Grandparents' Rights Follow Specific Facts

In the grandparent rights case of C.C. v. M.H., Plaintiffs C.C. and D.C. sought visitation under the Grandparent Visitation Act, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1.2. The Plaintiffs based their case on the claim they were “psychological parents” to their grandchildren. Defendants have two children, ages 2 and 3. In 2013, Plaintiffs began caring for their grandchildren two days per week and they were being cared for by a nanny, and later in pre-school, three days per week. The parties dispute whether the Plaintiffs contributed some financial support to the grandchildren but do not dispute that Plaintiffs took the entire family on a vacation to Disney World. During the vacation, Plaintiffs and Defendants had a serious falling out over M.H.’s relationship with S.H. Thereafter, the grandchildren were enrolled in full-time pre-school and the Defendants relocated to a new community which Plaintiffs considered too far to visit. By September 2016, there was no contact between the Plaintiffs and grandchildren. The Plaintiffs complaint for visitation included that they “enjoyed a loving and caring relationship with their grandchildren since their birth on a daily basis”, “seeing them multiple times per week”, overnights as needed when the Defendants wanted to go out, family vacations and the like. Plaintiffs also contended that it would be likely the children would suffer irreparable harm if contact between the grandchildren and Plaintiffs was not restored. In support of their argument, Grandparents submitted a report from a psychologist that never met the grandchildren which provided generalizations in favor of the Plaintiffs’ case. Defendants filed replies and a cross-motion for restraints to keep the Plaintiffs away from the children. Defendants described the way Plaintiffs would start arguments with the Defendants in front of the children and the fact that the Defendants feared that the children would be exposed to similar treatment. The Defendants greatly disputed the amount of time with and care from the Plaintiffs. Defendants also filed a statement from M.H.’s sister indicating the Plaintiffs were often verbally abusive to family members and went for extended periods of time without seeing members of the family for that reason. The trial court determined that the grandparents failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the children would suffer harm without the visitation and denied the grandparents relief, specifically because the grandparents did not indicate that they lived with the children. Plaintiffs appealed. The appellate division determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish “concrete harm” as set forth in Daniels v. Daniels, 381 N.J. Super. 286, 294 (App. Div. 2005). Further, pursuant to Morairty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 103 (2003), there is a fundamental right to parental autonomy in decisions affecting the “care, custody and control” of one’s own children which right shall yield only to a compelling state interest. Finding that the trial judge correctly decided that the Plaintiffs did not meet the burden of demonstrating irreparable harm, the appellate division affirmed the decision of the court below. If you are a grandparent seeking to obtain visitation or a parent fighting to prevent grandparent visitation, you should discuss your case with an experienced family law attorney in order to learn your rights. For more information about custody or grandparent visitation, visit DarlingFirm.com or call 973-584-6200 now to set up a consultation. This blog is for informational purposes only and not intended to replace the advice of an attorney.