The Weekly Case Summary from The National Center for Adoption Law & Policy at Capital University in Columbus, OH
Week of June 18, 2009
From New Hampshire:
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the superior court’s order dismissing appellant grandmother’s petition for grandparent visitation, holding that although the grandmother had relinquished her parental rights to the grandchildren’s mother when the mother was an infant, appellant still maintained the ability to seek visitation with her grandchildren because she was the grandchildren’s “natural” grandparent. The court held that under RSA 461-A:13, “grandparents, whether adoptive or natural, may petition the court for reasonable rights of visitation with the minor child.” Here, the court found the even though appellant, for adoption purposes, is not the grandmother of her relinquished child’s children, she is the “natural” or biological grandparent for purposes of the visitation statute and therefore had standing to bring the visitation petition. In addition, the court found that the adoption decree had not “severed the child from its own family tree” as appellant and mother had a very close relationship after the mother had reached the age of majority.
From California:
In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division One affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of appellant father’s request for court ordered mediation between himself and the prospective adoptive parents of his child, T.H., for a post-adoption contact agreement (PCA), holding that a court-mandated referral to mediation for a PCA is only applicable in adoptions involving Indian children. Under the California Family Code § 8616.5(k), a court may not set aside a decree of adoption or modify an order to terminate parental rights based upon failure to comply with a PCA; however, the court may, upon petition of the birth parent or an Indian tribe, order the parties to engage in mediation regarding a PCA if the child is an Indian child and the prospective adoptive parents have agreed to enter into negotiations and subsequently fail to negotiate in good faith. Here, the court found no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court in refusing to require PCA mediation because the adoption involved a child who was not of Indian heritage and because there was no prior agreement by the prospective adoptive parents to enter into negotiations for a PCA. In addition, the court noted that a PCA is not required for post-adoption contact, where the prospective adoptive parents agree to maintain contact and facilitate means for such contact.
Subscribe to the Case Study by going here.
Possibly Related posts:
The first case confuses me a little. On one hand, the law states that a woman who terminates her rights to her child no longer has any legal tie to the child, then this comes along and says, “Wait, now if that child has a child *poof* the first mother now has grandparents rights!”
I’m not sure how I feel about this. I mean, clearly, there is something going on if the grand-first-mother had to seek out these ‘rights’ anyway. This, in my opinion, is a very tricky and potentially nasty situation…
As for the California CoA unpublished ruling, I hope against hope that I am reading this wrong. This sounds a lot like another first father being denied his right to an open adoption or any chance at coming to an agreement to have an open adoption, because he’s not Native American? Am I reading that correctly?
From what I read, it didn’t sound like he was doing anything other than trying to come to some sort of post adoption contact agreement with the intended adoptive parents.
I wonder what type of contact the first mother has?
Why does it always seem to me that first fathers get the short end of the stick in so many of these situations?
I don’t agree at all with the first case, and not just because the grandmother placed her daughter for adoption. I’m not a big fan of custodial interference. It certainly opens the doors for birthparents to seek court-ordered visitation. It also opens the doors for other biological relatives to try and assert their “rights” – aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, and so on.
As for the California case, the term “prospective adoptive parents” is used. This indicates to me that the parents aren’t actually the legal parents of the child. I’m wondering if this is a foster care case? He wanted the court to mediate a post-adoption contact agreement. The PAPs never said they were going to do a PCA at all, so how could the court order mediation for one? Because the PAPs don’t have to set up a PCA, if they agree to maintain contact and facilitate that contact. So, perhaps the PAPs aren’t doing what the birth father wants them to do, so he’s trying to have the court order them into a PCA. I’d love to know more about the case. Hmm…
With the first case, I think the bmom and bdaughter had been reunited and did have, at one point, a close relationship where the bmom may have financiallyed support the bdaughter and bgrandchild. Maybe that’s why she when to court: she and the daughter had a fall-out and she wasn’t able to see her bgrandchildren anymore