense of
well-being. When marriages break up, connection with
extended family members may help cushion the trauma for the
children of these marriages. We do not need social
scientists to tell us, either, that contact with
grandchildren usually promotes the health and welfare of
grandparents .
But the prospect of a grandparent's right or privilege
of visitation, enforceable in a court of law, raises some
fundamental questions about access to the courts.
Generally, courts have not had the power to consider
disputes between family members, except between husband and
wife in the dissolution of marriage action. In-law disputes
are classic disputes within the family, and in-law tensions
are the most common of tensions inside the family circle. Do
we now wish to raise in-law disputes to a level such that
they may be adjudicated in a court of law? Are courts of
law, as currently constituted, competent to make such
adjudications?
The latter question is a serious question. The states
face an enormous, nearly unwinnable struggle with domestic
relations adjudications. I can think of no area of family
law, whether it be dissolution of marriage, adoption,
termination of parental rights, enforcement of support,
guardianships, or child custody, in which things are going
well. The courts struggle to cope with adjudications of all
these kinds of actions. They are poorly equipped for the
task, and the results are uniformly unsatisfactory. Should
we be adding new access to these courts when they do not do
well what they are doing now? At some point in the United
States, policy makers are going to have to realize that all
issues are not legal issues and that some things must remain
outside the circle of those things legally enforceable. The
adjudication of so-called grandparents' rights may or may
not fall within the magic circle, but the question is one
that must be asked in considering a Uniform Act.
The parent-child relationship has remained pretty well
unassailable in American jurisprudence. Courts and
legislatures have not readily entertained the abrogation of
the parent-child relationship, recognizing its fundamental
character. It is a complicated relationship involving both
rights and obligations. Visitation rights for grandparents
are an abrogation of the parent-child relationship. The
existence of such rights means a diminution of parental
authority, however slight. A diminution of parental
authority cannot be taken lightly, given the strains on
family relationships that already exist. No legal
relationship is wholly sacred, but very good reasons must be
found for changing the parent-child relationship before a
Uniform Act should be entertained.
None of these issues mean a negative determination with
respect to the promulgation of some uniform legislation on
this subject. These are simply base-line questions that
require good answers before drafting proceeds. And, if
drafting proceeds? the answers also determine the scope of
the drafting project.
2. If grandparents are to be given access to courts to
seek visitation rights, how shall these rights be framed?
Let us presume that the decision has been made to
draft. How shall these rights of access to courts be
framed? The subject has been proposed in terms of
grandparents' rights, although grandparents may receive what
may be characterized more as a privilege than a right. In a
sense, then, proposing legislation in terms of rights may
already misstate the principal concept. Clearly,
grandparents wish to have access to their grandchildren
because the pain of separation is as great for the
grandparents as for the grandchildren, at least
hypothetically. But an issue of rights? Maybe not. But even
more to the point, law reform pertaining to the parent-child
relationship, child custody, and related matters, has had,
to date, quite another emphasis. That emphasis is upon the
best interests of the child. The custody provisions of the
Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, the jurisdictional
standards of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and
every state's most current statutes focus on best interests
of the child. This is the significant revolution in family
law in our time.
The relevant consideration, in drafting new
legislation, may be improvement of adjudications in the best
interests of the child, rather than other party rights.
That approach may better rationalize an abrogation of the
parent-child relationship. Grandparent and extended family
contacts with children may be, generally, enhanced in
considering best interests of the child. But legislation
rooted in the best interests of the child may not quite look
like the kind of legislation that advocates of grandparents'
rights exactly have in mind.
3. What should be the extent of such legislation?
An extremely important question is the abrogation of
the parent-child relationship during an ongoing marriage, as
contrasted with making decisions about child custody when
the marriage is being dissolved. If grandparents are
restricted from access to grandchildren in an ongoing
marriage, that means, generally, that it is a mutual
parental decision. Should we be subjecting mutual parental
decisions made in a whole marriage to adjudication? Can the
courts stand in the position of the parents well enough to
decide whether the parental judgment is or is not
reasonable? Is it in "the best interests of the child" per
se to qustion parental decisions in the whole marriage, and
to weaken parental authority? Access to courts establishes
a certain kind of power. Will the threat of adjudication
influence reasonable parental decisions adversely? These
are some of the questions to be raised in permitting
adjudication of the grandparent's right or privilege of
visitation with grandchildren when the marriage is whole.
When the marriage dissolves, the equities change.
Children of divorce are, already, subject to substantial
trauma with lasting effect. The conflict between the
parents already jeopardizes the child's welfare. In
addition, a court and any adjunct services are already
involved. The issue of best interests of the child is
already before a court, and the need to call upon all
available resources is apparent.
The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act already takes into
account the issue of children's contact with other persons,
not just grandparents, in the determination of best
interests of the child. Section 401(e) allows the court,
upon a showing of good cause, to "permit intervention of
other interested parties". In Section 402(3), as a factor
in determining the best interests of the child, the court
may consider "the interaction and interrelationship of the
child with his parent or parents, his siblings, and any
other person who may significantly affect the child's best
interest,..." It is pretty clear that discretion resides in
the court "in the best interests of the child" to permit
intervention of grandparents or other interested parties in
the custody proceeding, and to order children's contact with
persons other than parents. One of the questions the Study
Committee will undoubtedly ask is the sufficiency of these
provisions, as they exist, and whether it ought to recommend
only that amendments be considered to the Uniform Marriage
and Divorce Act.
The death of a parent, remarriage of a single parent,
stepparents, adoptive parents, unmarried parents — all raise'
more or less, special kinds of problems. The parent-child
relationship within each of these categories will have to be
analyzed to see what decisions ought to be made. All of
these variations on the parent-child relationship bear on
the question of the scope of a drafting project. All
complicate the decision-making process.
4. if access to courts to adjudicate grandparents'
visitation rights is to be permitted, who shall bear the
costs of that litigation?
The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act gives the court
discretion to assign one party's costs and attorney's fees
to another party, based upon a consideration of the
resources of both parties. This is an example of what has
been done to allocate costs when they become a financial
burden upon one party or another.
Allocation of costs based on available resources is a
reasonable approach to the issue, but, when access to courts
is given to persons who have never had it to obtain rights
or privileges that did not exist in prior law, the
allocation issue may change. Are the equities in favor of
allocating costs on the basis of resources, for example, or
should those parties gaining new access have it on the
condition that they are willing to bear the whole costs?
The parents face litigation potential that has never been
there before. Should they, also, be asked to bear the cost
of that litigation? It may be that an appropriate trade-off
for the right or privilege of visitation would be assumption
of the cost burden.
In the adjudication of custody, it is more and more
common for legal counsel or a guardian ad litem to be
appointed to represent the child's interests as separate
from the interests of any other party. The Uniform Marriage
and Divorce Act makes the appointment of legal counsel for
the child discretionary to the court in Section 310. Some
8
states, I believe, have mandatory requirements for
representation of the child. Costs are shared by the
parents, as the court prescribes.
Grandparent access to the courts may cause some
rethinking of this issue. Should there be mandatory
representation of the child, even though it is, otherwise,
discretionary? What should be the grandparent's share of
the costs of this representation? These, again, are
questions that will need answers when and if drafting is to
take place.
5. If grandparents are to be given access to the
courts to obtain the privilege or right of visitation with
grandchildren, should there be obligations assessed, as
well, for the support and care of the grandchildren?
The parent-child relationship is composed of the rights
of parents over children and of their obligations for
children. The law is probably more concerned with the
obligations than it is with the rights. It recognizes that
children are dependent and vulnerable. The greatest
struggle today in domestic relations law is the struggle for
enforcement of child support obligations. The problem of
child support after dissolution of marriage, and the
problems of the single parent, in general, should cause
policy makers and drafters of Uniform Acts to pause long and
hard before extending rights or privileges without reserving
the power to assess obligations. If the extended family is
to gain legal recognition in any fashion, the duality of
relationships - rights and obligations - must be considered.
6. What safeguards should there be for the abuse of
any right or privilege granted to grandparents?
Child custody and child support are, already,
significant problems in the United States. There may be as
many as 300,000 incidents of child-snatching or related
kinds of behavior in this country per year. This behavior
continues notwithstanding enormous efforts to curtail child
custody disputes in the law. Lawyers who deal with custody
cases know that disputes are often fueled and financed by
extended family members. Sometimes, grandparents finance
litigation and aid extra-legal activities.
One of the prime considerations in extending any
privilege or right to grandparents will be safeguards
against such behavior. Will the access to courts accorded
to grandparents encourage and fuel child CaotuJy disputes?
What means can be put at the court's disposal to discourage
such behavior? There is no issue more critical to the
protection of children than this one. There are a variety of
alternatives, including bonds, that can be considered.
CONCLUSION
These are some of the issues that I see as inherent in
a drafting project of this kind. Other people may be able
to identify more issues than I can. Some may disagree with
my speculations, as well. But my discussion should give the
Subcommittee a fair preview of the concerns that will have
to be addressed. I hope the Subcommittee on Separation of
Powers will find this information helpful.
m
98th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. CON. RES. 40
Expressing the sense of the Congress that a uniform State act should be devel-
oped and adopted which provides grandparents with adequate rights to
petition State courts for privileges to visit their grandchildren following the
dissolution (because of divorce, separation, or death) of the marriage of such
grandchildren's parents, and for other purposes.
LN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 24 (legislative day, May 16), 1983
Mr. Levin (for himself, Mr. Stennis, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Zoeinsky, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Btjedick, Mr. Matsunaga,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Heinz, Mr. Foed, and
Mr. Bumpebs) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was re-
ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Congress that a uniform State act
should he developed and adopted which provides grandpar-
ents with adequate rights to petition State courts for privi-
leges to visit their grandchildren following the dissolution
(because of divorce, separation, or death) of the marriage of
such grandchildren's parents, and for other purposes.
Whereas approximately 75 per centum of all older Americans
are grandparents;
Whereas grandparents play a vital role in millions of American
families;
10
2
Whereas an estimated one million children a year experience the
divorce of their parents;
Whereas the laws of forty-two States (1) provide grandparents
with certain rights to petition State courts for privileges to
visit their grandchildren after the dissolution (because of di-
vorce, separation, or death) of the marriage of such grand-
children's parents, and (2) allow such courts to grant such
visitation privileges if such courts consider it in the best in-
terests of such grandchildren;
Whereas such procedural rights to petition State courts often do
not provide grandparents with adequate opportunities to be
fully heard with respect to the granting of such visitation
privileges;
Whereas the factors considered by State courts in determining
whether the granting of such visitation privileges is in the
best interests of the children involved varies widely among
such States;
Whereas the ability of grandparents who have meaningful rela-
tionships with their grandchildren before the dissolution (be-
cause of divorce, separation, or death) of the marriage of
such grandchildren's parents to help satisfy such grandchil-
dren's needs for continuity of care and familial ties after
such dissolution is often not fully taken into account in de-
termining the best interests of such grandchildren;
Whereas the lack of uniformity among the laws of States with
respect to such visitation privileges adversely affects the
ability of grandparents to enforce and exercise such visita-
tion privileges once granted by a court because of the inter-
state movement of the parties involved;
Whereas four national grandparents' rights organizations have
been established for the purpose of focusing national, State,
11
3
and local attention on the issue of grandparents' visitation
rights; and
Whereas the Subcommittee on Human Services of the House
Select Committee on Aging held a hearing on such issue on
December 16, 1982: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
2 concurring), That a) it is the sense of the Congress that—
3 (1) the National Conference of Commissioners on
4 Uniform State Laws should develop a model State act
5 which —
6 (A) provides grandparents with adequate
7 rights to petition State courts for, and to be fully
8 heard in such courts with respect to the granting
9 of, privileges to visit such grandparents' grand-
10 children after the dissolution (because of divorce,
11 separation, or death) of the marriage of such
12 grandchildren's parents;
13 (B) ensures that such rights extend to cases
14 in which, after such dissolution, such parents re-
15 marry and stepparents adopt such grandchildren;
16 and
17 (C) establishes procedures for the interstate
18 recognition and enforcement of State court orders
19 granting such visitation privileges; and
20 (2) States should adopt the model State act so
21 developed.
12
4
1 • (b) It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of
2 Health and Human Services, through the National Center for
3 Child Abuse and Neglect, should provide technical assistance
4 to States in developing, publishing, and disseminating guide-
5 lines which —
6 (1) may be used in determining the "best interest
7 of the child" in cases in which the grandparents of
8 such child seek privileges to visit such child after the
9 dissolution (because of divorce, separation, or death) of
10 the marriage of such child's parents, including cases in
11 which such privileges are sought in situations described
12 in subsection (a)(1)(B); and
13 (2) take into account the ability of grandparents to
14 help satisfy such child's need for continuity of care
15 after such dissolution.
SCON 40 is
13
Senator East. Before turning to the witnesses this morning I
would like to welcome this morning as our first recognized partici-
pant my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Michigan, Sena-
tor Carl Levin.
Senator Levin, we welcome you here this morning and we will be
happy to hear what you have to say. Because this is the concluding
week of a final session, I understand your need to move on not be-
cause of your lack of interest in the subject, but simply because of
the variety of things and obligations that you will have today.
So I would like to recognize Senator Levin, the distinguished
Senator from Michigan, to this subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and first let me tell
you how grateful the grandparents, and I think the grandchildren,
of America are for your willingness to hold this hearing and to at
least consider the possibility of recommending to the Commission-
ers on Uniform State Laws that they adopt a uniform State law for
consideration by the State legislatures of this country. I emphasize
"consideration" because uniform State laws are not binding on any
States; they are offered to the States as a model law, and then it is
up to each State as to whether or not the model law is adopted.
And I think that fits very much with both of our sensitivities to the
rights of States in these areas of families.
There are now 26 cosponsors, Mr. Chairman, of this resolution,
making this a sense-of-the-Senate recommendation to the uniform
law commissioners to adopt such a uniform law. And these 26 co-
sponsors reflect a broad cross section of the Senate; it is a biparti-
san resolution, and it has obviously a great deal of support that we
go at least this far in expressing our sensitivity to the needs of
grandparents. And, as I will state again in a moment, to the needs
of grandchildren to be with their grandparents where that family
has for some reason been — the nuclear family — has in some way
been broken up.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard from grandparents all over this
country, and a number of them are with us today, with disturbing-
ly similar stories— and they are pleading to see their grandchil-
dren. And if you could hear from the grandchildren this morning, I
think you would also hear pleas from the children to see their
grandparents.
I know about a couple from my own State of Michigan who have
been in and out of the courts since 1979 fighting for the right to
visit their grandson. After their son had died, the daughter-in-law's
new husband adopted the grandson and prohibited the grandpar-
ents from visiting the boy. The grandparents lost not only a son
but in effect they also lost a grandson. This issue is of vast impor-
tance to literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of grand-
parents and grandchildren in this country. And a statement that I
will ask to be incorporated in the record contains other examples of
grandchildren and grandparents from around the country that
have had painful experiences in trying to see each other.
29-610 O— 84-
14
A number, as I have indicated, are here with us this morning,
including the Sumpters from Michigan who, along with Richard
Victor, have brought this problem to my attention in the first
place, and are the reason why I am here today sponsoring with 26
others this measure to urge the uniform law commissioners, the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, to
develop this uniform State act to provide grandparents with ade-
quate rights to petition State courts, just to have standing to peti-
tion State courts for privileges to visit their grandchildren follow-
ing the dissolution of the marriage of the grandchildren's parents,
or following death or any of the other reasons why the family is in
some way broken up.
Again, I emphasize that this is a first step, a voluntary step, a
nonbinding step on the States, but a way of expressing the feelings
of the Congress and the grandparents and grandchildren of this
country that we should make some progress toward recognizing the
needs of grandparents and grandchildren to see each other where
the family has been broken up.
Mr. Chairman, I know of your love for the nuclear family and of
the values that are involved in that tradition in this country, and I
know of your dismay — and, may I add, my dismay at the divorce
rate in this country and at the number of families that are being
broken up. And one of the great losses, and there are many in-
volved when a family breaks up, one of the great losses, most pain-
ful losses, is the inability too often of grandchildren and grandpar-
ents to see each other.
I am going to ask that my statement be incorporated in the
record, but I must add one personal note before I close, and that
has to do with my children and their grandparents. I have watched
that relationship. It is a relationship of deep affection, abiding af-
fection, of great love. My children appreciate their grandparents;
they call their grandparents, they write their grandparents, they
see their grandparents whenever they can, even though they are in
different parts of the country, on their own, not because we are
telling them all the time, hey, call grandma and call grandpa — be-
cause they deeply love their grandparents.
My children are better kids and will be better adults because of
the love and affection of their grandparents for them. Parental
love is critical, sibling love is critical, love of friends is critical — but
I know of no relationship more pure, more abiding, and more af-
fecting and more influencing on the character of children than that
of the grandparents for those children.
And if we, without violating the rights of States, can push this
process a little bit forward, with just simply suggesting that a
model law be created to try to eliminate some of the chaos and con-
fusion and hodgepodge which exist relative to parental rights,
grandparental rights, in this country, we would be doing a service
which is consistent with our own values and our own beliefs in the
rights of those States, because there are complex differences obvi-
ously in this country, and we don't want to necessarily impose any-
thing on the States; we simply want to offer the States an opportu-
nity to adopt a model law, which other States have also adopted, so
the grandparents and their grandchildren can perhaps get togeth-
er. Again, it is children's rights, not just grandparents' rights, that
15
we are talking about here. The victims, as you point out, are the
grandparents, in your opening remarks — they are so true — and the
victims are also the grandchildren, and I know the Chair would
agree with me so much on that.
Senator East. Yes.
Senator Levin. The Senate has an opportunity here, consistent
with its own traditions and its own values — and I hope that we will
grab that opportunity and that, as you listen to these witnesses
today, that you will see that what is being proposed is a very
modest way of reflecting the values which you and I think all the
Members of the Senate uphold so strongly.
And, finally, could I ask the Chair to incorporate in the record
the list of existing uniform State laws, model acts — there is over
100 of them which have been proposed to the States, including,
may I say, for the Chair, a uniform adoption act, a uniform child
custody jurisdiction act, a uniform divorce recognition act, a uni-
form juvenile court act, a uniform marriage and divorce act, a uni-
form paternity act, a uniform reciprocal enforcement-of-support
act, and so forth — many acts have been proposed to the States, and
I would like to have the record reflect a list of those acts so that we
can see that we are not plowing totally new ground when we rec-
ommend to the commissioners that they adopt this model act.
Senator East. The record will please show, then, that the re-
quested materials that the Senator mentions are made a part of
the permanent record of these hearings.
Senator Levin. And, again, I thank my friend and congratulate
him on his willingness to proceed with these hearings. I know his
sensitivity to the area of family; there is no greater spokesman for
the family in the Senate than our chairman, and I think he will
find what is being proposed here totally and fairly consistent with
his own very deeply felt beliefs in that area.
Senator East. Well, you have been very eloquent in your state-
ment, Senator Levin, and I think you did make an excellent point
that this involves not only the rights of grandparents, but the
rights of the grandchildren and continuity of the family, as well.
Traditional family values, which have meant so much to the west-
ern heritage and to the American tradition, have been much im-
periled in recent years. That is a separate problem we cannot solve,
but in the meantime I would agree with you there is no reason
why either grandparents or grandchildren ought to be the victims
of this particular trend. I also agree that government presently
seems unable to offer any sort of help or relief. I think you stated
it very eloquently, and we thank you for coming. And if you have
no further comments to make, you may stay, if you wish but if you
find you must leave, certainly we will understand that the press of
Senate business often carries us off to other tasks.
Senator Levin. Thank you, sir.
Senator East. Thank you, Senator, we appreciate your coming.
[The following was received for the record:]
16
Prepared Statement of Senator Carl Levin
As sponsor or Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 0 , the ni:;iinl|>.ir<»nl:s
Rights to Visitation Act, T am pleased to bo qiven the
opportunity to highlight, and more importantly, clarify the major
provisions of this measure.
We are here today I '.) address the issue of grnndpnrentnl
visitation rights. While the issue is relatively new to
Congress, it is certainly not new to thousands of grandparents
and grandchildren who find themselves involved in disputes that
threaten the bond of love and comoanionship shared between
grandparents and grandchildren.
I've heard from grandparents from all over the country -- all
with disturbingly similar stories and all who are pleading to see
their grandchildren. I know about a couple from my state of
Michigan who have been in and out of courts since 1979 fighting
for the right to visit their grandson. After their son hud died,
the daughter-in-law's new husband adopted the grandson and
prohibited the grandparents from visiting the boy. The
grandparents not only lost a son, they also lost, in effect, a
grandson.
Another couple from Vermont were denied visitation rights with
their only two grandchildren. When the grandchildren's parents
divorced, the daughter-in-law banned the grnndoarents from seeing
the children. This grandoarent couple had no legal recourse
because Vermont is one of three states without a visitation
statute .
The stories are painful and the problems are endless.
The measure before you is a pro-family measure. It is a
17
VOLUNTARY measure leaving VOLUNTARY implementation to the .states.
S.Con. Res. 40 expresses the sense of the HonruresR that the
National Conference m Co mini ss i onors on Uniform Slate r.aws
develop a uniform state act which, if implemented by the states,
provides grandparents with adequate rights to petition state
courts for privileges to visit their grandchildren following the
dissolution of the marriage of the grandchildren's parents. Once
the proposed uniform law is developed, it is hoped that all fifty
states will adopt it.
The National Conference of Commissioners is composed of
Commissioners from each of the states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico. The Commissioners are chosen from or are
connected with the legal profession and serve without
compensation. The object of the National Conference, as stated
in its constitution, is "to promote uniformity in state laws on
all subjects where uniformity is deemed desirable and
practicable." Each uniform act that is develooed is then
recommended for general adoption throughout the jurisdiction of
the United States. Again, it is up to the states to adoot it.
This resolution is an attempt to bring about uniformity among
state laws.
Because of the vast differences in 47 existing statutes,
confusion results as to the present status and interpretation of
exist 1 ng laws .
in addition to the confusing and complex differences among state
laws, the shifting status of the law within each state also
indicates that it would be beneficial for state legislators to
have a model statute to consider. In my state of Michigan, for
example, it currently has a relatively liberal grandparents
visitation statute. However, the eleven years prior to its
passage were characterized by fluctuating visitation rights.
18
I would like inserted at this point in my testimony a brief
history of Michigan's visitation statute showing the law's
progression.
INSERT: (In 1971, the Grandparent Visitation Statute (MCLA
722.27(a)) was passed; allowing grandparents to petition Tor
visitation rights upon the death of their child, provided that
the court found it to be in the best interests of the grandchild.
On January 16, 1979, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the
Michigan Adoption Statute (MCLA 710.60), which severed all legal
ties between grandparent s and child upon the death of one no cent
and adoption by a stepparent, took precedence over the 1071 law.
Thus, grandparents had no legal recourse to petition the court
for visitation of their grandchildren in cases of stepparent
adoption. (Bikos v.gNobliski, 88 Michigan App 157 (1979); Bikos,
supra)
In ) QUO, tho Michigan Adoption Statute was amended (MCLA 7 1.0.60
as amended) to pcosiTvu .i child's natural blood I i in- unions
parental rights had bean terminated voluntarily or by the court
before death. Gr andnarents would therefore not lose their legal
standing as grandparents unless adoption followed the termination
of parental rights.
In addition, in 1980, the Michigan Child Custody Statute (MCLA
722.27 as amended) was amended to provide that the courts
consider the 'reasonable visitation of maternal or oaternal
grandparents.1 While the legislative intent of this law was to
increase the rights of grandparents, the amended section was
placed after a preamble which stipulated that visitation only be
considered during or after a custody dispute. Furthermore, the
Michigan legislature repealed the 1971 Grandparent Visitation
Statute. In December of 1982, a new statute was passed nl lowing
grandparents to petition for visitation rights in cases of
19
divorce, death, separation, or stepparent adoption. The best
interests of the child is still the foremost concern when
considering the approval of visitation rights. The new law does
not deal with cases where dissolution of the nuclear family has
not occurred.) END OP ih.SKRT
At the federal level, Congress has no general authority to
legislate in this area, hut it can urge the National Conference
of CoTnmissioners on Uniform State laws to develon a model act
that allows grandparents to petition the courts for visitation
pr i vi leges .
The only uniform act which currently involves the subiocf' of
custody and visitation is the Uniform Marriage and Divorce' Act
which states that a non-custodial narent must he allowed
'reasonable' visitation rights unless this would endanger the
child's physical, (nenl-.il , moral, or emotional. health. While
grandpnrenta 1 visitation is not mentioned, soino canon ilocided
under this section hnvo authorized such visits even in the
absence of specific statutory language.
The proposed model grandparental visitation act would not have
the power of law or regulation unless it were adopted by a state.
It would not set conditions for the receipt of federal aid. It
would simply be model state legislation, all or parts of which
individual state legislatures may choose to enact into law, or
choose not to enact into law.
The House of Representatives took action in this area when it
held hearings before the Subcommittee on Human Services on
December 16, 1982 and again in Mew York on April 8, 1983. In his
December 16, 1982 introductory statement, Subcommittee Chairman,
Mario Biaggi, assessed the nature of the problem this way:
20
"Today in America, approximately seventy percent of older people
in the United States have grandchildren. Statistics reveal that
women become grandmothers at approximately fifty years of aqe,
and men become grandfathers around age fifty-two. Based on
current life expectancy, this can leave as much as a twenty to
thirty year period for the develooment of meaninqful relations
between grandparents ami grandchildren. That is the nos i M ve
side of the coin.
On the negative side, over one million children a year experience
the divorce of their parents . . .a startling forty-eight
percent of those married in 1970 will eventually divorce. Most
people who get divorced will remarry in may instances within
three years. These contemporary shifts in divorce and rema rr iage
are radically changing the character and structure of the family
as we know it . "
Today's grandparents have encountered these changes and continue
to face new and different challenges. It is appropriate that the
Congress should do whatever it reasonably can to facilitate
action by the states which would ease for grandparents the
adjustment to these changed circumstances. Senate Concurrent
Resolution 40 would set in motion such a voluntary process, and T
urge the committee to <jive its favorable consideration.
21
EXPLANATION
New Volumes 7 and 7A of the Master Edition of Uniform
Laws Annotated contain the text of the following Uniform Acts :
Volume 7
Arbitration Act
Common Trust Fund Act
Condominium Act
Consumer Credit Code (1968 Act)
Consumer Credit Code (1974 Act)
Volume 7A
Consumer Sales Practices Act
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (196G Act)
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (1964 Act)
Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act
Federal Tax Lien Registration Act
Fiduciaries Act
Fraudulent Conveyance Act
Land Sales Practices Act
Management of Institutional Funds Act
Principal and Income Act (1962 Act)
Principal and Income Act (1931 Act)
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
Securities Act
Simplification of Fiduciary Security Transfers, Act for
State Antitrust Act
Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act V
Trustees' Powers Act
These acts were drafted by the National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws and recommended for adop-
tion in all states. These new volumes combine the Uniform Acts
relating to business and financial topics for convenient reference
to the text of such statutes and the up-to-date judicial construc-
tions thereof in all of the adopting jurisdictions.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM LAWS
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws is composed of Commissioners from each of the states, the
in
22
EXPLANATION
New Volumes 9 and 9A of the Master Edition of Uniform
Laws Annotated contain the text of the following Uniform
Acts:
Volume 9
Abortion Act (Revised)
• — Adoption Act
Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act
■ — * Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
Civil Liability for Support Act
Controlled Substances Act
*"" 'Divorce Recognition Act
Drug Dependence Treatment and Rehabilitation Act
Duties to Disabled Persons Act
Volume 9A
— Juvenile Court Act
— Marriage and Divorce Act
Minor Student Capacity to Borrow Act
Narcotic Drug Act
Parentage Act
— - Paternity, Act on
- Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act
These acts were drafted by the National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws and recommended for adop-
tion in all states. This new edition combines the sixteen Uni-
form Acts relating to matrimonial, family and health laws for
convenient reference to the text of such statutes and the up-to-
date judicial constructions thereof in all of the adopting juris-
dictions.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM LAWS
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws is composed of Commissioners from each of the states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In thirty-three of these
jurisdictions the Commissioners are appointed by the chief exec-
utive acting under express legislative authority. In the other
jurisdictions the appointments are made by general executive
ill
23
EXPLANATION
This new Volume 11 of the Master Edition of Uniform Laws
Annotated contains the text of the following eleven Uniform
Acts :
Attendance of Witnesses From Without the State in Crim-
inal Proceedings, Act to Secure
Crime Victims Reparations Act
Criminal Extradition Act
Criminal Statistics Act
Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act
Military Justice Code
Motor Vehicle Certificate of Title and Anti-Theft Act
Post Conviction Procedure Act
Rendition of Accused Persons Act
Rendition of Prisoners as Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings
Act
Status of Convicted Persons, Act on
These acts were drafted by the National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws and recommended for adop-
tion in all states. This new edition combines the eleven Uni-
form Acts relating to criminal law and procedure in one volume
for convenient reference to the text of such statutes and the
up-to-date judicial constructions thereof in all of the adopting
jurisdictions. The text of the new Uniform Rules of Criminal
Procedure and the Model Penal Code will be found in Volume 10
of the Master Edition of Uniform Laws Anotated.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS
ON UNIFORM LAWS
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws is composed of Commissioners from each of the states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In thirty-three of these
jurisdictions the Commissioners are appointed by the chief exec-
utive acting under express legislative authority. In the other
jurisdictions the appointments are made by general executive
authority. There are usually three representatives from each
jurisdiction. The term of appointment varies, but three years
is the usual period. The Commissioners are chosen from the
legal profession, being lawyers and judges of standing and ex-
perience, and teachers of law in some of the leading law schools.
They are united in a permanent organization, under a constitu-
tion and by-laws, and meet in Annual Conference in the same
in
24
EXPLANATION
New Volumes 12 and 13 of the Master Edition of Uniform
Laws Annotated contain the text of the following twenty-two
Uniform Acts:
Volume 12
Acknowledgment Act
Aircraft Financial Responsibility Act
Certification of Questions of Law Act
Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act
Declaratory Judgments Act
Volume 13
Eminent Domain Code
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
Evidence, Uniform Rules of
Facsimile Signatures of Public Officials Act
Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act
Interstate and i - ternational Procedure Act
Jury Selection and Service Act
Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act
Perpetuation of Testimony Act
Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as
Evidence Act
Preservation of Private Business Records Act
Public Assembly Act
Recognition of Acknowledgments Act
Single Publication Act
Statute of Limitations on Foreign Claims Act
Statutory Construction Act
Voting by New Residents in Presidential Elections Act
These acts were drafted by the National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws and recommended for adop-
tion in all states. These new volumes combine the twenty-two
Uniform Acts relating to civil procedural and remedial laws for
convenient reference to the text of such statutes and the up-to-
date judicial constructions thereof in all of the adopting jurisdic-
tions.
in
25
EXPLANATION
New Volumes 13 and 14 of the Master Edition of Uniform Laws
Annotated contain the text of the following Uniform Acts:
Volume 13
Eminent Domain Code
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
Evidence, Uniform Rules of
Exemptions Act
Facsimile Signatures of Public Officials Act
Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act
Insurers Liquidation Act
Interstate and International Procedure Act
Jury Selection and Service Act
Land Transactions Act
Volume 14
Metric System Procedure Act
Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act
Perpetuation of Testimony Act
Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evi-
dence Act
Preservation of Private Business Records Act
Public Assembly Act
Recognition of Acknowledgments Act
Simplification of Land Transfers Act
Single Publication Act
State Administrative Procedure Act
Statute of Limitations on Foreign Claims Act
Statutory Construction Act
Trade Secrets Act
Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act
Voting by New Residents in Presidential Elections Act
These acts were drafted by the National Conference of Com-
missioners on Uniform State Laws and recommended for adoption
in all states. These new volumes combine twenty-five Uniform
Acts relating to civil procedural and remedial laws for convenient
reference to the text of such statutes and the up-to-date judicial
constructions thereof in all of the adopting jurisdictions.
Ill
26
CARL. LEVIN
MICHIGAN
QJCmieb states -2>ctraic
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510
October 21, 1983
The Honorable John East, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Separation of
Powers
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We urge your support for Senate Concurrent Resolution
40, the Grandparents Rights to Visitation Act. In light of
the upcoming hearing you scheduled for November 15, we would
like to extend our appreciation for the hearing and clarify
some of the major points of the Resolution.
This Act would request the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Law (which is a non-governmental
entity that promotes uniformity in state laws) to develop a
model act to provide grandparents with adequate rights to
petition state courts for privileges to visit their grandchildren
following the dissolution of the marriage of the grandchildren's
parents.
It is of paramount importance to note that the proposed
model would not have the status of law or regulation and it
would not set conditions for the receipt of federal aid. Senate
Concurrent Resolution 40 is not binding on the states. Under
this model act, states would have the option to adopt all, parts,
or none of it.
Grandparent groups, senior citizen organizations, and
concerned individuals join us in our support of this measure.
We thank you for scheduling a hearing and urge your
favorable consideration of this legislation. Your support
would be greatly appreciated by not only those of us who have
shown bipartisan support, but also by grandparents who anxiously
await your decision.
Sincerely,
~6iJL,H^
Carl Levin
auJU^T?
Paula Hawkins
V_>^Jennings Randolph
27
The- Honorable John East
Page 2
Quentin Burdick
»1 P. M&^jiihan
Danie]
C.tyiiAAA^Z;
John C. Stennis
Dale Bumpers '
7
'fJt-
Lawton Chiles
c
Wju^JbaJL^biA. .
Wendell Ford
28
Senator East. Our first panel this morning, if they would please
come up and take their positions at the table in the order in which
they are listed here: Dr. Arthur Kornhaber, president of the Foun-
dation for Grandparenting from Mount Kisco, N. Y.; and Lee and
Lucille Sumpter, Grandparents'-Children's Rights, Inc., of Haslett,
Mich.; Mrs. Roberta Teverbaugh from Richland, Wash.; and Mr.
and Mrs. Martin G. Highto from Baltimore, Md.; then Mr. Richard
Victor, attorney at law from Birmingham, Mich.
So I welcome all of you this morning, and I appreciate your
taking the time and the effort to come. I think you have seen in
my statement as well as Senator Levin's that your concerns will be
looked upon in a positive and favorable way before this subcommit-
tee and I hope before the Committee on the Judiciary as a whole,
and ultimately before the Senate.
To get back to some mundane problems of time, there are, let me
just explain, a few of the ground rules we need to follow.
First, I would like to make it clear to all of you that any written
statement that you have will be made a part of the permanent
record and will be available to Senators and their staffs, so it is not
necessary that things be read in toto.
I will give each person 10 minutes to talk. I think it's most help-
ful if you can speak extemporaneously from the heart on your con-
cern; if you do wish to read, please read selectively, and briefly. In
this manner we can have some brief discussion of all your com-
ments, including questions I might have or points that you might
wish to raise.
And I might note that we will apply these ground rules to all of
the other panels.
I would like to welcome Dr. Arthur Kornhaber, president of the
Foundation for Grandparenting from Mount Kisco, N.Y., and,
Doctor, we are delighted to have you here this morning with us.
STATEMENTS OF ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D., PRESIDENT, FOUN-
DATION FOR GRANDPARENTING, MOUNT KISCO, N.Y.; LEE AND
LUCILLE SUMPTER, GRANDPARENTS-CHILDREN'S RIGHTS,
INC., HASLETT, MICH.; ROBERTA TEVERBAUGH, RICHLAND,
WASH.; MARTIN G. AND GERRIE HIGHTO, BALTIMORE, MD.; AND
RICHARD S. VICTOR, ATTORNEY AT LAW, BIRMINGHAM, MICH.
Dr. Kornhaber. Thank you, I appreciate the privilege of appear-
ing before your subcommittee.
I am here primarily, sir, as a physician, a child psychiatrist and
former family practitioner, working in a clinic that treats 200 to
500 families a week.
Ten minutes is only a brief time to fully share what I have
learned from 8 years of the research into the relationship between
grandparents and grandchildren with you. The results of this re-
search appeared in a book I wrote with Mr. Ken Woodward of
Newsweek entitled "Grandparents-Grandchildren, the Vital Con-
nection."
The question before us is, should government get involved in
grandparent visitation rights? Since I am a physician, I can answer
the question in medical terms. The answer is yes, we need a uni-
form visitation law. Up to 2 years ago I really didn't have much of
29
an opinion about this issue although I had done 6 years of in-depth
research with grandparents and grandchildren and parents. But in
the last 2 years I became convinced that this law is critically im-
portant, not only for the sake of grandparents and grandchildren
but for the sake of parents, who are unknowingly cutting them-
selves off from their own and their children's living ancestors.
Our research, has shown that grandparents and grandchildren
are very special to one another. Grandparenting gives elders a role
for old age, in a society like ours that does not have a role for old
age. Grandparents supply parents an emotional welfare system
that insulates parents from government and institutions by sup-
porting them in adverse times. The design illustrates this. The first
design shows how the family functions alone in the three-genera-
tional system, how autonomous and independent they are, and how
they use social institutions, day care centers, and old folks' homes
as a last resort. The second design shows the contemporary family,
is totally disconnected — grandparents from parents from grandchil-
dren— use social and government institutions, day care centers,
and nursing homes instead of family when they are in need.
I feel that it is imperative that as a people we make a statement
that we are a Nation of families and that grandparents and great-
grandparents have a role in our society, and that their role is to
support all generations and this gives meaning to their own lives.
This is a natural system.
We have discovered, in the past 2 years, there are two main
types of family structures in America. There is a natural family
structure, emotionally connected, which follows the organic system
of one generation telescoping from another, a child, two parents,
and four grandparents, which is a natural support system. There is
also a disconnected family type. We found that 85 percent of the
1,000 grandparents in our study— 85 percent— left the rearing of
the grandchildren to their children, and that because of selfishness,
narcissism, work, or mobility, they really were not interested in
their progress. We are currently finding in our research study that
unwanted pregnancies, child abuse, increased suicide rate, school
failures, are all linked to the disintegrating three generational
family. Grandparenting is ignored in America.
American elders do not know the importance of the grandparent
role; most parents don't think about the fact that they are going to
be grandparents someday — they are not conscious or interested in
that fact.
A law stating the fact that grandparents are important and
unique will raise the national consciousness concerning this issue.
Such a law will make a powerful social statement and obviate
the need for the use of the law. Contradictory as it may seem such
a law will prevent the emotional carnage that takes place in the
courts between parents and grandparents. Knowing that they
cannot be emotionally divorced, parents and grandparents will
have to work on improving this relationship.
The grandparent issue is a symptom, of a larger question: Are we
or not a Nation of families?
It is rarely that we are afforded and opportunity to make a pow-
erful social statement about our family life. A solid law is a state-
ment that would be a powerful determinant in reversing the trend
29-610 O— 84-
30
of family disconnection and making a strong statement that the
pendulum of family disconnection has swerved far enough. Every
time a child is born a grandparent is born. Children are one-quar-
ter the genetic material of grandparents. It is impossible to legis-
late a biological blood connection our of existence, and for society
to be so presumptuous to think that this is possible is absurd. We
need a society and a government that fits the way we are. Once we
do we will have a happier people, who lead more meaningful and
fulfilling lives.
I would like to recite a poem which is very beautiful — and ex-
presses what I fear might happen to all of us if we do not connect
the old and young in our society. In our study we showed that
when young people don't have one beloved old person, they dehu-
manize all older people. In "Eichmann in Jerusalem" wherein
Hannah Arendt wrote about the eradication of the Jews, she ob-
served that the first thing one does when they want to wipe people
out is to dehumanize them. Elders are being dehumanized in Amer-
ica. The majority of American children do not have a beloved older
person; they make fun of them and often laugh at them. Kids are
not aware they themselves will get old one day. In 20 years we are
going to have a lot of old people in our land. We are going to have
a lot of young people who will have to support them. Young people
who don't know their elders find them useless — a burden. It's hor-
rible to say this, but I can see a time coming when the young can
very easily just give their elders soap and towel and say go take a
shower like the Nazis did to the Jewish people. This is not beyond
possibility. I thought carefully about saying this. To prevent this
we have to emotionally connect the old and young in our society. A
visitation law makes a powerful statement as a first step. Thus
when someone wants to get divorced or is squabbling with the
family, such a law coerces all parties to work out their problems
rather the divorcing all three generations.
Our study showed that the grandparent-grandchild bond is
second most in emotional power to the parent-child bond. Grand-
parents and grandchildren affect one another because they exist.
Miseries passed on from grandparents to parents are not directly
passed on from grandparent to grandchild — nature has done some-
thing wonderful.
When parents and grandparents are squabbling, grandparents
and grandchildren don't have the same problem. Most of the time
grandchildren who don't like their grandparents do so only when
they are afraid of being disloyal to their parents.
This poem is from Medea she laments her disconnection from
her pregnancy.
"What was the purpose, children, for which I reared you? For all
my travail and wearing myself away, they were sterile, these pains
I had in the bearing of you. Surely, the hopes that I had for me
were high ones — you would look after me in my old age . . . and
when I die would deck me well with your own hands, a thing which
all would have done. Oh, but it is gone, that lovely thought."
This is what is going to happen to many elders in our society in
20 or 30 years, sir, unless we establish a law that establishes an
intergenerational society, and teaches the elders of our country
31
that there is a role for them in our Nation and that can be ex-
pressed through their grandchildren.
Thank you.
Senator East. Thank you, Doctor, a very moving statement, and
I appreciate your conforming to our time limitations, and, again, I
stress any materials you have will be made a part of the perma-
nent record.
[The following was received for the record:]
32
Prepared Statement of Dr. Arthur Kornhaber
SUMMARY
The question is: Are we as a nation going to
support, cultivate and celebrate the. family as
the foundation of our society .
The enclosed material is taken from unpublished articles
protected by copyright.lt cannot be used in any way, nor
reprinted (except for the Committee recordy without the
permission of the author.
WHY DO WE NEED A GRANDPARENT VISITATION LAW?
1) It raises the public awareness of the importance of the
grandparenting role.
2) It recognizes that the grandparent-grandchild bond (as
our research has shown) is important and indispensable for
the emotional well being of all (three or four) generations.
3) It validates the importance of emotional attachments
between blood relations and makes a statement that these
attachments MAY NOT BE LEGISLATED OUT OF EXISTENCE.
4) When problems arise between generations this law will serve
a preventive function by alerting people about the conse-
quences of their decisions on all three generations.
5) When "feuding" family members realize that their connections
cannot be legislated out of existence they will be more
amenable to settling differences by mediation, thus I
avoiding the emotional carnage of the courts.
6) All three generations will ultimately benefit by keeping
some semblance of family attachments, and by respecting
the integrity of the grandparent-grandchild bond when
parents and grandparents are feuding.
THE ABOVE IS BASED ON EIGHT YEARS OF INTENSE RESEARCH INTO THE
NATURE OF THE GRANDPARENT-GRANDCHILD RELATIONSHIP WHICH SHOWED:
- The grandparent-grandchild bond is second only
in emotional power to the parent-child bond.
- Grandparents and grandchildren affect one another
only because they exist. When relationships are good
all family members benefit. .
- Problems passed on from grandparents to parents are
not directly passed on from grandparent to grandchild
(except in pathological circumstances). Nature gives
grandparents another chance with their grandchildren.
If children do not know their grandparents directly they
easily adopt the negative attitudes of their parents
toward their grandparents.
33
-Parents are the linchpin of the grandparent-grandchild
relationship. When they respect the integrity of the
attachment and foster its growth they benefit abundantly.
_ When parents disconnect the generations they suffer
deep emotional wounds and compromise themselves in the
eyes of their suffering, although silent youngsters.
No parent need protect their children from healthy
grandparents. Thus grandparents and grandchildren have a
right to one another unless a grandparent is judged
incompetent to handle the relationship. .. and that may only
be temporary.
-Our society has a duty to support, cultivate and
celebrate the grandparent-grandchild bond for the benefit
of all family members and our nation.
The passage of a Uniform Grandparents Visitation Law
will be a first step in teaching families to work out their
interpersonal problems instead of permanently abandoning
their relationships. This is especially important as an example
to future generations who will be profoundly affected (~for
good or for bad) by our national attitude toward the family.
The passage of a Uniform Grandparents Visitation Law
is a powerful statement that the three (or four)
generational family is indeed the foundation of our society
and that we have to find ways to make it work better, not to
legislate it out of existence.
STATEMENT
This section protected by copyright
WHY IS THIS ISSUE IMPORTANT?
The issue before this co~aittee is not only limited to thr;
issue of grandparent visitation. It is to decide whether or
not we are a nation 0f families and willing to say it for all
to hear.
A dangerous New Social Contract has slowly and subtly come into
force in this country. It has sheared apart the three-generational
family and critically weakened the underpinnings of the nuclear family.
Indeed, it threatens the entire emotional and social fabric of our society.
The contract, and it is one that has never been signed, or even
orally agreed upon, consists simply of this:
A great many grandparents (85% in our study) have given up their
emotional attachments to their grandchildren. They have ceded the power
to determine their relationship to the children's parents and, in effect,
turned their backs on an entire generation.
Our investigations of more than 1,000 grandparents since 1975 have
indicated that this emotional disconnection between the generations, which
we have called "The New Social Contract", has had a catastrophic effect
not only on the grandparent-grandchild bond but also on the emotional
bonds between all family members and even on the relationship between
the family and society. The realization that this New Social Contract
existed dawned upon us ever so slowly as our investigation into the
34
nature of the grandparent-grandchild relationship proceeded.* After we
had interviewed the first hundred grandparents and grandchildrefi- at our
clinic and at their private homes, it became evident that close grand-
parent-grandchild relationships ("vital connections") were few and far
between. At the present time, only about 157. of those interviewed possess
"vital connections". The great majority of the families that we inter-
viewed arranged their lives according to the New Social Contract.
The New Social Contract, or, if you will, the Great Abdication,
is a recent historical event that began to unfold during the economic
upheavals of the Great Depression, when multitudes of men had to leave
their families to find work. This breakdown of the family and its current
manifestation profoundly affect the emotional life of all three generations
because they have removed grandparents not only from their grandchildren,
but from their natural role as involved parents. We call the new
arrangement a "contract" because it is an agreement, most often mutual,
but usually unstated, between parents and grandparents that grandparent:,
will no longer be involved in the rearing of the grandchildren. In
"Vital Connection" we stated that:
"... the evidence provided by such grandparents leads us to
assert the existence of a powerful counterveiling force which
vitiates the instinct to grandparent and, with that- instinct ,
the primordial bond between grandparents and grandchildren.
This force is rooted in history, not biology and is manifest
by thoughts rather than feelings. We call it "the new social
contract." It is social because it is based on attitudes which
have been learned and digested from family experience in a
changing society. It is contractual because it assumes that
parents can and should decide whether and to what extent -
grandparents will nurture their grandchildren. And it is new
because it has developed within the lifespan of the current
generation of grandparents."
The New Social Contract is so powerful that it can be implemented by one
party if the other offers no strong protect. The terms of the contract
(not mutual support but mutual independence) are both the result and
cause of a state of unprecedented animosity between many parents and
grandparents unknown to their forbears.
We believe that vigorous action must be taken to nullify this contract
which is so full of peril to the emotional life of both family and nation.
G) Effects of the New Social Contract
Thus, the basis of the New Social Contract is mutual independence
which disrupts family continuity and effectively disconnects grandparents
and grandchildren* from their vital, connections to one another. The
effects of the New Social Contract are:
* Our discovery of the New Social Contract (Komhaber and Woodward) is
explained in Grandparents /Grandchildren - The Vital Connection. Doublcday
1981.
"Children's fears are supported by our own observations and by Helen Kivnick
who observed: "in addition to its consequences during childhood, the absence
of a meaningful childhood relationship with a grandparent may well limit
the richness of the relationships that a given individual will have with
grandchildren two generations in the future.
35
1) Relationships Uithin the Family
The three-generational family is defunct.
Grandparents do not become directly involved in the lives of their
grandchildren.
Parents are totally responsible for the rearing of their children
and if they default relegate their role to paid "strangers"
and social institutions.
Family members form attachiiy.-nts '.o their "peers" which often
replace family attachments.
Family members spend a great deal of time away from one another
and often frequent different: "worlds".
The role of the old and the young arc dc-emphasized because
they are not in the social "mainstream" and are of little "use".
Parents call the shots.
A family member's self image depends primarily on social role and
function rather than importance to family and fulfillment of
family roles.
Family members easily disconnect from one another- if the relationship
is difficult.
The family turns to social agencies, institutions or paid "strangers"
when others are needed.
2) Children
Children are often insecure- and overly dependent on parents
i
Childhood is shortened because the burden of child-rearing is often
* -,v
overwhelming to isolated parents without family support. Thus,
'.*'■
"independence" is prized. Children are urged to "grow'/'up" quickly.
Children are often resented by parents, who are unsupported or would
rather work. Without family to care for children, mothers who
find it necessary to work are guilty and reflect this in their
attitudes toward their children.
Children isolated from their Elders are susceptible to media learned
stereotypes of the elderly and are afraid of old age and often
scornful of the elderly. They become "Ageist".
Children from their Elders learn only what their contemporary society
wishes them to lcam. They have no alternative available through
a "vital connection" to an elder.
Children who view disconnection bc--(J\cen their parents and grandparents
arc fearful that they will do the same thing wi th their parents.
.'•!any of them lose respect for their parents when they see their
parents treat their grandparents in a disrespectful manner.
Children with no direct relationship to their grandparents view
'•'•' In our present clinical study, apattem is emerging whereby youngsters
without grandparent "protectors" are more vulnerablcto child abuse and
self-abuse. . .including suicide. In Natural Families , grandparents are the
first line of support when children have problems with their parents.
*'•'•" A 1933 survey on Psychiatric Viewpoints stated "so;:;c
teenagers sec!; pregnancy to fill the void in their liver,
caused by poor family relationships". Roche Viewpoints l''s3.
36
their their^grandparents through their parents experience.
Children thus trained, use society before family. Their view of
family life is a demoralized one.
3) Parents
Parents who are disconnected from their own parents are conflicted
about the arrangement. They are guilty and angry."-
They are insecure because there is no family to support them when
adversity strikes.
Parents often turn to peers and "groups" to compensate for the
lack of natural family ties.
Parents are often disillusioned with family life because the system
under which they live is unrewrding and emotionally stressful.
We feel that the New Social Contract is an important cause of
the high divorce rate. ** A nuclear family unsupported by
grandparents (and an unsympathetic society) is a fragile
structure.
Sorely overbumed, parents often resent the generations before and
aIye5ran§parehts'"and easilv institutionalize them.
The birth ol a grandchild is greeted ambivalently. ***
Grandparents who are parties to the New Social Conract are out
of a job with the three-generational family.
They live in a world inhibited by peers; in the work world or
the retii"cment world. Urie Rronfenbrennor warned:
"... the phenomenon of segregation by age and its con-
sequences for human behavior and development pose problems
of the greatest magnitude for the Western world in general
and for American society in particular. . .we cannot escape
the conclusion that if the current trend persists, if the
institutions in our society continue to remove parents,
other adults and older children from the active partici-
pation in the lives of children and if the resulting
vacuum is filledby the age-segregated peer group, we can
aniticipate increased alienation, indifference, an-
tagonism and violence on the part of theyounger generation
in all segments of our society - middle-class, as well as,
the disadvantaged."
Grandparents face increasing isolation and alienation from their
families and society as they grow older.
The prospect of aging is frightening without a family to care for them.
Altruistic grandparents who subscribed to the New Social Contract
* Oustanding pioneers in the field of Family Therapy like Bowen, Haley
Minvchin and Whi taker have emphasized that the degree of unresolved emotional
attachment between an individual and his parent is the most significant factor
in the success of other relationships.
""■•'•'Interestingly enough, during the course of study, people have told us that
if their Mothers or Fathers (or another important elder) were alive or
had not moved away, that they wouldn't have gotten divorced.
*** 207. of parents and grandparents adhering to the New Social Contract
(living in an Ageist society) do not welcome the new family member. For
the working mother it is a burden, for t'fle grandparent an often unwanted
"label", or an occupational liability, "too young to be a GP" is often heard.
37
become bitter and i-esentful and question the meaning of their
own lives when they realize what has happened. Many are angry
and frustrated at their present life situation.
Many grandparents adhering tothe New Social Contract are involved
•if
in movements that urge society to ( justifiedly) support 'them
but without recognizing that they have any value to society.
The self esteem of many of these grandparents is low and they are
easily prone to mental depression. Working grandparents who
have disconnected themselves from their families their in-
evitable retirement. One told us "I know I have bumed my
bridges with my family."
5) Family and Society
Sociologist Alice Rossi has noted:
"A remarlcable shift has occurred during the past decade in
society's opinion of the family, from a general endorse-
ment of it as a worthwhile and stable institution to a
general censure cf it as an oppreessive and bankrupt one
whose demise is lx>th ininincnt and welcome. What was once
defined z decade a^ojis "deviant" is today labeld "variant"
in order to suggest that their is a healthy, experimental
qualitv id current social explorations into the future
"beyond monogamy" or "beyond the nuclear family." Today
one is rare ant to read that the nuclear family will oppress
its members unless couples swap spouses and swing
and young adults are urged to rear their children
communally or to reject marriage and parenthood
altogether."
Families that adhere to the New Social Contract look to society
for their individual self-esteem and for emotional and economic
support .
They are totally at the whim of current and ephemeral social trends
and values.
They are easily "homogenized" into the society having no counter-
vailing ethnic or religious traditions that are ususally
reposited in the elderly.
Family relationships are often secondary to "social" relationships.
Family ties are often viewed as a liability (even embarassment) in
the individual' s quest for assimilation and social acceptance.
6) Philosophy: Independence
Since family members are more interested in "individuality and
independence" families that abide by the New Social Contract
have no philosphy, no raison d'etre" and no 'tenter". •'/,
Emotional bonds are viewed as "bondage".
Family attachments, interest and offers tohelp are viewed as
"controlling", "stifling", "meddling"1 and "intrusiveness".
Family members often shun one another if they feel that society
will "judge" their family association in a negative way or
it will impede social acceptance. Thus, many second and third
generations of immigrants shun their families of origin because
they are "ashamed" of them.
38
Blood ties are not valued, what is valued is individual achievement
social success and personal (recreational) pleasure.'
People and attachments are easily disposed of when they are no
longer "fun". Committments arc avoided. Romanticism,
spirituality and children are avoided.
Ethnicity is easily discarded. Families adhering tothc New Social
Contract are rooted in the present, ignore the past and do not plan
for the future. There is no master plan for their existence and thus
they are disconnected from spiritual and philosophical issues, ( some
60% of the families in the study group were "not religious" while
207. were religious "some of the time". -
IV. Commentary - The Fall of the New Social Contract
A. The Future Under the New Social Conti'act
If the New Social Contract is not changed it will result in:
1) the continuing erosion of the quality and quantity of deep emotional
attachments between family members and the progressive abandonment of
children. Family members have become emotionally disconnected from one
another. First, fathers left for work, now grandparents are pi-ogressively
moving further away from the middle generation. Most ominous is the in-
creasing numbers of mothers who are leaving their young to the care of
others. Thus, from the very beginning of their lives, emotional connec-
tedness is neither being given nor demonstrated to a great many young
children. The New social Contract has created a growing number of indiv-
iduals who devote their time to the l'caring of other people's young.
The most powerful human emotional attachment of all, the mother-child
bond is now under sti'ess in our culture.
2) A second doleful result is the dismemberment of the family and the
replacement of basic family functions by businesses and social institu-
tions. When these institutions take hold they assume a force of their
own and make it difficult for hirvin and family functions to move back
into the gap they created. Breast feeding is a good example of this
phenomenon, what was once a substitute for mother's mill', hao become the
predominant form of nourishing the young. Indeed, there war. a point
when women v.ho wanted to breast feed their own children were hard put
to do so. Another example is the boom in "therapy"... which has become
a growth business. The inexorable human need for human corpanionship and the
disconnectedness created by the New Social Contract have left a basic human
need unsatisfied. This is often exploited by the business of grouping
people together for "therapy" or companionship. People will always seek what the
3) A thiraancr perhaps' most harmful result is the progressive de-
* It is interesting that several of the teenagers that we interviewed who
were bom into families adhering to the New Social Contract joined cults (
which are RELIGIOUS FAMILIES supplying not only a "meaning" to life but
offer "family" attachments.
39
humanization of our society as people, trained to be isolated and alienated
spend more time with such fruits of technology as television, video games
and walkman radios which are not only intellectually seductive but remove
the participant from the real-life emotional events that are the fabric
of personal attachments. If we take this one step further, it is not
difficult to envisage a society where the dehumanized young, emotionally
detached from the aged, could find it very easy to institutionalize
"euthanasia" for the "useless aged". *
B) Repealing the New Social Contract
The New Social Contract is an arrangement that should not be
tolerated in a civilized society and I believe that our society is
nearing its threshold of tolerance. It is my opinion that an emotional
revolution is beginning in our society that will bring down the New Social
Contract. In the recent past, we have seen more and more Americans gaze
up from the reflecting pool of their own narcissism totake stock of the
state of their emotional world. American fathers are doing this. Long
alienated from the nurturing of the children many fathers are re-exam-
ining their relationship to the work place and its emotional cost to them.
Many young mothers who have gone to work out of desire rather than neces-
sity (in our study) are in the process of re-examining their priorities
(when children are involved). But perhaps nowhere is the emotional rev-
olution more evident than in the recent national movement to establish
the right of Grandparent Visitation when the child's custodian seeks to
divorce grandparents and grandchildren from one another.*** During
the course of our research , we came across several grandparents
who were fighting for such rights and learned that notonly did most states
not have laws allowing grandparents who were deprived of their grand-
children to sue for visitation, but that ageist courts with no knowledge
of the importance of the relationship would deny visitation on the grounds
that it was in the best "interest" of the child. Researching the isssue
we found that visitation was most often denied because it was either in-
convenient to the parent, or to protect the child from the parent's wrath
(if the child wanted to visit with the grandparent against the parent wishes).
Since that time thousands of grandparents have banded together and as
a result 45 states now have laws that assure grandparents the right to sue
for visitation. In addition, a proposition to establish a Uniform States
Grandparent Visitation Law has passed through the House of Representatives
and is currently waiting a vote by the U.S. Senate. In a nation where
the New Social Contract is in full force a handful of grandparents who
* See Eichman in Jerusalem - The Banality of Evil - Hannah Arendt.
In an article (Cur Eldcrly's Fate- New York Times Sept. 29, 19S3. ) Jack
Levin and Arnold Arlukc state "American Society may be heading toward
a de facto "final solution" to the problem of a growing elderly population .
**An ethic of dehumaniaation leads to despoliation of the human
and env' rornnentsl CCO' 0?y
***A phenomena linked to the currcftt High divorce rate" and the formation
of more and more "reconstituted" families without grandparents.
J
40
are committed to their families have spoken out for the importance of
family attachments by demanding their right to their beloved grandchildren.
One of them summed up the meaning of the emotional revolution well:
" My grandchildren are what my life is all about now. I never
thought about it much before. . .took it ail for granted*.."; the family.
Then all this divorce around me. Then my daughter got divorced
and remarried this man who didn't want to be bothered .. ton rrvmv
grandparents he said to my daughter. . .so he didn't want me to see
my grandchildren. I never signed a caper or voted in my life.
I never got involved but when things come to this., when a person
like me who is crazy about her grandchildren can't see them any-
more there is rolaw or person or anything that's going to keep
me away from those kids . .
There is no power stronger than a mother's love except for the
lcve of a grandmother. . .the mother's mother... and this society
and the television and the magazines and even the kids have gone
far enough and it's up to the grandparents. -with a lot of love ■
and in the right way to straighten it out.. and by God'! I am
healthy and I've got the time to do it... and 1 will.
The Grandparents movement has established the role of grandparents
as important and necessary, validated the importance of the «-ftree-Pen-
crot'or'al f=>milv s^ste™ and emotional nrtncNsKnts ^r.d most imporr.art'y
taught our young that '-•motional ,-.nd family attachments can not be leg-
islated out of existence. This is, in the best sense, a revolt against
the terms of the New Social Contract. Hut those arc only the first steps %
Even those grandparents fortunate enough tc have the money to sue for
visitation often lose in court. This is because judges, attorneys and
mental health professionals not only are ignorant of the importance of
the grandparent-grandchild relationship but also view the issue in terms
of the New Sociei Contract. As a result, grandparent visitation is often
forbidden "in the best interest of the child" v.hich. upon further explor-
ation is a euphemism that really means that it is in the best interest of
the parent... it is the parent who is most disturbed when visitation takes
place Thus, more and more grandparents who were caught unaware and were
unwillingly removed from the lives of their grandchildren (through death,
divorce, adoption or negative relationships) have re-invested themselves
emotionally in their remaining children and grandchildren. Thus, it is
becoming more and more common to see grandparents (who subscribe} to the
New Social Contract with their older children) repealing the New Social
Contract with their younger ones. This, in our view is a clarion sign
of the emotional revolution and is happening now within the same gen-
j
eration.
C) Conclusion *
Although the present state of the family is critical, it is far
from fatal. Families are, after all, the natural state of man. They are
re-created every time a child is born. They can never be biologically
extinguished no matter how much they are socially ignored or even dis-
dained.
The resurrection of the emotional attachments and the family is the
responsibility of today's middle generation - present and future grand-
41
parents - in their personal life, family and society. Personally, they
can create a family for themselves by honoring their own emotional attach-
ments. Socially, they can create and support a government and a society
that supports the family and honors emotion?! attachments of all family
members. With the family as a nucleus, a three-generational society
may be forged - a society without age segregation or isolation - where
all three generations function harmoniously, loving, caring for and nur-
turing one another.
42
DESIGN # 1
SOCIETY AMD ITS INSTITUTIONS
school
work
retirement
institutions
ft / /
/ • /
/ • ■ GRANDPARENTS'
/ / , / /' , GREAT GRANDPARENTS
/'//./ ' ■ ' / J / --' /' J I
THE NATURAL FAMILY ARRANGEMENT
ONE GENERATION TELESCOPES FROM THE OTHER. SOCIETY AND
ITS INSTITUTIONS IS SHAPED TO SUPPORT AND CELEBRATE THIS
NATURAL STATE OF THINGS.
GENERATIONS SHARE SAME WORLD
43
DESIGN # 2
LATCH-KEY
"WORK
SINGLE PARENT T
WORK
PARENTS
-WORK
RETIREMENT / /
7
f t
DAY CARE
SCHOOLS
WORK
//
GRANDPARENT
/ \
RETIKEM
ENT
COMMU1
ITTIES-
INSTITUTIONS
/ /
/
7
/ /
GREAT
' * > / / / /
GRANDPARENT"'
NURSING HOMES
THE NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT
EACH GENERATION ISOLATED FROM ONE ANOTHER,
DEPENDENT ON SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
GENERATIONAL "DRIFT"- INCREASINGLY LIVING IN
DIFFERENT WORLDS .
44
GRANDCHILDREN
THEVTTAL CONNECTION!
ARTHUR KORNHABER. MP.
AND KENNETH LWOODWARD
Recent, findings show some disturbing nrwr. :
Many grandchildren in the U.S. have bi-i-n
abandoned by their grandparents. When thr
rocking chair on the porch became !.j,e duL".
collector in the attic, vhere did nil of
America's grandparents go? Did tl.«-y find
themselves in sunny Florida, on a rulse
in the Carribean, or in a hone for the '
aflinp?
This breakthrough study in psychology and family relations will strike a major nerve in
people of all ages nr.i backgrounds. According to this study, only 5? of U.S. children
en'oy o close and regular ccr.tect with at least one Grandparent. The authors believe that
the worst off art not the 15' who never see a grandparent; the worst are those SO? whose
grandparents say they love t.^.er. tut seldom bother ( sor.e only once or twice a year) to see
thex. i.'ho is suffering from this detachment? The authors agree that children are suffering.
CRA_M/P/.?.EIITS/GRAi:DCHILEREH: THE VITAL CONNECTIC:.' is about a current event, the isolation
of grandchildren from grandparents.
For the first tine, the grandparent/grandchild relationship has been explored in-depth.
Hundreds of children reveal in their own words and drawivigs what loving grandparents mean
to then and how they suffer when grandparents ignore or abandon the::. The authors probe
the deep and heretofore unexplored enotional histories of hundreds of grandparents: how
the'.' feel about themselves, their grandchildren, and their loss of function within today's
nuclear fair.lly. Also Included is an "agenda for grandparents" which calls for an emotional
and social revolution.
Everytine a child is born, every facet of its life is discussed except one: its relationship
to grandparents. What does it take to be a grandparent? How have standards set by society
discouraged interaction between grandparents and grandchildren? Today, what opportunities
do grandchildren have to be witli their grandparents? The authors report, "there seens to be
a conspiracy or silence concerning grandparenthood , . . . ". GPANDPARENTS/GRA;iDCHILDPEI! ex. oses
the "new social contract" tin" is destroying the erotiontl Vc:ids between p randparen Is rnd
-rendchildrcn. It chcllcn^c: -o-.y ocrrrlims (.bout emotions, instincts, and the three
generational family.
With sl.erp increoses in trol.tr. farilies and working mothers, grandparents are needed more
than ever. The authors verr., "that nuch of the caretoking responsibilities formerly exercised
by grandparents as well as ty -Brents have now been turned over to impersonal outsiders:
day-care centers, schools, jeers and the omnipresent television set. Ours is becoming a
society of surrogates: surrogate families, surrogate parents, and surrogate grandparents."
i!cst i.-.portant , the authors argue, "to exist is to be connected. Ho natter how grandparents
act, they affect the emotional well-being of their grandchildren, for better or for worse,
si-.ply because they exist." The Study shows how emotional attachments between grandparents
and grandchildren are unique. The authors contend th- 1 , "grandparents and grandchildren are
naturally at ease with cacl' other while both have intense emotional relationships with the
middle generation. In short, grandparents and grandchildren do not have to do anything to
make each other happy! Their happiness comes from being together."
CrW.'CPAKE;iTS/CnAt:CCIIIl.DnEi: shows, step by step, how grandparents, parents, and children can
assess their relationships tc one another, and what they ct:i do to establish their vital
fainily connections.
45
FouniJ ation for Grandparenting
Philosophy
Every time a child is b t>orn a grandparent is
born too. Genetically, <■ every child is the sum
of two parents and four grandparents.
Psychologically, every- y cn'ld develops not
only in the world of iJts parents but in the
broader world of its • grandparents. Thus
grandparents supply thine natural foundation
of the three-generatioronal family pyramid.
Unfortunately, our soociety does not recog-
nize the importance : of grandparents and
their "vital connecticions" to the young.
Many grandparents nno longer occupy their
natural place as the fouundation of the three-
generational family. They have left "sur-
rogate grandparents"" — self-appointed
"experts" and paid strangers — to take
their place.
This is all the more tragic because there are
more elders alive today than ever before. In
the next sixty years the over-65 population
will double. How will today's children who
have been abandoned by their grandparents
feel about physically and financially sup-
porting generations of their elders who
ignored them when they were young? Is
there a way of stopping the continual dis-
memberment of the American family and
the emotional abandonment of the young,
the confusion of the middle generation and
the isolation of the older generation that
affects all Americans?
The answer is yes.
This is a task of the Foundation for Grand-
paren'.ing. a tax e=xempt not-for-profit
corporation. Active i*nd concerned grand-
parents, involved wrth their families and
communities can revrrrse this sorry state 01
affairs.
By establishing vital connections with the
young and supporting the middle genera-
tions, grandparents can improve the
emotional tone in ouir nation in only one
generation.
Our research has shown that grandparcnting
is the only human function that supplies a
pattern whereby the e^erly, who fulfill their
natural roles as "gre*t parents," can gain
the love and respect of their juniors and
thus give profound meaning to their own
lives.
It is the goal of the Foundation for Grand-
parenting to assure grandparents their right-
ful place in society through
Education: raising public consciousness
concerning the importance of the grand-
parent roles.
Demonstration Projects: to show how a
multi-generational society benefits all
people.
Research: exploration of the roles that
grandparents play for grandchildren,
parents and society.
Support: consultative and financial support
for worthwhile multi-generational pro-
jects.
The following are the three major areas of
interest for the Foundation at this time.
Grandparent Visitation Rights
We believe it the right of the child to have
access to a beloved grandparent. This is
based upon a consistent finding in our
research that problems that exist between
parent and grandparent are not passed on
from grandparent to grandchild (although a
child may be profoundly affected by strife
between its parent? and grandparents).
Thus, nature gives > Jndparenls another
chance.
Grandparents and grandchildren are be-
coming separated from one another at an
ever increasing rate as the divorce rate in-
creases and more and more families become
"blended."
A uniform grandparents visitation law
would assure that parental divorce would
not be extended into the divorce of children
from their grandparents.
29-610 O— 84 4
46
The Centrum Project
The Centrum Project is the current major
undertaking of the Foundation. The
Centrum is a mulli-generational elementary
school. In this combined school and day care
center, which operates from 8 a.m. to
6 p.m., children, teachers and elders work
and play together. Vital connections are
formed between the young and the old
simply because elders start school with the
youngsters and get promoted with them
until the sixth grade. Thus, every youngster
has a "grandparent" (and the same one)
until the child enters Junior High School.
The Centrum will be located in the heart
of the community and everyone will be
invited to participate in Centrum life. Not
only will the Centrum give "emotional
work" to elders but it will give maximum
support to working parents who will be
secure in the fact that their children will be
well cared for by an abundance of elders.
Children will be greatly benefited. With one
teacher, five grandparents and twenty child-
ren to a class no child will be ignored.
Emotional and learning problems will be
dealt with on a consistent and reliable basis.
Elders will be trained to deal with special
problems and to establish a close relationship
with their "grandchild's" parent.
Our goal is to produce a generation of
children who have received the attention
and love of their elders. We speculate that
children educated in the Centrum will feel
loved and secure, will be highly socialized,
and be deeply rooted in their society.
Because they were given so much by loving
elders they will not be ageist nor fear old
age. They will know other ways of doing
things, because they have been taught by
elders who lived in other times and other
places.
The children, in their turn, will love and care
for the elders who cared for them. Our
research has substantiated this.
The Foundation is now actively engaged in
fund-raising for the first Centrum. Several
sites are under consideration.
Grandparent Network
There are many individuals in different
parts of our country who have conceived
and implemented multi-generational projects
that bring the generations together. The
Foundation for Grandparenting is commit-
ted to serving as a central clearing house
for all related activities. We will publish a
newslettertnat wnTserve to keepTroundatibn
members current on projects, workshops,
legislation and important issues. The
Foundation is available for problem solving,
consultation, workshops, and putting
people in touch with one another.
Advisory Board
Executive Board
Arthur Kornhaber, M.D., President Barbara Cordon, Vice-President, Fin. Affair*
Carol Kornhaber, Executive Vice-President Derrill Kripke, Vice-President, Projects
Eugene Wolkoff , Secretary & Legal Adviser Myron Heckler, Comptroller
Professional Board
Loretta A. Barrett
Prof. Urie Bronfenbrenner
William Burgess, Ph.D.
Herbert Callison, Ph.D.
Prof. Stanley Cain, M.D.
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Ph.D.
Prof. Doris Jonas Freed
Sanford Finkel, M.D.
Gov. J.J. Hunt, Jr.
Eda J. LeShan
Mary Martin
Karl Menninger, M.D.
Stuart Ostrow
Lucia Suarez
Susan Thompson
Kenneth L. Woodward
Phillip Zimbardo, Ph.D.
Edith S. Engel
Henry W. Engel
Michael Goldgar
Lynn Huffman
Margaret Kempner
Norman Kripke
Advisory Board
Toni Liebman
Doris Thaler Rosen
Lee Sumpter
Lucille Sumpter
Carol Tice
Elizabeth L. Woodward
47
NATIONALLY ACC I. A ] kt'U
No matter how grandparents act they affect the
emotional well being of their grandchildren, for better or
worse, simply because they exist.
Every time a child is born, a grandparent is born too.
"...a major contribution to self understanding in a world in
which everyone has been left reeling from the pace and
direction of social change over the past two generations."
. . .The Nation
"This is a new gospel song that we out to start singing
more frequently and louder. (The authors) have given us the
words and the music. Now to get them sung.
...Karl Menninger Ni.D.
"The case studies in this book represent a first foray
in an area left unexplained by developmental researchers.
There are lessons here for social scientists, but even more
for our alienated society."
. . .Prof. Urie Bronfenbrenner
"...a story of love that is rarely told and never more
convincingly or lovingly
" . . .a landmark study."
" . . .appealing and timely
For the first time,
Prof. Phillip Zimbardo
Sanford I.Finkel M.D.
Psychology Today
Grandparents/Grandchildren examines
the nature of the relationship between grandparents and grand-
children and its expression in contemporary American society. The
Agenda for grandparents is a clarion call for grandparents
to assume their place as the foundation of the three generat-
ional family- and tells them how to do it.
GRANDPARENTS
GRANDCHILDREN
^ITHE VITAL CONNECTION!^
ARTHUR KORNHABER, M.D.
AND KENNETH L WOODWARD
To order, mail coupon to-
Foundation For
Grandparent ing
10 West Hyatt Ave.
Mount Kisco, NY 10549
C FowAdukM For C*utdp«rcfiiirt| Ik . 1*1]
Please send me _copies of
Grandparents/Grandchildren
@ $1X.95 per copy and $2.00
for postage and handling.
Name_
Address
City
Zip Code
New York City residents add sales tax.
48
UNWILLING GRANDPARENT GRANDCKTTP DIVORCE
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
BY
ARTHUR KORNHABER M.D.*
Laura and Paul Smith are devoted grandparents who lived
down the street from their three grandchildren until four years
ago. They haven't seen them since then. They have been prohibited
from visiting the children by their son-in-law who, after their
daughter's death, moved across town and remarried. Since there
is no law in their state by which the Smiths can sue their former
son-in-law for visitation rights, the Smiths have lost a beloved
daughter and their grandchildren.
Millie, ten years old, and her sister Betsy, nine, spent the
first half of their lives living with their mother Elsie at their
grandmother's ( "Gummy 's") house. Their father left their mother
shortly after Betsy was born. The children have not heard from
him since. Gummy cared for the children while Elsie worked nights
as a waitress. The relationship between Elsie and Gummy became
strained when Gummy objected to Elsie's life style. Elsie took
the children and left Gummy ' s house when Millie was eight. Since
then Elsie has not allowed her mother to see the children. When
Gummy went to court to gain visitation rights, the judge was
sympathetic but said that it "was in the best interest of the
children" that she stay away. To this day the children call Gummy
complaining about their mother's behavior. Gummy sends the
children presents but they are returned unopened. She has called
the social service because the children told her that their mother
brings home "strange men" who are "mean" to them. The children
told Gummy that they "don't r.ay anything bad to the social ];»ily
.c
*Arthur Kornhaber M.D. is Medical Director of Pediatric
Neuropsychiatry Associates and Founder and President of the
Foundation For Grandparent ing . He is co-author with
Kenneth L.Woodward of "Grandparents/Grandchildren- The
Vital Connection".
This section protected by copyright
49
because Elsie might get mad." Gummy plans to go to court again
next year. The children say "we cry ourselves to sleep at night. "
Robert Melton is a 70-year-old widower who cared for his
three-year-old grandson for two years after the child's parents
were killed in an automobile accident. The youngster, Mike,
was recently adopted by a well-to-do couple. Mr. Melton has
mixed feelings about this: "I'm glad he has a good home, but I
don't want to lose him. They are nice people but they don't want
me to see Mike again because they want to raise him as their own.
They offered me money not to make trouble. I went to see Mike at
his nursery school but I was told that I can't do that anymore.
They have a court order. " Mr. Melton has no legal recourse because
there is no law in his state that assures him visitation rights (
to his adopted grandson. Mr. Melton has become distraught and has
recently entered a nursing home. '"■
Millions of American grandchildren are not close to their
grandparents. But the Smiths grandchildren, like Millie, Betsy
and Mike are unique because their grandparents want to be with
them.
Through no fault of their own, both generations - grandparents
and grandchildren - have unwillingly become divorced from one
another. Indeed, some grandparents are not only divorced from
their grandchildren, bux have been legislated out of their grand-
parenthood. The Romeros, a couple in their sixties, lost their
grandchildren because, after their son's death, their daughter-in-
law married a man who adopted their three grandchildren. Because
oi' the adoption, the Romeros became (through no act of thoir own)
non-grandparents. When they went to court to seek visitation
the judge told them that the children had "too many grandparents",
''_nd denied visitation. "My grandchildren are going to be raised
by strangers," cried Mrs. Romero. "I'm not a grandjnother an*
more. "
Unwilling Grandparent-Grandchild Divorce Is Becoming More Frrequent
Although the exact number of cases is unknown over 1000
documented cases show that unwilling grandparcnt-gr.indchi Id
50
divorce occurs when parental death or divorce occurs in a
family that does not function harmoniously. Less frequently
it occurs as a result of the the custodial parents
severe emotional pro.blems or involvement with a cult or
a "controlling" cohabitant. In all of these situations the
custodial parent, by choice or coercion, deprives the
young and the elderly of access to one another. The natural
three- generational structure of the family is thus altered.
When parents willingly divorce one another grandparents
and grandchildren are often unwillingly divorced from one
another.. This tragic state of affairs
is a biological , social and psychological aberration. This
situation is all the more disturbing because it is becoming
more and more frequent in our society. The true frequency is
unknown because grandparents are hesitant to talk about this
humiliating situation. Only recently has the issue emerged
because more and more grandparents deprived of their
grandchildren are resorting to litigation in order to
seek visitation., .and more and more states are passing laws
to give them the right to do so.
Single parent families and "blended" families are a
breeding ground for these situations. Child abuse is a frequent
occurence. Presently, more than 52 percent of American .
children live in this type of family setting. ]n these s ; m.ii i ■,:,•.
f.iinily divorce; isr often extended lc include nil throe ;;uncr.T .'(.
Until recently grandparents who were divorced from their
grandchildren had no way to reunite. Legally, they were in the
hands of the child's "custodian." They were unable to petition
the courts for visitation rights simply because there were few
laws dealing with the situation. Even existing laws were vague
and tffcotf- differently, from state to state, with the i — ues of
divorce, death and adoption. In one state, grandparents could
sue for visitation rights only until the child's custody was
designated. Fortunately, this situation is being corrected through
the efforts of individuals and organizations (such as Grandparent' s-
Children's Rights Inc.*) that are lobbying for a comprehensive
law on the issue. Because of their efforts, there are now laws
in at least >£BL states that give grandparents the right to sue for
visitation. Although it may be too late for Mr. Melton, some
51
grandparents whose grandchildren have been legally adopted can
now petition to seek visitation.
Unfortunately, going to court does not automatically assure
grandparents the right to visit their grandchildren. Their case
has to be won. Although the idea of grandparents fighting to see
their grandchildren -- casting parents in the role of "villain"
and grandparents in the role of "savior" -- seems to assure an
easy victory for grandparents, it doesn't often happen that way.
One parent who was fighting against grandparent visitation said:
"I never thought I had a chance in court, I mean against grand-
pan-nts. Apple pio and all that... but I beat 'em."
Why do grandparents, like Gummy , lose in court? One reason
is age. The courts reflect society's values, and our society
does not honor old age nor understand the importance of the
I
relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. One grand-
mother who reported the physical abuse of her grandchild to the
authorities and social services was described as "disturbed" in
writing, by a social worker assigned to the case. This "disturbed"
grandmother was eventually exonerated when the child's pediatrician
called social services to report that the child was indeed being
abused. The young social worker thought that Granny's "disturbance1
was due to her "age" or "crankiness" rather than reality. This
is not entirely the fault of the young social worker. "Ageism"
is a two way street.
Elders have compliantly allowed themselves to be edged out
of the social mainstream and devalued. Most grandparents view
their grandparents role as frivolous. Our society has laid the
burden of rearing children onto the rapidly dissolving "nuclear"
family -- Mom, Dad and the kids, living"* in splendid isolation.
More and more mothers are leaving the "nuclear" families to join
the work force (out of need or desire) and leaving their children
to be raised by paid surrogates. Many grandparents (but not the
ones who sue for visitation) have willingly, even eagerly, left
their families, singing the oft heard refrain: "I've raised my
kids, now it's my turn to enjoy myself."
It is not surprising if the courts feel that children are
52
not losing too much by being deprived of their grandparents.
Human attachments are not valued very highly in America today.
The court looks upon there litiginour, grandparents with a querulous
eye .
But these "litiginous" grandparents are not the average
American grandparents. They know, no matter how difficult their
relationships to the middle generations, that family bonds are
permanent human connections. Children agree. As one youngster
put it: "I can never be apart from my parents or grandparents
because we are the same, in our looks and our thinking and our
acts. I know that I connect my parents and grandparents and I love
them. And I know that they don't get along and that my parents
don't like them anymore. And I know that there is only one way
that they can really get away from my grandparents. And that is
if I am dead. "
J t ■ V.'ii.it Kind Of Families Docs Unwilling Grandparent -Gr.unlchi 1 d
Divorce Occur?
There are no typical families in which this situation
occurs. Indeed grandparents who have tumultuous relationships
with one of their children often have close and warm
relationships with their other children. Our research
has demonstrated several of the factors that are common
to many of the cases of unwilling grandparent-grandchild
divorce .
The first is that there is a long standing interpersonal
problem between grandparent and parent. A stormy parent-
child ^relationship has been extended into a difficult
grandparent-parent relat innship and the grandchildren have
been, unhappily, included.
The second factor is a long standing interpersonal
problem between grandparents and the spouse of their child.
The spouse, who becomes the sole custodian of the child,
(through death or divorce of the grandparents child) can
easily remove their child from the despised grandparent.
The third factor is a stressful event. The stressful
event (death or divorce or emotional illness etc.)
places a great emotional burden on a fragile relationship.
This activates previously unexpressed hostilites and
the three generational system, tenuous at best, crumbles.
CASE STUDY
This is what happened to the Harrisons who live in
53
the suburb of Boston. Their daughter, Pearl, who was their
"problem child" married Gene while they were both attending
a local college. Several years later their first child was
born. They moved in with the Harrisons for economic
reasons and, a year later, Pearl gave birth to another
child. Pearl and Gene began to have "marital problems"
and decided to "move to their own place" for "privacy".
They both worked full time while the Harrisons cared for
the children, often on weekends. The young couple's
problems worsened. Gene had an' affair and Pearl went to
a therapist in the hone of "enticing" Gene into marital
counseling. The Harrisons became openly critical of
Gene's behavior. "They act like my kids are theirs", he
b.iid. Gone- visited his children less ,-ind less frequently.
Both parents and grandparents reported that the children were
"doing quite well" during this time. Pearl and Gene were
divorced on the day of their eighth anniversary. Pearl
left Boston for California to "start over". Gene called
his children less and less frequently. Pearl returned home
four times over the next two years. The youngsters were
functioning well at home, in church and at school.
Three years after the divorce Gene called the
Harrisons to tell them that he was remarried and was ready
to have his children come to live with him. The week after
the children went to live with their father the Harrisons
learned that their daughter was killed in an automobile
accident. At the funeral Gene told the Harrisons that he was
angry because the Harrisons had "poisoned the kids minds
against me". Gene allowed his children to see their grandparents
regularly, at first, but as time passed visitation was
decreased. Gene told the Harrisons that the children were
""busy" or "too tired". The Harrisons questioned the children
about this but the children were "uncomfortable" and
wouldn't answer. The Harrisons saw their grandchildren less and
less and their relationship to the children became more
and more "tense". They received a letter from Gene asking them
to "stop sending presents because my wife's child doesn't
get such things from her grandparents".
One year after his marriage Gene wrote to the Harrisons
(registered letter) saying that their visits were "disruptive"
and that they were "bad Mouthing" him and his wife to the
children. They were "undermining his role as a father" and
he didn't want them to visit the children. He went on to
state that the children were confused because of all of the
relatives and they had "too many grandparents" now that
they were becoming closer to his wife's parents. He was
"sorry because the children care for you" but visitation
had become too"complicated" and it placed a"strain"
2 m ,
54
on his marriage. "I wane to raise the children without outside
intrusions" .
Ihiring this period tha Harrisons be cam" qui te upset . They
sought out the counsel of friends, clergy, physicians-
anyone who would listen. They received a great deal of
"understanding and sympathy" but no one could help ther
Their letters were returned unopened. They went to see the
children at school. Soon after they received a"notarized
letter" ordering them not to see the children at school
again because the children were"severely upset" by their
visit. The Harrisons persisted in calling the children
and Gene became more and more angry at them. Mr. Harrison
became enraged. Mrs. Harrison became depressed and
began seeing a psychiatrist.
The Harrisons decided to sue for visitation. Their
state legislature had recently passed a law allowing grandparents
, K -
to sue for visitation rights. The tridL was a devastating
experience for all concerned. The media coverage of the trial
adversely affect Gene at work and the children at school.
The trial became a "cause celebre" for Gene. He talked
about "winning" and "beating the Harrisons".
The court decided that it was "in the best interest of
the children" that the Harrisons be denied visitation. The
decision did not state that the situation could be re-
assessed at a future time. The Harrisons had become
unwillingly divorced from their grandchildren.
The Harrisons did not know what to do. Should
they appeal the case and "re-open our wounds?".
Mr. Harrison asked "Have we lost our grandchildren forever?
How will they know that we love them?". "The longer that
we stay away the less they will know us", cried Mrs.
Harrison. Gene said that he hopes "its over". The children
said that "our father and our grandparents don't get along".
"What can I do" the youngest said, "I'm only a kid".
_■._ INTERPERSONAL ISSUES IK C ?'/■.;: D? 'A Ki-3 ."!■/'- I I -I J
DIVORCE
The case study demonstrates many of the
7- .__ ... issues that set parents and grandparents
against one another. Among the most important; interpersonal
issues are those of role reversal and control.
Role Reversal - It is obvious that the Harrisons not only
played the role of grandparent for their grandchildren but also
the role of parent. The Harrisons caretaking role which was con-
55
venient, even necessary, for .Gene yt one time was seen by him,
when he no longer needed them, to be "usurping" his authority. The
Harrisons didn't change -Gene did.
Indeed, an immature parent, seeing his own children having a
wonderful time with their grandparents (the parent's parents) can
experience strong feelings of jealousy, perceiving his own child
as a sibling when grandparents are parenting everybody. Some
parents who are not mature enough to act as parents, give their
children into the care of grandparents. When the parent is "grown
up" and now emotionally ready "to be" a parent, they want their
children returned to them but they ignore the strong attachment
formed between grandparent and grandchild. They feel they can
pick up where they left off with the child. The feelings of the
children and the grandparents are rarely considered in these
situations since the parents have "social power" and it is "normal"
for children to live with their parents. In the extreme, parents
who regard their own children as siblings have the power to remove
their rivals ( the grandchildren) from their parents but at the
risk of losing their parents themselves.
Control and Authority - Another important issue is that of
control and authority. "ir.ee grandparents involved in rranoi^ '••■V
grandchild divorce are usually strong and authoritative peruiotili-
ties, it is difficult for them to assume a supportive grandparent
role in the family. Indeed, they do knov; more about raising
children, but they may have difficulty letting their children learn
for themselves. The situation is compounded when the grandparent,
in reality, like the Harrisons become the primary caretaker of the
child. When parents do grow up and want to take over it is
difficult for the grandparent to slowly relinquish the renponcibi-
lity that the young parent now wishes to assume. In cases of child
abuse or parental illness it is easy to empathize with the appre-
hension and concern of the grandparents toward the parent's
capabilities and to understand how a guilty parent, anxious to make
"amends, assumes the grandparent's vigilance as "controlling,"
"intrusive" or as a "lack of confidence."
PerSA°noathe7 Jffiurtant factor is linked to personality. Many
people involved in these situations seem to be inflexible and
hard put to understand or to listen to one another and modify their
56
behavior accordingly. One grandfather, denied access to his
grandchildren by his son describes this as "cussedness. " "I
never got alon^ with \his con. He was always contrary , not like
my other children. Then he upped and joined this so called religion
with a bunch of goofballs, and he wants nothing to do with us now. "
He sighed: "It's just plain cussedness between us."
Social Factors - Social factors play an imporxant part in tiie
unwilling divorce between grandparents and their grandchildren.
The family scenario is not played in isolation. Many "out-
siders," such as friends, therapists, and teachers play an important
role in the drama. This is very confusing to children who, as a
de-fpiise aftpn withdraw from 1hc adults around them. They withdraw
not only Ire:', the altercation between the people they love, but
from all of the other people who have entered their lives. Children
in these situations often wear false smiles in order that "every-
one thinks that I'm doing alright, that all of this is not affecting
me." Consider one case where the child's parent remarried. The
step-parent became involved in the litigation as well as the parents
of the step-parent, the step-grandparents (v/ho desperately wanted
the child to love them). There is no end to the people involved.
If both parents remarry, a child could have four biological
grandparents and four step-grandparents, in addition to two step-
parents - all intimately involved with the issue. The more "blended"
the family, the more torn and confused is the child. In litigation,
friends, neighbors and relatives are often called upon and enduring
animosities are forged.
PERSONAL REACTIONS
Everyone suffers from the painful relationships between
parents and grandparents - no one is spared.
Children - Children are drawn and quartered between their
beloved elders who each believe that he is "righT.. " Children have
to deal with the professionals and institutions that grandparents
and parents use as allies in their war on one another. They feel
humiliated when a private family affair becomes a public issue.
They suffer not only their own distress, but the reflected
57
distress of their family. "I don't know what to do, a child
cried. "I love all of them, and I can't tell fnom that I like my
grandparents because she gets mad. Sometimes my grandparents tell
me bad things about mom p. rid it rr.akor; me feel terrible, so I don't
listen anymore . 1 block :t out: I tell them what tliry want i.',
hear - all of them. "
Children know that they are prizes and pawns in the conflict.
"V.y Mom told me that her mother screwed her up and she didn't
want Gramma to do the same to me, but I leve Gramma, and I can't
tell that to Mom. She doesn't listen. I agree with her to make
her happy. "
Children often seek the easy way out, relinquishing a grand-
parent is easier than relinquishing a parent. "What can I do,"
Millie said, "I have got to stay with Bad because he will live
longer, and I can't see Gummy because he gets crazy when I see her
and I can't stand that. He feels better when I don't see her."
Many of the children resent their parents: "I don't see how
my mother can do this to her mother, be go mean to her. My grand- /
mother was never mean to me and my grandf athcr is great. I am
afraid I might do the same thing to my mother when I get older, I
■'/,
hope not. I can't see my mother as a grandmother anyway."
One young child views herself as "ransom." "My mother tells
Grandma that she'd better do exactly as Mom tells her or she can't
see me anymore. Mom thinks that Grandma feeds me too much and
that she makes me fat. One time Mom didn't let me see Grandma for
six months. Grandma said that she would apologize and Mom let me
see her. And what they were fighting over had something to do with
my aunt and not me. It's like blackmail and I'm the ransom,"
For the most part children view their grandparents with con.-
j,
passion. "They are old," said John, 11-years-old , "and they don'i
have too long to live. 1 fool Dad for then but my father doesn't.
I don't see how he c;tn be bo mad at two nice people. Sure, they
are grumpy sometimes, but that's not a ~~cpr,on to hate them.
Kont children become resigned, at least temporarily , l.o 1.5. '.■
lo«s of their grandparents. "Maybe when I get older, I can t'<< : '■ '
them if they are around. I know my father sends their gifts back
and that they can't visit me at school. All I can do is wait."
58
Grandparents - The loss of their children and their grand-
children is an awesome and frightening experience for grandparents .
Most of them were stunned that, what to them seemed like family
squabbles, should end like this. "I thought that we just didn't
get along too well," one grandmother said. "I never really cared
for my son-in-law. Let's say I tolerated him. I never realized
how much he hated me. To do this to me."
The blow is even more devestating for grandparents when it
is their own child who removes their grandchildren from them. "I
raised her children for four years while she was out gallivanting
around," a grandfather said. "Then she just came and took them.
She is living in the city (one hour away) and won't even tell us
where. I never knew she hated us. Sure, I yelled at rrer a lot
when she was coming along. She was always getting into it (trouble).
I hate her so for what she is doing to us now. We don't deserve it.
Old age is the worst tine to lose one's grandchildren and
children. It is the ultimate betrayal and perhaps the ultimate
revenge by a child on a parent who the child has resented. Under
these circumstances, grandparents become irrational in their
thoughts and actions. One grandmother said that she started
hearing the grandchildren's voices calling her at night even though
she knew "it was all in my mind. " Others have become obssessed
with seeing their grandchildren to the point of ignoring all else
in their lives. The initial shock, and subsequent disbelief and
despair soon evolve into anger.
Many grar.O;..-;.- cr.tr; get angry ot themselves because they
ultimately feel responsible for the problem. One despairing grand-
mother said: "The av/ful truth is that ny daughter is doing this
to me at all. What does this say for me as a mother and a woman?
Sure I get along with my other children. I hate to tell myself
that my daughter is crazy in order to keep my own sanity, to not
jump off of a bridge. Does this happen to good parents? What else
hate I done that I am unaware of? Do you understand that I
thought I was always a good mother? I don't know what happened."
The loss of their grandchildren v/as perceived as the loss of
a chance to make it up to their own children. "I know I wasn't
59
the best of fathers," a sad grandfather said. "I was short tempered.
Work made me grouchy. I thought I would have a chance to be a good
grandfather to my son's children, not to be as harsh or as bossy
as I was. I have more time now. And perhaps even get closer to
my son through the children. I know I was too harsh on him when
he was younger. "
Most grandparents become angry at the person who is depriving
them of their grandchildren. This is a frustrating situation
because the more anger grandparents express - to parents, children
or others - the more they are creating a permanent wedge between
themselves and their grandchildren. Indeed this becomes a self-
fulfilling prophesy - parents say that grandparents are "irrational"
and grandparents become more "irrational" because they become in-
creasingly frustrated about being deprived of their grandchildren.
This forces them into litigation or depression.
Grandparents learned going to court only made things worse.
"This court business is terrible," a grandmother said. "Things
are worse now thsn the;/ were before. All the hate and venom
Lli.-it':; coming out in court. Nov; l)n: ;\.-:.Py is taking :;j <!':-. ;ui>i
it is in the newspapers. It is out of control. I am saying Unrigs
I don't mean. And still they won't let us see the children. how
deep is their hate? Seeing the way the parents are acting crazy
makes me feel that the children need me all the more. I am never
going to stop fighting for them. . . "
Grandparents who are permanently divorced from their grand-
children suffer an irreparable wound. "A lot of life has left me,"
one grandmother said. "I have to live out my days with this terrible
knowledge that I have a grandchild somewhere that I love and can
never see and who won't even know me." A grandfather who hadn't
seen his grandsons for three years said that he "wished he would
die soon. I have aged a hundred years since this all happened.
If my daughter wanted to murder- mo she couldn't have done a better
job. Do you know what it is like to feel like this, at the end
of your life. All I want is there and I can't have it ,„, ever . . . "
Parents - Parents suffer the same feelings of guilt and shame
and humiliation as their children and their parents but they are
less depressed. They describe their strongest emotions as anger.
60
Most are remorseful that in the course of proxecting themselves
and their offspring from "bad" grandparents they are not only
divorcing grandchildren from grandparents, but putting an end to a
family continuum. That is a heavy responsibility to bear. It is
not done lightly. One father lamented: "This is an impossible
burden to bear. I am a nice person. Who would do sucha thing, to
destroy a family. To seprarate children from their grandparents
who they like!" He continued: "But it is the only alternative.
They do not listen to me about the kids. They countermand my orders.
They come and go when they want to. It is the only way. The kids
wi 1 1 fct over it. "
Parents are unaware of the needs of their children and thi:
importance of the grandparent/grandchild relationship. They •-.ay
the children "will get over it." "I'll make up for it, "one mother
said.
Parents pressure children to cay that it's alright in order
to assuage their ov/n ambivalence about separating them from their
grandparents. "Ky children are much more relaxed since they no
longer see their grandparents," one parent said. Many children
have confirmed however, that their parents feel this way because
parents are more relaxed being away from grandparents and ascribe ■
this feeling to their children. The children, saying nothing, hide
their feelings to spare their parents the pain of seeing how un-
happy the child is.
The turmoil engendered by divorcing grandparents from their
grandchildren exacts a heavy emotional toll on parents. "It's
like an obssession with me," one father said, "to get these people
(grandparents) out of my life. They are all I think about. I
never want to see them again. The kids will have to go along and
I will go to any 3 cn-th to do it." Thir. father, an architect, sees
his ox-fatlicr-iri-l .':■••.' at j<roJ'i.T.:;joiia I hum: I in/* i;. "J '11 even change
professions and move away if that will keep Raoul (grandfather)
out of my life. He doesn't let up. Now he wants to go to court."
When grandparents go to court, parents suffer. Eacked into
a corner they often become irrationally angry and emotionally over-
wrought. "I haven't slept since this all started," a father said.
"But I have to go all the way. even if it kills me."
61
For some parents, especially cx-in-laws, getting rid of
grandparents is a matter of convenience. "Look at my position,"
::;iid the young father of two children whose wife died two yi-urr,
ago. "I'm getting married to a great gal and I'm cz^azy about her
parents. I want to start a new family. I don't want to have to
be bothered with my ex-in-laws coming around and visiting and
arranging things. Time is important. I don't want them intruding
into my life. They are mosy people. I don't dislike them, but I
was never crazy about them. They have other grandchildren and
they will get over it," He summed it all up: "I'm trying to make
my life simple. "
Parents who cut themselves off from their own parents and
take their grandchildren with them deprive themselves of the
opportunity to resolve their attachments to their parents which
is critical for their own emotional health and is a basic part of
the human growth process. Just as the runaway child finds that
running away from problems doesn't help at all, parents learn that
"disowning" one's family solves nothing. One mother s-aid it well:
"What I'm most worried about is that the children are watching
what I am doing. What am I teaching them about parents and children?
What have they learned about how to solve their problems with me?"
When Li Li fiat ion Occurs
None of Che people Chat we interviewed who went Co
court felc Chat Cheir cause was well served. Indeed all of
Chem felC ChaC liCigaCion exacerboted Che "bad feelings"
beCween all of Che concerned parCies. "Everyone losC" one
young parenC said.
These cases pose great difficulty to the court. When the
court bars grandparent visitation it does so "in the best interest
of the child." In truth, such a judgement is usually in the best
interest of the parent.
The court is ill equipped to handle these cases. There fire
few experts to advise the court concerning the necessity of grand-
parent/grandchild relationships. So-called expert::, who are
available to the court, are inexperi enccd in matters concerning
the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. Indeed,
these experts are products of their own culture, an ageist one,
which impairs their objectivity. Without experts, and in it's
29-610 0-84-
62
eagerness to dispense with the agonizing spectacle of a famil-y
tearing one another apart, the court too easily "permanently" bars
grandparent visitation - thus "fixing" the family's situation
in this deplorable state.
Although it is incomprehensible that a court would support
a divorce between parents and grandparents and between grandparents
and their grandchildren -it happens. And it happens easily even
though the court does not have enough knowledge of the complexities
of the issue to make such a judgement. The case in which this is
done is a direct reflection of the anti -family bias of our society.
This divorce reinforces family differences and creates
wounds that never heal. The child is put in the position of
choosing between the most important people in his life. It is
an impossible choice for a child.
Prevention and Treatment of Unwilling Grandparent-Grandchild
Divorce Role of the Therapist
Up until now, in our agcist society, grandparents lost
visitation rights with their grandchildren because 1)
their importance to children was essentially unknown;
2) our society has no role for the aged and worships
youth, physical beauty and socio-economic and political
power and 3) ignores the importance of the family in
general and especially the three generational family and
4) ignores the role of emotional attachments in human
happiness .
Indeed, the great majority of grandparents that^interviewed in °">2- /'*T,0^a'
were less keen on being grandparents than pusuing their
own narcissistic self-interests.'
The nature of the grandparent-grandchild relationship has
been largely ignored by the mental health professions.
Early investigation of the relationship by Weinstein and
Neygarten , Kahana and Kahana , and Robertson and Wood4
all recommended further inquiry into the relationship.
Little is to be found in the psychoanalytic literature
concerning grandparents. Although outstanding family
therapists (Bowen, Whi ttaker .Minuchin et.al.) often
involve grandparents in therapy there is little written about
the "therapeutic" use of grandparents.
Recent research , however has established the indispensable
nature of the grandparent-grandchild bond. Several points
are especially important as it pertains to the unwilling
divorce of grandparents from their grandchildren. Kornhaber
has shown that 1) The emotional bond between grandparents
63
and grandchildren is second only in importance to the
bond between parents and children, and that 2) many problems
passed on from grandparent to parent are not DIRECTLY passed
on from grandparent to grandchild (nature gives grandparents
a second chance) and 3) that grandparents affect the lives
of their grandchildren, for better or worse, just because
they EXIST.
The grandparent- gr.-mdeh) 1 d relationship i :; genet i c.'i 1 1 y
rooted in the thousands of years that people have- been raised
by their kin. It is verifiable psychol gi c.i 1 1 y and experienced
as feelings through emotional attachments.
Thus it is the natural right of the child to have access
to its grandparents. It is not a right granted to them by the
parent generation. Grandparents and grandchildren should never
be deprived of one another. It is the child's right to
work out its relatinship with its grandparent without
interference by the middle generation (except under
exceptional circumstances).
The role of the therapist in facilitating this
relationship, and in protecting its sanctity is clear. In individual
therapy, the therapist can affirm the iitportance of the
relationship by exploring his patient's experience as a
grandchild. .Therapists who work with
older patients will help the patient by alerting him to the
importance of his own role as a grandparent.
Family therapists should include grandparents as an
ingtegral part of the family tratment.
Grandparents are most useful in Child Psychiatry, not only
as participants in the therapeutic process but in the special
roles that thoy play for the child and the family.
Therapists can help in the prevention of unwilling grandparent-
grandchild divorce by being alert to families who are
vulnerable to the disruption of generational continuity.
Deep seated animosities between parent and grandparents
must be dealt with quickly and effectively before the
grandchildren are infected by the animosity of their
elders making their parents negative perceptions their
own because they have no direct, thus different, experience
with their grandparents. Children who have no direct
relationship with their own grandparents adopt the
perceptions and attitudes of their parents.
It is important to counsel all patients to avoid
litigation at all costs. Litigation perpetuate.-, the
pathological system, ignores the common bonds of
the family, and does not allow natural healing to take place.
If litigation is unavoidable the therapist should
take an active role in educating the (often ignorant)
court of the importance of the grandparent-grandchild
64
relationship and espouse the maintenance of the
relationship, under the supervision of the therapist if
necessary.
We advise that Family Court Judge's remand the
family to the care of a court appointed therapist
who will maintain visitation at the same time that the
family works through their problems. The continuation of
visitation, even during an "emotionally hot" period
spares the children the pain of separation from their
grandparents while offering them an admirable example
of how all of the adults who care for them settle their
own differences in a rational and principled mannner.
The therapist who takes a stand against the disruption
of the three-generational family also spares the
adults from disowning one another- which is a terrible emotional
burden to bear. Parents are spared from "divorcing" them-
sleves from their own parents and from the enmity of their
own children who know well that they have divorced them
from their grandparents. Finally, the therapist offers
grandparents a chance to fulfill their role as grand-parents
and not least- offers them another chance to be better parents.
Mental Health Professional can make a significant
contribution to limiting three-generational divorce by
educating themselves and the public about the importance of
the grandparent-grandchild relationship and acting to
preserve the integrity of the three generational family
in their professional endeavors.
Xcf re r r iices
1- Grandparents Children's Rights Inc. 5728 Bayonne Ave.
Haslett, Michigan 48840
2- Neugarten, Bernice and Weinstein, Karol, "The Changing
American Grandparent". Journal of Marriage and the Family",
Vol.26, No. 2, May 1964
3-Kahana ,Boaz and Kahana,Eva, "Grandparenthood For the
Perspective of the Developing Grandhcild", Developmental
Psychology, 1970, Vol.3, No.l, 98-105
4-Wood, Vivian and Robertson, Joan F.,"The Significance
of Grandparenthood'.' Time, Roles and Self in Old Age,
Gubrium, J. Human Sciences Press, 1976, 278-304.
SKornhaber,- Arthur and Woodward, Kenneth L. "Grandparents/
Grandchildren-The Vital Connection" Doubleday, 1981.
65
[From Readers' Digest, February 1983]
When their children's marriages
dissolve, many Americans are
shocked to discover that they
have been cut off from their
grandchildren. But it doesn't
have to end that way
Grandparents:
The
Other Victims
of Divorce
By Arthur Kornhaber, M.D.
drcn regularly. But when the
daughter-in-law remarried and,
with the children, moved to a dis-
tant city, she explained that the
children now had "a new set of.
grandparents" and it would be "in
everyone's best interest" if Ann
didn't see them anymore.
In less than three years, Ann had
suffered the death of her husband
and the de facto loss of her grand-
children. Her son, taking up the
threads of his own life, refused to
intercede. As a result, Ann's health
deteriorated. Finally, she entered a
nursing home.
With an estimated 50 percent of
American marriages now ending in
divorce, this is no longer an unusual
situation. At a time of life when
both grandparents and grandchil-
ann and Lou Draper* had been
/\ looking forward to becom-
JL \~ ing grandparents for a long
time. So when their son announced
that his wife was pregnant, they
were overjoyed. Eight months later
a grandson was born; two years
after that a granddaughter. The
Drapers lavished time, affection,
wisdom and gifts on their grand-
children. When Lou died, Ann fo-
cused even more of herself on
them: she baby-sat and took them
for weekends. When her son told
her that he and his wife were going
to get a divorce, he said, "Don't
worry, you'll still be able to see the
kids."
At first, Ann saw her grandchil-
•The examples in this article represent actual
cases. Only the names have been changed.
21
66
GRANDPARENTS: THE OTHER VICTIMS OF DIVORCE
dren can benefit most from a close
relationship, many are being effec-
tively "divorced" from one another.
As a psychiatrist dealing with
troubled families, I've seen the re-
sults of unwilling severance of the
natural connection between grand-
parents and grandchildren and the
emotional pain it can cause for both
generations. Fortunately, there are
things that can be done to avoid or
reverse the situation. For example:
• Understand the relationships in
your family. Unwilling grandpar-
ent-grandchild separation occurs
most often when divorce strikes
families in which there has been
friction between parents and grand-
parents. One way of reducing this
friction is to examine how a suc-
cessful family operates — and then
compare your own with it.
The Aldos live within an hour's
drive from their daughter Maria,
son-in-law Sonny and four grand-
children. They visit on Sundays (or
invite the family for dinner) and
drop in occasionally during the
week. When Maria and Sonny go
away, Granny and Poppa Aldo
move in with the kids. In effect, the
roles of the adults arc interchange-
able. Yet — and this is a key point —
there is no competition between
parents and grandparents, and the
latter make no attempt to impose
their will on the family's affairs.
A family that operates this well
can absorb the normal problems of
Dr. A»thu« Kobnhaie* it a pediatric psychi-
atrist and co-author of Grandparrnti/Grandchit-
drrn: The Vital Connection.
22
life. And when things aren't run-
ning smoothly, the members tend
to come together rather than fly
apart.
Now consider your own family.
Chances are there are some dis-
agreements between parents and
grandparents. Airing and correct-
ing them can help strengthen your
relationship and also help avoid
grandparent-grandchild problems,
even if divorce should occur.
One issue that may become ap-
parent is role reversal and control.
A number of grandparents serve as
surrogate parents to their grand-
children during the early years of
their children's marriages. Consid-
er the case of Lisa and Ralph, who
married while both were in college.
For financial reasons, they lived
with Lisa's parents, and when the
two children came along, the elder
Johnsons took care of them. Even
after Lisa and Ralph moved out,
the grandparents played a major
caretaking role while the mother
and father worked.
After seven years, Lisa and
Ralph divorced. Lisa "gave" the
children to her parents, and headed
West in search of a new life.
Meanwhile, Ralph remarried
and, with his new wife and her two
children, settled in a neighboring
town. Soon after, he told the John-
sons that he wanted his children to
move in with him. With Lisa show-
ing no interest, the grandparents
decided it was the best solution, and
Ralph and his new wife didn't ob-
ject when they showed up three
67
GRANDPARENTS: THE OTHER VICTIMS OF DIVORCE
times a week for visits and dinner • Grandparents can tafy advan-
out with their grandchildren. tagc of their legal rights. Until about
As time went on, though, Ralph 15 years ago, grandparents separat-
began to complain about the John- ed from their grandchildren had
sons' "taking over" the children, virtually no legal way to change the
saying they were undermining the situation. They were dependent on
stepmother's authority and divid- the "good will" of their children or
ing the family. Eventually, he asked children-in-law.
them not to visit anymore. "Today things are getting bct-
Because the grandparents had ter," says Leland S. Enelebardt, a
assumed the role of mother and Connecticut attorney who special-
father during the grandchildren's izes in family law. "In Connecticut,
early years, they were unable or we now have a law that requires the
unwilling to give it up when Ralph court to consider the rights of
remarried. Consequently, the John- grandparents who want visitation
sons lost the opportunity to watch with their grandchildren." In Vir-
their grandchildren grow; and the ginia, courts may provide the
grandchildren were denied the ex- grandparents visitation rights in
perience of knowing, loving and parents' divorce decrees. Ohio law
learning from their grandparents. allows judges to grant "reasonable
But even if grandparents have visitation rights" to any person who
not served as surrogate parents, has a legitimate interest in the
competition for authority still oc- child's welfare.*
curs in many families. Since grand- But legal action should be a tactic
parents are experienced in raising of last resort. Most judges aren't
children, it's difficult for many of trained in the psychological com-
them to assume a supportive role, plexities of the grandparcnt-grand-
Instead, they plunge into the role child issue, and they often make
of child-caring, not letting the par- their decisions while ignoring the
ents learn for themselves. Many importance of this relationship,
new parents describe their own Fortunately, in recent years,
parents as controlling, intrusive courts in states such as New York,
or showing a lack of confidence. Massachusetts, Michigan and Cali-
Thus, they often seek ways of cut- fornia have used social workers,
ting the grandparents out of the psychologists, psychiatrists and oth-
picture. er professionals to help counsel the
Acknowledging such problems, disputing parties so that visitation
and finding ways to turn grandpar- schedules may be worked out in the
ents from "authoritarian" into best interest of the child. By help-
supportive" figures, can improve
Cm;u, __!..•:,..., D... ,^^»-.»:-_«., *Fot further information, write to Grand-
family relat ons. But Sometimes parcnts.Children's Rights. 57>» Bayonne Ave..
professional help may be needed. Haslett. Mich. 48840.
68
GRANDPARENTS: THE OTHER VICTIMS OF DIWRCE
ing the family address its diffi- has a new set of step-grandparents,
culties, the counselor keeps the 4. Call in between visits and
grandparent-grandchild relation- write letters. Mail is something
ship intact. This not only minimizes children can save and show to
friction, but provides grandchildren friends. And they will be able to
an admirable example of how people form mental pictures of you and
can settle differences in a rational your life.
manner. 5. Keep them up-to-date on the
• Make the most of the grandpa) - comings and goings of other rcla-
ent -grandchild visitations. If there is tives. You can serve as a vital link,
a divorce in the family, here are five not only helping to keep the ex-
rules for grandparents to follow to tended family together but endear-
maintain a close relationship with ing yourselves to the youngsters at
their grandchildren: the same time.
1. Realize the importance of
time spent together. Don't slough it Grandparents who take the time
off as "just another Sunday after- and energy to maintain contact
noon with the grandchildren." with their grandchildren arc heroic
Treat them as if they arc a precious figures. By demonstrating love and
package entrusted to you for only a dedication, they give their grand-
short time. Listen to them. children the special knowledge and
2. Try to attend family mile- experience of belonging to a fam-
stones. Holidays, birthdays and ily — a critical factor in the de-
graduations have special signifi- velopment of children's emotional
cance to children. The youngsters health and social growth. Separa-
will talk about them tor a long tion of grandparents and grand-
time; and your being there will children due to divorce is a terribly
become part of their lives. sad and all too common side ef-
3. If distance is a problem, send feet of what is happening in many
them photographs and tokens of families today. But it doesn't
your love. One of my patients, a have to be.
ten-year-old girl, never fails to
show me the latest photos of her
grandparents — even though she
a. For information on reprints v»
h* of this article, see page 214 **"
£33
Gab Fcsf
Journalist Franklin P. Adams once listened patiently as a friend told a
story that never seemed to end. At length, the fellow drew near the finish.
"Well," said the friend, "to make a long story short — "
"TOO late!" Adams Cried. — Howard Teichmann. Croige S. Ksiifnun lAthcnrum)
26
69
Senator East. If we could turn now to Lee and Lucille Sumpter
of Grandparents'-Children's Rights, Inc., of Haslett, Mich.— we wel-
come the two of you.
Thank you. It's a pleasure to have you both here this morning.
STATEMENT OF LEE AND LUCILLE SUMPTER
Mr. Sumpter. Thank you, Senator East, grandparents are and
always have been a vital link in our society. They are the unwrit-
ten history of our families, towns, States, and Nation. They are the
unrecognized therapy our children need. They are the safety valves
for the troubled families, and the cheering section for everybody's
progress. Grandma and Grandpa are the repository for tall tales,
good advice, and dubious guidance depending on who asks for what
and under what circumstances.
Our very limited experience with grandparenting has shown us
that grandparents are very disturbed if they do not or cannot func-
tion in their rightful role as such. I stress rightful simply because
we firmly believe grandparenting is a right and not a privilege.
The judiciary in our country does not have a very good concept, if
any, of grandparents' rights. Reading case histories of grandparent
visitation court actions, using information in many letters, and
conversing with many grandparents clearly says we have no rights.
How much of this heartbreaking dilemma that has been created
is our fault? We choose to believe that the vast majority of the
grandparents have been unjustly denied the right to visit their
grandchildren. Dr. Arthur Kornhaber, coauthor of "Grandparents-
Grandchildren, the Vital Connection," has evidence that some
grandparents do not care to see their grandchildren, and this is
very difficult for us to understand. We do admit that there are
grandparents who should not associate with their grandchildren
because they do upset the equilibrium of families and they create
senseless problems. Time, distance, and economics play a big part
in restricting frequent visitation. We can accept these reasons for
lack of visiting.
We must establish a basis for our visitation problems. A child is
brought into the world, and normally both parents share their love
with it. Because of death, divorce or separation, one parent is gone.
The remaining parent takes the child to live in the home of the
maternal or paternal grandparents where they remain for months
or several years. Because the parent may be away during most of
the child's waking hours, the child will develop a secure and loving
relationship with its grandparents who care for it. They become
the psychological parents, and their home the child's home. Later
the parent will take the child to live with a stepparent or a live-in
girl or boy friend. The stepparent or live-in will decide that the
child is not to visit the grandparents anymore. Why, you ask? We
do not know. They do not know. They will not tell you. We believe
that they are jealous of the love the child has for the grandparents.
The parents are insecure and immature. In many cases they are
self-centered, egotistical, selfish, and mentally ill. They have no
deep love for the child, and do not care that it is being deprived of
a loving relationship with its grandparents. It is a form of child
70
abuse not readily discernible. These parents have no concept of the
children's feelings or rights.
We have developed several categories of grandparents who are
being denied visitation with their grandchildren. Circumstances
are created which lead to denial based on divorce, death of one
parent, a custody battle with one parent denying one or both sets
of grandparents, live-in partners, cult membership; and finally the
sons and daughters of the grandparents denying their own parents
access to their children. Denial of visitation because of a step-
parent adoption is the most vicious. Grandparents are being told
that the children have too many grandparents. These children are
the blood relatives of the grandparents.
There are three stages grandparents involuntarily experience
when told the glorious news "you can't see them anymore." You
are shocked, really can't believe what you are hearing. Especially if
you have had a loving relationship with the child for x number of
months or years. Next, self-pity sets in, or what did I do to my chil-
dren to make them treat me this way? After you realize that you
did not do anything, you get angry. This anger becomes a perma-
nent state of mind. It will not go away, and it is not a hate thing,
but a seething frustration. Every time another confrontation occurs
that incident merely fuels the anger.
We have a very difficult time finding grandparents with a visita-
tion problem. Many are reluctant to speak about it because it is a
family problem, and they are ashamed of it. Many do not consider
that anybody else could have the problem. And, third, if they are
having any contact with the children at all, they are afraid that if
they make waves they will be cut off completely. We have been
told these reasons by many grandparents across our Nation.
Grandparents cannot go public, cannot go to court, and in the proc-
ess go through considerable humiliation at the hands of their chil-
dren. These parents grew up in the sixties and seventies. They
want it all their way, want it now, and finally realize that adult-
hood is too much for them. They run the full range of mental disor-
ders from chronic manic depressives, to schizophrenics, to para-
noids, and ego maniacal selfish immature people.
The grandparent visitation problem is a national disgrace. Forty-
seven States have laws in varying degrees allowing grandparents to
petition for visitation. We have copies of all 47 State laws and are
constantly updating them. In the past 5 years, 25 States have
passed legislation in some form. Dr. Kornhaber recommends media-
tion on a mandatory basis of 18 to 24 months duration. We know
this is the best solution. The courts do not have the expertise to
handle family matters. Divorce, yes, for the adults. But who thinks
or cares about the children? The mediation recommended must be
required and administered by law. Grandparents are ignored by
the judiciary. Parents lose their children, and grandparents are not
allowed to adopt, have custody, or even visit in foster homes. The
worst circumstance is denial of association after adoption. Children
that are being emotionally, mentally, physically, and sexually
abused are usually being denied the right to see their grandpar-
ents. Children as young as 4 or 5 years old try to run away to the
homes of their grandparents for safety.
71
The State laws dealing with visitation are widely divergent.
Some allow for visitation based on the death of a parent, a custody
case, or in a divorce proceeding. One State law allows grandparents
a voice in the adoption process. Delaware's law is very brief and it
covers the entire problem. We must allow for any grandparent to
petition a court for visitation without any qualifying conditions.
Grandparents'-Children's Rights, Inc., is actively assisting in-
volved grandparents in each State to seek adequate laws to protect
the visitation rights of grandchildren and grandparents, and to or-
ganize active contact groups in each State to work for a national
children's rights law. We have a national mailing list of about
1,000 grandparents with the problem. We have answered over 3,500
letters about this problem since January of this year. We are aver-
aging five letters a day still which indicates a continuing problem.
One major area of deep concern is the nonreciprocity of court
orders in the matter of family law. Grandparents get visitation in
one State's court, the parents move to void this action to another
State. It should not be necessary for grandparents to chase their
grandchildren all over the United States through courts to visit
them.
The grandparents here today and all over America sincerely ap-
preciate your concern and the opportunity to appear before you.
[The following was received for the record:]
Prepared Statement of Lee and Lucille Sumpter
Mr. Chairman and honorable committee members, we thank you for allowing us
to speak before your committee hearing today.
Grandparents'-Children's Rights, Inc. was incorporated on July 8, 1981, by us and
a grandmother who is an advocate for the rights of children. It is a non-profit, non-
tax exempt Michigan corporation. There are no rules or dues. We pay for all that
we do from our retired incomes, and we plan to work for the rights of children and
their grandparents until we are too old or when we run out of money.
The goals of our organization are to help grandparents to organize independent
contact groups in each State so that they will be able to meet to discuss their prob-
lems, to exchange information and to work together to lobby for adequate uniform
grandparent visitation laws that will allow: "Any grandparents to have the right to
petition a court to request reasonable visitation with their grandchildren, and that
the adoption by a step-parent or a blood relative will not terminate the visitation
rights of paternal or maternal grandparents." A mediation panel consisting of at
least three professionals from the social sciences should assist in deciding what is
best for the child.
There are nine States that have independent organizations that meet regularly.
Twenty-seven States have contact leaders that are available to relay information
through newsletters.
We serve as a clearing house to collect and to pass on information to anyone who
has an interest in the grandparent visitation problems, and we will travel to any
State to meet with grandparent groups. Hawaii and Alaska are excluded until a
larger number of grandparents contact us from those States.
This year we have met with grandparents in the States of Washington, Texas, Ne-
braska, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Vermont, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.
Because of the broad media coverage of the December 16, 1982, hearing that Con-
gressman Mario Biaggi held in Washington, D.C., a "Donahue" program that was
shown in January, and an article written by Dr. Arthur Kornhaber that appeared
in the February issue of the "Readers Digest," we have received over 3,500 pieces of
mail plus many telephone calls requesting information from all of the fifty States
and Washington, D.C. Mail and telephone requests have also been received from Al-
berta, British Columbia, Ontario and Saskatchewan, Canada, and from Austria,
Great Britain, Puerto Rico and Venezuela.
We have appeared on two "Donahue" programs, on the "CBS Evening News" and
on television and radio programs in Michigan, Washington, Nebraska, Kentucky
72
and Vermont. Many newspaper reporters and free lance writers have interviewed
us in person or by telephone.
Almost one thousand people have requested to be placed on our mailing list. Not
only grandparents have written to us. Many young parents have written to ask how
they can prevent their parents from being denied the right to see their children if
something should happen to them. Children in elementary grades, who are forced to
live with step-parents who abuse them, have written that they want to live with
their grandparents.
Ministers, family doctors, lawyers, legislators, social workers, psychiatrists, soci-
ologists, psychologists and teachers have written expressing their concerns about
this growing social problem.
In 1978, there were twenty-two States that had some form of a law to protect the
visitation rights of grandparents. Today there are forty-seven States that have visi-
tation laws ranging from good to very limited. Nineteen States are in the process of
amending their present laws. Nebraska, Vermont and Wyoming plan to introduce
visitation bills in 1984.
A National Code is vital to assure grandparents reciprocity in the court system.
The parents of our grandchildren inform us that if we make "waves", they will
move to another State. (Our grandson was moved to Virginia, and now he lives in
Vermont where there is no visitation law). Too many grandparents do not have the
economical means to travel and to pursue court action in any state except their
own.
It is estimated there are at least ten more denied grandparents who have not
written to us for every one that has. They are afraid to talk to others about their
problems because of shame, fear of not realizing that someone might to able to help
them. Talking with others who share a similar problem helps to relieve the terrible
pain that they bear in silence. It is easier to accept death of a loved one than it is to
cope with not being able to see a grandchild that you love dearly, and to know that
he loves you and wants to see or hear from you as badly.
A fundamental precept that must be considered is that the children of this coun-
try do not belong to any political party, and their rights must be raised from the
political arena to a humane level for the preservation of our society.
Grandparents— Children's Rights Inc., Haslett, Mich., August 1983
This compilation indicates the categories that grandparents may petition their
state courts for visitation rights otherwise denied them by members of their imme-
diate family or others:
1. Reasonable visitation rights of any maternal or paternal grandparents —
Connecticut* Idaho
Delaware North Dakota*
2. The court has jurisdiction to grant visitation rights to grandparents or anyone
else when it deems such rights appropriate —
Hawaii South Carolina*
Nevada* Virginia
Ohio Washington
3. Visitation rights of grandparents involved with death, divorce, or custody-
Alabama Mississippi*
Alaska Missouri*
Arizona* Montana*
Arkansas* New Hampshire
California* New Jersey*
Colorado New Mexico
Florida North Carolina*
Georgia Oklahoma*
Illinois Oregon
Iowa Pennsylvania
Indiana* Rhode Island
Kansas South Dakota
Kentucky Tennessee*
Louisiana Texas
Maine* Utah
Maryland West Virginia*
Massachusetts Wisconsin
Michigan New York*
Minnesota*
73
4. No laws —
Nebraska Wyoming
Vermont Washington, D.C.
* States that have pending legislation to improve their laws.
Write to: for a copy of the law concerning visitation rights
[Revised copy. All others obsolete.]
[From the Kingsport, (Term.) Times News, July 29, 1981]
Baby Boom Casualties
(By Al Rossiter)
The children of the post-war baby boom have come of age and health authorities
report the increase in young adults in the United States is accompanied by a new
generation of severely mentally ill young people.
This new generation of mentally ill has been described as a rootless, unemployed
class who use alcohol and other drugs heavily ans who strongly resist help,
Many of them have never seen the inside of a mental hospital and are more likely
to call themselves social casualties than victims of mental illnesses or personality
disorders, according to Dr. Bert Pepper, director of the Rockland County (N.Y.) Com-
munity Mental Health Center.
He said these patients in their 20s and 30s have a variety of diagnoses but share
many of the same problems— their vulnerability to stress, their difficulty in making
stable relationships, their inability to get and keep something good in their lives
and their repeated failures of judgment.
"Most have been able to make only transient, unstable, unsatisfactory relation-
ship with people their own age," Pepper wrote in the current issue of Hospital &
Community Psychiatry. "Their friends and lovers are often other marginally func-
tional people with equally uneven life courses and dubious prognosis."
Pepper, who also is professor of psychiatry at New York University School of
Medicine, said since many of these mentally ill young people do not view themselves
as patients, they are reluctant to acknowledge a need for treatment.
He said they are just as likely to blame mental health professionals for their
problems as they are to turn to them for help.
Pepper said a review of 900 patients seen in a three-month period last year at the
Rockland County center indicated that 294 were members of a group called chronic
young adult patients. Fifty-seven percent were diagnosed as schizophrenic and 7 per-
cent were manic depressive. The others had personality or behavior disorders, neu-
roses, drug or alcohol dependence and other disorders.
"We estimate that for every dysfunctional young adult we see, there are two to 10
in the community who never arrive at our doorstep but are hidden in dysfunctional
families or in jails, or wander unnoticed on city streets," Pepper said.
Of those who are seen in mental health centers, he said few show marked im-
provement.
"Instead they become, individual and collectively, our albatross. They are func-
tioning persons only in the marginal sense. They manage their lives tenuously at
best and disastrously at worst."
Comment.— Many of the parents who deny visitation rights to the grandparents of
their children belong to "This new generation."
Senator East. Thank you, Mr. Sumpter, for an excellent state-
ment, and again I thank you for conforming to our time con-
straints.
I would like to turn now, please, to Mrs. Roberta Teverbaugh
from Richland, Wash.
Mrs. Teverbaugh, we are delighted to have you with us here this
morning, and if you would proceed, please.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA TEVERBAUGH
Mrs. Teverbaugh. Thank you very much. I am happy to be here
today.
74
Senator East, I wish to commend the committee individually for
the insight and compassion shown in recognizing the importance of
the family in our society, and for the opportunity to air this nation-
al problem of the severance of grandchildren from grandparents, so
that together we may strive toward a solution.
I also wish to publicly thank Lee and Lucille Sumpter who have
become my close personal friends for their dedication to the grand-
parent visitation movement for which they have been so instru-
mental. Their guiding light of strength and assurance has been
irreplaceable. My deepfelt gratitude is extended to them.
My request for grandparent visitation has been my first experi-
ence with the court system of our State of Washington, and I have
been personal witness to the glaring deficiencies and inadequacies
of both our laws and the court system of our State. I have found
unethical counsel can be retained; I have found bias and opiniona-
tion; I have discovered that a court ruling can be defied; I have dis-
covered that "in the best interests of the child" can be bent like a
willow in the wind; I have discovered that individuals instrumental
in our court system in the State of Washington are literally grop-
ing in the dark as to interpretation of procedure regarding grand-
parent visitation; and I have discovered, most importantly, the det-
rimental harm done to children as the end result.
I had always believed that when a problem existed, there was a
system of justice in the laws of our land. I now question that con-
viction.
With others we may sympathize from afar, but when the same
problem eats away like a cancer at the very heart of our own
family, we question, we are appalled, we become angry, and we get
involved.
In the interests of brevity, I wish to take the time before you this
morning to point out the facts of our own personal case for the last
nearly 3 years in the State of Washington, confirmed from the offi-
cial court document pages which have led to my conclusions.
Fact No. 1, the inadequacy of the grandparent visitation law. In
our State of Washington the statute reads "Any person may peti-
tion the court for visitation with a child if such visitation is in the
best interests of that child." The judgment in our case came down,
and I quote: "Now, it seems to the court that the statute itself
might be broad enough to cover grandparents in a proper situation.
26.90.240 does use the word 'person,' 'any person.' The case law is
not as definitive as it might be."
Our request for grandparent visitation was denied.
Fact No. 2, the illegal adoption of our grandson. Our grandson
was adopted by his second stepfather without the approval of the
natural father, our son. After a 2-day trial, the ruling of the court
was this: one, parental rights were restored to the natural father
because the court felt that there had been a design on the part of
the custodial parent, the mother, to cut the father off from his pa-
ternity; and, two, that there was a deliberate attempt on her part,
through counsel or otherwise, to assure the father did not know
about the adoption proceeding before the court. It was devious.
Fact No. 3, the detrimental harm to children. When our son and
all the multiple extension of our large family were allowed to see
our grandson, he was a well-adjusted, happy, extroverted, sensitive,
75
and loving little boy. Nearly 3 years later, at the tender age of 7,
he has learned to hate; he has very firmly and very verbally called
his father rotten, has added "My family is very upset with what
you are doing, plus somebody else is bugging my family, and
think you know who they are." And he has concluded with: "I
want you just to leave me alone."
We have had to stand by helplessly watching a small boy, who
was once very demonstrative of his love for all of us, take on a re-
bellious, angry, and hostile personality.
Child abuse of this nature is a learned tool brought about by the
animosity and bitterness of adults through a constant negative at-
mosphere.
As grandparents, we do not wish to undermine the rights of the
natural parents to make decisions of importance in the lives of
their young children. We want only to share a portion of their time
and their hearts. We all, young and old alike, have a basic need to
love 'and be loved, to care and to share, to be comforted and to com-
fort, to understand and to be understood, to listen and to speak out,
to belong and to grow in the security and strength of family.
Is this really too much to ask?
Fact No. 4, the need for national legislation. Individual States
should solve the problems of citizens within their boundaries, but
the fact is clear: States are hesitant to even address the issue,
much less strive for a solution. There exists a vital need for the
Federal Government to be a liaison of assistance. The price tag is
not high. The criterion simply one of compassion and understand-
ing. Laws do not even exist in several States in our country for the
protection of the vital grandparent-grandchild bond. Where laws do
exist, they have proven to be inadequate and deficient.
With the accelerating rate of divorce in our country at the
present time, the problem will not improve; it will only compound.
How can we expect countries to solve problems of a vast scope
when we choose as a nation to allow the continuing dissolution of
the stronghold of our great nation, the family. The severance of
family lies in wait in every household of our country, and we are
all potential victims. Think about it.
Thank you.
[The following was received for the record:]
76
Prepared Statement of Roberta Tevtbaugh
SUMMARY
Senator Fast and members of the Committee:
I wish to commend the committee individually for t he insight and compassion shown
in recognizing tin importance ol I lie family in our society and fur the opportunity
to air the national problem of the severance of grandchildren from grandparents
so that together we might strive toward a solution. I also wish to publicly thank
lee and Lucile Sumpter, who have become my close personal friends, for their ded-
ication to the grandparent visitation movement for which they have been so instru-
mental. Their guiding light of strength and assurance has been irreplaceable. My
deepfelt gratitude is extended to them.
My request for grandparent visitation has been my first experience with the court
\ tern of our State of Washington and 1 have been personal witness to the glaring
deficiencies and inadequacies of both our laws and the court system of our state.
I have found unethical counsel can he retained; I have found bias and opinionat ion;
I have discovered that a court ruling can be defied; 1 have discovered that "in the
best interests of the child" can be bent like a willow in the wind; I have discov-
ered that individuals instrumental in our court system in the State of Washington
are literally "groping in the dark" as to interpretation of procedure regarding
grandparent visitation; and I have discovered most importantly the detrimental
harm dene to children as the end result. 1 had always believed that, when a proh-
existed, there was a system of justice in the laws of our land. I now question
that conviction. With others we may sympathize from afar, but when the same prob-
its awav like a cancer at the very heart ol our own family, we question, we
are appalled, we become angry, and we get involved!
In tin- interests o! brevity I wisli to take thi I imi before you this morning to
t out the facts of our own personal case for the last nearly three years in
the State of Washington, which 1 have confirmed I rem the official court document
, which have led to n Lusions:
1: THE INADEQUACY OF THE GRANDPARENT VISITATION LAW
in our State of Washington the statute reads: "any person may petition the court
visitation with a child if such visitation is in the best interests of that
." The judgement in our case came down, and I quote: "Now, it seems to the
tat ute itself MIGHT be broad enough to cover grandparents in a
'1.90.240 does use the word person, any person. The case law
is I nitlve as it might he." Our request for grandparent visitation was
denied .
II ON OK PIT,
id son was adopted by his second stepfather without the approval of the natural
lather, our son. After a two-day trial the ruling ol the court was this: I) par-
ental rights tored to the natural latin i because the court felt there had
sign on the part of the custodial parent, the mother, to rut the father
from bis paternity; 2) that there was a deliberate attempt on her part, through
counsel or otherwise, to assure the father did not know about the adoption pro-
ling before the court - it was devious.
HARM TO CHILDREN
When our son and all the multiple extension of our large family were allowed to see
our grandson he was a well-adjusted, happy, extroverted, sensitive and loving little
learly three years later, at the tender age of seven, he has learned to hate.
Ik' has vet v firmly and very verbally called his lather "rotten", has addt. I "my
family is very upset with what you are doing", plus "somebody else Is bugging my
family and T think you know who they are", and concluded with "I want you to just
leave me alone." We have had to stand by helplessly watching a small boy, who was
once very demonstrative of his love for all of us, take on a rebellious, angry
and hostile personality. Child abuse of this nature is a learned tool brought
about by the animosity and bitterness of adults through a constant negative atmos-
phere. As grandparents we do not wish to undermine the rights of the natural
parents to make decisions of importance in the lives of their young children.
We want only to share a portion of their time and their hearts. We all, young
77
and old alike, have a basic need to love and be loved.... to care and to share...
to be comforted and to comfort .... to understand and be understood .... to listen
and to speak out.... to belong and to grow in the security and strength of family.
Is this too much to ask?
FACT NO. A: THE NEED FOR NATIONAL LEGISLATION
Individual states should solve the problems of citizens within their boundaries
but the fact is clear states are hesitant to even address the issue, much less
strive for a solution. There exists a vital need for the federal government to
be a liaison of assistance. The price tag is not high; the criteria simply one
of compassion and understanding. Laws do not even exist in eight of the states
in our country for the protection of the vital grandparent /grandchild bond. Where
laws do exist they have proven to be inadequate and deficient. With the excelling
rate of divorce in our country at the present time the problem will not improve -
it will only compound. How can we expect countries to solve problems of a vast
scope when we choose as a nation to allow the continuing dissolution of the strong-
hold of our great nation - the family? The severance of family lies in wait in
every household of our country and we arc all potential victims. Think about it.
STATEMENT
My request Tor grandparent visitation h.-is been my I i rst experience with the court
system of our State of Washington and T have been personal witness to glaring def-
iciencies and inadequacies ol both our laws uiid Ihe court system of our state. I
have found unethical counsel ran he retained; I have I mind bias and opin ionation;
1 have discovered that .1 court nil in;' can he defied; I have discovered that "in the
best interests of the child" ran bo bent like n willow in the wind; I have discov-
ered that individuals instrumental in our court system in the State of Washington
are literally "groping in the dark" as to interpretation oT procedure regarding
grandparent visitation; and T have discovered mosi importantly the detrimental
harm done to children as the end result. 1 had always believed that, when a prob-
lem existed, there was a system of justice in the laws of our land. T now question
that conviction. With others we may sympathize from afar, but when the same prob-
lem eats away like a cancer at the very heart of our own family, we question, we
are appalled, we become angry, and we get involved!
I wish to take the time before you this morning to point out the facts of our own
personal case for the last nearly three years in the State of Washington, which I
have confirmed from the official court document pages, which have led to my con-
clusions:
FACT NO. 1: THE INADEQUACY OF THE GRANDPARENT VISITATION LAW
Tn our State of Washington the statute reads: "any person may petition the court
lor visitation with a child it such visitation is in the best interest oT that
child." The word any is described in Webster's dictionary as meaning one, or some,
or no matter which, or every. Yet the judgement in our case came down, and I quote:
"Nov, it seems to the Court that the statute itself MIGHT be broad enough to cover
grandparents in a proper situation. 26.90.240 does use the word person, any person.
The case law is not as definitive as it might he." Isn't a grandfather a person?
isn't a grandmother a person? Aren't grandparents collectively people? One would
think so, but the interpretation of the law in our state does not reflect that well-
known theory. Attorneys have told grandparents in the State of Washington that the
"teeth" have been taken out of Ihe grandparent visitation law by one rase whirh
was denied at the Supreme Court level. Does this now mean that deserving grand-
parents throughout our state will henceforth he denied the opportunity for a hearing?
One might think so.
In our initial request to an attorney for grandparent visitation the following answer
was received: "1 researched your question. Without a showing of abuse or neglect,
grandparents do not have visitation or custodial rights to children. Sorry." F.ven
with an existing law grandparents of our state are being put in the position of
need to prove the existence of a negative family situation in the lives of their
grandchildren to be able to share in their lives rather than the opportunity to
promote a positive strive toward family unity.
I spoke at length with Ruth Robinson who was instrumental in the passage of our
existing state law in a special session of the legislature in 1977. The advice of
29-€10 O— 84-
78
her attorney at that time was to utilize the words any person so that anyone who
was a strong force in the life of a child - be it aunt, cousin, neighbor, friend,
parent or grandparent - could petition the court for visitation. One would think
the word any would cover a broad spectrum but the interpretation of the law is not
such .
House Bill No. 1049, the legislation for Grandparent Visitation Rights, was intro-
duced in our State of Washington ;it the 1982 1 i-j» f slat i ve session. Ttie bill was
lost in the Law & Justice Committee due to more pressing legislation. During the
1983 legislative session the Grandparents Visitation Rights legislation was re-
introduced as House Bill No. 86. The bill was withdrawn by the sponsor, Represent-
ative Dunne T.. Kaiser, for re-writing. T quote from his letter to me his reasoning
behind his action: "When I agreed to sponsor HB 86 I was of the firm belief that
many good grandparents were being denied the opportunity to visit and love their
grandchildren and I'm still of that belief. I received so many letters with so
much "hate" in them from people opposing HB 86 that I reluctantly decided to aban-
don those loving .uid deserving grandparents who would so much like to share with
their grandchildren. Thus, I asked that the bill not be run during the past
session." This is the type of so-called "help" we have in our State of Washington.
FACT NO. 2: THE ILLEGAL ADOPTION OF OUR GRANDSON
While action was pending before the court for our second hearing concerning grand-
parent visitation we learned through our counsel that our grandson had been adopted
by his second stepfather without the approval of the natural father, our son. Immed-
iately our son requested a hearing on the adoption before the judge who had signed
his approval to the legal papers. The mother was not present at the hearing; she
was represented by counsel. As my husband, son, and I sat in the chambers we felt
pre-judged as to both our individual characters and our motives for the request of
a hearing on the matter. Our son, who was barely allowed to speak up, was told by
the judge "the only reason you are here is because your parents are pushing you
into it", and "you have a long uphill battle to prove your side." The judge was
right on one count. We are now over a year into that "uphill battle" and have
discovered there is a stone wall at the top! At the conclusion of the hearing the
judge did vacate the adoption, albeit most reluctantly. When our son asked to
reinstate his visitation privileges as laid down by the divorce decree the judge
remarked that he could wait "until everything was settled." We have since been in
and out of court and through counseling and nothing has been settled. Our family
went through a two-day trial which was two-fold: to restore the parental rights
of our son and to request grandparent visitation - the two issues being "lumped
together" due to an overloaded court docket. During the course of the trial our
former daughter-in-law's attorney admitted under oath that the correspondence
regarding an adoption hearing would never have been sent to our son until after
the thirty days had passed and his parental rights had been forever relinquished.
It came to light that the only reason our attorney was told of the adoption was
due to the action pending before the court for grandparent visitation. Quite by
accident, and most fortunately within the thirty day time frame, the truth surfaced.
One would think the precious bond of parent and child would be judged in higher
esteem than to fall prey to the inadequacies of the law and the unethical practices
of counsel. One would think so.
The ruling of the court at the conclusion of our trial was this: 1) parental
rights were restored to the natural father because the court felt there had been
a design on the part of the custodial parent, the mother, to cut the father off
from his paternity; 2) that there was a deliberate attempt on her part, through
. n'insel or otherwise, to assure the father did not know about the adoption pro-
ceeding before the court - it was devious; and 3) grandparent visitation was
denied because the law in the State of Washington was not as definitive as it might
be.
FACT NO. 3: THE DETRIMENTAL HARM TO CHILDREN
The most important issue we have before us is not a partisan issue - it is a human
issue - one to restore basic needs of people - and most especially the children.
Biological ties are the cement of our family unit which, in turn, is the cement
which holds together the very strength of our country. To deny these biological
ties crumbles the very underpinnings of our society. Our story is not the unusual
one, rather it is bland in comparison to others related before me. The pattern
is one of the same thread of pain and void that runs through the intricate design
of our lives. When our son and all the multiple extension of our large family
were allowed to see our grandson he was a well-adjusted, happy, extroverted,
sensitive and loving little boy. Nearly three years later, at the tender age of
seven, he has learned to hate. He has very firmly and very verbally called his
79
father "rotLon", lias added "my family is very upsel willi wliaL you are doing",
plus "somebody else is bugging my family and [ think you know who they are", and
concluded with "I want you lo just leave roe alone." We have had to stand by
helplessly watching a small boy, who was once very demonstrative of his love for
all of us, take on a rebellious, angry and hostile personality. If emotional
child abuse caused by a constant negative learned situation is the order of the
day, our society is not strong enough to tolerate it. Our country will fall into
ruin from inside it's own boundaries without a shot being fired! Our issue is not
"do parents have rights?" or "do grandparents have rights?" but rather "do children
have rights?" Do parents have a right to cut children off from families just because
thev want to cut themselves off? Is this really in the best interests of the child?
T would think not. As adults we do not give children enough credit for their wisdom.
They know when love offered is sincere beyond all boundaries; they know when they
are being treated Tairlv and with kindness and compassion; they know who cares and
who doesn't really care; they know who treats them as they should be treated; and
they know who abuse them. The children should have the opportunity to love and be
loved by people of their own choosing, not taught animosity and disapproval of a
family as a carryover of adult bitterness. As grandparents we do not wish to
undermine the rights of the natural parents to make decisions of importance in the
lives of their young children. We want only to share a portion of their time and
their hearts. We all, young and old alike, have a basic need to love and be loved.,
to care and to share... to be comforted and to comfort... to understand and be under-
stood to listen and to speak out.... to belong and to grow in the security and
strength of family. Is this too much to ask?
FACT NO. A: THE NEED FOR NATIONAL LEGISLATION
1 deeply feel the urgency to preserve the bond oT family unity. Individual states
should solve the problems of citizens within their boundaries but the fact is clear
states are hesitant to even address the issue, much less strive for a solution.
There exists a vital need for the federal government to be a liaison of assistance.
As the head of a family we set down guidelines we oblige the members of that same
unit to respect. They are not binding laws - they are merely guidelines - and,
when adhered to by the members, create happiness and contentment and promote lasting
benefit for all. On a much greater scale, as men of high stature in the governing
body of our country, you are being called upon to be the preservers of our society
bv strengthening the American family and millions of people could be the recipients
of the blessings of your action. The price tai: is not high; the criteria simply
one of compassion and understanding. Laws do not even exist in eight of the states
of our country for the protection of the vital grandparent/grandchild bond. Where
laws do exist they have proven to be inadequate and deficient. With the excelling
rate of divorce in our country at the present time the problem will not improve -
it will only compound. How can we expect countries to solve problems of a vast
scope when we choose as a nation to allow the continuing dissolution of the strong-
hold of our great nation - the family? The severance of family lies in wait in
every household of our country and we are all potential victims. Think about it.
Our family has spent nearly three years of complete heartbreak and frustra-
tion working through the court system of the State of Washington to have our
grandson reunited in our lives. Our son and his wife were divorced in Feb-
ruary of 1980, and, even though our former daughter-in-law hastily remarried,
we all remained an integral part of our grandson's life. Our son moved to
California and the extended family remained in contact. Grandually, at the
beginning, and then, as a result of a second divorce and hasty remarriage,
we were suddenly completely severed. Our former daughter-in-law went into
virtual hiding in our own town with what seemed like an army of people to
"protect" her from the loving family we had once been in her life and the
life of our grandson. As grandparents, we retained an attorney to seek
visitation privileges; we were told that, even though the State of Washington
has a law which allows any person to petition the court for visitation, we
could do nothing unless we chose to prove child abuse or neglect. A conflict
of interest led us to seek a second attorney and another request was made
for visitation privileges. Before we had our second hearing in court we
learned through counsel our grandson had been adopted by his second step-
father. Our son had no knowledge of an adoption request; his former wife
had access through her counsel of his address and telephone number. Our son
immediately returned to the State of Washington to request the adoption
vacated; the judge, albeit most reluctantly, declared the adoption void. By
court order our son's visitation privileges were denied until "everything
was settled." Our entire family went through a court trial which was two
fold: to restore our son's parental rights and to seek grandparent visit-
ation privileges. The court ruled the adoption remain void; grandparent
visitation was denied except through our son. During the trial our former
80
daughter-in-law's attorney, as witness in her behalf, admitted under oath
the devious way in which the adoption had been granted through our court
system. Counseling was ordered by the court for all parties; our former
daughter-in-law and her family refused to counsel as it was intended. The
court made a second ruling for counseling between our son and grandson only.
At the initial session our grandson was frightened and anxious; the second
counseling session was more positive. Our former daughter-in-law then
suffered a miscarriage and the third session proved disastrous. Our grandson
called his father "rotten", added that "my family is very upset with what you
are doing", "somebody else is bugging my family and I think you know who they
are", and concluded with "I want you to just leave me alone." Recommendations
of the counselor have now been sent to court that no visits occur between our
son and grandson for a period of one year, although correspondence and periodic
phone calls are encouraged; that the last name of our grandson be legally
changed to that of his psychological father to allow an identity to be estab-
lished; and the adoption proceedings remain set aside in order to "keep the
door open" for our son and grandson to re-establish a relationship at some
time in the future free of legal entanglements when our grandson develops a
desire and sufficient comfort level to be inquisitive about the meaning of
"natural father." Since grandparent visitations were ruled by the court to
be contingent on our son's reunion with our grandson, we have, as in the
beginning, no visitation privileges. By judgement of the court we won; by
the circumstances of life we all lost. At this point in time we know not
whether the judge will agree with the recommendations of the counselor or set
down a completely different set of rules for all to honor. After such a long
and painful family effort to restore our biological ties we are, in the real
sense, nowhere.
THE TEVERBAUGH CASE:
Our case was tried in the Superior Court, State of Washington, bufore the Honor-
able Richard G. Patrick on September 17 & 20, 1982. The question before the
Court was of a two-fold nature: 1) a request to vacate an adoption previously
granted by the Superior Court; and 2) a request for grandparent visitation.
Judgement on the two-fold issue was handed down by the Honorable Richard C.
Patrick as follows:
ADOPTION:
The Court did not feel abandonment or desertion on the part of the father had
been proven. The Court felt there was a design on the part of the custodial
parent, the mother, to cut the father off from his paternity. The mother also
wanted to cut herself from all contact with the paternal grandparents. The
Court judged the manner in which the custodial parent pursued the adoption was
devious; there was a deliberate attempt on her part, through counsel or other-
wise, to assure the father did not know about the adoption proceeding before
the Court.
Remarks: Our son learned of the adoption of his son by the stepfather only
because an action was pending before the court for grandparent
visitation. The attorney for the custodial parent admitted under
oath during the court proceedings that the correspondence regard-
ing an adoption hearing would never have been sent until after
the thirty days had passed and the rights of the natural father
had been forever relinquished.
♦(Reference: Page 177, TOM HEYE - DIRECT; Pages 5, 7, 8: DECISION)"
j
GRANDPARENT VISITATION:
The Court felt that the statute itself MIGHT be broad enough to cover grand-
parents in a proper situation since It does use the word "person" - any person.
However, the Court felt the case law not definitive as it might be. The Court
felt, as is the prime consideration in all Issues of this nature, that the
test is what is best for the child in this kind of a situation. Grandparent
visitation was denied by the Court in the final judgement due to the feelings
of animosity on the part of the custodial parent. The Court felt, in the best
_ interests of the child, there was a need for "healing time" between the cust-
odial parent and the paternal grandparents.
Remarks: Statute 26.90.240 in the State of Washington allows a person - any
person - to petition the courts for visitation privileges if visit-
ation is in the best interests of the child. The statute does not
specifically mention the word "grandparent", however, and misinter-
pretation of the law is denying privileges to deserving people.
81
The law needs to be more definitive. Grandparents have a desire to
be treated in a higher elevation of importance than the next door
neighbor or any person off the street in seeking the right to peti-
tion the Court for visitation privileges. By insertion of the word
grandparent the bond of biological ties could be appropriately recog-
nized.
*(Reference: Page 9, Judgement of the Honorable Richard G. Patrick,
Superior Court Judge, Verbatim Report of Proceedings, Case No.
81-5-00094-9)
Grandparents are put in the position of need to prove the existence
of a negative family situation in the lives of their grandchildren
rather than the opportunity to promote a positive strive toward
family unity.
*(Reference: Letter from Lawless & Armstrong, Attorneys at Law)
THE ISSUE OF GRANDPARENT VISITATION: State of Washington *
History:
House Bill No. 1049, the legislation for Grandparent Visitation Rights,
was introduced in our State of Washington at the 1982 legislative session.
The bill was lost in the Law & Justice Committee due to more pressing
legislation.
During the 1983 legislative session the Grandparents Visitation Rights
legislation was re-introduced as House Bill No. 86. The bill was with-
drawn by the sponsor, Representative Duane L. Kaiser, for re-writing.
Remarks :
Representative Duane L. Kaiser agreed to sponsor House Bill No, 86,
Grandparents Visitation Rights, at the 1983 session of the state legis-
lature. On March 13, 1983 Representative Kaiser appeared on a Seattle
K0M0-TV program entitled "Town Meeting" to air the issue of the sever-
ance of grandparents from grandchildren. Included as participants in
the program were young parents led by Janice Gunnell, founder of
Parent's/Children's Rights, and grandparents from the State of Washing-
ton led by Lee and Lucile Sumpter, founders of Grandparents/Children's
Rights. During the public airing of the program, Representative Kaiser
announced to all in attendance that he had withdrawn his sponsorship of
House Bill No. 86 for re-writing.
Public reaction to the "Town Meeting" program was overwhelmingly in favor
of the grandparents.
Enclosed is a copy of the letter of explanation Rerpresentative Kaiser
gave for his withdrawal of sponsorship of House Bill No. 86 in which he
states: "I received so many letters with so much "hate" in them from
people opposing HB 86 that I reluctantly decided to abandon those loving
and deserving grandparents who would so much like to share with their
grandchildren. Thus, I asked that the bill not be run during the past
session." A copy of my response to Representative Kaiser is also included.*
The remarks of Representative Kaiser are included in my testimony to allow
legislators on the national level to become fully aware that the indiv-
idual states are not willing to even address the issue of grandparent
visitation, much less attempt an avenue of correction.
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST: Grandparent Visitation Rights*
MONTANA:
Section 40-9-102: "Grandparent visitation rights. (1) Except as provided in
82
subsection (5), the district court may grant to a grandparent of a child
reasonable visitation rights.
(2) Visitation rights granted under this section may be granted only upon a
finding by the court, after a hearing, that the visitation would be in the
best interest of the child.
(3) No person may petition the court under this section more often than once
every 2 years unless there has been a significant change in the circumstances
of the child; the child's parent, guardian, or custodian; or the child's
grandparent.
(4) The court may appoint an attorney to represent the interests of a child
with respect to visitation when such interests are not adequately represented
by the parties to the proceeding.
(5) This section does not apply if the child has been adopted by a person other
than a stepparent or a grandparent. Visitation rights granted under this
section terminate upon the adoption of the child by a person other than a
stepparent or a grandparent."
IDAHO:
Section 32-1008. Right of grandparents to visitation - When a grandparent or
grandparents have established a substantial relationship with a minor child,
the district court may, upon a proper showing, grant reasonable visitation
rights to said grandparent or grandparents.
OREGON;
Section 109/121 Procedure whereby grandparents may establish visitation rights
with grandchildren. (1) (a) When a parent dies leaving a minor child in the
custody of the surviving parent, the grandparents of the minor child, if they
are the parents of the deceased individual, may petition the circuit court for
the county in which the minor child resides for an order providing for visit-
ation rights of the grandparents.
(b) After the commencement of a domestic relations suit, as defined in ORS
107.510, or a proceeding under ORS 108.110, 109.100, 109.103, 109.125 or
419.513, and before a decree or final order therein, any grandparent of a
minor child of the party or parties may petition the court in which the suit
is filed for an order providing for visitation rights of the grandparent.
(c) After a decree or final order is entered in any proceeding referred to in
paragraph (b) of this subsection, a grandparent, who is not a parent of the
custodial parent of a minor child, may under ORS 107.135 or 109.165 petition
the court which granted the decree or final order for an order altering or
modifying so much of the decree or final order as may provide for the grand-
parent's visitation rights with respect to that minor child or for an order
providing for such visitation rights.
♦References referred to follow.
83
*,- »
;'' '
:i
rences
run and she wouldn't be able to intervene in this matter,
because we had -- and had the hearing not been set for
June 23rd on the grandparents ■ visitation rights, this
letter never would have been sent unti 1 after the 30 days
had passed, because what 1 expected would happen actually
did happen, and that is that once Mrs. Teverbaugh found out
that the adoption had gone tl- "Ough and that her son had
1 1 allowed this to happen, she got on the phone right away,
|1 from what I understand, and all of a sudden now Mr.
$ Teverbaugh, Wayne, is claiming that lie never knew anything
. - '
rjj! about anything. So that was why, you Know, this letter
was sent, because as far as I was concerned, the case of
grandparents' visitation rights was ,noot once the adoption
had gone through.
When did you find out or '.ear anything from Wayne i'everbaugh
about his reluctance or his opposition to the adoption?
First t^ino 1 hoard anything from hi.-i was when wo got an affi
davit from -- supplied by Mr. l-'lynn's office that, you
r know, this had all been done without any notice whats^./er
y ij to him and that we had t.ri<:d i_o hide this fact from him,
which wasn't tne case at all. Kad I been I ryinn to hide.
something, I would have definitely never have sent anything
by ordinary mail, and I would never have sent a rollow-UD
1 ', letter to put him on notice of what had happened. I
| wanted this to be absolutely or-cn, but I did not. want to
- 17 7 - TOM iliiYii - DIRECT
.1
Jll
84
lone is cnoucih to support an intentional abandonment, not when
you consider all the circumstances.
Next observation. Cheryl wanted to cut herself
•> ' off from all contact with Wayne or his parents. That's pretty
obvious. She obtained an unlisted telephone number to make it
,! i difficult to contact her in the usual vay. She did not make any
7 i acknowledgment of gifts from the grandparents or from Wayne.
8 ; The manner in which she pursued the deprivation proceeding and
" • the adoption proceeding and the timing indicate that she did
10 want to cut Wayne off from her life completely, and, of course,
11 she has the custody of his son.
1- Next observation. Cheryl asked to be left alone.
13 Now, she asked that of the Tevcrbauqhs, the elder Teverbaughs,
" and she asked that of Wayne. Now, in the process of complying
J5 with tnat, the isolation and the estrangement really continued
111 and broadened. Nov:, it shouldn't have been honored by the
J' father, certainly, at least not to the extent that it was honored,
but docs provide some justification for some of the events that
l!l
have happened.
"oxt, there wore ifts to Hick from the elder
Teverbaughs and fron Wayne on occasions such as birthdays,
Christmas, CO forth. The -lifts liad to go through an intermediary
Cheryl' 3 parents, the Lattas. Cheryl didn't receive those gifts,
I don't think, in the spirit in which they were given because
she really didn't want to have anything cominq from Wayne or from
3
85
rather be someplace else than he would here. And, of course,
his willingness to stay on to try to implement some relationship
is an expression of that concern. His tearing up of the notice
relative to the deprivation proceeding it; an indication of his
concern that he didn't want to be deprived of his paternity,
and, of course, that would be communicated to Cheryl. She knew
that. So these raise questions in the raind of the Court relative
to an intentional abandonment. These are things that don't
evidence an intentional abandonment.
Next, it seemu to the Court that Cheryl's conduct
in regard to the adoption is devious. It just seems to the Court
that the manner in which this has proceeded leaves something to
be desired, not because she doer.n't have a basis for feeling the.
way she does, but it seems to the Court that there was a deliber-
ate attempt on her part through counsel or otherwise to see that
Wayne didn't know about that adoption proceeding, and that doesn't
seem proper to me, especially in view of the fact that she knew
very well what his position was about the deprivation proceeding,
only a very short time earlier than that.
It seems to smi that, in fairness, she knew where
the elder Teverbaughc lived. She ;:new that they knew where
Wayne was. She know how to i;cL a hold of him if jho
really wanted to. I don't think she really wanted to, and I
think the record is indicative of that fact. It was easier for
her not to (k't a hold of Mi.-i, but I just don't thin': that is
,i
.'0
I>
!
:i !
I
10 !
i
» i
i
12 I
i:i
II
I-'i
Hi ;
is i
t
l!l ;
J' I
:'l
■I
■ •■1
■1
86
fair under the circumstances. There is no way for the Court
I to make a finding that Wayne had notice of that adoption pro-
ceeding. Publication in the Frosser Record Bulletin sure
1
doesn't do it. The return of registered letters sure doesn't do
.1
it, and the fact that some letters that were not registered were
returned certainly doesn't do it. He may have gotten some letter^,
but there would be no way for the Court to make that finding, and
it hasn't been proven.
It seems to me that the crowning blow was failure
to disclose to the Teverbaucrhs or to Wayne the facts of this
adoption proceeding when there was a visitation proceeding
that was pending. That just really doesn't seem at all proper
to me. It is devious. And withholding information that should,
in fairness, have been eorrjuunicated to the Teverbaughs and to
Wayne, that all hurts Cheryl's -.losition in this situation when
one looks at that whole picture.
Next observation. The time involved in this case
between these very important proceedings that have been taking
place is really pretty short. The first petition for deprivation
was only a few months after the divorce in 10130. '..'e're only talk-
ing about a year and a half fro:-; the divorce of these principle
parties until an adoption proceeding is filed, alleging abandon-
ment. The new carriage to Mr. :;e] ler is only four months old
1
' when this petition is filed for adoption. It seems to the Court
I
1 that things are just ;.iovin" too Fast to establish any contested
abandonment or desertion.
87
So on the basis of those observations, the Court
would conclude that the circumstances do not show a wilful
substantial lack of regard for parental obligations. The facts
do not show an intention on the part of Wayne Tcvcrbaugh to
permanently relinquish all claims Lo Mick.
Now, the thine; that the parties have to realize
if they don't already is that a proceeding like this i6 never
over. It can happen again. If V7ayne doesn't fulfill his
parental role, he may be back here again, faced with this kind of
'" proceeding. So it is never over, ind the parties should realize
ii i
that when it comes to the parental rights and custody, it is
never over. It is a continuing thing that goes on until that
child is of aqe.
All right, the next, issues is whether or not the
grandparents' petition for visitation rights with Mick should
be granted by the Court. Now, it seems to the Court that the
l
i
IT
statute, itself /mightjbe broad enough to cover grandparents in
a proper situation. 2C.90.240 does use the word person, any
person. The case law is not as definitive as it night be.
Obviously, it doesn't require any change of
circumstance under the lav: and, obviously, the test is the best
interests of the child in this kind of a situation. Even though
it may be proper under the lav.- r.nd even if it is proper under the
law for the Court to afford visitation rights to grandparents in
a situation of this kind, the- Court would not so order visitation
ijPfcGOHV J LAWLESS
JAN fl ARMSTRONG
TELEPHONE
(5031 943 4681
88
LAW OFFICES OF
Lawless & Armstrong
PARKWAY PLAZA. SUITE C
640 JADWIN AVENUF
RICHI AND WASHINGTON I!) Pi?
August 10, 1981
Ms. Roberta Teverbaugh
1867 Stevens Drive
Richland, Wa. 99336
Dear Ms. Teverbaugh:
I researched your question. Without a showing of
abuse or neglect, grandparents do not have visitation or
custodial rights to children.
Sorry,
Sincerely,
_£^
GD&§^r,£~J . XawTe s s\
Actovney
GJL/kb
89
tt«n Mmun>in(
OUANE L. KAISER
no cxsiraci
<907 1M1M 9T f
YACOMA. WA U«4B
»*S Ttl (KM) 63: U<t
Ol Y m coei rs) >»i;
W'.ishii^'o'i
I l( )l IS< ' ( )1
KcpirsrnUiIivrs
roHiv i m ii giw Ain
lUm H4
COMMiriFFS
AGJtiMJI ll/ttf '.M/.ll>
lOUMtHCE * PCONOMIC EH VII
t.TAir novniNhtfHi
June 13, 1983
Mr. & Mrs. Frank Teverh.iugh
1867 Stevens Drive
Richland, WA ')<)352
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Teverbnugh:
Now that Lhc session is over I wanted in lei yon know the
reason why nothing further developed wiili II i! 86, the
grandparents ' visitation rights bill. When 1 agreed to
sponsor IIB 86 I was of the firm belief I li.it many good
grandparents were being denied the opportunity to visit and
love their grandchildren .md I'm :.till of thai belief. I
received so many letters with so much "halo" in them from
people opposing 11B 86 that 1 reluctantly decided to abandon
those loving and deserving grandparents who would so much
like to share with their grandchildren. Thus, 1 asked that
the bill not be run during the past session.
A bill dealing with family court laws, Sllb 167, was amended
to delete references to "spouse" and replace with "party" (a
move. I assume would give grandparents inure rights); however,
the bill didn't make it out of House Rules Committee for
third reading by the end of session.
I appreciated all your letters this past y.-ar and hope that
in the future alternatives will be explored to remediate this
emotional issue.
Sincerely ,
DUANF. I.. KAISKR
State Representative
DLK:cr
90
.June IK, 1')K.'}
Duane L. Kaiser
State Representative
4802 180th Street E.
Tacoma, WA 98446
Subject: Grandparents Visitation Rights
Representative Kaiser:
I received your vaguely apologetic letter regarding
your withdrawn sponsorship of House Bill &C> , Grand-
parents Visitation Rights. I find your lino of
reasoning total ly unacceptable. To bow to letters
of "hatred" and reluctantly abandon an obligation in
which your beliefs are contradictory is not a decision
to be admitted with pride. The adults are the carriers
of the "hatred" yet it is the children who suffer.
I challenge you to research books written by noted
authorities in the area of child psychology and
personally determine if your decision was a wise one.
Sincerely ,
\
(Mrs.) Roberta J. Teverbaugh
1867 Stevens Drive
Richland, Washington 99352
/rjt
cc: Grandparents/Children's Rights, Inc.
(Lee and Lucile Sumpter)
Foundation for Grandparent ing
(Dr. Arthur Kornhaber)
Representative Mario Biaggi, New York
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Washington
Senator Slade Gorton, Washington
Ropresentat ive Sid Morrison
Representative Shirley Hankins
w/enclosure: Letter from Dunne I.. Kaiser
dated .June 13. H)H[\ .
91
IIOUSK 1)1 I.I. NO 86
State of Washington 48th Legislature 1983 Regular Session
by Roprosentat i vos Kaiser, Struthers. Armstrong, Fggcr. McMullen,
Halsan, Dickie. McClurc, Haugcn, Vckuh, I'isch. Monohon, Galloway,
Patrick, Gallagher, Johnson, Fbersole. Stratton, Burns, Hine,
Clayton, Zellinsky, Smi t herman , Isaacson. Martinis, Addison,
Crane, Miller. Hank ins. Todd, Smith. Wang, Tanner and Long
Read first time January 17, 1983 and referred to Committee on
Judiciary •
1 Crane. Miller. Hank ins, Todd and Smither AN ACT Relating to
2 grandparents' visitation rights: amending section 24, chapter 157.
3 Laws of 1973 1st ex. sess. as amended by section 1, chapter 271, Laws
4 of 1977 ex. sess. and RCW 26.09.240; and adding a new section to
5 chapter 11 .02 RCW.
6 BF IT KNACTKD BY THE LKGISLATURF OK THF STATK OF WASHINGTON:
7 Sec. 1. Section 24, chapter 157. Laws of 1973 1st ex. sess. as
8 amended by section 1, chapter 271, Laws of 1977 ex. sess. and RCW
9 26.09.240 are each amended to read as follows:
10 A parent not granted custody of the child is entitled to
11 reasonable visitation rights unless the court finds, after a hearing,
12 that visitation would endanger the child's physical, mental, or
13 emotional health. The court may order visitation rights for any
14 person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child
15 whether or not there has been any change of circumstances.
16 Any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any,'
17 t iine^ i nc I ud i ng , but not limited to. custody proceedings. Any
18 grandparent so petitioning the court shall be granted visitation
1 9 rights unl ess the court finds that such visitation would not be in
20 the best interest of the child.
21 The court may modify an order granting or denying visitation
22 rights whenever modification would serve the best interests of the
23 child, but the court shall not restrict a parent's visitation rights
2-1 unless it finds that I he visitation would endanger the child's
25 physical, mental, or emotional health.
26 NFW SKCTION. Sec. 2. There is added to chapter 11.02 RCW a new
27 section to read as follows:
28 Upon the death of the parent of a child. a grandparent of the
. I . HB 86
92
Sec. 2
1 child may at any time petition the court for visitation rights to the
2 child. A grandparent so petitioning the court shall be granted
3 visitation rights unless the court finds that such visitation would
4 not be in the best interest of the child.
HB 8b
93
AN ACT GENIALLY REVISING THE LAW ON GRANDPARENT VISITATION
RIGHTS; AMENDING SECTION 40-9-102, KCA.
Of. XT ENACTE9 BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF- MONTANA:
Section 1« Section 40-9-102, KCA, is amended to read:
M^p-9-102. Grandparent visitation riahts. (1) Wxropt as
ccQ\:ided_Ia-aubs.iictiQQ_i_5Xi_tb£ dLstnitl couti aox — ixani — to — a
i
cr.daduar.2Qt Qf-2-£bxld_i:£as^Qabl£_yi.5..LfcatiQP-riaD.fc3.»
(?) Visitation rights granted under this section may be
granted only uoon a finding oy the court, after a hearing, that
the visitation would be in the best interest of the child.
ill t>a-Qexaan_aax-Q^illflQ-J:ti£-£fl^rl-UQd£i_tLiis section more
Qi+;e.Q tbfin nni-p t-vry ? years _unless_lhprp has been_a sionificam.
cbaas£-iQ-£t£-c-i£CU!iis.laac.£S.-c£ *b£ cbildi +be — cbildis — uzlzoLx
cuatdJJiQx-Q£-custcQjLaQi-g£-lQ£-CDildl?i ecrmrioflreal*
jjxi me CQunt may aBQQiD-t ao aiiQiinex — to r,ep££S£Q£.lb£
inter, eats of a cnild tcitb E£Sfl£&t— ra y i s ttatiap — wb£Q — siitb
ioier.£St5. ins aot__ad£auai£ly r.si2£jas.2Qt£d-by t.hfi parties to tha
Cr.C£££diQQa.
iil I* j_S Section does QQi flficly. if tfl£ — CQild bdS Q££Q
aioatsd by. a person other than a steonarent-or a cranduarertli
yj^iiatica_ciaais_^aat£d-jma££.Jtbis_5ii£tJLaa tsxmiQats — uaao — tb£
arli^ii.iau Of tb£ Ubilfl* D^_£_E££SQQ_fllQ2£_tD^Q_a-5_t£aXiaX\£QjL_flil_a
ccao d aac£Q t*.M
STATE OF MONTANA
29-610 O— 84-
94
213
Grandparents' Visitation Statute— Idaho
PARENT AND CHILD 32-1008A
32-1007. Rights of parents over children.
Cited in: Pullman v. Klingenberg (1973).
95 Idaho 424, 510 P. 2d 488.
Analysis
Appointment of coguardians.
Burden of proving right to custody.
Parent may lose right.
Parent's right to custody of child.
Appointment of Coguardians.
The magistrate's order appointing the
grandparents coguardians of two minor chil-
dren was a binding adjudication that the best
interests of the minor children would be
served by the requested appointment. Revello
v. Revello. 100 Idaho 829. 606 P.2d 933 (1979).
Burden of Proving Right to Custody.
A father, seeking custody of his minor son
by writ of habeas corpus from the maternal
grandparents after the death of the mother,
sustained his burden of proof by showing that
he was the natural father of the child and i lie
burden was then upon the defendants to prove
that he was unfit or unable to properly care
for the child or that he had forfeited his ripht
by abandonment. Blankenship v. Brookshier,
91 Idaho 317. 420 P. 2d 800.
Parent May Lose Right.
A father who, after a divorce in which
custody of his children was given to his wife
and after the wife's remarriage and removal
to the state of Connecticut, failed to make sub-
stantial contribution to their support, to visit
them, or to make sufficient inquiry lo learn of
their whereabouts was not entitled to their
custody as against their step-father after the
death of their mother. Clark v. Jelinek, 90
Idaho 592, 414 P. 2d 892.
Parent's Right to Custody of Child.
If the parent is competent to transact his or
her own business, and is not otherwise
unsuitable, the custody of the child is not to be
given to another, even though such other may
be a more suitable person. Spaulding v. Chil-
dren^ Home Finding & Aid Soc, 89 Idaho 10,
402 P. 2d 52.
In normal situations, the natural parents
are entitled to custody of the child unless it is
affirmatively shown that the parent has
abandoned the child or that he is unsuitable.
Yearsley v Yearsley (1972), 94 Idaho 667. 496
P. 2d 666.
32-1008. Right of grandparents to visitation. — When a grandparent
or grandparents have established a substantial relationship with a minor
child, the district court may, upon a proper showing, grant reasonable
visitation rights to said grandparent or grandparents. 11 C, S 32-1008, as
added by 1972, ch 125, § 1, p. 249.1
32-10O8A. Responsibility of relatives to participate in the cost of
nursing home care. — (1) [Effective October 1, 19b3| When it is neces-
sary for a person to reside as a medicaid patient in a licensed skilled nursing
facility or licensed intermediate care facility as either is defined in section
39-1301, Idaho Code, such person's relatives as described in this section shall
be responsible to the extent of their ability to repay the department of health
and welfare for the cost of necessary medical or remedial care provided by
the facility. Each responsible relative of a medicaid recipient may be
required to pay not more than twenty-five percent (25*5) of the amount
which was paid for such patient under the medical assistance program pur-
suant to chapter 1, title 56, Idaho Code, but not more than one hundred
percent OOO'.v ) of the amount which was paid under the medical assistance
program shall be collected by the department from all responsible relatives
of a medicaid recipient.
(2) (Effective October 1, 19H3| Relatives responsible to participate in
the cost of skilled or intermediate facility care include spouses, natural and
adoptive children, or natural or adoptive parents when the patient is under
eighteen ( 18» years of age. or blind, or disabled as defined in section lfil-1i.il
of the social security act.
95
109.100
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
may grant the relief sought without the puta-
tive father's consent. [1975 c640 581
109.100 Petition for support. (1) Any
minor child or state agency on behalf of that
minor child may, in accordance with ORCP 27
A., apply to the circuit court in the county in
which the child resides, or in which the natu-
ral or adoptive father or mother of the child
may be found, for an order upon such child's
father or mother, or both, to provide for the
child's support. The minor child or state agen-
cy may apply for the order by filing in such
county a petition setting forth the facts and
circumstances relied upon for such order. If
satisfied that a just cause exists, the court
shall direct that the father or mother appear
at a time set by the court to show cause why
an order of support should not be entered in
the matter. If it appears to the satisfaction of
the court that such child is without funds to
employ counsel, the court may make an order
directing the district attorney to prepare such
petition and order to show cause.
(2) The provisions of ORS 108.110 (3),
108.120 and 108.130 shall apply to proceed-
ings under subsection (1) of this section. [1963
r497 52. 1975 c 458 514, 1979 c 90 52. 1979 c 284 §1001
109.103 Proceeding to determine
custody or support of child. If a child is
born out of wedlock and paternity has been
established, either parent may initiate a civil
proceeding to determine the custody or sup-
port of the child The proceeding shall be
brought in the circuit court of the county in
which the child resides or is found or in the
circuit court of the county in which either
parent resides. The parents shall have the
same rights and responsibilities regarding the
custcJy and support of their child that mar-
ried or divorced parents would have, and the
provisions of ORS 107.095 to 107 425 that
relate to the custody or support of children
shall be applicable to the proceeding 11975
c 54*) 59|
109.105 1 1969 c 461 51. renumbered 109 610]
109.110 (Amended by 1961 c 338 51. 1967 c 534 514.
rvp.ul.-d by 1969 c 619 515)
109.112 Mother, father or putative
father deemed to have attained majority.
The mother, father or putative father of a
child shall be deemed to have attained majori-
ty and. regardless of age, may give authoriza-
tions, releases or waivers, or enter into agree-
ments, in adoption, juvenile court, filiation or
other proceedings concerning the care or cus-
tody of the child. 11975 c 640 510]
109.1 15 1 1969 c 271 52: "numbered 109 6201
109.116 Validity of putative father's
authorization, release or waiver. Any au-
thorization, release or waiver given by the
putative father with reference to the custody
or adoption of the child or the termination of
parental rights shall be valid even if given
prior to the child's birth (1975 c640 jii)
109.118 Validity of decrees or orders
entered prior to July 3, 1975, concerning
custody, adoption or permanent commit-
ment of child. All decrees or orders hereto-
fore entered in any court of this state concern-
ing the custody, adoption or permanent com-
mitment of a child are hereby declared valid
upon the expiration of 30 days after July 3,
1975, notwithstanding that notice was not
given to the putative father of the child. 11975
c 640 §131
109. 120 [Repealed by 1969 c 619 515]
VISITATION RIGHTS OF
GRANDPARENTS
109.121 Procedure whereby grand-
parents may establish visitation rights
with grandchildren. (1) (a) When a parent
dies leaving a minor child in the custody of
the surviving parent, the grandparents of the
minor child, if they are the parents of the
deceased individual, may petition the circuit
court for the county in which the minor child
resides for an order providing for visitation
rights of the grandparents.
(b) After the commencement of a domestic
relations suit, as defined in ORS 107.510, or a
proceeding under ORS 108.110, 109.100,
109 .103, 109.125 or 419.513, and before a
decree or final order therein, any grandparent
of a minor child of the party or parties may
petition the court in which the suit is filed for
an order providing for visitation rights of the
grandparent.
(c) After a decree or final order is entered
in any proceeding referred to in paragraph (b)
of this subsection, a grandparent, who is not a
parent of the custodial parent of a minor
child, may under ORS 107 135 or 109.165
petition the court which granted the decree or
final order for an order altering or modifying
so much of the decree or final order as may
provide for the grandparent's visitation rights
with respect to that minor child or for an
order providing for such visitation rights
112*
SIATL OF OREGON
96
RIGHTS AND RELATIONSHIPS OF PARENT AND CHILD
109.124
However, a grandparent may petition a court
under this paragraph only when the grandpar-
ent did not file a petition under paragraph (b)
of this subsection or when there has been a
change in circumstances relating to the custo-
dial parent or the minor child such as is re-
quired to allow the court to reconsider the
provisions of the decree that provide for the
future custody, support and welfare of the
minor child.
(2) A petition filed with a court under
subsection (1) of this section shall state the
following:
(a) The names of the petitioners.
(b) The names, addresses and dates of
birth of all the minor children to whom the
petitioners seek visitation rights.
(c) The names and addresses of the par-
ents of the minor children
(d) When the petition is filed under para-
graph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the
name and date of death of the deceased parent
of the minor children
(e) When the petition is filed under para-
graph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section,
the relationship of the petitioners to the par-
ties in the proceeding.
(f) When the petition is filed under para-
graph (c) of subsection (I) of this section, if
the petitioner is asserting a change in circum-
stances as justification for the petition, the
facts constituting the asserted change in cir-
cumstances.
(3) When a petition is fiU-d with a court
under this section, notice of the filing and a
copy of the petition shall be served on the
parents of the minor children named in the
petition in the manner provided by law for
service of a summons.
(4) When a petition is filed under this
section, if it appears from the petition that the
petitioners may seek visitation rights under
this section, the court shall conduct a hearing
to determine whether an order creating visita-
tion rights will be issued The court shall
cause notice of the time and place of the hear-
ing to be given to the parents of the minor
children named in the petition. The court may
require the attendance of the parents and of
witnesses as in other civil cases. When the
petition has been filed under paragraph (b) of
subsection (1) of this section, the court may
conduct the hearing on the petition as part of
the proceeding or as a separate proceeding,
and the order creating visitation rights, if one
is issued, may be incorporated in and made a
part of the decree or final order.
(5) Any order creating visitation rights
under this section shall be according to the
court's best judgment of the facts of the case
and shall include such conditions and limita-
tions as it deems reasonable. In making or
modifying such an order, the court shall be
guided by the best interests and welfare of the
child.
(6) Filing fees for proceedings under this
section shall be those set forth in ORS 21.110.
(7) As used in this section:
(a) "Grandparent" does not include a step-
grandparent.
(b) "Minor child" means a natural minor
child, provided the paternity of such child has
been established under ORS 109 070 or ac-
knowledged under ORS 109 092.
(8) The provisions of this section shall not
apply if paternity of the minor child is or has
been denied throughout a contested proceed-
ing 1 1979 c 776 <i2l
109.123 Power to grant visitation
rights discretionary; effect on care and
custody orders. (1) The power of a court
under ORS 109 121 and this section to grant
visitation rights to grandparents is discretion-
ary and shall be exercised only when the court
determines that it would be in the best inter-
ests and welfare of the minor children in-
volved.
(2) Nothing in ORS 109.121 and this sec-
tion shall be construed to affect the power of a
court under ORS chapter 107 to provide for
the future care and custody of the minor chil-
dren of a marriage, or to allow grandparents
of minor children to contest such custody
decisions of the court. 1 1979 c 776 »31
Not*: 109 123 was enacted into law by the Legisla-
tive Assembly but was not added to or made a part of
ORS chapter 109 or any aeries therein by legislative
action See the Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for
further explanation
FILIATION PROCEEDINGS
109.124 Definition for ORS 109.125. As
used in ORS 109.125, a child born out of wed-
lock means a child bom to an unmarried wom-
an, or to a married woman by a man other
than her husband, if the conclusive presump-
tion in ORS 41 350 (6) (1979 Replacement
Part) and 109 070 (1) does not apply. 11979 c246
HI
1129
STATE OF OREGON
97
Before serious consideration was given to the attempt to seek grandparent
visitation through the courts [ visited with one of the leading child psy-
chologists in our area and audited a workshop he gave concerning child
behavior. I discussed our family problem with him and, due to the sudden
severance of seven loving members of our extended family from his life,
the emotional health of our grandson. 1 felt it urgent to be given advice
from one learned in the field of dealing with young children to be affirmed
of a decision not based on emotion but rather on factual reasoning. The
agonizing question to me has been this: is it in the best interests of the
child to accept a severance of the extended family or is it in the best
interests of the child to seek to restore family unity? The emphatic reply
of the doctor of child psychology was this: "it is imperative for the
emotional well-being of your grandson to press - and press hard - for
visitation privileges; time elapsed could be extremely detrimenal to his
emotional health." With the urgency expressed by the psychologist, and
much research of material available in libraries, our family became convin-
ced beyond a doubt of our need to continue to seek visitation privileges
through the court system of our state.
Nearly three years have unfortunately elapsed since our initial request for
grandparent visitation and we have learned first-hand of the detriment it
has caused to our grandson. When we last saw him in our home he was a well-
adjusted, loving, sensitive, extroverted child; he is now, at the tender age
of seven, a child who has verbally expressed his anger and hostility toward
his father and all his extended paternal family. His attitude has been a
learned one allowed to fester and to grow in a negative atmosphere of anim-
osity and vindictiveness . Firmly convinced of the danger to society as a
whole, T searched for answers from families who have lived with the same
problem to discover what it has done to their lives and the lives of the
children involved. Our family resides in Richland, Washington, a town of
approximately 30,000 people - a very minute segment of the population of
our country. To quickly point out the national problem we are facing, the
answers came to me in my own town within blocks of my home.
Face to face visits with two grandmothers whose testimonies I relate gave me
not only an enlightenment but also a renewed vigor to put forth an even greater
effort to seek a solution to a problem that is destroying the very underpinnings
of our society.
TESTIMONY OF THE DETRIMENTAL HARM SEVERANCE CAUSES IN THE LIVES OF CHILDREN:
Fnt is a lovely middle-aged woman, a registered nurse, a homemake and mother
of three grown children. As she painfully shared her childhood with me tears
welled in her eyes and the evidence of the burden she has carried with her for
over forty years was edged with sadness. Pat's parents divorced when she was
small and for some time she "bounced back and forth" from mother to father, an
atmosphere she feels the resiliency of a child can easily handle when they are
surrounded by the love of many people. World War II was being waged at the
time and Pat felt the loss of her father greatly when he was assigned to over-
seas duty. She continued to live with her mother, whom she felt did not love
her. Physical and emotional abuse resulted, the cause of which she now feels
was immaturity and the inability to cope on the part of her mother in the role
as a voung parent. Two stepfathers came into her life and her memory of them
is a good one. Although tier mother had chosen to lose contact with the paternal
extended family, the only thing that sustained Pat through the years of her
childhood was the constant thought that she really did have somebody out there
who cared about her. Unaware of what to do in her intolerable family situation,
Pat wrote an "escape hatch" letter to her paternal grandmother asking her for
help. Her grandmother immediately traveled from Washington to the State
of Missouri and petitioned the court for custody of her granddaughter. The
court felt, due to the detrimental family situation, the love and concern
displayed by the grr.ndmother was of greater priority than age. On the witness
stand Pat - as a child of seven, reaffirmed that choice. Richland, Washington
became Pat's new home and she was raised by her grandmother, with the added
support of an aunt. Eventually Pat's father, along with his British bride,
worked himself back into Pat's life, but the relationship still remains one
void of a bond cemented in love as a father and daughter would ideally be when
allowed to share their lives on a continuing basis. A deep sadness was in her
eyes as Pat told of the bitter resentment she carried then, and which remains
with her forty years later, of her mother's choice to sever her from her ties
with her family. "I love my mother", said Pat to me, "but only because she
is my mother. A true mother-daughter relationship will never exist between the
98
two of us. Too many things have happened." Although Pat has developed a
closeness with the offspring of her parents' subsequent marriages, the parental
bonds are without true meaning. Deep scars remain, the crevices of which can
never be restructured.
Though I had intruded on Pat's innermost feelings, my final inquiry was of our
grandson and the urgency we felt to reunite him with our family. I now quote
her thoughts to you: "By all means keep trying. It doesn't matter if a child
lives with a stepfather or a stepmother or a number of each. They have the
adjustment of youth in these situations. It is essential for a child to have
at least one person they can have a close attachment to - whether it be a parent
or a member of the extended family - one who can be counted on at all times.
But how much better it is to have a great many people who care about them."
As Pat and I parted company she made one ironic closing remark: "Our son and
his wife were recently divorced. We have a good relationship with our daughter-
in-law now and are allowed to enjoy our grandson - but she is a young and
attractive woman who will surely remarry. If ever I can be of support in
your efforts to restore family unity I would be happy to help. My home could
be next!"
LIKE A CANCER THAT SILENTLY CUTS AWAY AT THE REAL BEAUTY OF LIFE, THE SEVERANCE
OF FAMILIES LIES IN WAIT IN EVERY HOUSEHOLD OF OUR COUNTRY!
TEST TMONY OF THE BENEFICIAL RESULT OF THE GRANDPARENT-GRANDCHILDREN REUNION :
Mildred is a grandmother in her late fifties. After the divorce of her daughter
and son-in-law several years ago, custody of their four boys was granted to the
rather. The older three boys stayed with their father and the youngest, a four
year old, was given to his maternal grandparents to raise. Convinced the young
boy had been a victim of both physical and emotional abuse in his family, the
grandparents went to court to gain legal custody. The court action was lost to
the grandparents and their grandson was returned to his father in February of
1977 after living in the home of his grandparents for fifteen months. A few
months later the grandparents visited their grandson in the home of his father.
The grandparents then did not see the boys again until April, 1978 at a family
wedding. When the grandson who had been raised in their home emerged from the
car he ran across the church lawn to his grandparents and was then allowed to
sit through the wedding ceremony with them. Later that same year, when the
children were in town with their father, they made an effort on their own to
contact their grandparent s and they visited for about an hour. The following
year the grandparents were allowed to visit the children at their mother's home
and Inter that same year at a picnic with their mother. In 1980 the stepmother
of the children allowed the grandson and his new stepsister to go camping for
a week-end with the grandparents. Each visit has allowed the original bonding
to grow and fluorish and, through circumstances of life and reunions initiated
bv both the gran.lrh I lilren and grandparents, the young children Involved have
been reunited in their biological family ties.
Mildred was quick to tell me: "The bonding that formed In early years still
remains and the years of grandparent-grandchildren separation have somehow
Just "evaporated." The relationship was always good and positive and, now
that the children are back in our lives, we have discovered the strength of
family ties and bonding are still very much intact. There has been no diff-
iculty whatsoever reuniting with the grandchildren after being apart for so
long. There has been a definite change for the better in the lives of all
of us. If allowed to happen, reunion of grandparents and grandchildren CAN
be accomplished and to the benefit of everyone involved.
LIVING TESTIMONY THAT, WHEN ALLOWED TO OCCUR, THE REUNION OF GRANDPARENTS
AND GRANDCHILDREN CAN BE ACHIEVED TO STRENGTHEN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
MEDIA COVERAGE:
On March 13, 1983 our family took part in a TV program called "Town Meeting",
sponsored by KOMO-TV in the City of Seattle, Washington, to air the national
problem of the severance of grandparents from grandchildren. Town Meeting is
a "watered down" version of the Phil Donahue Show where a topic is thrown out
to all participants for debate. Appearing on the show were young parents led
by Janice Gunnell, founder of Parent's/Children's Rights. Her story was a
99
sad one of child abuse and no one present questioned the right to her feelings
or the denial of visitation. Her story was also the unusual one.
Representing the grandparents were Lee and Lucile Sutnpter, the founders of
Grandparents/Children's Rights, who have given so willingly in their effort
to help families regain their biological ties across our nation.
The attitude expressed by the young parents was indeed frightening. They were
devoid of emotion as they uttered phrases that grandparents did nothing more
than present a constant threat to their supreme authority. The leader of the
young parents movement remarked to the Sumpters: "I disagree with about 100%
of what you are saying!"
Remarks: Never once as a young parent did I question the privilege
of grandparents sharing in our family life. Rather, I was
grateful for the strength and loving support of the entire
extended families. The answers given to the children of
the severance of loved ones from their lives has been an
agonizing curiosity for me. After the TV program ended I
made it a point to personally ask a great number of the
young parents just what they told their children about the
sudden absence of people from their lives. Amazement came
with their responses. "Oh, I don't know, it's hard" -
"they don't say anything so I don't say anything" was the
shallow depth of their answers.
In essence, the young children severed from families are
often being given NO answers to what must be monumental
feelings of total rejection in their young lives. As an
adult able to recognize, though hardly understand, the
feelings of bitterness and animosity shown to members of
an extended family due to their biological relationship,
I find myself totally confused and helpless. How devastated
must these young children feel who are given none of the
answers - no explanation at all?
PUBLIC AWARENESS:
One June 30, 1983 T spoke before a gathering of the Columbia Kiwanis Club in
our Tri-Cities, Washington area to give public awareness to the fact that
the distinct possibility of the severance of grandparents from grandchildren
lies In wait in every household in our country. The president of Columbia
Kiwanis. in his gracious thank-you letter, made the following remarks: "The
membership and their wives were very pleased with your presentation even
though the subject was shocking and disturbing. I wish you success with the
attempts that you have launched both at the personal and local level and
for those of us who may one day find ourselves in the same position, may your
national efforts at legislation to give rights to grandparents be inacted at
the earliest possible date."
100
November 7, 1983
United States Senate Judiciary Committee
Senate Office Building
Washington DC 20510
R"?: Senate Concurrent Resolution ifO, The Grandparent Visitation Act
Dear Honorable Senate Judiciary Members:
Time is of the essence so I am addressing this letter to you as an entire
body and asking my friend Roberta Teverbaugh to please it for me at the
hearing.
I am a grandmother who has court appointed visitation rights granted to me
by a judge who also is a grandparent. How grateful I've always been to have
had a judge who understands the importance of grandchild-grandparent relation-
ship.
The past five years, my husband(now deceased) have exercised every visitation
time given us by the courts. r-
I am very concerned about my oldest grand son because he is not growing proper-
ly. I have been informed by several doctors that if children are unhappy they
refuse to grow. I'm enclosing copie6 of letters written by my family physcian
as proof of my concern. It is a form of child abuse, but, a very subtle one "in-
deed.
My ex-son-in-law has mellowed over the past two years and is not threaten-
ed by my seeing the children. In fact, he has been exceptionally nice to me
of late and I welcome the change. Part of that change is due to the recent break-
up of his marriage to the stepmother.
When the grandkids are in my home for visitation they always remark, "Sure
wish grandpa was still alive. He was so much fun." I am so glad they got
to know their grandpa even if it was only for a few short years. Those good
times will always be good memories.
For those of you who have the power in your hands to pass the Grandparents
Visitation Rights Law, please, don't sit on the fence. Get on with it. Know
that you are giving all grandchildren their inherent right to see their grand-
parents.
101
We are living in a time of the "extended family" becouee of the high divorce
rate. So many young people are unhappy with their lives and are continuous-
ly searching for answers. Poor self image, low self esteem and a hurting deep
inside makes them lash out at everyone to "get even". The attitude of "I'll
show them" needs to be changed. They are not thinking of the children. The
family nucleus must be mended soon or we shall fall Internally. A gradparents'love
is an extension of our love for our own children. Do not deny us the right!
Very truly yours,
Ruth E. Robinson
1912 S. Ninth A?e.
Yakima, WA 98903
WILLIAM A. (jraOMKO. M. D.
1015 S. 4JTM AVENUE
YAKIMA. WASHINGTON 93908
Telephone 965-0770
August 7, 1979
To Whom It May Concern:
Justin and Jason Westphal saw me, William A. Gromko M.D. ,
on March 5th, May 21st, and August 2nd of 1979- Justin
is an intelligent 6 year old, whose medical problems con-
sist of an innocent heart murmur and weight loss over a
period of 5 months. A complete physical exam was done
on August 2, 1979 and revealed no physical cause for the
weight loss, so I must conclude that he is not eating
enough. At the same time, I also saw Jason. A complete
exam done on August 2, 1979 revealed that he had lost
h lbs. in 5 months and was physically in good health,
and I also must conclude that he is not eating enough.
Jason's percentiles on anthropometric charts show a drop
in his weight from the 35th percentile to barely the 5th
percentile.
Sincerely,
,1
(jj/iL^ Qt %tfJt<nw
William A. Gromko, M.D.
102
WILLIAM A. GnOMKO, M. D.
101 fl B. 4QrH AVINUC
YAKIMA, WASHINH TQM VOStM
TuimOMf 0*3-0770
August 16, ]979
Dept. of Social and Health Serviceo
P.O. Box 751
Vancouver, Washington 98660
Atten: Child Protection Service
Memo
RE: Jason and Justin Weatphal
Justin: 6 year old doing well, gaining woight. Gained
1# lbs in 12 days.
Jason: 7 Year old gaining weight well, gained nearly 3 lbs.
in 12 days. More alert now. Stated he didn't want
to go back to his home In Vancouver and he mentioned
that his Dad would Just spank hia and not feed him.
TtfaLn 0. ^Lti
3og?
ROGER L. URACCII1. M. IV
210 SOUTH Mill AVLNIM-: SUITL 4J
YAKIMA. WA 0800;
i«»*J S/5 i'jlU
August 25, 1081
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Justin Wcstphal was weighed in this office
on 8/3/81 and fou..d to weigh 60 lb.. On
8/14/81 his weight was 62 lb. Jason West-
ph.il was weighed on 8/3/81 und found Lo
weigh 57 lb. He was weighed again on 8/14/81
and found to weigh 58i lb.
Sincerely ,
Roger L. Bracch t M.D.
103
wan ask for
visit ri
Dear Action: Last week i March
9) you quoted an attorney as saying
under Washington state law grand-
parents can now petition the court ■
asking for visiting rights to see
their grandchildren.
In 1974. when our daughter
died, we took tare of our two
grandchildren until our son-in-law
remarried. When he took custody
of the children., he decided we
should no longer see thorn.
When we went to our lawyer,
he told us the state had no "grand-
parents visitation rights law."
Well, with the help of the law-
yer. we drew up a proposed
amendment to that law and gave it
to our legislator.
\ ' Ho introduced the bill and it
'was passed by the Legislature in
!l977.
The amendment giving us visit-
ing rights serves as the vital con-
nection between grandparents and
grandchildren when parents fool-
ishly choose to have it severed. —
R.R.. Yakima.
Dear R.R.: Prior to 1977, only
. parents — separated by divorce
. — could petition for visiting
rights with children in custody
cases.
But thanks to R.R. and her
.husband, thaJaw^was amended
to read lha£"any"',persoo to"'0"
ask a judgeTor visiting rights
which had been denied by the
parent having custody of the
kids
Upon passage of the amend-
ment they spawned. R.R. and her
husband went to court in June
1978. and a judge granted the
couple the right to have their
grandchildren visit them several
weeks and weekends during the
the vear.
Curiously, one wonders how
many attorneys — and judges —
are aware of this very important
change in the state's child visita-
tion statute.
R.R. reports that as late as
lL'SO. a couple in Kitsap County
was turned uown by a judge in
' their request to see the grand-
' kids.
The judge turned them down
on grounds there was no autho-
rizing legislation allowing such
.-rights to be granted.
The couple was represented
by a lawyer who was also un-
aware of the 1977 amendment.
Somehow. R.R. heard about
the case and notified the grand-
parents that there indeed was
now legislation to support their
- request.
The grandparents have since
appealed the decision against
them to the State Supreme
Court.
Of course, the judge must
still decide whether \isiting
rights by the grandparents are In
"the best Interests of the child.
As we've said before, a loving
grandparent is a very special re-
lationship which, unfortunately,
many children do not enjoy these
days for one reason or another.
We must thank our Yakima
grandparents for paving the way
so that others in their position
are no longer barred from re-
questing visitation rights.
The change is reflected In the
Revised Code of Washington un-
der "Domestic Relations":
26.09.210.
104
\
2
-3
4
ta
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR CLARK COUNTY
HENRY and RUTH ROBINSON,
husband and wife.
Petitioners,
JOHN WESTPHAL,
Respondent ,
No. 7 115 4
June 21, 1978
COURT'S DECISION
THE COURT i These are difficult cases for parents, grand-
parents, attorneys, judges, so forth, social workers. I have
known Mr. Beh when he was working here in Clark County, I was
15 i! an active Superior Court judge, and I respect his opinion. How-
16 ever, it ju3t seems to me from my years of experience in court,
17 and as a father and as a grandfather, *I think the best welfare
18 I of these two boys, these grandchildren, ar» that thoy get to
19 j know their grandparents better.
20 I think that there have been problems here between the
21 I grandparents, the former son-in-law, the father of the two boys.
22 '■ It's pretty hard I should imagine to see somebody like Georgia
23 i coming in, taking the place of their daughter as the mother of
24 j these children. I think she is doing what 6ha thinks is best for
25 I the children; I think that Mr. John Westphal is doing what he
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
13
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
thinks is best for the children. I think that the Robinsons' have
gotten close to these grnndc'.uldran and in their way of thinking
they're doing their best for the grandchildren.
I think we have got to set up seme ground rules. The past
is over. We are right here now: what's going to be best for these
two boys. I think for the two boys they should know their grand-
parents. So under some strict rules for grandparents, parents,
stepmother, now the mother, there should be some visitation right:
The fact that Mr. Westphal told about how when the grand-
parents came the boys just dropped everything and wanted to see
them, ran out to the car, I think that right there shows what
these grandsons think about their grandparents.
In regard to visitation this summer, I think it should be
on the basis of just one week. Then I should think that next
summer there should be a period of two weeks. Now I can't see
a week early in the summer, a week just before school starts.
Those children have to be home in their own home before school
starts so they can get back into the groove according to what the
parents have, so I should think not this summer but two surrmers
from now, or a year from now that it should be a period of two
weeks in the summer. This year I should think that — what about
sometime during — one week during the month of July?
Now Mr. Westphal, what are your plans? Do you have a
holiday vacation coming up? When do you take your time off work?
MR. WESTPHAL: Well, I've got a week vacation starting
-2-
106
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U
12
13
U
15
IE
17 ,
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
tho 3rd of July.
THE COURT: All right. That is a week's vacation.
MR. WESTPHAL: I go back on the 10th.
THE COURT j What about say they get the boys for a week
commencing a long about Saturday the 15th of July?
MR. WESTPHAL: My birthday is the 24th. I'd rather have
them home for that.
THE COURT: Well, would you rather have them then for say
the — how about the week of the 10th of August, the 5th of
August.
MR. WESTPHAL i That would be fine.
THE COURT: All right. They have them for the week of the
5th of August. Or maybe it would be better traveling on the high
way to have them here in the summer. How about having them for
a week commencing the 1st of August next year, have them two
weeks commencing the 1st of August?
MR. WESTPHAL i That would be fine with me, I suppose.
THE COURT: That would work out to have them for your
birthday, 4th of July for two weeks a year in the summer, they'd
be back in the home several weeks before school would start. So
let's make it this year as of the 1st of August for a week, then
they should be with the parents during Christmas. But how about
a few days time after Christmas?
MR. READ : I would propose a three-day weekend following
Christmas, Your Honor.
-3-
107
i
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
li
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2'.
25
THE COURT: How about tiiat? Say along about th . 29th of
December for uay a three-d.:y period? It's almost one day to
drive down and back, with the kids for throe days they only get
to spend one day with them in Yakiitic . That's why it's a real
concern if they can presently get about five days then they can
spend two or three days there, they're not real tired from the
long drive. It's about eight hours of driving because it's about
four hours down, four hours back.
MR. ROBINSON: We have friends who live in Kelso. Some
times we are just down for a weekend we will stop pick the kids
up, stay overnight, bring them back so we don't have to drive
clear to Yakima. We do have friends both in Kelso or Longview
and Toledo, Washington. I used to live down there years ago.
We can stay with them on the basis of one weekend, but I have to
get back to my machine in a period of two or three days.
THE COURT: I think that is sufficient information for the
court to make a decision.
Let's fix it for December 29, 30, 31. What time would be
for a weekend say in October,' something along the 27th, 28, 29th
of October. Pick them up on a Saturday morning, return them on
a Sunday evening. On that say nine o'clock on a Saturday mornir.c
return them by 3ix o'clock on a Sunday evening .
MR. WHITLOCK: That would be acceptable. They'd like to
pick them up on Friday night. Nine o'clock is really a tough
time. They can't be here at nine o'clock from Yakima. They have
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
108
to come down the day before. They'd like to come down a day
before, see them a day beiora.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Read, on that, pick them up
at five o'clock on the Friday, return them on Sunday evening at
six o'clock. You can work that out with Mr. Read in regard to
that situation. And then a two-day weekend in March,, and then
again work out a weekend that is agreeablo to you people some-
time in May. Let's make it May.
MR. WHITLOCKj I believe Mr. Read and I can work out the
specific times.
THE COURT x How she is the mother of the children now.
Let's not do anything against the parents of the children. The
grandparents, let's do everything you can towards making this the
best transition at all possible for the children. See if you
can't straighten out your own relationship too, you will feel a
i
18
:9
21
22
lot better if you can, and don't say anything against the other
17 j person. Build them up, don't tear them down. Let's see if we
can't make this work because it sura i3 a lot better for the
children.
MR. READ i We would also ask for restrictions in here,
some language in the order. I think Mr. Whitlock and I can work
it out to the effect that tnesa children are part or thi3 home,
I
23 i as much as possible are to be raised in accordance where visitatio:
24 with home standards as far as discipline and bedtime behavior,
25 j things like that. There is uncontested testimony of problems in
— — — _
109
— 1
1
in that regard in tha past. I think language would go a long
2
ways
towards smoothing the relationship in future y<sars.
3
THE COURT: I think so. Why don't the two of you work
4
that
out.
5
MR. READ: Mr. whitlock and we can work that out. We
I
6
understand the court's decision, we both understand our clients
7
position.
8
THE COURT: Good luck to you all.
9
(Whereupon court adjourned at 3 i45 o'clock p.m.)
10
11
12
13
"
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
11
25
-6-
29-610 O— 84 8
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND NOTIC
CF P.^cSSNTATiON WAIVED this
110
</Xl._ 6l
dHvc; — :, ,13 ScLt},^-'^'
NO. 7 115 4
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Attorney for
1
2
3
4 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
5 FOR CLARK COUNTY
6
7 HENRY ROBINSON and RUTH ROBINSON,
husband and wife,
8
Petitioners ,
9
and
10
JOHN WESTPHAL,
11
Respondent.
12
13 THIS MATTER HAVING COME BEFORE THE COURT for hearing on
14 June 21, 19 78, the Honorable J. Guthrie Langsdorf , Judge Pro
15 Tern, presiding, and the parties having testified in person,
16 called other witnesses to testify, and presented argument
1.7 through counsel and the "Court having considered the papers
18 and pleadings on file, the testimony presented', and the argument
19 of counsel, it does now make the following
20 FINDINGS OF FACT:
21 1. The Petitioners, HENRY and RUTH ROBINSON, should be
22 entitled to visitation rights with JASON and JUSTIN WESTPHAL,
23 the children of the Respondent JOHN WESTPHAL.
24 2. This visitation should be under strict rules and
25 provisions so as to reduce substantially the possibility for
26 future disputes or disagreements. These rules and provisions
27 should include the following points:
23 a. One week's continuous visitation during the
29 summer of 1978, commencing August 1st," at 9:00 A.M. through
30 August 8th at 12:00 Noon.
31
32
FINDINGS OF FACT AND reao.wolfe.hannansmercer.ps.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 1 .Tro.»e.s»Tt.»
*C4 wen cvmoncEN naukCrfAno
POST OFflCL BO" 300
tfAKCOUVCQ. *.iSHi\GTO\ 9S6*«
Ill
1 b. Two week' 8 continuous visitation during the
2 summer of 1979.
3 c. Visitation on the weekend of October 27 and 28,
4 1978, from 6 PM Friday through 6 PM Sunday night.
5 d. Visitation during the Christmas holidays, 1978,
6 on December 29, 30, and 31.
7 e. A weekend visitation, on days to be agreed upon
8 by the parties, in March 1979.
9 f. Another weekend visitation, on a date to be agreed
10 upon by the parties, in May 1979.
11 g. Subsequent weekend visitations shall be arranged
12 between the parties at two to three month intervals, giving
13 consideration to the fact that there should normally be visitation
14 during the Christmas holiday period and a continuous period of
15 two weeks during each subsequent summer.
16 h. It should be the Petitioner's responsibility to do
17 the traveling in exercising visitation, or in the alternative to
18 provide for supervised transportation for the boys.
19 2. The past relationship has led to hard feelings and
20 strained relationships. In view of this, there should be specific
21 rules for the conduct of visitation rights as follows:
22 a. In the exercise of visitation, the boys should be
picked up at, and returned to, a neutral location, rather than
24 the residence of the Respondent.
25 b. The Respondent shall be notified in the event
26 Petitioners intend to take the boys on extended trips, or travel
27 out of the State with them, while exercising visitation.
28 c. If because of a family death or other unforeseen
29 situation visitation cannot take place as scheduled, the parties
30 shall work to establish an appropriate substitute visitation.
31 d. While exercising visitation, the Petitioners shall
32
FINDINGS OF FACT AND read, wolfe. hannan & mercer, p. s.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 2 »tto.»eyS »t lav.
60* *-EST tvCPGRSEN BOLLEvA^r
vA*.couvfp wkSHiNGTO1. ?peeo
C061 f *3-0?i
112
1 observe the prevailing standards of discipline and diet in the
2 Respondent's household, which is the boys' home.
3 e. Neither party shall conduct themselves in front
4 of the children, whether by words or behavior, or otherwise,
5 in such a manner as to depreciate the other in the eyes of the
6 children or to the detriment of the children's normal relationship
7 with the other.
8 f. The parties should attempt to settle their differences
9 and treat each other in an adult manner.
10 g. The WESTPHALS should allow telephone conversation
11 between the children and the ROBINSONS up to twice a month at
12 reasonable times.
13
14 ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Court does now make
15 the following
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 1. The Court has jurisdiction over these parties in the
18 subject matter of this dispute.
19 2. A Decree of Visitation Rights should be entered in
20 accordance with the foregoing findings of fact.
21
22 DATED this day of July 1978
23
24
JUDGE
25
26 Presented by:
27
Dale Reac, Jr.
2b Of Attorneys for Respondent
29
20
31
32
FINDINGS OF FACT AND read. WOLFE, hannan * mercer. f.S.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - 3 .tto.m»i.tl«»
C04 ACST CvCRGOECN SCu.EV-fiS
Flit OFFlCr W3« K»»*
VAI.CGJVtO .'.ASHI'.GTO'. <» 8 6 f 6
<:06> 693.4791
113
Custody fight
ends in court
Grandmother, mother battle for boy
By RICHARD WAGONER
SnMamnr
A 12-year-old boy has been
placed In a foster home while his
grandmother and mother wage a
custody battle that has caught the
attention of grandparents and fami-
ly rights groups throughout Spo-
kane.
At issue Is who should take legal
custody of Dene BlckneU — his
grandmother, Rom BlckneU, or
mother, Penny Senter.
BlckneU, a 51-year-old Spokane
Valley resident, said she has raised
the youngster since birth and wants
legal custody of him.
Ills mother, Blcknell's daughter,
disputes that fact and wants the boy
back permanently.
The family dispute landed In
court Tuesday as BlckneU and
Senter, represented by attorneys,
appeared before Court Commis-
sioner David M. Thorn to resolve
Thorn postponed any decision on
tne boy's custody, and Instead ap-
pointed an attorney to represent the
boy and a counselor to determine
which fanuly he considers his own.
A date for a custody decision has
not been set.
Representatives of fanuly and
grandparents rights organizations
supporting BlckneU crowded the
hallways in Superior Court but
were kept out of the courtroom
when Thorn closed the hearing be-
cause of the nature of the dispute.
"I love that child so much. ' Bick-
nell said prior to the hearing, fight-
ing back tears.
BlckneU said the child has lived
with her, with her daughter's con-
sent, since he was a baby Five
times she has taken the boy to live
with his mother and five times he
has run back to her, she said.
But when Bicknell in April asked
her daughter, through the state De-
partment of Social and Health Ser-
vices, for $15 a week to help pay
the boy's growing bills, Senter
refused and said she would take the
boy back. Bicknell and her husband.
Ray, Uve on Social Security and
have trouble paying the child's ex-
penses, she said.
"He doesn't want to Uve there. If
be wanted to live there I'd take him
there,'' Bicknell said.
But Senter's attorney. Joseph
Lynch, said Senter disputes her
mother's statement that the child
has lived almost entirely with his
grandparents.
Lynch declined to comment spe-
ciflcaUy about the disputed facts.
saying, "I'm trying to prevent a
pubUc bloodletting.''
"The concern is the child will be
injured by this process." Lynch
said, obviously concerned about
media coverage of the hearing.
Senter declined to comment on
the case.
The boy was placed in a foster
home Sunday until the custody bat-
tle can be ironed out.
"It's the child I love so much, but
the ironic thing is I love my daugh-
ter, too," Bicknell said. "I'm fight-
ing someone I love for someone I
love, too."
Ko^e. 'SicJiyje.lL -La a <im«uevt. of £.O.A. '-j.
< Sooce£u of %ier-yie£X.eA $*a*uLr><n.**t/.± }
jt. is* a xtvcwn \a-ci. tnat ansu.4 nm. l*jjeA jiith ne^.
■iince. biA.tK,M.tXh. no attar%X.<jOn. ot child ixjioo-t-t
{t.om. the. '■fotneA.Jve. a»£. with, he*. ICO& arul ue. oak.
that i/on ^i^ite. to hzA. and ^jja he.*, jowt. \*nnot.C
lom. le.tte.tsi. co«AA. heJji ^&ruL ueirvj back to Jihes.e.
ne. manti to be., home. M<Zh, Haa ^*ami/}ti*j!.i-UA, ;>n o*x.
oninu>n, desuuj na<i. one. votneA~,'<o<\e. -.icmell. '-i 'A
beAyuL badly aucvC bu the. -ieocua <:<loh j4*.** -us\ laund
ones*, ami ^i*jisuL*.'Jle&ie. take. the. '.•*** to v*.*Jl& a
le.tt&t of lone, to :\e.Lo one. IsJLtlc bou ~*o hive..
jJtAXe. to: Rate. {5 uz.kne,cL . 1 1 1 1 J I. ''at^^tta
Ctia, i }*cha/tdi, ■ja-^k. 99C2 7
'jhank 'on. . .
Ohe, loLHsuj, ■*amLoaiAn.Vi of S.C.A.^.
114
e. inn Mf?Gisrr#
tz<rct & l<^A, c-^-K-^tZ, <a» / '¥ Jl*<z<. s-^7 <^*
Gt^.c/a-ST-^o - j^4*^" ^ ^L>-^i-7 /3suZ.Z£ ^4^-C L^- ^tre>^C
115
(_^~-zl££*^sl^p-vA*0<U*-jj . ^J-^> ^rxjfrL,-*^ s^-^c-,^-, A^t-m-is^ ^-p^^y
-(^-S^rt; ^£*^+^ sAj-zl—zyt*~ ~£~~ -^d^, 'y^L^^^t^ L^~ ^sCei^e.
hS /£-. -£^ ^ y V - ^r'
LSL-^ £?Co-Z~L T^l^.^,^ .^€^z^_ £^~ ^2-^2-r— ;<< /3-v-Y <r-T_
116
.SU?-*--*^ T-V ~U*Lj7*/L." J^ -^2t^-C C^CTsXJi S^s-T-2?>b: v-<-< ~-^&~^-
*y^*J^- J1 tZ^f .<*&*.< Ci-y-rr/ JJ- ^/c^-^jA ^vi / <T^~
£X.€XCi-^ *~CU, Y .-^t^ -^-«?v»- £~-*£v- ££^A, ^in'^'iC ^tL-a?^ 2^-
117
[From Society of Neglected Grandparents]
Letter to the Editor:
With Grandparents Day coming up soon, I
want to say a few words. I went to a meeting last
week, and at this meeting there was a commis-
sioner and a man from legal services. It was a sort
of question and answer session. I realize that
when the questions were asked, each of these 2
men were answering & trying to tell it like it is
with as much honesty as possible.
But there were people in that room that came
away from there feeling totally defeated, because
of a question that I asked the legal services per-
son. I asked him: "Is there legal services available
to low income grandparents to sue for the right to
visitation of their grandchildren?" Answer: (and I
quote) "Because of the cut backs & Reaganomics,
we are considered low priority, insignificant
senior citizens." (unquote!
Each of you out there, take a look at your
mother & father, and at your grandparents in the
catagory of low income. Take a very good look!
Are they low priority to you? Insignificant? Does
anyone know or care about the tragic pain involv-
ed in being treated unfit to associate with our
precious little, or older grandchildren? With no
way to have any rights to change it? No money to
sue? It is one of the most helpless feelings in the
world. We put in our time trying to love & be
there for all of you, and come up empty!
We want our grandchildren to run up the front
walk & run into our arms where they belong, we
want to see the joy on their faces when we do
some little thing that makes them happy. I ask all
of you out there who keep us away, what harm
could ever come to these children if they are with
us? We don't want to hurt them with talking
about family problems, we only want to love
them.
I read a statement the other day, "Grand-
parents do not batter and abuse children, parents
do." These children are extensions of ourselves,
and our eternity. Who will know that we ever
walked this earth without them? Without them
knowing us? We could each have 20 grand-
children and not one can take the place ot miss-
ing ones. Don't blame us for what your ex-mate
has done, or is doing, and these people happen to
be our children. We didn't divorce you. or the
children. All we ask is the right to love & be loved.
I have 3 precious grandchildren missing that
were the joy of my life for 7 years, now I cannot
see them, or touch them or hold them, or say
very important words to them - "I love you!" I
know they ask about me, what are they being
told? That I don't love them? I would give them
the world if I could. I am not speaking just for
myself, this is how we all felt when we left that
meeting.
One Insignificant Senior Citizen
loyce Friedland, Founder of S.O.N.G.
118
[Bern Society of Neglected Grandparents]
Letter to the Editor:
With Grandparents Day coming up soon, I
want to say a few-words. I went to a meeting last
week, and at this meeting there was a commis-
sioner and a man from legal services. It was a sort
of question and answer session. I realize that
when the questions were asked, each of these 2
men were answering & trying to tell it like it is
with as much honesty as possible.
But there were people in that room that came
away from there feeling totally defeated, because
of a question that I asked the legal services per-
son. I asked him: "Is there legal services available
to low income grandparents to sue for the right to
visitation of their grandchildren?" Answer: (and I
quote) "Because of the cut backs & Reaganomics,
we are considered low priority, insignificant
senior citizens." (unquote)
Each of you out there, take a look at your
mother & father, and at your grandparents in the
catagory of low income. Take a very good look!
Are they low priority to you? Insignificant? Does
anyone know or care about the tragic pain involv-
ed in being treated unfit to associate with our
precious little, or older grandchildren? With no
way to have any rights to change it? No money to
sue? It is one of the most helpless feelings in the
world. We put in our time trying to love & be
there for all of you, and come up empty!
We want our grandchildren to run up the front
walk & run into our arms where they belong, we
want to see the joy on their faces when we do
some little thing that makes them happy. I ask all
of you out there who keep us awav. what harm
could ever come to these children if thev are with
us? We don't want to hurt them with talking
about family problems, we only want to love
them.
I read a statement the other day. Grand-
parents do not batter and abuse children, parents
do." These children are extensions of ourselves,
and our eternity. Who will know that we ever
walked this earth without them? Without them
knowing us? We could each have 20 grand-
children and not one can take the place ot miss-
ing ones. Don't blame us for what your ex-mate
has done, or is doing, and these people happen to
be our children. We didn't divorce you. or the
children. Ml we ask is the right to love & be loved.
I have 3 precious grandchildren missing that
were the jov of my life for 7 years, now I cannot
see them, or touch them or hold them, or say
very impotant words to them - "I loye you!" I
know they ask about me. what are they being
told? That I don't love them? I would give them
the world if I could. I am not speaking just for
myself, this is how we all felt when we left that
meeting.
One" Insignificant Senior Citizen
loyce Friedland. Founder of S.O.N.G.
119
,j,»»o««i»'» ll*C 01,,
Oa. 22. 1983
JOYCE FRIEDLAND
W. 731 Knox
Spokane, WA 99205
To Whom it may concern:
509-327-3452
Call Anytime
I am the Grandmother of fifteen grandchildren.
There are three that I am not allowed to see or to
associate with. These three I have been the
closest to. Always there to baby-sit as much as
three and four times a week, and always there to
do any of the things a Crandmother does to help,
always there to notice if one needed a pair of
shoes or something extra. And for seven years. I
was an accepted part of their lives. I must explain
this so each person who reads this, knows that I
am speaking for many like me. I hope in writing
this, to say that we are all of one heart and mind.
First, let us each ask ourselves how we allowed
ourselves to get in this position? Our children are
now grown, and we are so afraid to speak up for
tear our children won't love us. we have lost our
place in their lives. Our opinion is not heard
anymore. We have been deflated by them, told to
butt" out. They have all the answers. We lived
all these years, we worked and learned, with no
way to pass it on. Many of our children were born
with a birth defect that did not become
noticeable til they grew up. Closed Ears. Closed
Minds. What happens when they get in trouble?
They come to us.' What happens when things are
going great tor them? They ignore us, they forget
our birthdays. Christmas, Anniversaries. But they
expect us not to forget a single one of theirs! Or
those of their children.
A tew short years ago. we were the mainstay of
this American Economv. We were the work force,
we spent our money in the stores for food,
clothing, household furnishings, bicycles, stereos,
records, homes, cars, education, college, we
were the P.T.A. members, we turned out the
citizens that are now doing what we were doing.
■\ few short years ago. we were m charge1.
You people who are in positions of making the
laws, senators, |udges, commissioners, mayors,
attorneys, big business tycoons. All of you, a few
short years ago, we turned you over our knees
and spanked your "posteriors" when vou were
out of line! We taught you right from wrong, we
taught you your values. Without us you would
not have accomplished what you have today.
lust what have vou accomplished? Oh ves. you
make a lot of money, you have position. But what
is left for us? Us Granaparents that are cut off from
your children? The children that are extensions of
ourselves, so we can go back and re-live again, to
watch them grow, and accomplish as we did vou.
to be a part of another tomorrow, through them.
To be again needed, respected, loved, and listen-
ed to. They give us something to live for. we take
pnde if they have inherited our facps our eves
the color of our hair We are born again.
These children- are being kept away from us
We are their 'roots". What is happening when
they grow up? They come looking tor us Lost
Mothers and rathers and Grandparents Will thev
find us? Will we still be alive? They feel betraved
because they missed knowing us. Missed all that
iove we could have given them.
It is time for us to get back "in charge" of our
own destinies. It is time for us to soeak up and de-
mand our human rights, and the rights of our
grandchildren, lust what are we given back for a
lifetime of loving, caring, and working for our lov-
ed ones?
You are telling us, you law makers, that if we
can come into court and show why we ieei we
should have the right to visitation of our grand-
children, you will let us be heard, let us take our
life savings, re-mortgage the homes we have paid
for, be told that we have to be tested by a
psycologist, have our background looked into
have home studies to see if we have a decent
enough place to live, and then with the lowering
of a judges gavel, in most cases, take away our
rights to love and be loved, plus all the money we
spent years to save. r
The word "custody" should' be analyzed It
does not mean "ownership". Look it up It
means, "In care of". The word "custody" is an
honor bestowed upon a parent putting in their
hands the trust of a human life, and future If the
parent wants to live in squaller, starve the
children, beat them, sexually molest them, have
live-ins", with the children seeing men come
and go, leave them unattended, that's all right
They have "custody". Until, of course, someone
notices what is happening, and takes the trouble
to get involved and turns them in.
The children end up in protective custody or in
foster homes. What happens when us Grand-
parents (who they don't bother to tell) come for-
ward and ask to take the children? To love them
ana care tor them? We are told we have io rights'
We are tola we are too old. It looks to me like the
parents of these children are too voung If >hev
give the children to us to care for. we might cie
Young people can die, too. And how many
Grandparents if they were given the children
wou d make sure that if this were to happen
would provide for the childrens' future' More
than any parent would! What are we too old for'
For love and understanding? For helping a chila
with their homework?- For teaching them values'
For discipline we gave you? For teaching them the
importance or growing up to be usefui people' To
give them pride in themselves? For teaching them
good groom ng, how to cook, and sew, and 'ix a
motor?
We are the ones who have the time, and would
take the time, which is very lacking in their
parents. In this fast paced world, with both
parents working, how much "prime time" does a
child get? When parents fail and insult what
"custody" is supposed to mean, we. the Grand-
parents, are next of km. and should be recognized
Continued on Page 2
120
Page 2
as such. We are a commodity, useful people. You
are not making use ot us. Reagan says we have to
find ways to see that the government doesn t
spend so much money. Did anyone ever sit down
and figure out what it would save the government
if one out of every 25 children were taken out or
foster care ana given to us to care for? We are
talking about millions of dollars. Plus, with our
"old fashioned" Grandparenting, the percentage
of children given love and care and understan-
ding that is verv lax in their parents, we could
change the children who get back at their parents
by going into drugs, drinking, and early sex. We
could save lives, with love. You have got this
"stigma" on us and you think we are all over the
hill, in our eighties. We are not.
Some of us are 38 years old up to sixty years
old. We are still part of the working force of this
country, many of us. Retirement age is 62,
remember? Our brains are still working! Some of
us are on Social Security and Disability, but our
disabilities are not affecting our brains, our feel-
ings, and our usefulness! What happens to us
when we cannot see our Grandchildren?
Where do we get the money to pay the court
costs? Starting at $3,500 for a good attorney? If we
raised the money, Social Security would tell us we
don't need them. The category of middle-class
and low income takes in at least 80 percent of us.
So we just forget we ever had grandchildren
because we cannot afford to go to court? Do we
try anyway to raise the money, and then be toid
m court we cannot see or associate with our
grandchildren because it is not in the "best in-
terest of the child?" Trick words that steal our
money and our grandchildren from us. The at-
torneys are making money off our heartbreak. Is
this a form of "big business?" What does Resolu-
tion No. 40 say? That you will, at least, listen? It
savs vou will allow us to go to court and sue for
the right to love and be loved by our own flesh
and blood. Who needs the government for that?
We can do that now! In Washington there has
been a law on the books since 1978 worded
almost exactly the same way. Revised Code N.
26 09.240. look it up! What good has it done any
of us?
If Resolution No. 40 pases, who will control the
individual opinions of |udges and attorneys across
:he U.S.A. >n all the states, in all the courts? And
how much time will pass until we are given a law
that helps a// Grandparents the 80 percent who
cannot afford to go to court? What do we do
meanwhile? Every dav, every year that passes, we
jre further away from the children. How old will
thev be before we are heard again? Will tnev be
yirown? Will we be Great-Grandparents?. ..or
Dead'
This money that we go to court and lose could
put ill tne chiidren through college ana bene'it
them m many other wavs. The 3ttornevs most cer-
tainly make enough to put their children through
college1
We did not cause the divorces or the situations'
thjt keep us away from our Grandchildren Most
of the reasons are the bitternesses of these people
against their ex-mates that happen to be our
children. Some reasons could be that we acted
like natural, loving parents and defended our
own children at the time of divorce. Thev are us-
ing the children to carry out and act out their bit-
ternesses! Usually the person who keeps us av.ay
caused the divorce. One day there was a mar-
riage, and the children accepted us as a natural
part of their lives, and a new dav comes and thev
are told to stop loving us. do not soeak of us. or to
us, and we are stuck still paying for a divorce
while both parents go off to new lives, and we are
"in the way.'' We mav not approve ot new life
styles, or the jeopardy they out the children in.
All the giving, loving and caring we put into all or
them is forgotten. Thev are telling us to divorce
our Grandchildren because they are divorced?
This custodial parent, shall we sav the Mother,
wants to re-marry, she wants to make an impres-
sion on her new in-laws. She cuts us out and tells
the children they have new Grandparents. This is
a lie! It is physically impossible for any child to
have more than two Grandmothers and two
Grandfathers. Certainly true or animais' No one
loves a child as much as oiood <tn'. There are
those Grandoarents out there who could care ess
what happens to their Grandchildren, out that >s
their loss and I am not addressing them.
Most of the reason we are kept away is simplv
that they don't want us around. No one asks the
children what they think. They are "pawns" and
being used to satisfy :he "whims" of the custodial
parent. Usually, they are just enough afraid ot the
angry parent that they don't dare even speak ot
us. We are paying for the fact that they could not
make their marriage work, we are paying tor thcr
stupidity. It is time for us to get back to where we
were. Back to turning a few people over our
knees and spank their "backsides.'' It is time to
get back into the stream of life and be heard.
I heard a Commissioner sav that the laws will
not change in our lifetime. So why live? I wish to
do my part m making a liar out of him. I also
heard that making such drastic changes with laws
for Grandparents would be too mucn of a "'urn
around." The rest of the world is turning around.
why should we sit still? This is the 1 980' i. Haven t
you heard your children say that to vou; I ha\e i
totally new idea for a law ;or Grandparents, t s
wonderful that we have so marv 'm.e groups for
Grandparents Rignts. hard working jeoc ° ii
trying to help each other and accompu^n i-oa
things. What we need is a "frosting ' for our cake
"United Grandparents. " One organization wnere
we know every Grandparent in the U.S. and we
know their story. This way we get a head
count." There is power in numbers. No one will
listen to a choice lew!
I have heard people sav, "God will heio
vou. ..pray!" Let us be logical. We need a lot
more than prayers. I think God wants us to stand
jp and right for our rights. "Cod helps those who
help themselves." He gave us a brain and a heart
and he expects us to use both. Cod savs. 'Honor
thy Mother and thv Father'' What happened to
that Commandment?
This is my proposal for a law for the rights of ail
Grandparents, tor all situations. Keeping us away
rrom our Grandchildren is de'amation of
character, alienation of affections. These peoole
Continued on Page 3
121
Page 3
who l<eep us awav take tor granted and assume '
that our Grandchildren will be harmed in our
presence. This is an accusation and unproven.
We are being accused, and with no proof at all.
lust because they say it. I think it is time we forced
them to prove that we are unfit Grandparents.
Thev are against us. We are not against- anything
other than the terrible treatment we are getting.
The law should read: We should be able to go
to an attorney at the price or approximately
550.00 to have a letter written to the custodial
parent that keeps us away, asking tor the right to
see and associate with our grandchildren. By law,
this letter must be answered to. within a certain
but short length of time. If it is a negative answer,
then they would have to realize that they would
have to automatically take us to court at their
cost, including our attorney and our choice, of at-
torney. Make them pay in court and prove what
they are saying against us. lust saying no is not
good enough. They must prove n. How will they
do that when it is all an assumption on their part?
They could not know ahead of time what we will
do. say or teach their children.
If this were a law-, how many of them would
want to go to court and spend the kind of money
they don't care if we spend? How many of them
would decide it is cheaper to let us have the
children back? How many of them would try to
raise the money they expect us to raise? Sure.
they would rather we just go away, but we are not
going to! They are accusing us of being unfit
without proof. Let us make them prove it. Will we
beat the children, sexually molest them, starve
them, warp their minds? No. that is what they are
doing! We have to make them answer to their
assumptions."
No more being told we have to be evaluated.
More parents need that than us. No more insults
to our integrity1
When, let us say, a Father gives up his child for
adoption to a step-father, we didn't adopt that
child out! Yet. we are told we are no longer
Grandparents. When an unwed Mother adopts
out her child, are we asked if we want it? No mat-
ter where it goes, we are still the Grandparents.
Thev check us out to see if we are fit" and she
gives it awav! Our blood kin! Who said "United
we stand, divided we rail?" Without the
backbone of ramilv in this country we will rail! No
one knows who is related to whom, and this
could even end up in marriage to vour own
cousin, or even your own brother or sister.
Without family "roots " the American tree of life
will die. We will have no ancestors, and we will
end up all individuals who don't belong to
anvone. This must be stopped. What can my ex-
daughter-m-law sav about me if she takes me to
court to prove that I am not good enough to
associate with mv Grandchildren? What can
vours say? That I wasn't good to her children? She
has to swear on a bible, vou know! That I am im-
moral (she has to prove that, too!)? I do not
believe that "assumption" is permissable in any
courtroom.
Why take away a child's roots? None of us
could be as bad as these hundreds and thousands
of parents that let their children end up m foster
homes bv their neglect. Mothers that take support
money from a Father and then trv to keep him
away. She is in contemot and getting awav with it.
Who ever said just because you are a Mother vou
are right? Thev make mistakes, just like we did. A
Father must be made :o feel welcome so his
children know he loves them, not iust any man
the Mother "shacks" with or marries. The real
Father. ..the person the child looks like. Stood
Kin.
The Mother tells the child vour father is no
good if he is out of work or not supporting rhem
How did love turn into doilars? If a child is to.d
their Father has no worth, then thev reel tnev
don't either. When he stays away they feel thev
have done something wrong. Too manv parents
are putting grown-up burdens on little children.
They are four years going on twenty' Let them just
be children, be loved, and be happy. Thev will
have our burdens soon enough1 These children
are being taught that Grandparents, olcer oeoo>e
are bad people. Will they teach their children the
same? You Grandparents with this neanorean out
there. We are the only ones that can make a
change. You law makers, you can't make laws for
us, unless you ask us what we want. We can still
hold a pencil and make our "mark" in voting for
you. We don't want any more "trick" words.
If a law is written, it should mean what the
words say. Not a dozen different wavs to change
the words to fit each situation. Exactly what it says
Word for word. At this time in our lives we should
have peace, dignity, respect, not all this pain Qnd
insult. We know what "parent" means. Look up
and see what "Grand" means. You wiil rind it
means "Worthy of Exalted Respect." In raising all
of you we gave up what we wanted, to make sure
you would have more than we had. we gave vou
better lives. We v.orked hard for vou. What are
you giving us to live out the rest of our lives with?
Leaving us alone, keeping your children from js
making us feel that our lives were for nothing!
Every human being needs to be needed, needs to
love and be loved. Did you forget that we still fall
into that category? Do you keep us awav because
we were once young and made mistake' and vo-
are punishing us? I sav again that keeping 'js awi'.
is 'defamation of character'' and 't is against t^e
law to make such an accusation without proving
it. If they hate us so much, they will oe happy to
take us to court and get rid of us once and for all
(if they can.).
Can you see it in print? 'Ex-daushtc-in-iaw
takes Grandparents to court to prove them untit
Grandparents^" How would the pubiic answer to
that one? "Grandmother is told in court that her
association with her Grandchiiaren would corruct
their lives. " None of my children ever were in anv
foster home or in protective custocv1 None or mv
children were ever in jail, or on drugs! How aoout
vours? Ms custodial Mother?
You Grandparents, don't just sit there and take
this kind of abuse and expect a choice few of us
to mend your fences. Stand up and be heard! We
need you all. How much do you love your Grand-
children? How badly do you want them back? If
Continued on Page 4
122
Page 4
we sit there and let this happen, then we are
showing rhe world that we are serine, insignifi-
cant, useless people. If we do not come out in a
large body, we will get just what we have coming:
nothing. We got ourselves in this position bv not
speaking up in the past, like I said m the first part
ot this, being afraid if we spoke our piece our
children would walk awav and leave us alone.
Isn't that what we have allowed them to do? I'm
alone, how about you? Do your children worry
about vou? Do they ask you it vou need anything?
Do thev care if you have food, clothing and vour
rent is paid' Do thev help you if vou are ill? Do
thev care if vou are cold in winter? And here we
sit still caring about all these things about them!
And most certainly, our Grandchildren!) This
'stigma'' that -ociety has put on us can only be
removed bv us. If you are a Grandparent, you are
a senior citizen and if you are a senior citizen, you
are elderly, and if you are elderly, you are old and
useless, just taking up space. We put ourselves in
this position!
We forgot to speak up, and we kept what we
thought to ourselves and we didn't make them
listen. Remember your Mother and your Grand-
mother (and the Grandfathers and Fathers) bragg-
ing about how many Grandchildren and Great-
grandchildren they had? We won't be able to
brag, we are kept away, no one will tell us. and
we won't even know where the children are!
How manv of you out there, when vou want a
name or address of a relative do you ask your
Mom and Dad? They keep track of everyone, all
the relatives, vour Aunts. Uncles, and Cousins.
Who will these lost children ask? They are told
we are lepers of some same sort. Untouchables.
Does this mean that one whole side of their family
.s also untit? A whole lost family? Like the words
to a song. 'We are Family." We are the mamstav
of the American Family! We are an American
Commoditv, going to waste.
It does not matter whether we live in a fancy
house or not. "Love ' is a house ot its own. Stop
going to court, stop letting these people insult us.
it is undignified. Stop letting them take our monev
that we meant for our "old age. " Let us make
sure that Crardoarents have some risers bv join-
ing hands ac-oss tre U.S. n ore :ar~e bodv of
people Thev will heir js then! Each ir<: e.erv
ce'son -\ho cares to write to me. I will answer
Tell vour stones Public awareness can help. Let
l,s print our stories and name names. No one can
hurt me anv more than thev aireadv have, vou
either so speak up! Don t sit there and take it. Let
us become a power that will be heard for all the
children out there we love.
We have come down to this, and iust see how
;his sounds to vou. We are groveling in the dirt
a.-~in, for crumbs going to court and begging 'or
the right to love our own people. We are taxing
insults ana oavmg big dollars for it. And we are
ivaiking awav >vith no more than we had before
.vhen we ose ar.d in debt, to boot! We must
nave laws written tor us. laws we write. We must
he neard'
! am 59 vears old. I am far from senile, and as
far as I feel about mvself mv intelligence far ex-
ceeds the ex-daughter-in-law that keeps me
C»M*-L J/IuA^UmJ^.
away. I am not useless. I am valuable to all who
know me.. and I know I can better the lives of any
and all of my Grandchildren by mv presence in
their lives. Sometimes they won't listen to their
parerts. and they will listen to us. We have a love
they are sure ot. We can save lives and futures bv
lust being there.
Do you feel about yourself the way I feel about
me? Then do something about it! Join hands with
us. Stand up and be counted! We only 30 around
once!
We are left with empty chairs at Thanksgiving,
and the anticipation of happv children and
laughing voices at Christmas. All we have left is
memories of yesterday. No description of the
emptiness ot loneliness could ever be better ex-
pressed than this.'
With all my love
loyce Fried/and, Founder of S.O.N.G.
'Society of Neglected Grandparents. Inc.)
731 W. Knox. Spokane 99205 5C9-327-3452
Dues: S20.00 a year. Monthly newsletters sent to
all members. All letters received answered im-
mediately. Enclose S.A.S.E. join us!
P.S. We advise every couple that intends to
divorce to write into the divorce visitation rights
" for all four Grandparents, even if the present
situation is on the best of terms. Tomorrow it mav
not be! Ask you children to protect vou' Keep a
•S.O.N.G." in vour heart! (In my essay I mention
the "Stigma" that is put on us. This poem prettv
well describes what I mean.)-
The Quandary of Growing Old
lust a line to say I'm living
That I'm not among the dead
Tho' I'm getting more forgetful
And more mixeo up n mv head
For sometimes I can't remembe' when
I stand at the toot of the stairs
If I must go uo -or sorretNna.
Or if I iust came down -rom there.
Ano before the 'efr'i<?ratOr tO ?ftcn
Mv ocor mine s rillea w,th oouc:
Have I ust out 'ooa awav
Or have I come to ta«.e ;orre out'
And mere are times when .t is aarK out
With my night cap on mv head
I don't know it I'm retiring
Or just getting out ot bed?
So, if it's m\ turn to write.
There s no neea in getting sore:
I mav think that I have written
And don't want to "e a bore.
So rememoer, I do love you
And I ao wisn vou were here.
But now t's neariv mail time.
So I must sav, "Good bve." my dear.
There I stood besiae the mail box
With a face so very red.
Insteao of mailing you my letter
I had opened it instead.
123
Senator East. Thank you, Mrs. Teverbaugh. I am deeply moved
by what you and the other witnesses have said, and, when we have
concluded with all the witnesses, I would like to make a few gener-
al observations of my own on the common themes that run through
all of your comments this morning.
I would like now to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Martin M. Highto of
Baltimore, Md. I want you to know that Senator Sarbanes wished
to personally welcome you.
Officer, did he leave then?
Officer. Yes, sir.
Senator East. Senator Sarbanes did leave. I saw him duck his
head in and I knew he had wanted to come and make a statement
about the presence of Mr. and Mrs. Martin G. Highto. For some
reason — perhaps, he felt he would unduly interfere with our pro-
ceedings— and was unable to stay.
Mr. Highto. That's nice to know, Senator.
Senator East. So, in any case, you can thank your Senator for
having made the effort.
Mr. Highto. Thank you.
Senator East. You're welcome, and if you will please make your
statement.
STATEMENT OF MARTIN G. AND GERRIE HIGHTO
Mr. Highto. Thank you. Honorable Chairman, we are Mr. and
Mrs. Highto, and we reside in Baltimore, Md. We are here to tes-
tify regarding the areas of domestic human relations concerning
the increase in child abduction and the issue of visitation rights for
grandparents.
The issue of grandparents' rights to visit with their grandchil-
dren is one issue that, until recently, has been totally neglected.
With the divorce rates exceeding 50 percent and where grandchil-
dren are involved, some grandparents are completely and totally
ignored. Unfortunately, we know too many grandparents who are
in this position today simply because of the hostilities between the
divorcing couple who use the children as pawns, in an effort to get
even with each other. This issue exists also among grandparents
whose natural children, whether they be divorced or not, become
angry with their own parents and they, too, will spitefully withhold
the children from seeing their grandparents. Another situation
which involves grandparents, and this happens quite often, is the
untimely death or disappearance of a noncustodial parent. When
this happens, the custodial parent may, for whatever reason, with-
hold the children from seeing their grandparents who have abso-
lutely no rights whatsoever, completely destroying the poor grand-
parents.
Churches, synagogues, schools, family and children's services are
keenly aware of the unique relationship between grandchildren
and grandparents and are trying desperately to involve them in ev-
eryday activities. Our grandson's school initiated, for the first time,
a grandparents day. The faculty was completely overwhelmed by
the grandparents who came out in droves, far exceeding their wil-
dest expectations. Grandparents came from as far away as Califor-
nia. It was a marvelous day.
124
We have found that whichever parent has assumed custody, in
many cases, the noncustodial parents and immediate family are
often given a most difficult time. Unless you have experienced this
personally or if it happens to one's family, you cannot possibly
know the heartache and frustrations caused by the cruelty, hatred,
and vengeance manifested against grandparents by some custodial
parents. It is unbelievable. This became an issue with us almost as
a preventative one, while our daughter was going through a di-
vorce. Also, very close friends of ours — would you believe they hid
themselves in bushes and foliage near their granddaughter's school
just so they could see her? They were not only forbidden to visit
her, they could not even speak to her.
Mrs. Highto. And I am Mrs. Highto, otherwise known as
Grandma Gerrie, according to the press. But my involvement
began when I read a newspaper article on the subject which was
very apropos. I immediately called the Maryland State Legislature
in Annapolis in an effort to find what laws, if any, the State of
Maryland had regarding grandparents' visitation rights. To my
utter dismay and astonishment, I found there was absolutely noth-
ing on the books relating to this situation. I did learn that the Hon-
orable State Senator Rosalie Abrams, who was the majority leader
at that time, had been sponsoring a grandparents bill since 1975.
This was 1980. The senate had been rejecting this bill as having no
importance. I then spoke to Senator Abrams and offered her my as-
sistance. With the aid of my husband, family, and friends, we took
to street corners and shopping malls. We proceeded to get petitions
on a statewide basis, which I must admit was a very difficult job,
especially as a daily routine. Fortunately, when people realized
what was involved, they not only stood and waited to sign, but of-
fered help of all kinds. Whenever we collected a few hundred signa-
tures, they were Xeroxed and we hand-delivered them to every del-
egate and senator in the Maryland Legislature. This went on for
months until almost the end of the legislative session.
Still the State of Maryland had no laws which gave grandparents
any legal or moral rights and absolutely no recourse should the
custodial parent refuse to allow them to see or even speak to their
grandchildren. I assure you that you cannot imagine what a devas-
tating effect this has on a young child, especially if the child has
had a close, loving relationship with his or her grandparents. What
does a 5-year-old child think when he is suddenly cut off, as you
sever an umbilical cord, from the most unselfish love he will ever
know? I can tell you of two of the most difficult and heartrending
remarks. How would you feel if your grandchild looked up at you
and said "Grandma, why can't I sleep at your house anymore?"
What can you say to this loving child who has spent practically
half of his short life in your house? Then after a difficult time of
trying to answer, he bursts into tears and yells "Nobody cares
about me!" Is it not traumatic enough for a young child to be sepa-
rated from one of his parents without shocking him further by
alienating him from the unselfish love of his grandparents whom
he has loved since he can remember? The frustrations of grandpar-
ents are totally overshadowed by the terrible injustices being done
to children all over this country.
125
We almost faced this tragedy along with countless other grand-
parents and their grandchildren, who really need each other. For-
tunately, because of our staying power and with the aid of the Hon-
orable Senator Abrams, the Maryland State Legislature passed
Senate bill No. 333 granting grandparents the right to petition the
courts for visitation rights. Then on December 16, 1982, I was re-
quested to appear before the Select Committee on Aging in the
U.S. House of Representatives, chaired by Congressman Mario
Biaggi of the State of New York, who shortly thereafter successful-
ly guided this piece of legislation through the House. This bill does
not give grandparents the right to visitation. It gives us the right
to petition the courts for such. But it still remains the jurisdiction
of the presiding judge as to whether they be granted or not.
Now, frankly, I think this is not quite the way it should be. I
think that a committee should be set up — you can't go in cold and
have a judge coldly take the word of one against the other. There
should be an evaluation committee. And as of now almost 50 States
have some type of law regarding grandparents' visitation rights.
Unfortunately, most States will not reciprocate with one another
when a custodial parent decides to cross State lines.
This is the main reason for a uniform Federal law that would
give guidelines to all 50 States. The States would administer these
uniform laws and we hope this would reduce and perhaps elimi-
nate child abductions and State-hopping by custodial parents who
would circumvent the laws of the original State.
As a rule, grandparents are the last people who want to see their
children divorced and a family torn apart. A uniform Federal law
would give us our legal and moral rights to love and relate to our
grandchildren. We wish to produce a generation of children who
will know their roots and obtain some stability. We provide a sup-
port system and another means of identification when such a
trauma occurs. We, as grandparents, give the gift of self-worth. The
gift of caring, the important gift of heritage, the gift of special
memories, the gift of sharing experiences, and last but by no means
least the gift of love and acceptance. A child needs a sense of con-
tinuity and we are continually there to buffer him against adversi-
ty. Let us not forget that we are their roots and do what we can to
protect them. Remember, for whatever reason a marriage termi-
nates, there is no such thing as an exgrandparent.
Please keep one thing in mind. We have chosen you as our law-
makers and we live by the laws you pass. In a sense we are your
suppliants and you are our conscience. We are not radicals. We do
not advocate radical law changes. We are human beings in the twi-
light of our years, seeking what little happiness we can garner
from our grandchildren.
We have already asked God for his help, now we ask you for
yours. Remember, where would we be if it were not for our own
grandparents? There is no love that can replace the very special
love of the grandchild and the grandparent and how sad it is for
the grandchild who never knew or does not remember his grand-
parents.
Thank you.
Senator East. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Highto. I feel both of you
have contributed a very moving and touching statement on the
29-610 O— 84-
126
extent and significance of the problem. I wish to thank you on
behalf of the subcommittee for your willingness to come and be a
part of this discussion.
I would now like to turn to Mr. Richard Victor, who is an attor-
ney at law from Birmingham, Mich.
Mr. Victor, we appreciate your coming and welcome you here
this morning.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. VICTOR
Mr. Victor. Thank you very much, Senator East. As chairman of
the subcommittee, I wish to thank you for an opportunity to be
heard this morning.
Senator East, this matter is a matter dealing with the American
family. I cannot express that deeply enough. I have in the last 4
years spent a great deal of my practice in the area of family law,
representing grandparents who have been, for one reason or an-
other, deprived and denied the right and ability to visit with their
grandchildren.
One of the foundations that we had to do in the State of Michi-
gan was to provide adequate and good laws so that the citizens in
the State of Michigan would have an opportunity for, No. 1, stand-
ing, and No. 2, the right to come before a court and ask for visita-
tion if that visitation has been denied.
As a safeguard to the legislation, we have the concept of what-
ever is in the best interests of the children would control, so that
not all grandparents— in many instances, grandparents should
not— would have the right to come in and see their grandchildren.
But all grandparents at least would have the opportunity to at
least ask for that right, and, if it is in the best interests of the chil-
dren, be granted.
We are not here today asking for the Federal Government to dic-
tate to the States what to do. What we are here for today, through
the model legislation, model act that has been presented to the
Senate for this committee to look at, for legislation to provide
proper laws, properly drafted, concise statements of a national
problem; to recognize this national problem; and then to present it
to the States at their option whether to accept it and adopt it or
not. We are not forcing any State to do it.
What are we doing? Well, first of all, I break it down into two
categories, the need for the law, and, second, the need for uniform
conformity, reciprocal laws through the National Commission that
the legislation provides.
The grandparents' stories that you have heard today, and grand-
parents' stories that I could relate to you from 4 years of practicing
in this area, would provide for you, Senator, and for other Mem-
bers of this Senate, a chance to see that a deprivation of a chance
to see your grandchild could happen to anyone. It crosses all
boundaries. You may have good control, usually, over the relation-
ship that you have with your own family and your own child, but
when there has been a marriage— and there may be problems with
a son-in-law or a daughter-in-law that maybe you had no control
over someone who dislikes you for nothing that you did, but maybe
because of the person that you are and they are jealous or they
127
have their own problems psychologically, they can deny you, under
facts and circumstances that we have seen in America today, the
opportunity of seeing your grandchildren. They have amputated
your grandchildren from you— and it's wrong; it's wrong from the
psychological stance, as we have heard testimony today, and it's
wrong from the traditional sense of America, and the feelings of
the family in America, which is our foundation.
Grandchildren who are denied seeing their grandparents as ado-
lescents are deprived of the shared memories which last a lifetime,
and once those are denied, they are denied forever. This is a form
of emotional abuse and deprivation that takes place on the part of
children; in America today.
What image of the family will we leave for these children? We
teach our children not by what we say, but by what we do. It is an
epidemic with respect to the divorce rate in this country. I don t
know where it is going, but I do know that we need to do some-
thing about it. We can't stop people from getting divorced, that's a
fact, but what we can do is recognize that for every two marriages
one is ending in divorce now, and we have a need for children that
we must instill in them concepts of the American family; we must
let children know that because their parents' marriage ended
whether it be via a death or a divorce, the children will not be de-
prived of the foundation of family. And it is not necessary to go
back and take a look at our history in America to know that the
principles of family, the principles of sitting around the fireplace
on a Christmas evening, the principles that we teach our children
in the family setting, are the principles that this country has its
foundation from, and the principles that we will instill in all citi-
zens in the United States as a necessity for them in growing up.
Now, how can we do this through the model act that is before
the Senate? It is a strongly emotional issue, as the Senate and I am
sure you know yourself. But what are we doing here?
Well, first, through an analysis of all the 50 State laws that I
have checked and that I have researched before coming here today,
I realize that there is total confusion and hodge-podge in the state
legislatures and in the legislation that is there.
Now, I am not saying that I am better than the legislators in the
50 States nor the Members of the Senate here are better than those
people, to tell them what they should do. But I think there is a cry
in the States for help. They are not all specialists in domestic rela-
tions—and I am not saying that I am the specialist in domestic re-
lations. But if a model act is drafted that incorporates the situa-
tions of death, divorce, legal separation, and this new concept of
step-parent adoption— and that model act is then presented to the
legislatures, to say that this is a model act after a lot of thinking
and a lot of input from the different States, we have found to be
successful in reuniting families in America, and it is here for your
consideration now— that they will appreciate it, that they will say
thank you. And if they choose not to adopt it, it is their choice.
But we will give it to them, we will give it to the children of
those States and the families of America. In Michigan, if I may just
take as an illustration of a problem that we had in trying to formu-
late this law— before 1971 there were no laws with respect to
grandparents and rights of visitation if they had been denied. In
128
1971 a law was enacted that limited the right of grandparents to
situation where there was a death of their own child. What hap-
pened, then, in 1979 is a situation occurred where a grandmother's
daughter died. She didn't have the best relationship with her
former son-in-law — unfortunately, we all can't have that in a
family in an emotional setting — but she was very close with her
granddaughter and her own daughter. Following her daughter's
death, the son-in-law remarried; the son-in-law's new wife, their
stepmother, then adopted the child. Well, now we have a legal
problem: Who is the maternal grandmother of the child, the adopt-
ed mother's mother or the biological mother? We had no concept of
distinguishing stepparent adoptions from at-birth adoptions, be-
cause we didn't think of it before.
Well, it's a reality now; with so many divorces ending young par-
ents' lives, we must now consider the new family of the 1980's and
1990's, and not take the family and say because you had a trauma,
forget you. We must now deal with laws so that we can protect
that family as best we can.
So in Michigan we had to go to work and change the laws. But it
was very confusing; it was a very difficult issue to understand and
accept; there was no question that the legislature felt that grand-
parents should have rights, but how do we draft it, where do we
put it? In 1980 they made two amendments, but they were put in
sections of law with prerequisites of child custody disputes. Now
they put grandparents as parties in divorce cases. That is not what
they intended; they wanted grandparents to have a right to come
into court and ask for visitation; if that visitation was denied on
the basis of the best interests of the children, then so be it. But oth-
erwise let them have standing and the right to be heard.
Finally, in December 1982, the law was enacted, passed, and
signed by the Governor. Now we have laws that cover this area. It
took us 12 years to figure out how to do it.
What this model act has done is it has put together the problems
that we have experienced in Michigan and all the 50 — there are 47
States that have laws; that means that 47 States have said some-
where along the line that grandparents do have rights. But we are
helping those 47 States with a model act that will set out all of the
things that the experiences of the different States have shown, and
we are asking them now to utilize this for the benefit of their own
citizens, if they choose to. If they choose not to, no one will force
them.
It is clear and concise laws that this model act that we are
asking the National Conference to provide, and these laws will
hopefully be enacted throughout the United States, if it is the
choice of the States to do so.
This will aid the States in bringing about the rekindling of the
American family, the American family whose principles are the
foundation which this great country has existed toward and has
used as its basis for freedom.
I strongly request this subcommittee seriously consider the neces-
sity of this legislation. If I may close with reading a very short
poem that was written by a grandniece of an 83-year-old grandfa-
ther who recently recited it on a television program that I was on,
and it brought tears to all of our eyes:
129
"Grandpa, can I see you?
"Could you take me to the fair?
"Would you read me a little story
"And tell me that you care?
"Grandpa, would you walk with me
"Or hold me on your knee?
"I wish that I could talk to you.
"Grandpa, why can't it be?
"Grandpa, do you love me?
"Yes, I love you, too.
"I dream of us together.
"Do dreams ever come true?
"Grandpa, I keep praying
"We will be laughing very soon,
"And some day we will be singing
"A simple little tune.
"Grandpa, can I see you?
"I know this isn't fair.
"But things will soon be changing
"And we can be a pair.
"Grandpa, we will be together,
"Just wait a little while.
"Grandpa, don't stop trying,
"I want to see you smile."
I can't say it any better.
[The following was received for the record:]
130
Prepared Statement of Richard S. Victor
suwAra
As a result of continued population growth, especially
our "baby boom of the 40' s," the 1980" s and the 1990 's will
provide our society with a greater number of grandparents than
we have known in our recent past. Add to this fact that the
divorce rate in our country is staggering, with estimates of
almost one divorce for every two marriages. In addition,
these divorces are occurring between young parents who have
young children, facilitating a trend in our society which can
create conflicts which were unimaginable in past decades.
Whether the legislative involvement should be on a state-to-
state b:sis, strictly federal, or a combination of both, is
a question which needs to be answered at this time.
Grandparents across our nation have been standing up
and speaking out when they have been denied the opportunity
to visit with their grandchildren. This has taken place in
the formation of various support groups on a state and national
level , as well as numerous court cases whi~h have been pursued
to enforce rights of grandparents to be able to visit with their
grandchildren. Grandparents' rights to visitation is only one-
half of the subject. The converse deals with the rights of
grandchildren to be able to visit with, communicate with and
maintain contact with their grandparents. This should be of
significance to the legislative bodies which pass laws to protect
seoments of our population who are not able to protect themselves
as well as to pass laws which provide remedies where injustices
have occurred.
Through my vork as an attorney in private practice, I
have had numerous dealings with grandparents who have been
denied the right to visit with their qrandchildren . Because of
these denials, grandparents were forced to seek court inter-
vention to enforce rights which they thought were their
rights inherently. Unfortunately, the rights which they have,
if any, are statutory in nature. This means that the rights
exist only if staLe laws were past giving them rights.
Public attention has been drawn to this issue because
of the deep emotions and the equities that are involved. Examples
of cases which I have handled and which I believe will show a
definite need for legislative involvement are as follows:
1. Husband and wife, following marital
difficulties, have a divorce action
filed and pending. Prior to a divorce
judgment being entered, husband
commits suicide, leaving a three-year
old child of the parties. Husband's
parents (grandparents) have maintained
a close relationship with their three-
year old grandson and continue that
relationship following the untimely
131
death of their son. While wife is be-
ginning her new life, grandparents have
additional involvement with their grand-
child, and in fact take care of him
while wife begins employment. Wife
meets a man and they subsequently marry .
Man (stepparent) adopts child. Stepparent
is now the legal father of said child.
Query: Who are the paternal grandparents
of that child?
Grandparents are told, "You can no
longer visit or see grandchild again."
What are their rights?
2. Wife, following marital problems with
her husband, leaves husband along with
their six-month old daughter. While
driving, following her departure, she is
involved in a fatal automobile accident
wherein she is killed. The six-month
old child survives. Wife's parents
(maternal grandparents) take care of
infant grandchild until father of the
child remarries. Remarried father and
stepmother then have the child live
with them. Grandparents continue to
see the child, but following the wishes
of the father and stepmother, do not
tell the child that they are her grand-
parents. Stepmother of child adopts
the child and raises the child never tell-
ing her that she was not the natural
mother of the child. After several years,
the father and stepmother of the child
tell grandparents they can no longer
see their granddaughter again.
Grandparents never tell the grandchild
who they really are, following the wishes
of the parent. However, they are unwill-
ing to forfeit all contact with their
grandchild. What rights do they have?
3. Husband and wife are divorced, following
divorce husband is given custody of the
one minor child. Husband has psychological
problems which hender his ability to contin-
ue custody of the minor child, and in fact
while he legally has custody said minor
child resides with the paternal grandparents
who properly raise and nurture the child.
Wife files for a change of custody, follow-
ing her remarriage, which is granted. Pa-
ternal grandparents never contested the
change of custody and were in agreement with
the wife having legal custody, as they
acknowledged the psychological problems
which affected their son. Subsequent to
wife regaining custody, and for no apparent
reason, she completely denies the paternal
grandparents any visitation with the minor
child. No allegation is ever made that the
paternal grandparents are in any way unfit,
or would be harmful to the minor child.
What are their rights?
4. Unwed mother gives birth. Maternal grand-
parents are extensively involved in helping
raise the child. Putative father of the
child acknowledges paternity and seeks custody
of the minor child. Mother of the child does'
132
not want custody of the child and does not
contest father's petition. Maternal grand-
parents of the child want to be able to
assure visitation with the child once
custody is granted to the acknowledged natural
and now legal father of the child. What
rights do they have?
5. Husband and wife have one minor daughter.
Husband dies and wife maintains custody
of minor child. Because of emotional and
psychological problems which the mother
of the child is suffering, she sends the
minor child to her mother's home (maternal
grandmother) to live with the maternal
grandparents for a period of time. The
child resides with the maternal grand-
parents, is raised by them for a period
of time and does well. Subsequently
thereafter, the mother of the child decides
she wants her minor child back and refuses
the maternal grandparents to have any con-
tact with the minor child, including visita-
tion. Maternal grandparents are worried
because of the history of emotional problems
which the mother of the child has suffered
and not only refuse to give up their contacts/
with their minor grandchild, but worry for
his safety as well. What legal rights do
they have?
Some of these cases are still pending and awaiting evi-
dentiary hearings dealing with what is in the best interests of
the minor child. Others have been disposed of through either
court rulings or voluntary dismissals following the intervention
of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, or other profession-
als trained in the behavioral sciences who have helped reconcile
families following disputes. Unfortunately, in most of the cases
where professionals in the behavioral sciences have intervened,
their intervention was only agreed to by the legal custodian or
parent (s) because of the threat of court litigation. The incentive
for the legal custodian of the minor children to attempt counseling
or a voluntary reconciliation of the emotional traumas involved
was their knowledge that the grandparents involved had the ability
to seek court enforcement pursuant to legislative enactments.
Without those legislative enactments, without just and proper laws
available, there would be no incentive. Thus, the fact that legis-
lation is created will not of and by itself create additional bur-
dens on our courts. In fact, they create incentives for parties
to reconcile and to correct wrongs which may have been committed.
The court enforcement and application of legislation would be
utilized as a last resort to correct injustices.
In no cabi- do I believe that grandparental visitation
is an absolute. Not all grandparents should be able to visit
with their grandchildren. There may be many instances where in
fact it would be detrimental to a child to be subjected to
visitation with his or her grandparents given the proper factual
setting. However, these decisions must be made on a case by
133
case basis with one underlying theme or factor; and that is,
THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD SHOULD CONTROL.
There is no question that the problems relating to the
rights of grandparents to visit with their grandchildren is a real
concern to a great number of people in our country. This concern
is one which shall surely grow because of the amount of divorce
in our country. We must concern ourselves with the concept of
the "extended family" which includes grandparents, stepparents,
and other third parties from the traditional family unit. Further,
grandparents "as seniors" of our society shall have a greater
impact as their numbers increase. "Grandma" and "grandpa," just
as grandson and granddaughter, have inherent rights in our
family unit. They are necessary to pass on the heritage of the
past. They are a link in the long chain of continued growth and
expansion of our society. They should no longer be ignored!
Psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers can
tell us of the importance that grandparents can have on grandchildren.
Students of history note how different civilizations treat their
older generations. It would seem logical that "seniors" can help
us learn from our mistakes and teach us traditions and cultures
which can be utilized and passed on in the future. Lastly, and
it is something that I remind the litigants who are involved in
cases where I fight in court for grandparent visitation, and that
the parents who are standing in the way of allowing their children
to contact, communicate, and share with their grandparents, may
one day be grandparents themselves. How do they want their
child to remember their own actions. We teach our children not by
what we say, but rather by what we do. It is now time to do what
must be done and to recognize the rights and responsibilities
that we all face in the most basic structure that God ever
created -- the family.
STATEMENT
1. How and Why This Issue Has Gathered National Attention
And The Need For State Statutes.
Whenever portions of our society are members of a
class which are susceptible to arbitrary decisions, animosity,
and/or loss of rights, members of that class usually find a way
to draw attention to their alleged injustices. Hopefully, our
society understands and accepts this principle and attempts to
cure injustices once they are known.
As a result of continued population growth, especially
our "baby boom of the 40' s," the 1980 's and 1990' s will provide
our society with a greater number of grandparents than we have
known in our past. Add to this fact that the divorce rate in
29-610 O— 84 10
134
our country is staggering with estimates of almost one divorce
for every two marriage, and in addition, these divorces are
occurring between young parents who have young children, we can
see that this trend in our society can create conflicts which
were unimaginable in past decades. Some of these conflicts need
legislative involvement in order to cure injustices which might
occur. Whether the legislative involvement which is necessary
should be on a state-to-state basis, strictly Federal, or a com-
bination of both, is a question which needs to be answered at this
time.
Grandparents across our nation have been standing
up and speaking out when they have been denied the opportunity
to visit with their grandchildren for no apparent reasons.
This has taken place in the form of the formation of various
support groups on a state and national level, as well as
numerous court cases which have been pursued to enforce inherent
rights of grandparents to be able to visit with their grand-
children. The title of this subject "grandparents' rights
to visitation" is only one-half of the subject. The converse
deals with the rights of grandchildren to be able to visit
with, communicate, and maintain contact with their grand-
parents. This, I believe, should be the crux of our investi-
gation. This should be of significance to the legislative
bodies which pass laws to protect segments of our population
who are not able to protect themselves as well as to pass laws
which provide remedies where injustices have occurred. To quote
Arthur Kornhaver, M.D. and Kenneth L. Woodward: "The grand-
parent and grandchild relationship is a vital connection."
Through my work as an attorney in private practice
in the State of Michigan, I have had numerous dealings with
grandparents who have been denied the right to visit with their
grandchildren. Because of these denials, these grandparents
were forced to seek court intervention to enforce rights which
these grandparents felt were their rights Inherently. Unfor-
tunately, the rights which they have, If any, are statutory
in nature. Therefore, my clients have been limited to what
was set forth by state statute in the State of Michigan and
the appellate decisions which interpret those statutes, and
135
have only been able to be successful in receiving court inter-
venston when legislation was provided by the state recognizing
this issue.
Through our extensive research we have found various
state statutes which deal with this topic and which will be
discussed later in this testimony. Several of these state
statutes have conflicts within the statutes themselves
which has caused a great deal of confusion when they are
interpreted by the courts. These conflicts arise in cases where
there have been divorces or separations in families, death of
a parent leaving surviving parents (grandparents) and minor
children (grandchildren), children born to parents who were
not married, or where questions of where a child should reside
(between a parent and a grandparent) were submitted to a court.
In all of these cases, grandparents, whether maternal or paternal,
were involved and wanted contact with their grandchildren. In
very few cases have we dealt with grandparents fighting for
custody of their grandchildren over a natural parent. The
cases that we have primarily dealt with are of such a nature
that grandparents only wanted to continue a relationship with
their grandchildren that had been established and they wished to
continue, but had been terminated arbitrarily by the legal custodian
(usually the parent or parents) of the child.
Public attention has been drawn to this issue because
of the deep emotions and the equities that are involved. I
shall address, by way of factual scenarios, cases which I
have handled and which I believe will show a definite need
for legislative involvement.
2. The Nature of My Clients, The Themes That Run Through
Their Cases, And The Rationale Used To Render Disposition.
The Client Scenarios:
1. Husband and wife, following marital
difficulties, have a divorce action
filed and pending. Prior to a divorce
judgment being entered, husband
commits suicide, leaving a three-year old
child of the parties. Husband's
parents (grandparents) have main-
tained a close relationship with their
three -year old grandson and continue
136
that relationship following the untimely
death of their son. While" wife is be-
ginning her new life, grandparents have
• additional involvement with their
grandchild, and in. fact take care of
him while wife begins employment.
Wife meets a man and they subsequently
marry. Man (stepparent) adopts child.
Stepparent is now the legal father of
said child. Query: Who are the paternal
grandparents of that child?
Grandparents are told, "You can no
longer visit or see grandchild again."
What are their rights?
2. Wife, following marital problems with
her husband, leaves husband along with
their six-month old daughter. While
driving, following her departure, she is
involved in a fatal automobile accident
wherein she is killed. The six-month
old child survives. Wife's parents
(maternal grandparents) take care of
infant grandchild until father of the
child remarries. Remarried father and
stepmother then have the child live
with them. Grandparents continue to
see the child, but following the wishes
of the father and stepmother, do not
tell the child that they are her grand-
parents. Stepmother of child adopts
the child and raises the child never tell-
ing her that she was not the natural
mother of the child. After several years, the
father and stepmother of the child tell grand-
parents they can no longer see their grand-
daughter again.
Grandparents never tell the grandchild who
they really are, following the wishes of the
parent. However, they are unwilling to forfeit
all contact with their grandchild. What
rights do they have?
3. Husband and wife are divorced, f ollowingdivorce
husband is given custody of the one minor
child. Husband has psychological problems
which hender his ability to continue custody
of the minor child, and in fact while he
legally has custody said minor child resides
with the paternal grandparents who properly
raise and nurture the child. Wife files
for a change of custody, following her
remarriage, which is granted. Paternal
grandparents never contested the change of
custody and were in agreement with the
wife having legal cuscody, as they acknowledged
the psychological problems which affected
their son. Subsequent to wife regaining
custody, and for no apparent reason, she
completely denies the paternal grandparents
any visitation with the minor child.
No allegation is ever made that the paternal
grandparents are in any wayjunfit, or would
be harmful to the minor child. What are
their rights?
4. Unwed mother gives birth. Maternal grand-
parents are extensively involved in helping
raise the child. Putative father of the
child acknowledges paternity and seeks custody
137
of the minor child. Mother of the child
does not want custody of the child and does
not contest father's petition. Maternal
grandparents of the child want to be able
to assure visitation with the child once
custody is granted to the acknowledged
natural and now legal father of the child.
What rights do they have?
5. Husband and wife have one minor daughter.
Husband dies and wife maintains custody
of minor child. Because of emotional and
psychological problems which the mother
of the child is suffering, she sends the
minor child to her mother's home (maternal
grandmother) to live with the maternal
grandparents for a period of time.
The child resides with the maternal grand-
parents, is raised by them for a period
of time and does well. Subsequently there-
after, the mother of the child decides she
wants her minor child back and refuses the
maternal grandparents to have any contact
with the minor child, including visitation.
Maternal grandparents are worried because
of the history of emotional problems which
the mother of the child has suffered and
not only refuse to give up their contacts
with their minor grandchild, but worry f or /
his safety as well. What legal rights do
they have?
The above five factual scenarios are real. They repre-
sent only a small segment of cases which I have litigated over
the past few years. Some of these cases are still pending and
awaiting evidentiary hearings dealing with what is in the best
interests of the minor child. Others have been disposed of
through either court rulings or voluntary dismissals following
the intervention of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers,
or other professionals trained in the behavioral sciences who
have helped reconcile families following disputes as I have
set forth above. Unfortunately, in most of the cases where
professionals in the behavioral sciences have intervened, their
intervention was only agreed to by the legal custodian or parent
(s) because of the threat of court litigation. The incentive for
legal custodian of the minor children to attempt counseling or
a voluntary reconciliation of the emotional traumas involved was
their knowledge that the grandparents involved had the ability
to seek court enforcement pursuant to legislative enactments.
Without those legislative enactments, without just and proper
laws available, there would be no incentive. Thus the fact that
legislation is created will not of and by itself create additional
138
burdens on our courts. In face, they conversely create incentives
for parties to reconcile and to correct wrongs or injustices which
may have been committed. The court enforcement and application
of legislation (both state and Federal) would be utilized as a
last resort to correct injustices.
In reviewing the five factual scenarios I have presented,
the following themes can be found:
1. Where there is a death of a parent who
leaves a minor child and grandparents
of the minor child surviving;
2. Following a divorce and custody dispute
wherein custody of the minor child
or children are placed with the former
daughter or son-in-law of the grandparents
of the child;
3. Grandparents of a minor child born out of
wedlock;
4. A parent of an adult child who has a child
have conflicts between themselves causing
disputes which ultimately affect a grand-
child and the grandparents' contact with
that grandchild.
In all of the above, and in the actual cases which these
themes reflect, my legal duty was to represent the grandparents
and fight for their rights to be able to visit with their
grandchildren. In no case do I believe that grandparental
visitation is an absolute. Not all grandparents should be able
to visit with their grandchildren. There may be many instances
where in fact it would be detrimental to a child to be subjected
to visitation with his or her grandparents given the proper
factual setting. However, these decisions must be made on a
case by case basis with one underlying theme or factor; and
that is, THAT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD SHALL CONTROL.
3. "Best Interests" — What Does It Mean?
Michigan, at MCLA 722.23 defines best interests of
the child as follows:
722.23 Best interests of the child, definition
Sec. 3. 'Best interests of the child' mepns the
sum total of the following factors to be considered,
evaluated, and determined by the court:
(a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties
existing between the parties involved and the child.
139
(b) The capacity and disposition of the parties
involved to give the child love, affection, and
guidance and continuation of the educating and rais-
ing of the child in its religion or creed, if any.
(c) The capacity and disposition of the parties
involved to provide the child with food, clothing,
medical care or other remedial care recognized and
permitted under the laws of this state in place of
medical care, and other material . needs .
(d) The length of time the child has lived in a
stable, satisfactory environment, and the desirability
of maintaining continuity.
(e) The permanence, as a family unit, of the
existing or proposed custodial home or homes.
(f) The moral fitness of the parties involved.
(g) The mental and physical health of the
parties involved.
(h) The home, school and community record of
the child.
(i) The reasonable preference of the child, if
the court deems the child to be of sufficient age
to express preference.
(j) The willingness and ability of each of the
parents to facilitate and encourage a close and
continuing Darent-child relationship between the child
and the other parent.
(k) Any other factor considered by the court to
be relevant to a particular child custody
dispute .
This state statute, which was effective April 1, 1971,
and amended January 16, 1981, sets forth what the trial court
should look to in defining the concept of "best interests" of a
child. These eleven factors as set forth above, are to be
utilized in both disputes regarding custody of minor children
(in pending divorce actions or subsequent requests for modifica-
tion) as well as when there are disputes regarding visitation.
Unfortunately, a careful analysis of the Michigan statute may
very well be applicable and quite definitive when dealing with
a custody dispute, but somehow falls short when considering the
question of visitation . An example would be sub-sections (c),
(d), (e), (h), and (j) of the statute . These sub-sections would
have very little, if anything, to do with requests for visita-
tion. But, it is all we have in Michigan, when dealing with
this issue. In review of other states, factors in considering
the definition of "best interests" adds the following factors
for a court to utilize:
140
1. The interaction and inter-relationship of
the child with his parent or parents,
his siblings, and any other person who may
significantly affect the child's best
interest- (Arizona 125.332);
2. Notice of a custody proceeding shall be
given to the child's parents, guardian
or other custodian. The court, upon
a showing of good cause, may permit inter-
vention by any interested party. (District
of Columbia Statute);
3. The court shall not consider conduct of a
proposed custodian that does not affect
his relationship with the child. (Colorado
§14-10-124) ;
4. In considering a proposed custodian, the
court shall not presume that any person is
better able to serve the best interests of
the child because of that person's sex.
( Colorado ) ;
5. The physical violence of threat of physical
violence by the child's potential custodian,
whether directed against the child or against
another person, but witnessed by the child.
(Illinois §602);
6. Where the child has reached the age of four-
teen, such child shall have the right to
select the parent with whom such child desires
to live unless that parent selected is determined
not to be a fit and proper person to have
custody of the child. (Georgia §30-127).
As one can see from above, the states' attempts to
define best interests somehow seem more logical when put in
the setting of legal proceedings involving disputes as to cus-
tody of minor children. Questions of visitation have usually
been left to the discretion of trial court judges to determine
what visitation should be granted and to whom. Most cases have
dealt with questions of visitation concerning non-custodial
parents of minor children. He do not have concrete legislation
that specifically sets forth criteria to be utilized in making
determinations regarding visitation of minor children with
their grandparents.
4. The Problem With State Laws As They Currently Stand (Michigan
As A Prime Example K
The history of grandparents' rights to visitation in
Michigan, can be traced as recently as a little over one decade
ago. In 1971 a state law was passed which provided that:
If either the father or mother of an unmarried
child is deceased, a parent of the deceased
141
person may commence an action, by complaint or
complaint and motion for an order to show cause,
in the Circuit Court of the county in which
the child resides for visitation of the child
during its minority. If the court finds that
such visitation would be in the best interests
of the child, it may provide for visitation
of the child by general or specific terms and
conditions. (MCLA 722.27(a))
This state statute limited the rl-ghts of grandparents
to seek visitation to situations where there had been a death
of their own child leaving a minor grandchild. It would have
created a remedy to our client scenario numbers 1 and 2
(as set forth above), except for the fact that a stepparent
adoption occurred in those factual situations. This was the
problem that Michigan faced when a 1979 Court of Appeals decision
(Bikos v Nobliskl , 88 Mich App 157 (1979) was asked to interpret
conflicting statutes dealing with this grandparent visitation
statute and the Michigan Adoption Statute which provided in
part as follows :
After entry of the order of adoption, there
shall not be any distinction between the
rights and duties of natural progeny and
adopted persons, and the adopted person
shall become an heir at law of the adopting
parent or parents, and an heir-at-law
of the lineal and collateral kindred of
the adopting parent or parents. After entry
of the order of adoption, the adopted person
shall no longer be an heir-at-law of his
^ or her natural parents, except that a right,
title, or interest vesting before entry of
the final order of adoption shall not be
divested by that order. (MCLA 710.60)
The Michigan Court of Appeals in the Bikos, supra , case held
that the Order of Adoption Statute took precedence over the
Grandparent Visitation Statute which effectively made the
natural grandparents of a minor child who was adopted by a
stepparent following the death of the natural parent, no
longer the legal grandparent of that child. Obviously, this
conflict created harsh results and in my opinion a tremendously
unjust dilemma for grandparents throughout the State of Michigan.
In 1980, following the efforts of many groups and individuals,
the Michigan Adoption Statute was amended to read:
...after entry of the order of adoption, the
adopted person shall no longer be an heir-at-
law of a parent whose rights have been terminated
or the lineal or collateral kindred ot that
parent.... (MCLA /lU.bU as amended)
142
The effect of that amendment, was that the adopted
child would no longer be an heir to its natural family line
once the child's parents' parental rights had been terminated. But,
if there had been no terminationof parental rights, the child's
natural blood line would not be destroyed. This would then not
take away from natural grandparents their standing as legal
grandparents of a minor child who was adopted unless said
adoption followed termination of parental rights.
In addition, in 1980, the Michigan Child Custody
Statute (MCLA 722.27) was amended to provide:
Upon petition consider the reasonable visitation
of maternal or paternal grandparents and, if
denied, shall make a record of such denial.
On its face, one would think this amendment to the
Michigan Child Custody Statute would solve the problems that
grandparents would have when being denied visitation with their
grandchildren. However, albeit the intent of the legislature
was good, they placed this amended statute under a section of
the Michigan laws which had a preamble. The preamble, or
prerequisite to utilization of this amended statute, provided
as follows,:
If a child custody dispute has been submitted
to a -circuit court as an original action under
this act or has arisen incidently from another
action in a circuit court or a judgment of a
circuit court, for the best interests of the
child the court may: ...
Therefore, in order for a grandparent to attempt to
utilize the statute which allows them to petition for consi-
deration regarding visitation, there must either have been, or
presently have, a child custody dispute involved. In the cases
I have litigated, very rarely does a grandparent seek custody
of their grandchild. They merely want visitation and, therefore,
cannot avail themselves to the remedy which Michigan has pro-
vided. In addition, when the legislature enacted the amendment
to the Child Custody Statute which provided for this ability
to petition foT reasonable visitation (following a child custody
dispute), the Michigan legislature repealed the prior law known
as the Grandparent Visitation Statute, which was originally
enacted in 1971, as cited above (MCLA 722.27(a)). Obviously,
143
we have a great deal of confusion tn our courts as to what
is the present status of our laws and how should those laws
be interpreted. There are presently pending several new statutes
which hopefully will either cure the problem, or add to the
conflict, but to date none have passed both Houses of our
legislature . '•■*■ •'
A brief research into how other states handle this
dilemma finds that over fcrty-sev>n states have passed legislation
dealing with this problem. Within these twenty states there are
tremendous conflicts, especially once a stepparent adoption
occurs. Other conflicts arise in the interpretation of these
statutes and whether or not they are to be construed to intend
that grandparents have standing to intervene in divorce proceedings
to assert their rights to visitation while their own children's
divorce matter is pending. Oklahoma (Oklahoma Statute Annotated
Title 10, §60.16) has a unique enactment which appears to set
forth that grandparents have visitation rights with their grand-
children unless they are terminated by court order, and such is
true even though the child may be adopted by his stepparent.
Because of the frequency of stepparent adoptions and what affect
the stepparent adoptions have on the grandparents of the child,
specifically with respect to visitation rights, we need some
cohesive legislation on a Federal level to help our states draw
together into a unified position with respect to this problem.
5 . The Need For Model Act Re: Grandparental Visitation Rights
Other than the need for a clear and concise understanding
of this problem from a national perspective, and Federal legisla-
tion appropriate thereto, there is another reason why there is a
need for Federal legislation dealing with this problem. In
several cases wherein I represented grandparents who were forced
to seek court enforcement of their visitation rights, we have
been threatened by the parent or legal custodian of the minor
grandchild involved, that if we were to pursue our court action
they, the parent or legal custodian, would remove the child from
the State of Michigan. Considering the fact that the City of
Toledo, Ohio is approximately the same distance from Detroit,
as the capitol of our state, Lansing, Michigan, this threat
of removing children from the state is very real. What remedy
would a grandparent have when faced with this threat? If we
had Federal legislation, along with state legislation, dealing
with this problem, such as we have with our civil rights legisla-
tion, the threat of moving from one state to another to avoid
enforcement of court orders would be a mere "pull of wind."
144
Our society today is a "transient society." We
are little more than three hours away by air from one coast to
another. People move from one state to another as easily now
as we use to move from one city to another. This is progress,
but how does it affect our families and our family structure?
Fortunately, we do not have to concern ourselves with the family
which is whole, or which is not in dispute. But what of the
families who have emotional traumas placed upon them for one
reason or another? Should they be afforded protection in
situations where unjust actions motivated by animosity,
vendictiveness , and hostility, tear apart blood relationships.
The problem of grandparents' rights to visitation is no longer
a local issue. We need state statutes to protect people within
the boundaries of our states. Again, court enforcement of this
legislation is a last resort! It is the motivating incentive for
parties to reconcile their differences. It is the motivating
incentive for parties to voluntarily seek counseling in hopes of
reconciling their family traumas. But it does provide a last resort
for injustices which may occur.
There is no question in my mind that the problems
relating to the rights of grandparents to visit with their grandchildren
is a real concern to a great number of people in our country. This
concern is one which shall surely grow because of the amount of
divorce in our country. We must concern ourselves with the concept
of the "extended family" which includes grandparents, stepparents,
and other third parties from the traditional family unit. Further,
grandparents "as seniors" of our society shall have a greater impact
as their numbers increase. The concept of "grandma" and "grandpa"
sitting in a corner unable to stand up for themselves and speak,"
no longer exists. "Grandma" and "grandpa," just a grandson and
granddaughter, have inherent rights in our family unit. They
are necessary to pass on the heritage of the past. They are a
link in the long -chain of continued growth and expansion of our
society. They should no longer be ignored!
Psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers
can tell us of the importance that grandparents can have on
grandchildren. As a former history major, it is interesting to
note how different civilizations treat their older generations.
It would seem logical that "seniors" can help us learn from our
mistakes and teach us traditions and cultures which can be utilized
and passed on in the future. Lastly, and it is something that I
remind the litigants who are involved in cases where I fight in
court for grandparent visitation, and that the parents who are
standing in the way of allowing their children to contact, communi-
cate, and share with their grandparents, will one day be grandparents
themselves. How do they want their child to remember their own
actions. We teach our children not by what we say, but by what
we do. It is now time to do what must be done and to recognize
the rights and responsibilities that we all face in the most basic
structure that God ever created -- the family. This is not a concern
isolated to the local community, or even to a state as a whole. This
is a concern, and a responsibility, of all citizens in our nation.
I urge you to strongly consider adopting legislation, on a Federal
level, in support of the rights of grandparents, and the right6 of
grandchildren in this regard. Thank you for your consideration.
145
Senator East. Thank you, Mr. Victor, for your moving contribu-
tion to our discussion this morning.
[Pause.]
Senator East. I would like to make just a few general observa-
tions on some of the common threads running through all this tes-
timony, and to hear any responses you may have.
If I might make some generalizations here, that all of you have
convincingly touched upon a problem which only a few Americans
fully comprehend. If I might personalize it a bit, as I reflect back
on all of you and what you are saying — I am 52 years old, I just
finished having my 30th wedding anniversary, which in this day
and age is probably remarkable — not that I am asking credit for
it — for a 52-year-old man to have been married 30 years I suppose
puts me in the minority.
My parents, who are now deceased, were married 50 years. My
father died a few months thereafter, and my mother died about 6
or 7 years later.
As I reflect back on that experience — you see, I took it for grant-
ed naturally — but I had a brother, he had four children, and I have
two daughters, and there was a very fine relationship between
those six grandchildren and their grandparents, and it meant a lot
to both. And you don't sense that at the time — you know, you're
young, you are in your twenties, and I was married at 22 or 23 —
and you don't quite have the perspective or view in the twenties or
thirties. Often I think what we have lost sight of in this country —
we have become so — I don't wish to sound so old-fashioned on this,
so youth-cult oriented. The diminution of a mature perspective in
this culture has increasingly eroded the nuclear family and the tra-
ditional values it embodies.
The new morality has replaced these long-cherished values with
the glorification of instant gratification and expediency. The mass
media and other institutions have promoted these views so perva-
sively that now many just assume that marriage is an unnecessary
formality that can easily be cast aside. Those of us who don't share
this view are often charged with being old-fashioned or out of touch
with the new morality.
But I think in time society may reap a very heavy harvest of
sorrow for this. Those in the generation now entering their twen-
ties and thirties have been particularly susceptible to the media's
derision of traditional norms. To their credit many young people
have nevertheless, embraced the concept of nuclear family. But for
those who smile at it, I am reminded of the great writer, St. Augus-
tine, who wrote in his book, "The City of God," "They are depraved
by prosperity and unchastened by adversity."
And I think, as one of you noted here, they never seem to realize
they, too, one day will grow older, and that continuity of the family
is extremely important.
And I don't wish to wax too long or too hard on this, but you
good people here have stirred me to say it, because I reflect back
that I benefited from traditional values. My parents stayed togeth-
er for 50 years — that meant a lot to me. And my wife and I have
stayed together for 30 years, and that has meant a lot to my chil-
dren. One of my daughters is married. I hope the marriage lasts,
146
and I'm sure it will despite the pressures which have arisen from
the new morality assault on the institution of marriage.
I hope that within 4 or 5 years I will be a grandparent. That will
mean a great deal to me, it really will, because, as you grow older,
you understand the value of tradition.
And so I have been and I hope my grandchildren will be benefici-
aries of that kind of family practice. What you people are.
I hope that through today's hearing we might shore up the tradi-
tional bonds between grandparents and grandchildren. For as Sen-
ator Levin and our witnesses have noted, the restoration of this re-
lationship is crucial to society.
The process of aging catches up — the problem of isolation, loneli-
ness. I live in a big condominium here in Washington, with nice
people, wonderful people but just as the flies of the summer they
come and go. I come from a small town in North Carolina, where
traditional family values predominate. Although these values are
laughed at by many in Washington today. I am not too sure but
that in my little old home town of Greenville, N.C., they aren't on
a little surer path than the adherents of new morality in Washing-
ton, D.C.
And ultimately I will stake the survival of this country on those
values as opposed to what I think is an unfortunate trend in much
of contemporary America.
I think Dr. Kornhaber and Mr. Victor both add a great dimen-
sion to this discussion, because you are suggesting, Dr. Kornhaber,
that you have observed through your psychiatric practice that
these problems can affect the emotional and mental well-being of
this country's citizens.
And, Mr. Victor, you added a very important reminder here that
Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 is really a very modest proposal.
It only asks the Commission on Uniform State Laws to consider
drafting a national model law to help grandparents and urge its
adoption by the States. This is not an uncommon practice today in
America; we do it with commercial law and all other areas. So the
idea that one might take this approach with respect to the visita-
tion rights of grandparents and/or grandchildren is certainly not
inappropriate.
Uniform codes of law are frequently dealt with by the American
Bar Association and other national entities in order to try insure
their continuity and stability.
So I don't see any great threat to federalism— and I am generally
one who is very conscious of the desires to protect State preroga-
tives and rights against efforts to federalize every problem.
But I would remind those, in the case of Senate Concurrent Reso-
lution 40, it is a very modest proposal, which urges the convening
of a commission to study the drafting of a national model law,
which in turn could be taken to the States as a point of departure
for their consideration. The process entailed in this legislation
would promote the voluntary national uniformity warranted by
this national problem. This legislation is consistent with the con-
cept of states' rights and it would mean a great deal to the affected
groups.
So I think you added a very valuable dimension there to remind
us that we are not proposing Federal law attempting to control
147
family law in the States. We have historically left it to the States.
But we have probably reached a point where steps should be taken
to help the States deal with a growing problem. Family law, as you
know, is a very legitimate concern of States, and we have a family
caucus here that has recently been formed to deal with this whole
question and the implications of the disintegration of the nuclear
family. So I think it is all a part of a whole. And I find all of you
very convincing witnesses, on the medical side of it, on the legal
side of it, and then, frankly, on the very much human side of it. I
personally have gained a great deal of insight and perspective here.
I would like to invite any other member of the panel to comment
briefly.
Yes?
Mr. Sumpter. Senator, my esteemed partner has a few sentences
she would like to tell you, please.
Senator East. OK, fine.
Mrs. Sumpter. Today, everyone is concerned about the inhuman
terror tactics of other nations. Isn't it time to admit that there are
children who are being killed, crippled, and sexually molested each
day in our Nation's families in greater numbers than those also in-
nocent passengers who died aboard the 007 Korean airliner, and no
one thinks or cares until it happens in their family.
Our American family structure is in danger. All of us need to
recall how the Nazis weakened the family loyalties by turning the
young Germans against their parents and older generations. Most
of us do not need to read history books to remember what hap-
pened to Germany.
Thank you.
Senator East. Thank you. Yes, doctor?
Dr. Kornhaber. Senator, I think the passage of the uniform
states law would greatly benefit the people who oppose it in the
same way that in medicine, sometimes a doctor has to hurt some-
body to help them — give them a shot of penicillin in the behind to
cure a sore throat.
Children caught between their parents and grandparents suffer
greatly. One of them exemplified it well and said If I wasn't alive,
my grandparents and parents wouldn't have anything in common,
because what they have in common is me and that's what they
fight about."
Children are also frightened of what they are going to do as par-
ents to their own parents when they see their own parents reject
their grandparents. With kids it's monkey-see, monkey-do — you can
tell them whatever you want, they watch what you do and that is
the way they become.
Putting a law like this in action says that we honor emotional
attachments in our land. What you have been talking about in
Greenville is really an emotional attachment — in our society. We
worship wealth, beauty, youth, and power, we don't worship emo-
tional attachments. All psychologists will tell you the way we re-
solve our attachments to our parents and grandparents is really
the paradigm of all our human relationships.
By passing a uniform visitation law we are really making a state-
ment to all succeeding generations saying we are attached. This
will also be a very powerful message to elders as far as their own
148
consciousness concerning their importance as grandparents. If they
know they are stuck in that role, by gosh, they are going to do
something about it to make it better.
In our study, we found a Nation of grand-orphans; we found 85
percent of these children don't know old people. It's a national dis-
grace. Yet there is an enormous attraction between the young and
the old that is only to be acted upon to flourish.
There is at the grass roots in the country an emotional revolu-
tion, taking place. In the course of our research, we found many
grandparents who didn't care, we also found folks who did care.
They were going against the grain of the national narcissism and
of the Nation.
Many of the parent generation — and this is important — who
oppose the bill feel that many grandparents are wacky, They de-
scribed grandparents as irrational, or intrusive. They felt that
grandparent interest was intrusion and caring was meddling.
Indeed, grandparents were upset because their grandchildren, their
own flesh and blood, were taken away from them. Many grandpar-
ents of sensitive nature suffered great pain, indeed many of them
did become psychotic. This became a self-perpetuating prophecy of
the middle generation — well, parents said "they are wacky, I don't
want them near my kids." But some grandparents became that
way, psychotic, because of the mental pain of being separated from
their grandchildren.
So I think this law is going to be beneficial to those parents who
are ambivalent. That's what's important.
Senator East. Thank you. Well, our time grows very short.
Does anyone else have a comment?
Mr. Highto. Yes.
Senator East. Mr. Highto.
Mr. Highto. I think Dr. Kornhaber may bear this out — I think
there was a psychological survey at one time that traced delin-
quent behavior of young teenagers to the elderly population, to the
fact that most of them didn't know any old people really, they
couldn't relate to them. And the attacks on old people are generat-
ed from this particular psychosis really.
And in fact there are some families who are looking for grand-
parents for their children; they want to adopt grandparents where
they don't have any of their own.
Mrs. Highto. Foster grandparents.
Mr. Highto. So that is one of the psychological points of delin-
quent behavior.
Senator East. Thank you. Well, if there are no further com-
ments, again I would like to thank all of you for coming, and the
subcommittee will in due course act on this as promptly as it can.
And I would like, then, since we have all said our piece — we had
two additional witnesses this morning, Mr. Robert A. Destro, assist-
ant professor of law at Catholic University, and Linda Mullenix,
visiting assistant professor of law at Catholic University — and Mr.
Destro unfortunately cannot be with us, but I would like to then
excuse you good people — you are certainly welcome to stay in the
audience, if you would like, or do whatever your schedules are now
demanding of you — again, my thanks to you all for coming and
making your contribution.
149
I would like to invite Ms. Linda Mullenix, Professor Mullenix, of
the Catholic University School of Law, to come forward please.
Professor Mullenix, I appreciate your coming. I am sorry that
Professor Destro cannot be with us this morning. I would like the
record to show, and if it is allowed, that his statement will be made
a part of the permanent record of this committee.
Ms. Mullenix, I would appreciate it that you, too, lest we be unfair
in our time equalization, confine your comments to 10 minutes, and
then keep in mind that your extended remarks will be made a part of
the permanent record. Again, we thank you for taking the time from
your busy schedule to come, and you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF LINDA S. MULLENIX, VISITING ASSISTANT PRO-
FESSOR OF LAW, COLUMBUS SCHOOL OF LAW, CATHOLIC UNI-
VERSITY OF AMERICA
Ms. Mullenix. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This statement has
been prepared to assist the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of
Powers in drafting a nonbinding resolution directed to the Nation-
al Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws concerning
visitation rights of grandparents.
Basically, the committee has requested information concerning
the current legal status of grandparents in family law disputes.
The purpose of this statement is twofold: First, it will summarize
current principles, rules, and case law governing grandparental
rights; second, it will highlight recent developments, special issue
areas, and emerging trends in this area of law.
This statement is in no way intended to state a position on the
issues that are articulated, nor does it advocate a particular philos-
ophy or thesis. It is designed primarily to inform the subcommittee
of the present law pertaining to grandparents' rights.
The first part of this presentation, which is the part that I am
doing, focuses on the problem of visitation rights. This particular
problem has precipitated a tremendous proliferation of litigation
during the last 10 years. In addition, a sizable body of secondary
literature has been directed at this problem.
The second part of the presentation, which my colleague, Bob
Destro, was going to do, deals with grandparents' rights in all other
areas of the law, such as child custody and adoption, and he had
prepared a statement which he will submit to the committee.
We have appended a bibliography of legal sources plus summa-
ries of about 60 recent cases in the last 5 years concerning grand-
parental rights, to be part of the record of the committee and used
as a legal reference.
Basically, since the early sixties when many jurisdictions began
enacting grandparent visitation statutes, there has been a tremen-
dous growth in litigation by grandparents seeking visitation privi-
leges.
What I would like to do, is outline what I am going to be talking
about.
First, I am going to delineate the different types of fact situa-
tions in which grandparents' visitation problems arise; I also will
inform the committee concerning the various procedural remedies
29-610 0—84 11
150
which are legally available to grandparents to assert their claims
and will discuss very briefly the best-interests-of-the-child standard
as applied by the courts.
Second, I will discuss the common law rules governing grandpar-
ental rights, because there are still some jurisdictions which do
apply the common law rules.
Third, I will discuss the various grandparental visitation statutes
which have been adopted in more than 40 States; and then I will
also summarize the disposition of cases under the statutes.
Last, I will pay special attention to the particular problem of the
conflict between visitation statutes and adoption statutes.
SUMMARY OF THE LAW
Basically there are six different situations or fact patterns where
disputes arise between parents, grandparents, and children con-
cerning visitation rights. These situations are (1) where the child's
parents are living apart, (2) where the child's parents are living
and divorced, (3) where the child is adopted after a divorce, (4)
where the child's parents' marriage is annulled, (5) where the
child's parents are deceased, and (6) where the child is adopted
after the death of the parent.
There are also some special situations not encompassed by these
categories, but pretty much all visitation litigation falls into one of
these six fact patterns.
Concerning procedural relief available to grandparents, there are
basically three different avenues of relief. The first and the most
common method of asserting a visitation claim is through a habeas
corpus petition which usually requires pleading and proof that
such visitation would be in the best interests of the child.
A second avenue of relief, where the child is in the custody of
one parent, is to seek a declaratory judgment of visitation privi-
leges.
A third possible procedural approach, where grandparents have
lost custody of a grandchild to a parent, is a motion to modify cus-
tody decree. This motion might have to plead and prove that the
custodial parent is unfit or has committed acts of misconduct.
In some jurisdictions, grandparents may be required by statute
to serve notice of such a motion to both parents. Also, in some ju-
risdictions, grandparents may wish to petition the court to join as
parties at the time of divorce to secure visitation rights as part of
the parents' divorce decree.
In many States, the statutory standards for the award of visita-
tion rights to grandparents is that of the best interests of the child.
Although this standard is variously interpreted by the courts, in
general the standard is the same as that used in child custody
cases. Therefore, in evaluating the best interests of the child, the
court will look to the wishes of the child, the interaction and inter-
relationship of the child with his parents, siblings, and other per-
sons, and, the effects on the mental and physical well-being of the
child.
151
COMMON LAW RULES
Turning to the common law rule governing grandparental rights
in visitation cases, basically, there are two theories for resolving
disputes involving grandparents, parents, and the grandchild.
The first theory recognizes parental rights to custody and control
of children as paramount, and therefore visitation privileges are
solely within the authority of the parent. This has been the
common law approach to visitation controversies.
The second theory accords greater weight to considerations of the
child's best interests and welfare, and this has been the modern
statutory approach to resolving visitation disputes.
The common law rule is very simple: it posits that a parent's ob-
ligation to allow a grandchild to visit his or her grandparents is a
moral and not a legal right, and therefore any claim of right is un-
enforceable in court. Furthermore, absent a show that the custodial
parent is unfit, the judiciary should not interpose itself in family
controversies. Where the common law rule has been adopted,
courts have further indicated that the custodial parent is not ac-
countable to the courts or the grandparents for denying visitation
privileges.
Courts have articulated a number of reasons in support of the
common law rule for denying visitation privileges to grandparents.
First, as previously indicated, courts view the parental obligation
to allow grandparents visitation as a moral obligation not a legal
one; second, some courts believe that the judicial enforcement of
grandparental visitation rights would divide parental authority
and hinder it; third, many courts have asserted that the best inter-
ests of the child would not be furthered by forcing a child into the
center of the conflict between his parents and his grandparents;
fourth, when there is conflict between parents and grandparents
concerning visitation, parents alone should be the judge without
having to account to anyone for their motives in denying visitation
privileges; and finally, some courts suggest that the ties of nature
are the only efficacious means for insuring normal family rela-
tions, not judicial intervention into family affairs.
There are three articulated exceptions to the common law rule.
The first one is where the grandparents are initially granted visita-
tion privileges pursuant to a divorce decree or other similar judi-
cial proceeding. The second exception is where the grandchild has
previously resided for some time with the grandparents who are
seeking visitation privileges; and the third exception to the
common law bar is where grandparents successfully demonstrate
that the custodial parent or the parent seeking custody is unfit.
STATUTORY VISITATION PRIVILEGES
Those are the only exceptions to the common law rule.
Since the early 1960's, 42 states have enacted some form of legis-
lation concerning grandparental visitation rights.
The written statement to the subcommittee basically analyzes
the different kinds of State statutes now on the books. The lan-
guage in the State statutes varies widely. The most common form
of visitation statute basically provides for standing to present a
152
visitation claim when the parents are divorced or are deceased.
But, again, the language varies widely.
Not all of the statutes specifically mention grandparents; some of
the statutes are much broader. For example, the statute in Califor-
nia allows any other person interested in the welfare of the child to
petition for visitation rights; some statutes use the term "relatives"
which obviously is much more inclusive than grandparents. At any
rate, the variety of language is indicated in the written statement.
With the exception of the statutes in California, Minnesota, and
Oklahoma, none of the statutes provide for a situation where a
grandchild is subsequently adopted by a new stepparent. The fail-
ure of grandparent visitation statutes to address this problem has
resulted in a tremendous proliferation of litigation, particularly
where the visitation statute conflicts with adoption statutes.
The written statement indicates how courts have, in different sit-
uations either held visitation rights permissible, impermissible, or
terminated previously existing rights.
Last, I would like to address the special problem of conflicts be-
tween visitation statutes and adoption statutes.
Senator East. OK.
CONFLICTS WITH ADOPTION STATUTES
Ms. Mullenix. Again, with the exception of three States — Califor-
nia, Minnesota, and Oklahoma — no visitation statute provides for
visitation rights to grandparents where there has been an interven-
ing stepparent adoption subsequent to the death or divorce of a
parent. As a consequence, this special situation has been the focus
of most of the recent litigation concerning grandparental visitation
rights.
Basically, courts have taken three approaches here. One ap-
proach is the common law approach. Under this view, an interven-
ing stepparent adoption divests grandparents of any statutory visi-
tation rights. This approach has been adopted in Iowa, Kansas, and
Louisiana. The theory is that an adoption terminates any legal
right and the adoption statute supersedes any grandparent visita-
tion rights.
A minority approach, is that visitation statutes give grandpar-
ents no absolute rights to visitation privileges, but the statutes do
confer standing on such plaintiffs to litigate whether such visita-
tion would be in the grandchild's best interests. California, New
York, and Ohio have adopted this approach which seeks to give
effect to grandparents' visitation rights notwithstanding an inter-
vening stepparent adoption.
In particular, California courts view grandparent visitation stat-
utes as a flexible device to promote a grandchild's welfare rather
than as a right derived from parenthood.
The most radical approach, where you have a visitation statute
in conflict with an adoption statute, has been adopted in New
Jersey. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that the New
Jersey visitation statute changes the common law rule and creates
an independent cause of action in grandparents regardless of any
intervening adoption.
153
In addition, the courts in New Jersey have created a presump-
tion that the best interests of the child are ordinarily served by
maintaining contact with the grandparents, and that is about the
most extreme position in the law today.
[The following was received for the record:]
154
Prepared Statement of Linda S. Mullen ix
I. Introduction
This statement has been prepared to assist the Senate
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers in drafting a non-binding
resolution directed to the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws, concerning the visitation rights of
grandparents. Basically, the committee has requested information
concerning the current legal status of grandparents in family law
disputes.
The purpose of this statement is twofold. First, it will
summarize current principles, rules, and case law governing
grandparental rights. Second, it will highlight recent
developments, special issue areas, and emerging trends in this area
of law. This statement is in no way intended to state a position on
the issues articulated, nor does it advocate a particular philosophy
or thesis. It is designed to inform the subcommittee of the present
law pertaining to grandparents' rights.
The first part of this presentation focuses on the problem of
visitation rights or privileges. This particular problem has
precipitated a tremendous proliferation of litigation during the
last ten years. In addition, a sizeable body of secondary
literature has been directed at this problem. The second part of
this presentation will deal with all other areas of grandparental
rights, including custody and adoption. A bibliography of legal
sources and summaries of recent cases are appended to help the
subcommittee in its work.
II . Grandparents' Visitation Rights
Since the early 1960s when many jurisdictions began enacting
155
grandparents' visitation statutes, there has been a tremendous
growth in litigation by grandparents seeking visitation privileges.
This section of the discussion will examine various aspects of the
"visitation rights" problem. First, various situations in which
grandparental visitation disputes are likely to arise will be set
out. Available procedural remedies and the "best interest of the
child" standard will be discussed. Second, the common law rules
governing grandparental visitation privileges will be examined, as
these rules are still applied in some jurisdictions. Third, the
various visitation statutes enacted in more than forty states will
be analyzed. Fourth, an examination of the disposition of specific
cases, according to common law principles or statutory
interpretation, will follow. Special attention will be paid to
visitation statutes that conflict with adoption statutes. A summary
of recent cases, as well as a bibliography, will end this section of
the presentation.
A. Fact Patterns Involving Grandparental Visitation Disputes
There are basically six different situations where grandparents
have asserted claims to visitation rights with their grandchildren.
The disposition in each of these fact patterns differs and will
depend on whether the jurisdiction adopts common law rules or
certain interpretations of applicable visitation and adoption
statutes. In each of the following situations, courts in different
jurisdictions have held visitation rights to be permissible,
impermissible, or subject to termination. The fact patterns giving
rise to grandparental visitation disputes, then, are:
(1) where the child's parents are living apart;
(2) where the child's parents are living and divorced;
(3) where the child is adopted after a divorce;
(4) where the child's parents' marriage is annulled;
(5) where the child's parent (s) is/are deceased;
(6) where the child is adopted after the death of a parent.
156
A few cases have been decided where the status of the child's
parents is unspecified, and some special situations fall outside
this categorization, as for example where a husband kills his wife
and the maternal grandparents then sue for visitation rights.
Almost all decided cases, however, are described by one of the six
fact patterns delineated above. See Annot. , Grandparents '
Visitation Rights, 90 A.L.R.3d 222 (1979).
1. Procedural Remedies Available to Grandparents
Asserting Visitation Claims
There are basically three different procedural avenues of
relief available to grandparents seeking to assert a claim to
visitation rights. These procedural remedies vary from state to
state. The most common method of asserting a visitation claim is
through a habeas corpus action, which usually requires pleading and
proof that such visitation would be in the best interests of the
child. A second avenue of relief, where the child is in the custody
of one parent, is to seek a declaratory judgment of visitation
privileges. A third possible procedural approach, where
grandparents have lost custody of a grandchild to a parent, is a
motion to modify a custody decree. This motion might have to plead
and prove that the custodial parent is unfit or has committed acts
of misconduct. See Annot., Grand'parents ' Visitation Rights , 90
A.L.R.3d at 228-229. In some jurisdictions, grandparents may be
required by statute to serve notice of such a motion to both
parents. Also, grandparents may wish to petition the court to join
as parties, at the time of divorce, to secure visitation rights as
part of the parents' divorce decree. 90 A.L.R.3d at 230-232.
2. The "Best Interests of the Child" Standard As
Applied in Grandparental Visitation Actions
In many states the statutory standard for the award of
visitation rights to grandparents is that of "the best interests of
157
the child". Although this standard is variously interpreted and
applied by courts, in general the standard is the same as that
utilized in child custody cases. Therefore, in evaluating "the best
interests of the child," the courts will look to:
(a) the wishes of the child;
(b) the interaction and interrelationship of the child
with parents, siblings, and other persons;
(c) the effects on the mental and physical well-being
of the child. 90 A.L.R.3d at 229:230.
B. The Common Law Rules Governing Grandparental
Rights in Visitation Cases
There are basically two theories for resolving disputes
involving grandparents, parents, and grandchildren. The first
theory recognizes parental rights to custody and control of their
children as paramount and therefore visitation privileges are solely
within the authority of the parent. This is the common law approach
to visitation controversies. The second theory accords greater
weight to considerations of the child's best interests and welfare,
and this has been the modern statutory approach to resolving
visitation disputes.
The common law rule governing grandparental visitation rights
is quite simple. The rule posits that a parent's obligation to
allow a grandchild to visit his grandparents is a moral, not a legal
right, and therefore any such claim of right is unenforceable in
court. Furthermore, absent a showing that the custodial parent is
unfit, the judiciary should not interpose itself in family
controversies. Succession of Reiss, 46 La. Ann. 347, 15 So. 151
(1894) . See Comment, Grandparents ' Visitation Rights in Georgia, 29
Emory L. Rev. 1083, 1087 (1980); Note, Statutory Visitation Rights
of Grandparents : One Step Closer to the Best Interests of the
Child, 26 Cath. U.L. Rev. 387, 389 (1977). Where the common law
rule has been adopted, courts have further indicated that the
158
custodial parent is not accountable to the courts or the
grandparents for denying visitation privileges. Odell v. Lutz, 78
Cal. App. 2d 104, 177 P. 2d 628 (1947).
Courts have articulated five basic reasons for the common law
rule denying visitation privileges to grandparents. First, as
previously indicated, the courts view the parental obligation to
allow grandparent visitation as a moral obligation, not as a legal
one. Second, some courts believe that the judicial enforcement of
grandparental visitation rights would divide parental authority and
hinder it. Third, many courts have asserted that the best interests
of the grandchild would not be furthered by forcing a child into the
center of a conflict between his parents and his grandparents.
Fourth, when there is a conflict between grandparents and parents
concerning visitation, the parents alone should be the judge without
having to account to anyone for their motives in denying visitation
privileges. Finally, some courts suggest that the "ties of nature"
are the only efficacious means of ensuring normal family relations,
not judicial intervention into family affairs. See Foster and
Freed, Grandparents Visitation: Vagaries and Vicissitudes , 23 St.
Louis U.L.J. 643, 646-647 (1979).
The courts have articulated three exceptions to the common law
rule denying visitation privileges as a matter of right. The first
exception is where the grandparents are initially granted visitation
privileges pursuant to a divorce decree or other similar judicial
proceeding. The second exception is where the grandchild has
previously resided for some time with the grandparents seeking
visitation privileges. And the third exception to the common law
bar is where the grandparents successfully demonstrate that the
custodial parent (or parent seeking custody) is unfit. See
Grandparents Visitation, supra, 23 St. Louis U.L.J, at 646.
159
C. Grandparents' Visitation Statutes: A
Summary Description of Provisions
Since the early 1960s, forty-two states have enacted some form
of legislation concerning grandparental visitation rights. Although
most of these statutes specifically indicate that they protect
grandparents' claims to visitation, a minority of statutes do not
especially mention grandparents. Nonetheless, these statutes do
contain language which can be interpreted as including grandparents
among the persons entitled by law to petition for visitation rights.
State statutes containing this more generalized language are found
in Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and
Washington. See Comment, Grandparents ' Visitation Rights , supra,
29 Emory L. Rev. at 1086-1087 n.13.
As will be discussed below, the statutory provisions in the
forty-two states vary tremendously, so lawyers must consult the
specific statute in their jurisdiction to discover the exact
language utilized to protect grandparental visitation claims. In
addition, the existence of widely varying statutory provisions gives
rise to complicated conf licts-of-law problems, as where custodial
parents remove a grandchild to a foreign state where the contesting
grandparents do no reside.
Two generalizations may be made about these statutes, however.
Almost all the statutes permit grandparents to sue for visitation
privilges when their child has died and the custodial parent
subsequently refuses access to the grandchildren. In addition, most
of the statutes allow grandparents standing to present, in a habeas
corpus proceeding, evidence showing that visitation would be in the
best interests of the child. Courts then make findings of fact
based on this evidence and any countervailing evidence submit by the
custodial parents. See Note, Statutory Visitation Rights of
Grandparents , supra, 26 Cath. U.L. Rev. at 393; Foster and Freed,
Grandparents Visitation, supra, 23 St. Louis L.J. at 653-656.
160
The following list conveys the wide variation among statutory
provisions governing grandparental claims to visitation privileges.
This survey is not an exhaustive description of all the existing
statutes, but merely indicates the types of different provisions
currently in effect:
(1) Grandparents have standing to initiate a hearing,
where one parent is dead and the surviving parent
denies visitation rights to the grandparents.
E.g. , Mo. Ann. Stat. sec. 452.402 (1977).
(2) Grandparents have standing to assert a visitation
claim where a grandchild's parent or parents are
dead, and in situations "in which equity would see
fit to intervene." E.g., N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law sec.
72 (Consol. ) (1977) .
(3) Grandparents will be awarded visitation rights,
but one or both parents must be deceased. E.g . ,
Cal. Civ. Code sees. 197.5 and 4601 (West Supp.
1978); Mich. Comp . Laws Ann. sec. 722.27a (Cum.
Supp. 1977-78); Ohio Rev. Code sec. 3109.11 (Cum.
Supp. 1977) .
(4) Grandparents may be awarded visitation rights in any
divorce or custody case, without limitations. E.g. ,
Ark. Stat. Ann. sec. 34-1211.1 (Supp. 1977).
(5) Grandparents may be awarded visitation rights when a
parent or parents are deceased, or when the parents
are divorced. E.g . , Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. sec.
46-42 (West Cum. Supp. 1978) .
(6) Grandparents may be awarded visitation rights after
the separation, divorce, or death of the parents.
E.g. , La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 157 (West Supp. 1978).
(7) Grandparents may be awarded visitation rights where
the grandchild has resided with the grandparents or
they have had considerable personal contact with
the child, a parent is deceased, or the parents
161
are seeking a divorce. E.g. , Minn. Stat. Ann. sec.
257.022 (West Cum. Supp. 1977).
(8) Grandparents may be considered for visitation rights
or custody. E.g. , Texas Fam. Code Ann. tit. 2, sec.
14.0 (Vernon) (Supp. 1978).
(9) Grandparents or great-grandparents may be awarded
visitation when it is in the best interests of the
child. E.g. , Wis. Stat. Ann. sec. 247.245 (West
Supp. 1978) .
(10) Grandparents have visitation rights with their
grandchildren unless such rights are terminated by
court order and even though the child is adopted
.by a stepparent. E.g. , Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 10,
sec. 60.16 (West) . As will be discussed below,
Oklahoma's statute is unique with regard
to its stepparent adoption provision.
(11) Grandparents may be awarded visitation rights where
the grandchild is adopted by a stepparent or other
grandparents, but not otherwise. E.g. , Cal. Civ.
Code sec. 197.5(e); Minn. Stat. Ann. sec 257.022
Subd. 3.
(12) Other relatives, in addition to grandparents, may
seek and obtain visitation rights. See e.g. , Cal.
Civ. Code sec. 4601 ("anyone interested in the
welfare of the child"); Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. sec.
46-42 ("any third party including but not limited
to grandparents"); Haw. Rev. Stat. sec. 571.4617
("any other person having an interest in the
welfare of the child); Ohio Rev. Code sec. 3109.11
("relatives") .
(13) Grandparents may be awarded visitation rights
provided there is a showing this is consistent with
"the best interests of the child." E.g. , N.Y. Dom.
Rel. Law sec. 72; Minn. Stat. Ann. sec. 257.022
(court must consider amount of personal contact
162
between grandparents and grandchild) ; Idaho
statute (court requires "substantial relationship"
with the child) .
With the exception of the statutes in California, Minnesota,
and Oklahoma, none of the statutes provide for the situation where a
grandchild is subsequently adopted by a new stepparent or
stepparents. The failure of grandparent visitation statutes to
address this problem has resulted in a tremendous proliferation of
litigation, particularly where visitation statutes conflict with
adoption statutes. The special issue of subsequent adoption and
visitation rights will be discussed separately, in section E, below.
D. Grandparents' Visitation Rights: A Summary
of the Disposition of Cases in Various Fact
Patterns, Pursuant to Common Law Principles
and Statutory Interpretation
Grandparent visitation rights have been awarded, denied, or
terminated in four types of domestic relations situation: (1) where
the parents are living apart, are divorced, or their marriage has
been annulled; (2) where the parents are deceased; (3) where there
has been a stepparent adoption after the divorce of the parents;
and (4) where there has been a stepparent adoption after the death
of a parent or parents. Each of these situations will be considered
below, and the reason for denial or award of visitation rights will
be summarized in outline form. A list of recent cases follows this
statement, plus a bibliography of secondary case commentary. The
subcommittee is especially referred to the annotation at 90 A.L.R.3d
222 (1979) for a discussion of particular cases and holdings.
1. Cases Where Parents Are Living Apart, Are
Divorced, or Their Marriage Has Been Annulled
(a) Courts have granted visitation rights to
grandparents because:
163
(1) the grandchildren had once lived with the
grandparents and there was an emotional
bond that might be harmed if these ties
were severed;
(2) prior stipulations or agreements as to
visitation rights had been adjudicated
previously;
(3) it would be in the best interests of the
child;
(4) statutes in the jurisdiction permitted
grandparents to apply for visitation
privileges if shown to be in the best
interests of the child.
(b) Courts have denied visitation rights to
grandparents because:
(1) the child lived in the custody of a
fit and proper parent;
(2) the parent should be the one to decide
with whom his child will associate;
(3) a visitation award to a non-parent would
be unjustified and unenforceable.
2 . Cases Where A Parent or Parents Is/Are Deceased
(a) Courts have granted visitation rights to
grandparents because:
(1) visitation would be in the best interests
of the child;
(2) at a parent's death, the relationship
between a grandchild and grandparent would
result in a positive benefit to the child;
(3) it is no abuse of discretion for a judge to
so award visitation privileges under the
mandate of a visitation statute.
(b) Courts have denied visitation rights to
grandparents because:
(1) the welfare and happiness of the grand-
164
children did not require such visitation;
(2) some grandchildren actually became ill as
a result of fighting between grandparents
and a surviving parent;
(3) no cause of action existed in favor of
grandparents for visitation rights.
3. cases Where There Has Been A Stepparent
Adoption After The Divorce of Parents
(a) Courts have held that grandparents are entitled
to a hearing to assert their claims to visita-
tion rights because:
(1) grandparental rights of visitation did not
automatically terminate where an adoptive
process was begun;
(2) a hearing was permissible provided it did
not unduly hinder the adoptive process;
(3) a proceeding was necessary to determine if
visitation would be in the best interests
of the child.
(b) Courts have denied visitation rights to grand-
parents subsequent to a stepparent adoption
following a divorce because:
(1) previously existing rights of visitation
ceased to have legal effect at adoption;
(2) the natural spouse's parental rights
terminated at the time of adoption;
(3) upon adoption, the grandchildren became
legal strangers to the bloodline of their
divorced, non-custodial natural parent.
4. Cases Where There Has Been A Stepparent
Adoption After The Death (s) of Parent (s)
(a) Courts have awarded visitation rights to
grandparents because:
(1) visitation statutes are distinct from
adoption statutes;
165
(2) visitation rights should be determined
on a case-by-case basis, and not absolutely
barred by adoption statutes;
(3) visitation rights should be granted upon
a finding it would be in the best interests
of the child;
(4) visitation rights should be granted where
the grandchild had lived with his grand-
parents and a great bond of love and
affection had grown between them.
(b) Courts have not granted visitation rights to
grandparents because:
(1) adoption has the legal effect of pro-
hibiting grandparents from exercising any
previously existing rights;
(2) upon adoption, children obtain new parents
and grandparents;
(3) if visitation statutes were construed to
authorize grandparents to seek visitation
privileges from adoptive parents, such
construction would work as a strong deterrent
to future adoptions.
E. The Special Problem of Conflicts Between
Visitation Statutes and Adoption Statutes
With the exception of three states, California, Minnesota, and
Oklahoma, no visitation statute provides for visitation rights to
grandparents where there has been an intervening stepparent adoption
subsequent to the death or divorce of a parent. As a consequence,
this special situation has been the focus of most of the recent
litigation concerning grandparental visitation privileges. See
section F of this statement, below. Basically, courts have adopted
three approaches to dealing with the situation where there has been
an intervening stepparent adoption:
29-610 0—84 12
166
1. The Common Law Approach
Under this view, an intervening stepparent adoption divests
grandparents of statutory visitation rights. This approach as been
adopted in Iowa, Kansas, and Louisiana. See
In Re Adoption of Gradiner, 287 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 1980);
Browning v. Tarwater, 215 Kan. 501, 524 P. 2d 1135 (1974);
Burch v. Louque, 392 So. 2d 120 (La. App. 1980).
2 . Minority Approach: Standing to Sue
Under this view, visitation statutes give grandparents no
absolute rights to visitation privile'ges, but the statutes do confer
standing on such plaintiffs to litigate whether such visitation
would be in the grandchild's best interests. California, New York,
and Ohio have adopted this approach, which seeks to give effect to
grandparent visitation rights notwithstanding an intervening
stepparent adoption. In particular, California courts view
grandparent visiation statutes as a flexible device to promote a
grandchild's welfare, rather than as a right derived from
parenthood. See Reeves v. Bailey, 53 Cal. App. 3d 1019, 126 Cal.
Rptr. 51 (1975); Sibley v. Sheppard, 54 N.Y.2d 320, 445 N.Y.S.2d
420, 429 N.E.2d 1049 (1981); Graziano v. Davis, 50 Ohio App. 2d
33, 361 N.E.2d 525 (1976) .
3 . Most Radical Approach: Independent Cause of Action
The most radical approach to the conflict between adoption
statutes and visitation statutes has been adopted in New Jersey.
See Mimkon v. Ford, 66 N.J. 426, 332 A. 2d 199 (1975). The New
Jersey Supreme Court has held that the New Jersey visitation statute
changes the common law rule and creates an independent cause of
action in grandparents, regardless of any interveing adoption. In
addition, the courts in New Jersey have created a presumption that
the best interests of the child are ordmairly served by maintaining
167
contact with the grandparents. See Globman v. Globman, 158 N.J.
Super 338, 386 A. 2d 390 (1978).
(F) Listing of Recent Cases and Holdings
1982
Adoption of Bowling v. Bowling, 631 S.W.2d 386 (Tenn. 1982)
(adoption by maternal grandparents of grandchild whose father killed
its mother would sever prior legal relationships and end
court-ordered visitation rights in paternal grandparents) .
1981
Wilson v. Wallace, 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164 (1981) (no
visitation rights in paternal grandparents where father was
deceased, mother remarried, and stepfather adopted child; statute
terminated all legal relationships) .
Cox v. Stayton, 273 Ark. 298, 619 S.W.2d 617 (1981) (at
common law, grandparents have no presumptive right of visitation
with granchildren absent order of chancery court and depending on
best interests of the child) .
Kudler v. Smith, 643 P. 2d 783, cert, denied, 74 L.Ed 2d 78
(Colo. App. 1981) (visitation by maternal grandparents terminated
where father resided in foreign state and grandparents frequent
criticism of father during visits undermined father's authority).
Ferrell v. Ruege , 397 So. 2d 723 (Fla. App. 1981)
(grandmother's visitation privileges reduced although established by
prior court order where mother was fit and stepfather adopted
child) .
Smith v. Finstad, 247 Ga . 603, 277 S.E.2d 736 (1981)
(grandparents had standing to seek visitation privileges where son
lost parental rights as result of wife's new husband's adoption of
grandchild. Statute allowing grandparents to seek visitation not
unconstitutional) .
168
Hawkins v. Hawkins, 102 111. App. 3d 1037, 58 111. Dec. 620,
430 N.E.2d 652 (1981) (visitation rights granted maternal
grandparents where father had custody, mother was deceased, and
parents were divorced; visitation in best interests of child) .
Krieg v. Glassburn, 419 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. App. 1981)
(grandparents may be awarded visitation rights by showing it is in
best interests of child; visitation privileges would terminate by
final decree of adoption) .
In Re Guardianship of Brown, 402 So. 2d 354 (Miss. 1981) (no
visitation rights in paternal grandparents where mother was suitable
person to have custody) .
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 622 S.W.2d 252 (Mo. App. 1981) (award
to paternal grandparents in dissolution decree of visitation rights
was proper) .
Sibley v. Sheppard, 54 N.Y.2d 320, 445 N.Y.S.2d 420, 429
N.E.2d 1049 (1981) (maternal grandparents entitled to visitation
rights where parents never married, both were deceased, and child
adopted by paternal grandparents. Child had lived with maternal
grandparents until four; visitation in best interests of child) .
C. y. B. , 84 App. Div. 2d 740, 443 N.Y.S.2d 739 (2d Dept.
1981) (maternal grandparents granted visitation privileges with
grandchild in father's custody).
Julien v. Gardner, 628 P . 2d 1165 (Okla. 1981) (no visitation
rights in maternal grandparents where father was still alive and
statute provided for visitation rights only where both parents
deceased or divorced) .
In Re Interest of R. , 286 Pa. Super 480, 429 A. 2d 40 (1981)
(visitation by maternal grandmother proper where mother died and
custody granted to foster mother) .
Minns v. Minns, 615 S.w.2d 893 (Tex. Civ. App. 1st Dist.
1981) (no award of visitation privileges to paternal grandparents;
father granted generous visitation privileges which he could share
with grandparents) .
169
1980
Re Adoption of Hensley, 270 Ark. 1004, 607 S.W.2d 80,
disapproved, Wilson v. Wallace, 274 Ark. 48, 622 S.W.2d 164 (1981)
(paternal grandparents wrongfully denied visitation rights following
death of child's father and custody award to stepfather. Remand for
consideration of whether visitation in best interests of child) .
Re Adoption of Gardiner, 287 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 1980) (no
award to maternal grandparents where natural mother died, father's
parental rights terminated, and adoptive parents awarded custody).
Burch v. Louque, 392 So. 2d 120 (La. App. 1980) (granting of
fixed visitation rights to paternal grandparents improper where
natural mother and adoptive father sought order modifying prior
decree) .
Aegerter v. Thompson, 610 S.W.2d 308 (Mo. App. 1980) (no
constitutional rights in paternal grandparents to visitation rights
after death of natural father, remarriage of mother, and adoption by
new husband) .
Barry v. Barrale, 598 S.W.2d 574 (Mo. App. 1980) (paternal
grandparents allowed visitation where father decesaed and mother
prohibited visitation; no physical or emotional injury could occur) .
Chirumbulo v. Chirumbulo, 75 App. Div. 2d 992, 429 N.Y.S.2d
112 (4th Dept. 1980) (grandparents visitation privilges allowed over
mother's objections regarding father's failure to provide child
support) .
Hood v. Connaughton, 75 App. Div. 2d 532, 426 N.Y.S.2d 574
(2d Dept. 1980) (rights to grandparents to visit deceased daughter's
children overextensive where visits would hinder adjustment to new
family by separating them on traditional family holidays) .
Leake v. Grissom, 614 P. 2d 1107 (Okla. 1980) (paternal
grandparents had no rights to visitation privileges where child
adopted by natural mother's new husband and parental rights of
natural father terminated) .
170
1979
Re Adoption of M. , 367 So. 2d 744 (Fla. App. 1979) (paternal
grandparents improperly awarded visitation rights where statute did
not provide for visitation rights in adoption cases) .
Shuler v. Shuler, 371 So. 2d 588 (Fla. App. 1979) (right of
visitation depends on the best interest of the child) .
Osteryoung v. Leibowitz, 371 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. App. 1979) (no
independent civil action by grandparents permissible to achieve
visitation rights where no dissolution proceeding pending between
childrens' parents).
Mead v. Owens, 149 Ga. App. 303, 254 S.E.2d 431 (1979)
(visitation privileges denied; grandparents' visitation rights could
be determined only in custody or guardianship proceedings, not
adoption proceedings) .
Sparks v. Wigglesworth, 5 Fam. L. Rptr. 3173 (Ky. App. 1979)
(paternal grandparents awarded visitation rights where parents
separated and mother had custody of child; award based on best
interests of the child) .
Bikos v. Nobliski, 88 Mich. App. 157, 276 N.W.2d 541 (1979)
(maternal grandparents' visitation rights terminated where father
remarried after death of wife and stepmother adopted children;
visitation subject to determination of natural and adopting
parents) .
Re Marriage of Pickering, 588 S.w.2d 232 (Mo. App. 1979)
(grandparents' visitation rights depend on best interests of the
child) .
Shadders v. Brock, 101 Misc. 2d 11, 420 N.Y.S.2d 697 (1979)
(where grandparents awarded visitation rights as part of divorce
decree, mother could not deny visitation as method of disciplining
child) .
Fetters v. Allbright, 405 A. 2d 1260 (Pa. Super 1979)
(maternal grandparents entitled to visitation rights where mother
died, children resided with grandparents for several years prior to
171
father gaining custody, and grandparents were devoted to the
grandchildren) .
Wick v. Wick, 403 A. 2d 115 (Pa. Super 1979) (mother who had
custody of children could seek termination of previously granted
visitation rights in grandparents; no burden on mohter to prove
changed circumstances).
Dolman v. Dolman, 586 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979)
(granparents denied visitation where parents divorced and mother had
custody; visitation would be disruptive influence and not in best
interests of theh child) .
Jeffries v. Jeffries, 253 S.E.2d 689 (W. Va. 1979)
(grandparents had no legal right to custody or visitation) .
1978
Ross v. Powell, 359 So. 2d 803 (Ala. App. 1978) (visitation
rights denied where maternal grandparents were emotionally unstable
and best interests of child required that visits be restrained) .
Sachs v. Walzer, 242 Ga. 742, 251 S.E.2d 302 (1978) (no
enforcement of previously granted visitation privileges in maternal
grandparents where daughter was deceased, children adopted by
stepmother, and conflicts between the parents and grandparents).
Looper v. McManus , 581 P. 2d 487 (Okla. App. 1978)
(visitation rights granted to paternal grandparents who had nurtured
grandchild and visitation would contribute to health and well-being
of child) .
G. Bibliography of Secondary Sources
Annot., Grandparents ' Visitation Rights, 90 A.L.R.3d 222 (1979).
Chaloff, Grandparents ' Statutory Visitation Rights and the
Rights of Adoptive Parents , 49 Brooklyn L. Rev. 149
(1982) .
Foster and Freed, Grandparent Visitation: Vagaries and
Vicissitudes, 23 St. Louis U.L.J. 643 (1979).
172
Gault, Grandparent-Grandchild Visitation, 37 Tex. B.J.
433 (1974) .
Gault, Statutory Grandparent Visitation, 5 St. Mary's L.J.
474 (1973) .
Middleton, Grandparents Unite to Gain Visitation Rights ,
68 A. B.A.J. 33 (1982) .
Casenote, Aegerter v. Thompson: Divesting Grandparents of
Statutory Grandchild Visitation Rights by Stepparent
Adoption, 50 U.M.K.C. L. Rev. 231 (1982).
Casenote, Leake v. Grissom, 614 P. 2d 1107 (Okla. 1980)
Grandparents ' Rights of Visitation, 6 Okla. City U.L.
Rev. 666 (1981) . .
Comment, Grandparents - Visitation Rights , 18 Fam. L.J. 857
(1980) .
Comment, Grandparents ' Visitation Rights in Georgia, 29
Emory L. Rev. 1083 (1980).
Editorial, What Rights Do Grandparents Have? L.A. Daily J.
vol. 96, p. 2, col. 2 (March 1983).
Note, Adoption: Visitation Rights of Natural Grandparents ,
32 Okla. L. Rev. 645 (1979) .
Note, Statutory Visitation Rights of Grandparents : One Step
Closer to the Best Interests of the Child, 26 Cath.
U.L. Rev. 387 (1977) .
Note, Visitation Rights of a Grandparent Over The Objection
of the Parent: The Best Interests of the Child, 15 J.
Fam. L. 51 (1976-1977) .
Recent Development, Sparks v. Wigglesworth, 48 U.S.L.W. 2106
(Ky. App. 1979) - Grandparents ' Visitation Rights, 3 Am.
J. Trial Advocacy 589-591 (1980).
Survey of New York Practice - Domestic Relations Law -
Visitation of Adopted Child by Natural Grandparents
Properly May Be Sought Under DRL sec 72 , 56 St. John's
L. Rev. 581 (1982) .
173
Prepared Statement of Robert A. Destro
Mr. Chairman, I am please to follow-up the testimony of my colleague,
Professor Linda Mullenix, with this written statement for the purpose of
discussing the rights and duties of grandparents vis a vis their grandchildren
in cases which do not involve the issue of visitation. Like that of Professor
Mullenix, my testimony is solely for the Committee's information. The
recognition of "grandparents' rights" in their grandchildren akin to those of
parents is an exceedingly complex issue, far beyond the limited scope of this
testimony. My purpose is therefore limited to raising some of the issues for
purposes of discussion.
As the concurrent resolutions aptly recognize, grandparents often "play a
vital role in millions of American families" (S. Con. Res. 40; Con. Res. 45).
The substance of my testimony is to review the degree to which current state
law and practice recognizes that role and imposes any attendant
responsibilities.
In general, the rights and duties of grandparents, in areas other than
visitation, turn upon the substance of the "vital role" they play, and the
degree to which the state has codified or judicially recognized that role.
"Grandparental" interests other than those related to visitation and estate
matters fall into the following general categories:
Custody and Adoption Rights (preferences)
1) as against parent(s)
2) as against third parties
Support Obligations
Guardianship Rights (preferences)
Because the law on these issues will vary somewhat from state to state, it
is doubtful that the enactment of a Uniform Act regarding visitation rights
will address the rights of grandparents and other concerned family in their
grandchildren and infant blood relatives. It can also be anticipated that, in
the absence of careful planning, such laws will raise additional questions
regarding grandparental obligations, and open additional areas of controversy
within the already complex field of Conflict of Laws.
II . "Grandparent" a£ a Legal Status: "Family" or "Stranger"?
A. Rights "to Custody and Adoption
Although the Supreme Court recognized the right of a grandparent to
174
include her grandsons in a "single family" home in Moore v. City of East
Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977), the decision has not signalled any attempt by
the Court to limit the traditional power of the states to legislate regarding
child custody and adoption by creating rights for members of the 'extended
family" akin to those of the natural parents. Compare, e.g., Santosky v.
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982); Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452
U.S. 18 (1981); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978); Smith v.
Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816 (1977). The rule in most
jurisdictions is that, absent statutory enactment, status as a grandparent
confers no legal right to custody or a "preference" in adoption or custody
proceedings upon fracture or unsuitability of the family unit. The same is
true respecting prior consent to placement for adoption.
Examination of relevant cases demonstrates that the basis for these rules
is multi-faceted: they recognize that, at common law, grandparents have no
rights in their grandchildren and no obligation to provide support; that the
law, common, statutory and constitutional, prefers the natural parents over
all others whenever possible see, e^j. , Tuckey v^ Tuckey, 649 P. 2d 88 (Utah,
1982) and that in cases of family fracture the key inquiry is the "best
interests of the child." In this regard, it should be noted that the
visitation cases summarized by Professor Mullenix are derived from the same
set of common law rules, and that whatever rights have come to be recognized
rest on statutory foundations, rather than formulations of common law "natural
rights" theory or constitutional principle.
Perhaps one of the most succinct statements of the present state of the
law respecting grandparents' rights in adoption and custody cases is to be
found in Oliva v. Oliva, 52 111. App. 3d 626, 367 N.E.2d 971 (1978) wherein
the Illinois Court of Appeals rejected the arguments of grandparents who
sought to raise their claims in adoption proceedings after the natural mother
(their daughter) consented to placing the children for adoption. The court
stated:
"We do not wish to be understood in this opinion as deni-
grating the natural right of grandparents to have custody
of or to adopt their grandchildren in a proper case. All
other things being equal, they may be the most logical
175
persons to have custody or to adopt, and this is especial-
ly true where they have played an important part in the
raising of the child. A petition- to intervene by grand-
parents, due to their unique relationship to the child
must, as it was here, be given careful consideration, for
it is implicit in their relationship to the child that
they have great solicitude for the child's well being and
happiness. This is well recognized in the Illinois cases,
[citation omitted] But, in the circumstances of this case
there is no legal basis authorizing a right to intervene
and it was a matter clearly within the discretion of the
court. . . .
We note also that there is a grave matter of public
policy~implicit in the contention of the grandparents that
they have a right to intervene because they are th"e
grandparents and are the preferred parties in an adoption"
case. In the absence of a statute giving the grandparents
a preference (which might be unconstitutionally
discriminatory) where are we to stop in allowing relatives
to block a proposed adoption? Is an uncle or aunt in a
less favorable position than a grandparent? Indeed, an
adult cousin may have closer ties to the child than a
grandparent. In many countries it is customary for a
brother to adopt his deceased brother's children and the
cases are legion in both fact and fiction, viz., David
Copperfield and Tom Sawyer, of an aunt adopting a deceased
sister's child. How can we draw the line at
grandparents? Are we to subject ewery adoption to the
hazard of being disrupted or preempted by an intervening
relative who learns of it midway in its course?
Olivia v. Oliva, 52 111. App. 3d 626, 367 N.E.2d 971
(1978) (emphasis added) Accord Wilson v. Family Services,
554 P. 2d 227 (Utah, 1976)
The quotation is instructive for several reasons. First, it recognizes
grandparents' interests and their "unique relationship," but limits the
possibility of giving them legal effect to "a proper case." Thus, what is
described as the "natural right of grandparents to have custody of or to adopt
their grandchildren" is noj. a "natural right" at all. If it were,
intervention by the grandparents to protect it should be permitted.
Second, and even more revealing of the true state of the common law, is
the court's statement that "a statute giving the grandparents a preference
[...] might be unconstitutionally discriminatory " The court clearly saw
grandparents as simply members of a broader class of blood relations, all of
whom might be considered for preferential treatment if the test is simply one
of "family relationship" or "family integrity." Compare, e.g., 27 Ala. Code
§ 1.
Third, and last, is the result in Oliva. An adoption preference was
given, at the urging of the natural mother, to a non-member of the family.
The rationale was the traditional one — "best interests of the child" — and
176
the rule applied is also the traditional one: grandparents have no
preference, even as against non-family members.
While 0]iva may be distinguished on its facts from a case where the
grandparents or other relatives claiming preference stand equally
well-qualified to raise the child (the court in Oljva found the grandparents-
home to be less "suitable" for the child), it and Moore raise interesting
questions in those cases where the grandparents and/or relatives can provide a
-suitable" environment (i.e., one which is in the child's "best interests.").
If the Supreme Court is to be taken seriously in Moore when it stated that
"[ours] is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the nuclear family.
The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a
household along with parents and children [especially in times of adversity]
has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional
protection," a strong policy argument can be made for recognizing — by state
statute — some familial preference in cases where it is not jjiconsistent with
the child's best interests. ' See, e^., 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (Indian children).
For application of the general rule, as modified by any local common law
or statute, the following cases are instructive:
Alabama
Johnson v. Sparks, Civ. No. 3837, Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama,
(filed August 31, 1983) (slip opinion) (custody)
Eskew v. Eskew, 57 Ala. App. 512, 329 So. 2d 567 (1976) (custody)
Davis v. Turner, 55 Ala. App. 366, 315 So. 2d 602 (1975)
(grandparents must follow statutory procedure for adoption; some
consideration is given by statute to relatives with whom child
has lived for more than one year by Ala. Code)
177
Alaska
A.B.M., Natural Mother v. M.H. & A.H., Prospective Adoptive Parents,
651 P. 2d 1170 (Alaska, 1982) (statutory preference)*
E.A. v. State of Alaska, 623 P. 2d 1210 (Alaska, 1981) (right to
appeal adoption), (statutory preference)*
Arizona
■ ■ ■ 4 . ■ —
Koehler v. Koehler, 121 Ariz. App. 592, 592 P. 2d 788 (1979)
(injunction against contact by grandparents)
LeRoy v. Odgers, 18 Ariz. App. 499, 503 P. 2d 975 (1972)
Arkansas
Cox v. Stayton, 273 Ark. 298, 619 S.W.2d 617 (1981)
(custody/adoption statutes)
Quarles v. French, 272 Ark. 51, 611 S.W.2d 757 (1981) (right to
intervene in adoption.
In the Matter of the Adoption of Thomas David Hensley, v.
Wist. 270, Ark. 1004, 607 S.W.2d 80 (1980) ("adoption)
California
Smith v. Smith, 270 Cal. App. 2d 605, 75 Cal. Rptr. 900 (1969)
(adoption)
Colorado \
Rippere v. Rippere, 157 Colo. 29, 400 P. 2d 920 (1965) (custody)
People, in the Interest of P.P., formerly M.A.D., a child, v.
M.G., 41 Colo. App. 109, 580 P. 2d 836 (1978) (custody support,
right to terminate)
People, in the Interest of C.P. and P.P., 34 Colo. App. 54,
524 P. 2d 316 (1974) (adoption)
* Federal Law 25 U.S.C. §1914 provides: Any Indian child
who is the subject of any action for foster care placement
or termination of parental rights under State law, any
parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child
was removed, and the Indian child's tribe may petition any
court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action
upon a showing that such action violated any provision of
sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.
178
Delaware
R.A.D. v. M.E.Z. and B.G., 414 A. 2d 211 (Del. Super. 1980)
Florida
In the Interest of J.S. v. Seekell, 404 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. App. 1981)
(adoption)
Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So. 2d 78 (Fla. App. 1980) (custody)
Behn v. Timmons, 345 So. 2d 388 (Fla. App. 1977) ("best interest"
standard inapplicable to custody dispute between father and
maternal grandmother after death of divorced mother having
custody; award to father based on parental rights)
Jones v. Allen, 277 So. 2d 599 (1973) (grandparents prevailed in
adoption after death of mother over claims of imprisoned father
who had abandoned children; based on "best interests" of child")
[note: Florida "abandonment" standard is more flexible than
many other states]
In re Adoption of Arnold, 184 So. 2d 192 (Fla. App. 1966)
(grandaughter who had been adopted by grandparents pursuant to
consent of their 17-year old daughter returned to natural mother
in subsequent adoption proceeding)
Georgia
Johnson v. Eidson, 235 Ga. 820, 221 S.E.2d 813 (1976) (courts may
not permit grandparents to adopt on grounds of "moral unfitness"
of parents without their consent.
Department of Human Resources v. Ledbetter, 153 Ga. App. 416, 265
S.E.2d 337 (1980) (grandparents have no right to intervene in
adoption proceedings, but may seek adoption through normal
channels) (case involved aunt and uncle who were "virtual
grandparents")
Carey v. Phillips, 137 Ga. App. 619, 224 S.E.2d 870 (1976) (mother
may prohibit adoption by grandparents by refusing consent to
adoption)
179
Illinois
People ex rel Bukovic v. Smith, 98 111. App. 3d 144, 423 N.E.2d 1302
(1981) (grandparents may not attack an existing custody decree
on grounds that mother asked them to care for children for an
"open-ended" period of time"
In re Adoption of Oliva (Benavedez, Real Party) v. Oliva, 52 111.
App. 3d 626, 367 N.E.2d 971 (1977) (grandparents have no right
to intervene in adoption; mother's preference for third-party
non-family member would be respected where in best interests of
child)
Chodzko v. Chodzko, 66 111. 2d 28, 360 N.E.2d 60 (1976) rev'g, 35 111.
App. 3d 357, 342 N.E.2d 122 (1975) (grandparents have no special
status)
In re Adoption of Hoffman v. Hoffman, 61 111. 2d 569, 338 N.E.2d 862
(1975) (parents who consented to adoption by grandparents could
not set it aside absent finding of fraud or duress in
grandparents' representations leading to adoption)
Indiana
Browder v. Harmeyer, 453 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. App. 1983) (custodial
grandparent does not have parental interest sufficient to
warrant full "due process" accorded to the "fundamental right of
family integrity" absent prior adoption of child where
controversy in adoption was between paternal grandparents and
custodial, maternal grandmother)
Kentucky
Ricks v. Lawrence, 447 S.W.2d 640 (Ky. 1969) (custody award to
father after grandfather had been awarded temporary custody)
Louisiana
Griffith v. Roy, 263 La. 712, 269 So. 2d 217 (1972) (only the state
may attack parental custody for neglect while marriage exits
180
between parents; grandfather was "stranger" to custody hearings
and writ of habeas corpus would issue to grandfather to return
children to mother)
In re Burnet, 415 So. 2d 465 (1982) (grandparents may not adopt
without consent of non-supporting parent)
NOTE: The holding in Re Brunet reflected the Louisiana civil
law rule in force when the case arose. It has now been
superceded by La. Rev. Stats. (1980) 9:422.1
Massachusetts
Adoption and Visitation of a Minor, 14 Mass. App. 992, 440 N.E.
2d 766 (1982) (fitness of grandparents would be considered in
controversy over custody with foster parents)
Minnesota
In re Welfare of Viray, 285 Minn. 269, 172 N.W.2d 851 (1960)
(grandparents subject to "best interests of child" standard)
Mississippi
Parish v. Stevens, 228 So. 2d 607 (Mis. 1969) ("best interest,"
standard applied to controversy between paternal and maternal
grandparents)
New York
People ex rel Kaye v. Spence-Chapin Adoption Service, 12 N.Y.2d 951,
238 N.Y.S. 2d 777, 189 N.E. 2d 104 (1963) (grandmother had no
rights in child where parents placed it for adoption with agency
and agency had placed it for adoption with foster parents)
Missouri
Hupp v. Hupp, 238 Mo. App. 964, 194 S.W.2d 215 (1946) (grandparents
can never prevail in custody action over fit parent)
Montana
In ther Matter of M.N, et a!., Neglected Children, 649 P. 2d 749
181
(Mont. 1982) (grandmother does not, by virtue of her status as a
grandparent, have any superior right to custody to that of a
non-relative." See also Montana Code Ann. 41-3-406
Oregon
Graham v. Children's Services Division, 39 Ore. App. 27, 591 P. 2d
375 (1979) (grandparents who once had custody have no right to
procedural protection before agency empowered to withhold
consent to adoption)
Mahoney v. Under, 14 Ore. App. 656, 514 P. 2d 901 (1973)
fgrandparents have no standing to contest adoption of their
grandchildren)
Texas
Blalock v. Blalock, 559 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977)
In the Interest of an Unnamed Child, 584 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. Civ. App.
1979) (grandparents have no legal relationship to a grandchild)
Utah
In the Interest of Summers Children v. Mulftenstein, 571 P. 2d 1319
(1977) (applying rule that grandparents have "some dormant or
inchoate right or interest in the custody and welfare"- of their
grandchildren)
Wilson v. Family Services Division, 554 P. 2d 227 (Utah, 1976)
(recognizing right to intervene on "inchoate interest" theory),
but see Wilson v. Family Services Division, 572 P. 2d 682 (Utah
1977) (grandmother fails on merits)
Walton v. Coffman, 110 Utah 1, 169 P. 2d 97 (1946) (Children's
best interest may require grant of custody to grandparents
rather than mother, despite finding of maternal fitness)
B. Guardianship Rights
The law of guardianship rights was not examined in great detail for this
testimony. It appears, however, that family members, including grandparents,
29-610 O— 84 13
182
are are. recognized as the "natural guardians- of the children of deceased
family members as "next of kin." See, e.g., Re Guardianship of Stange, 38
Misc. 2d 170, 236 N.Y.S.2d 718 (1962) ("a grandparent is the natural guardian
of orphaned grandchildren."); Herod v. Davidson, 650 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. Civ.
App. 1983). See generally 32 A.L.R.2d 863
C. Support Obligations
An interesting, as well as important, related issue in the controversy
over "grandparents' rights" is its corollary: the issue of support
obligations. The limited research on this topic demonstrated that
grandparents generally have no obligation to support their grandchildren
unless it is imposed in a general statute imposing liability on family members
for the needs of paupers. See, e^g. , Maine Rev. Stat. Ann § 4467; Minn. Stats
261.01; New Jersey Stats Ann 301: 4-60, 66. In New York, former Section 145
of the Family Court Act imposed support obligations on grandparents, but the
law was changed and New York now recognizes no grandparent support
obligations. See . De Jonge v. Blum, 55 N.Y.2d 1030, 449 N.Y.S. 2d 209, 434
N.E. 2d 1076 (1982); Taylor v. Dumpson, 37 N.Y.2d 379, 375 N.Y.S. 2d 90, 337
N.E.2d 600, rev'g, 79 Misc. 2d 379, 337 N.E. 2d 600, 362 N.Y.S. 2d 888 (1979)
(parents of unwed pregnant minors have no duty to support their grandchildren,
but law forbidding grandparents from qualifying for benefits was
unconstitutional) (eligibility for benefits now provided by Section 371 of the
Social Services (law).
Thus, the general rule is that grandparents have no common law support
obligations which would compel their participation in the support of their
grandchild, see, e.g., Franklin v. Franklin, 75 Ariz. 151, 253 P. 2d 337
(1953) (grandfather who had been granted custody prior to divorce not required
to continue support after divorce from wife who was granted custody); Haggard
v. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, 98 Idaho 55, 558 P. 2d 84 (ADC funds may
not be red99ced by counting grandparents' assets); Elliot v. Ehrlich, 203 Neb.
790, 280 N.W.2d 637 (1979) ("no legal obligation upon grandparents to support
grandchildren")" but cf., Landeche v. Airhart, 372 So. 2d 598 (La. App. 1979)
(La. Civ. Code Art. 229 imposes support obligations in some circumstances).
183
Some states do, however, recognize a "moral obligation" accepted by
grandparents sufficient to allow grandchildren benefits under insurance or
other policies. See Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 304 111. 320,
322, 136 N.E.2d 762, 762-63 (1922). Cf . , Maddox v. Queen, 150 Ga. App. 408,
257 S.E.2d 918 (1980) (applying parental immunity for torts to grandfather of
child acting "in loco parentis" and recognizing family relation.
III. Conclusion
This short summary of the law of grandparents' rights is not exhaustive by
any means, but it does clearly demonstrate that the courts have been reluctant
to permit grandparents to claim rights against either the parents or
non-family member third parties without statutory authorization. While the
rule against allowing grandparents to question or challenge the legal rights
of parents is understandable, the rule placing non-family member third parties
on the same level as blood relatives is more difficult to explain. Perhaps
part of the answer lies partly in the quote from Illinois Court of Appeals in
*ne OTjvg case noted above: granting grandparents a judicially-created
preference over other family members is difficult to justify. Compare 25
U.S.C. § 1914 (special preference in adoption of Indian children) Code of
Alabama §§ 3 et seq. (establishing special provisions for "final" orders of
adoption for custodial blood relatives or foster parents under certain
conditions) The other part likely rests in the lack of support obligations
imposed on grandparents. Their role, while certainly "vital" in most caring,
closely-knit families, is not one that judge-made law will recognize or
enforce against them. At this point in time, it is an unfortunate fact that
the law does* indeed see grandparents as "strangers" to the family
relationship, and the move toward state legislative consideration of the many
issues involved is, in my judgment, a step in the right procedural direction.
184
Senator East. Thank you, Professor Mullenix, and I appreciate
your being brief. I know that is extremely difficult to do, particu-
larly when you are talking about the historical development of this
problem, and its very significant legal implications.
Your statement, which I have had an opportunity to read, is ex-
cellent, and, of course, will be made a part of the permanent record
along with that of Professor Destro — and we may call upon you in
the future for additional thoughts on the legal background of this
issue, which is something we shall obviously, the subcommittee and
the committee as a whole, want to reflect on as we move along
with this matter.
Let me just ask you this, as a matter of generalization about the
problem, did you say that between 40 and 50 States, now have laws
on the books dealing with this question of visitation rights of
grandparents?
Is that correct?
Ms. Mullenix. That's correct.
Senator East. They deal with it in some statutory form. No. 9
apparently a great deal of diversity exists among the visitation
laws adopted by these States.
Ms. Mullenix. That's right. Something that I didn't mention but
I think was indicated by some of the people on the panel, is that,
there are major conflicts-of-laws problems engendered by the fact
that the statutes in the States are so different, what this does is
allow or induce some parents to remove their children to foreign
states where the grandparents are not residents in order to circum-
vent either a court decree or to come within the purview of differ-
ent statutory language.
Senator East. So they vary enormously in those 40 States.
Ms. Mullenix. That's right.
Senator East. Let me just ask you, as a matter of interest, those
other States, which involve over half of them, have they no law at
all and just rely upon the common law?
Ms. Mullenix. Some of the States rely upon the common law,
some of the States that have statutory provisions will use common
law reasoning in denying, visitation rights.
Senator East. On that point, in your expert opinion, is the
common law very sympathetic to grandparents rights?
Ms. Mullenix. No, not at all. The common law position basically
is supportive of parental authority to make these decisions, and I
think this particularly comes to the fore when you have at least
one parent who is surviving and is the custodial parent of the
child.
Senator East. I was just curious as to why it would appear that
the common law was callous and hardened on this question of
grandparent visitation rights, I am just speculating, whether
historically the common law emerged out of a period where you
had the traditional nuclear family well intact, so that the problem
was not a major policy or social question and hence in those rare
cases where the problem may have arisen it seemed to be less so-
licitous with the visitation rights of grandparents. What I am an-
gling at is that the common law often comes out of a period in
which the whole setting of values was very different than it is
today. Today it seems to me the problem is that we have had such
185
a revolution through the new morality in terms of the family, that
this problem takes on proportions that the common law never an-
ticipated.
One somewhat longs for the days where generally family values
were of the type that I think the earlier panel has underscored so
heavily and constituted an integral part of American society. And I
think the bedrock of its strength as a nation.
I don't mean to go on unduly here, but you can have a strong
dollar and a strong national defense and do all of these other
things, but, as Plato said, society is simply the individual writ
large— and I fear we have moral malaise in this country which
stems from the erosion of traditional family values. I fear we may
all suffer if we continue to look with indifference and contempt
upon, the old values and institutions on which this Nation was
built.
As Ecclesiastes says: "There is nothing new under the Sun." I
don't think the new morality is anything new under the Sun. It's
only the old degeneracy, the old hedonism, the old decay, in a new
form. No matter what its form, this moral decadence must not be
allowed to destroy the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition and
others that have made the West and this country in particular as
enduring and humane and compassionate as they have been.
I think this is the part of a broader battle. And I thank you for
coming and offering your comments. As you properly indicated,
you and Professor Destro wouldn't wish to dictate what the legal
solution is; what you are trying to do is provide background infor-
mation as to the status of the law today. Your comments have been
very useful in outlining the great diversity among the States which
have adopted statutory laws in this area, and the problems, of the
remaining States which rely on the old common law.
And I thank you all for coming, and having met our appointed
rounds. Unless I hear vigorous protest to the contrary, this session
of the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers stands adjourned.
Thank you very much for all coming and joining.
[The subcommittee adjourned at 12:40 p.m.]
APPENDIX
Additional Submissions for the Record
Prepared Statement of Edith S. and Henry W. Engel
Honorable Chairman and members of the Committee:
There are many, many forms of child abuse. It need not
be physical only. Psychological and emotional abuses are equal-
ly damaging. We are here as grandparents not only in our own
right and for our own grandchildren, but to speak for all grand-
children who have been and who are being abused consequent to the
breakup of a family relationship.
In our own case, we were not parties to the alienation,
but, along with the children, were victims comparably deprived
of association, affection, and even knowledge of one another.
Our grandchildren were the victims- of deprivation, another ver-
sion of abuse, that has undoubtedly led them to believe they
were abandoned by us.
Our elder daughter broke down under the pressures of a
destructive marriage. She ran away, fearful of inflicting abuse
upon her two children, who suffered traumatically from the loss
of their mother. They were further punished- by the actions of
their father who literally amputated the maternal side of the
family from their lives, without explanation. Numerous psycho-
logical professionals have attested that these children have suf-
fered an overwhelming sense of abandonment by us, their mother's
family.
With few other family connections in the general area,
our grandchildren are condemned to a rcotlessness and lack of
family background and meaning that otherwise would represent a
(187;
188
support system particularly necessary in a caae like theirs
where divorce has ripped apart the family structure.
Numerouse evidences of specific abuse have been docu-
mented in the family life of our grandchildren. They live in a
bilingual household in which the mandatory language spoken is
not that of their schooling or potential companions — but rather
that of their foreign-born stepmother. Consequently they have
learning problems, few or no friends and little companionship,
and have been described as sad, dispirited, and withdrawn child-
ren. For reasons unknown, they have never been observed play-
suburban
ing outside of their/home, even in fine summer weather, either
by themselves or with any companion. Even walking home from
school -on its last day, each was noted as shuffling along alone,
blankly staring down at the ground. Where was the normal exu-
berance of a child released from school for the sumrner?
One can only repeat that abuse is not alon<t physical.
These children do not seem to have been beaten or struck by their
parents, but the indications of neglect, psychological and emo-
tional, are quite apparent. Where our granddaughter, at the time
of an earlier hearing on visitation rights, was termed "emo-
tionally fragile" by the father's own psychologist-witness, there
is no evidence whatsoever that the therapy recommended for hsr
has been carried out. Surely a child of ten-to-twelve years un-
der the care of a therapist would manifest a few signs of emo-
tional well-being in her life rather than those that have been
observed. Speech therapy, orthopedic therapy, and educational
tutoring — all ap. aar to be recommended remediations of which she
ha3 been deprived. For a father who, a few years ago, spent thou-
sands of dollars upon carefully selected paintings and other art
objects, such deprivations can well be termed child abuse of the
worst order, and negligence not in the best interests of- the child.
We do not begrudge what we have 3pent monetarily in pur-
suing any opportunity to participate in the lives of our grand-
children. We have already been deprived of seven of their most
189
formative years, as have they of us, and we have no assurance
that we will ever be successful In our quest. But we are no
longer young persons, and the thousands of dollars It has already
cost us can ill be spared by people of very modest means. Further,
the financial cost is only one form of expense, be it out of
pocket or loss of earning time. What of the physical costs and
emotional drain? No dollar figure can possibly be placed upon
them.
Why do we persist in our endeavors? It is not our in-
tent to usurp parental authority or prerogatives. We do not
seek custody of our grandchildren. We do not want to intrude in-
to a nuclear family, but we want to be permitted a sharing in
the living experiences and growth of our grandchildren. We do
not wish to infringe upon parental authority, but we cannot sit
idly to the side when parental negligence results in deprivation
and abuse. Parental tyranny, unchallenged, should never be per-
mitted to aggrandize into familial holocaust.
If we do not stem the incipient flood of cases of child-
ren deprived of their roots through denial of grandparental con-
tact, what is to happen to thi3 nation in the future? Footloose,
unsure of themselves, readily mobile but eternally rootless,
children without backgrounds and exposure to an ethnic, clan,
or family heritage will only spawn more and more of their kind.
And the children of our children, knowing no better and with their
parents' example, will turn upon their own parents and treat them
similarly. America will be the sure loser. In no other country
today is this a problem of such consequence. Other nations know
better. Can we do les3?
190
TESTIMONY OF RITA WARREN, PRESIDENT OF THE
CHRISTIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
H. Con. Res. 4044
TO: Subcommittee on Courts and the Subcommittee on
Separation of Powers
Mr. Chairman:
I, Rita Warren, representing the Christian Civil Liberties
Union, wish to submit my testimony in favor of H. Con. Res. 404^ —
a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress. A
uniform State act should be developed and adopted which provides
grandparents with adequate rights to petition State courts for
privileges to visit their grandchildren following the dissolution
(because of divorce, separation or death) of the marriage of
such children's parents and for other purposes.
Being myself a grandmother, I share the concern of our
rights to visitation for our grandchildren. I feel that
without grandparents there will not be any grandchildren. The
role of grandparents is very important in the lives of children.
It gives them a sense of security, but above all, it is the
love that they receive that is very important. Children from
the day that they are born grow healthy in the home where there
is love, not only from their parents, but also from their
grandparents. Family unity is the most important part of any
child's life, not only for their future but also for the future
of our Nation. If by any circumstance a child is unable to
share the love of both parents, a child will be able legally
to enjoy his or her grandparents. Too many courts have tried
to ignore that grandparents are a part of their grandchildren's
lives and the courts have often tried to keep them apart. Having
myself experienced such judges, I feel that we grandparents
will be grateful to our Congress for taking some action in
giving us the rights that we so well deserve.
To be able to enjoy the love and concern for our children,
we urge this Committee to report favorably on H. Con. Res. 4044.
191
Knowing that many blessings and prayers will be upon
you and the gratitude of all the grandparents and grandchildren
of this Nation, thank you and God bless you.
Love, prayer and peace,
Sincerely yours,
Rita Warren
*wg**i ■ n I WIP^— ■ H ■■ ii^~~ -»a *****
' ■} <T-^--^-f---^ '■ v-..-.^ -.:---- — ...1. ■ V- ■r.
Mum it ■mi-i nil
»• . .-.--,■ **--«*■ -'-^r-iS
.1, ,..mm..->i ■ ■■ ' i.iJiTfB
* $
Wt^tisal^f^drnoiber?
~-. "'.../ :>i*. ,<'\ v"^ ... ■ r '-^s.'j'. ""--■: "'-^"-. v"1 '
^She's always good natured with a bug I'
and a kiss. -.
5£>e's /fee /as/ one to leave,
the first one you miss.
She's Thanksgiving day, turkey and dressing,
hot pumpkin pie and God's blessing.
She's jams and jellies and apron strings.
She's Grandma or
Nannie, a million
good things.
And most of all there's
no story told that
Grandma can't
capture with her
words of y old.
Grandmother
is Love.
IV
'&%■
- ill n <? ■
■ it' itimfi itTrwriffii'lli'yr:'>r*-"-- . r. .. - ..,., *.,n* .."i.- .■■ ir,-. i
192
Letters
Washington, D.C., September 4, 1983.
Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Washington, B.C.
Dear Ms. /Sirs. This is an urgent request that you support H. Con. 45 — the bill
sponsored by Congressman Biaggi and supported by Congressman Lantos.
Unless you have been through the experience none of you can imagine the pain
and anguish grandchildren and grandparents suffer when either one or both par-
ents vent their resentment by refusing to let the children see their grandparents.
This is especially true in the case of divorced parents, but is often true in cases en-
volving the death of one parent.
We believe the children are the ones hurt the most at being deprived of their
grandparents love and support. This added to the pain of divorce of the parents is
almost too much for a child to endure
We beg of you to consider these facts and to have compassion for both children
and their grandparents. Please support House Bill 45.
Thank you for your time in reading our letter.
Sincerely,
Mr. and Mrs. E. G. Christianson.
Flushing, N.Y., October 19, 1983.
Senator Strom Thurmond,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C
Attention: Mr. Vinton DeVane Lide, Chief Counsel and Staff Director.
Dear Senator Thurmond: In reply to your most kind and thoughtful letter of
September 29th, my wife, Marcia, and I, as suffering grandparents, concerned about
the passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 (grandparents visitation) want to
take what may be the only opportunity we may ever get to tell you of a horrendous
set of governmental conditions — stemming from the Judiciary and the United States
Justice department — which you and the members of the Full Committee may not be
aware of.
Senator Thurmond, this letter is written in pain. God knows, there are men on
your committee such as Senator Dole, Senator Denton and Senator Kennedy who
have suffered, physically and psychologically, as much as any American living
today. Marcia and I think that when men such as these, under your leadership,
fully understand what passes for Justice to grandparents and their grandchildren in
America today; from the state and Federal courts and the U.S. Department of Jus-
tice, that these Senators will feel a revulsion and horror that only a human being
who has suffered, deeply, can experience.
My wife and I want this letter to stand as a brief indictment of our court system
and the Department of Justice so that tens of thousands of other American grand-
parents and grandchildren will not have to suffer, as we do now, because of corrup-
tion, apathy and indifference at the judicial level.
Our main goal, Senator Thurmond, of course, is to see our beloved grandchildren,
Brian, 14, and Vanessa, almost 11, whom we have not been allowed to see in Colora-
do, where they were taken as hostages, almost four years ago.
Senator, we do not want to pour out our hearts here as we did before the Biaggi
Subcommittee on Human Services, in December 1982. Our anger and sense of injus-
tice is concentrated in the following four areas:
(1) Children, in this country, today, are being treated like chattel by both state
and Federal court judges. This is now happening even when the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled recently that a child, in a life-determining situation, is entitled to
counsel under the Constitution. [John v. Dept. of Justice, 624 F. 2nd 522 (1980) and
653 F.2nd 884 (1981).) Our grandchildren, in New York State Supreme Court, in
1978, were twice denied any counsel, on the record. Judges, at both the state and
Federal district court level, ignored my grandchildren's wishes and best interests; on
the record. This, in turn, led to the children being "kidnapped" to another state;
against their will and to the denying of our New York visitation rights by a little
Colorado mountain court; despite our New York State warrant for the arrest of our
ex-son-in-law.
(2) The U.S. Department of Justice is flagrantly violating the enforcement of the
Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C., Section 1738A) in
open defiance of the will of Congress and the people!
193
The department is doing this for its own selfish ends and has drawn up its own
handbook of enforcement, making a mockery of the law and Congressional intent.
(More than 100,000 children are being kidnapped each year. Many are being taken
away from their grandparents — interstate — as ours were.) Representatives of the
Justice Department, at the highest level, have told us they "did not want to open
the floodgates" because it did not suit the department's budget and priorities. Thus,
the Justice Department openly flaunts the will of the Congress and the people,
today.
Only your Committee, Senator Thurmond, is powerful enough to call the Justice
Department to account for the sea of human suffering it has forced American par-
ents and grandparents to wade through; because of its own departmental selfishness
and indifference. (A leading member of the Criminal Division, in Washington, D.C.,
in front of Congressman Biaggi's aide, Dr. Cassie Statuto, last December, told my
wife and me, "Well, you win some and you lose some. You people have to learn to
accept that!")
I told this man, Ezra Freedman, that he was talking about children and that we
weren't prepared to lose our grandchildren. I then asked Mr. Freedman if he had
any children but he refused to answer. I know that Mr. Freedman was merely the
spokesman for Mr. William French Smith and "departmental policy" but you see,
Senator, I had enlisted in the United States Army, in 1946, at the age of 17, to serve
my country and to obtain the G.I. Bill of Rights so that I could attend college. I
never expected to hear a member of the United States government tell me I had to
give up my grandchildren because the Justice Department has decided not to carry
out an Act of Congress, signed by the President of the United States on December
28, 1980!
A side effect of this Justice Department decision to enforce the Federal Parental
Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, in only about 40 cases a year, out of 100,000, is
that it causes what Congressman Biaggi called massive "child abuse" each year;
both psychologically and physically.
(3) Today, Federal money, in the form of Social Security checks from dead par-
ents; payable to the new guardians or step-parents of grandchildren, such as mine,
has made these children pawns in an on-going game in which children are being
dragged across state lines for profit!
The Social Security Department does not and will not check to see if the children
are really getting any benefits from the money paid out each month. (My grandson,
Brian, 14, recently had to wear his father's shoes to a dance, in Colorado, while my
ex-son-in-law collects thousands of dollars a year in our dead daughter's Social Secu-
rity benefits; benefits which were earned in New York and are paid in Colorado,
and which no one checks on!) You can multiply this case by thousands and the
money by the millions, in America, today. Other children are being passed along
from spouse to spouse while Federal Social Security benefits, from a dead parent,
make these children walking annities!
Thus, grandchildren are being denied access to their grandparents by the very
people who are profiting from this child-bartering situation! (Last December, Con-
gresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, in Washington, thanked my wife and me for bring-
ing this abuse of Federal funds to the attention of the House Select Committee on
Aging.)
(4) Lastly, politically-appointed judges, such as we have in Queens County, New
York City, think it merely a "favor" to grant custody to a family friend of the court.
We know it happened in our case, in State Supreme Court where the judges are
put on the bench by an entrenched machine. We brought charges against the ma-
chine; based on hard evidence, in Federal District Court, in Brooklyn, in 1979.
We hired a top Park Avenue law firm who took our evidence — and our money —
and filed a brief in January 1979. What happened to that firm and to us, Senator
Thurmond, as a result of bucking the machine in Queens County, would make your
stomach turn! Now our grandchildren are suffering for it, as is our whole family,
because we dared to tell the truth in a Federal Court! (The Federal judge acted in a
manner that cries out for a full investigation.)
In 1980, the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals let us file our own brief, Pro
Se. That high court re-instated our case after the top New York law firm was fright-
ened right out of the case when the Queens County machine put pressure on them.
The firm defaulted on paying $75 in filing fees to the Second Circuit, after taking
more than $20,000 from our family!)
In the Federal district court, the judge allowed my ex-son-in-law to ignore that
court's order to appear before it. He also dismissed the case, in one day, without
even consulting the file folder, which was in the 2nd Circuit's court house. This,
while writing to us that he didn't remember any of the details of the case.
194
Please note, Sir, we're not talking about judicial indifference or incompetence
here, we're talking about political favoritism, effecting grandparents' visitation
rights. (In Denver, our ex-son-in-law, a former convict, drug user and dealer; wanted
on a New York State warrant, had his word taken in a little mountain court house,
while my wife and I were told by Judge Joseph P. Lewis to leave Denver — despite
having had custody of the children for five years in New York and New York visita-
tion rights. The judge said never to come back; to forget about the children forever
and that they now had new grandparents!)
We took this case to the United States Supreme Court. In October, 1982, they re-
fused to docket it. (We know a grandfather in Sayre, Pennsylvania, Mr. Garnett
Brown, who has been fighting the courts, in similar circumstances for eight years!
He had his case docketed in a Federal district court but because Garnett Brown
can't get a lawyer to help him he is now appearing Pro Se, in the 3rd Circuit Court
of Appeals. Mr. Brown's case was dismissed because he couldn't single-handedly, re-
spond, in time, to a brief filed, in defense, by the Attorney-General of Pennsylvania.
Is this justice for American grandparents?)
Senator Thurmond, the doling out of custody, in small state courts is, as you
know, in many cases, merely a political favor by a judge.
In our city, recently, the New York Times put the story on page one— two days in
a row — when a local boss, Stanley Friedman, decided to drop two veteran judges
from the State Supreme Court bench for purely political reasons. Mayor Koch said
aloud that everybody knows that in New York such judicial appointments are politi-
cal and that, "They who live by the sword shall die by the sword!"
My wife and I are most anxious to help the Committee, so that we can get to see
our grandchildren and we need your help, too. We have lived a nightmare, trying to
get Brain and Vanessa their legal rights and our legal rights; as their loving grand-
parents. We feel that the children have suffered harshly and unjustly at the hands
of local state court judges in Queens County and Denver, and at the hands of the
Federal judges in New York; as well as the Department of Justice. Marcia and I
have urged that a Federal ombudsman and a mediation panel be established in
every state, to keep other grandparents and grandchildren from having to suffer as
we, and Brian and Vanessa, are suffering now.
We know, Senator Thurmond, that your are a kind and living father.
As God is our witness, everything we have told you is true and can be document-
ed. Congressman Biaggi and Congressman Gary Ackerman from New York will
vouch for us; as will Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro and Congressman Tom
Lantos. (Our grandchildren and two of Congressman Ackerman's children were in
the same public school classes in Queens County.)
We have documentation of four years of struggle against judicial injustice and in-
difference.
Senator Thurmond, if you and the members of the Full Committee wish to hear a
horror story that has taken us from the lowest court in New York State to the high-
est Court in America; we would be happy to tell this story of injustice to children
and grandparents — at length — naming names, if you wish, to anyone you choose.
We feel that by speaking up for Justice — for both grandchilren and grandpar-
ents— that we may be able to help Brian and Vanessa as they grow up, in a motor
home, in Colorado, cut off from their roots, their religion, and their dead mother's
family. We raised them for almost five years and dearly love them, as they love us.
We thank you for listening.
If you can find it in your heart to hear us and help us, Senator Thurmond, you
and the Committee will be doing God's highest work; something you have obviously
been chosen for.
Sincerely,
Harvey Kudler, Ph. D.
O
gigi M
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11