Tag: Grandparent Rights

New Grandparent Visitation Law

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

After Governor DeSantis signed House Bill 1119, a new grandparent visitation law becomes effective this month. Often denied any rights to custody and visitation, the new ‘Markel Act’ is a significant step towards increasing Florida grandparent visitation rights in some very narrow, and tragic, situations.

Grandparent Visitation

Dan Markel Tragedy

The Markel Act was inspired in part by the 2014 murder-for-hire of Florida State law professor Dan Markel. Professor Markel was killed by hitmen in his driveway after he dropped his two sons off at preschool.

At the trial for Katherine Magbanua and Sigfredo Garcia in 2019, prosecutors claimed that Charlie Adelson – Markel’s ex-brother-in-law, arranged to pay $100,000 for the murder so that Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, could get full custody of their two sons and relocate to South Florida.

Garcia was found guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Magbanua. She was recently retried and found guilty of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder and solicitation to commit murder.

In April 2022, Charlie Adelson was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and solicitation to commit murder. Markel’s ex-wife Wendi and ex-mother-in—law Donna Adelson were also named as co-conspirators.

During the intervening years, Dan’s parents, the paternal grandparents of the two boys, have been denied any contact with their grandchildren.

Grandparent Visitation

I have written about how Florida courts have consistently held as unconstitutional statutes that have attempted to compel visitation or custody with a grandparent based solely on the best interest of the child standard.

The courts’ rulings are premised on the fact that the fundamental right to parent without intrusion by the government is a long-standing liberty interest recognized by both the United States and Florida constitutions.

However, a grandparent may be awarded visitation rights under very limited circumstances, such as when a child’s parents are deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state.

New Grandparent Visitation law

The Markel Act amends Florida law to create a rebuttable presumption for granting reasonable visitation with a petitioning grandparent or step-grandparent under certain circumstances.

Under the bill, if the court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally liable for the death of the other parent, or civilly liable for an intentional tort causing the death of the other parent, a rebuttable presumption arises that the grandparent who is the parent of the child’s deceased parent is entitled to reasonable visitation with the grandchild.

The presumption may be overcome only if the court finds that visitation is not in the child’s best interests. The bill does not distinguish between biological grandparents and step-grandparents.

Specifically, the bill says that grandparents can petition courts for visitation with their grandchildren where the living parent was found culpable by a criminal or civil court for the other parent’s death.

“The tragedy of Dan’s murder was compounded by this cruel, unnecessary separation — but until now, Florida law gave his parents no recourse toward reuniting with their grandchildren.”

The new law became effective on July 1st. A copy is available here.

Florida Grandparent Visitation Bill

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Good news for Florida grandparents. The Florida House recently passed a visitation bill with profound meaning for Florida grandparents who have become estranged from their grandchildren after a tragedy. A companion bill, SB 1408, is awaiting a final vote on the Senate calendar.

Grandparent Visitation

Markel Act in the House

Currently in Florida, a grandparent can only be awarded visitation rights with their grandchildren under extremely limited circumstances, such as when a child’s parents are both deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state.

However, when only one parent is deceased, missing, or in a permanent vegetative state, the other parent must have been convicted of a felony or a violent offense in order for a grandparent to be able to petition for visitation.

Additionally, a court would have to find that the grandparent has established a prima facie case that the surviving parent is unfit or poses a danger of significant harm to the child to be entitled to visitation. If that burden is not met, the court must dismiss the grandparent’s petition.

HB 1119 dramatically changes the law of grandparent visitation in Florida. It expands the ability for a grandparent to petition for visitation rights of his or her grandchild in certain narrow circumstances.
The bill does this by changing Florida Statutes to create a rebuttable presumption for granting reasonable visitation with the petitioning grandparent or step-grandparent under certain circumstances.

If a court finds that one parent of a child has been held criminally or civilly liable for the death of the other parent of the child, a rebuttable presumption arises that the grandparent who is the parent of the child’s deceased parent is entitled to reasonable visitation with the grandchild.

The effort behind the bill, informally referred to as “The Markel Act” was inspired in part by the 2014 murder of FSU law professor Dan Markel, who was hunted down and shot in the head by a hitman shortly after dropping Dan dropped his two sons off at preschool.

Prosecutors have publicly identified Markel’s ex-wife, Wendi Adelson, as an alleged “co-conspirator” to the murder, along with her mother and brother. Law enforcement says Adelson’s motive was to relocate to South Florida amid custody battles with Markel. While Adelson family members have not been arrested yet, three others have — the hitman, who was found guilty and sentenced to life; his accomplice, who pleaded guilty and confessed who had hired them; and their intermediary, who faces a retrial in May.

The bill passed the House with a vote of 112-3.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I have written extensively on grandparent visitation in Florida. In early common law, there was never a right to visitation by non-parents, and Florida has clung to that tradition. That is ironic, as a lot of elderly voters reside in Florida, and politicians have been trying to create visitation rights to grandparent voters here.

Beginning in 1978, the Florida legislature started making changes to the Florida Statutes that granted enforceable rights to visit their grandchildren.

The Florida Supreme Court built a massive wall blocking Florida grandparent visitation rights, explaining that parenting is protected by the right to privacy, a fundamental right, and any intrusion upon that right must be justified by a compelling state interest. In Florida, that compelling state interest was harm to the child:

“[W]e hold that the [s]tate may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.”

Not too long ago, the Florida Supreme Court held that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act any custody determination or visitation determination – including grandparent rights – are protected and enforceable under the PKPA. And, to the extent that the PKPA conflicts with Florida law, the PKPA controls under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a federal law.

Senate Grandparent Visitation

The Senate companion bill unanimously cleared its committees and heads next to the Senate Floor. Both bills have bipartisan support. Specifically, the Senate Bill creates a presumption that a court may award a grandparent reasonable visitation with a grandchild in cases where the court has found that one parent has been held criminally or civilly liable for the death of the other parent of the grandchild unless not in the child’s best interest.

For five years, while the wheels of justice turned, Markel’s parents, Ruth and Phil, were kept from contact with their grandsons. As Ruth commented:

“We have profound gratitude for the Florida House, in particular Speaker Chris Sprowls, Rep. Jackie Toledo, and the other co-sponsors, for their vision and leadership. There’s nothing more important to us than leaving a record of how deeply we’ve tried to reconnect with our grandsons. Out of our tragedy, we hope to create something meaningful for other families to visit their grandchildren. Today marks a powerful day in this journey.”

Toledo tried to downplay the impact on parent rights by commenting that the Senate was not looking at ways to dismantle the rights of parents but to correct the problem in law when one parent retains custody even when implicated in the death of their co-parent.

Justice for Dan, a grassroots group of friends and allies, praises Speaker Sprowls, the bill sponsors, and members for their action for what it deems a clear message: murder can’t be a solution to custody battles.

The Florida Politics article is here.

Religion LGBTQ+ and Custody Rights Erupt

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Religion LGBTQ+ and child custody rights recently erupted in a Washington federal court. Parents usually have the right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, but one couple found their religious beliefs prevented them from even becoming parents.

Parent Custody

Rumblings

James and Gail Blais wished to become foster parents, and eventually adopt, Gail’s biological great-granddaughter, H.V. The first step to adoption requires them to be licensed foster parents. However, they are observant Seventh day Adventists.

The reason for the need to become foster parents so quickly is because shortly after H.V.’s birth – in fact, while she still was in the hospital – H.V. was removed from her biological parents and placed in foster care out of concerns for her welfare. H.V. is an infant. At no time during the application process has she exhibited any issues with regard to sexual orientation or gender preference.

The Blaises wanted to care for H.V. by becoming her foster parents with the goal of adoption if reunion with her mother was not possible. They are the only biological relatives who have expressed an interest and ability in fostering and adopting H.V.

The Department administers the State’s foster licensing and placement program, and the requirements for becoming a foster parent are laid out in Washington law and the Department’s Policy 6900, entitled “Supporting LGBTQ+ Identified Children and Youth.”

The Blaises participated in Department mandated training and required certification courses. They made clear that, as Seventh-day Adventists, they believe it is important to love and support all, particularly youths who may feel isolated or uncomfortable because of who they are.

But with regard to the specific hypothetical questions relating to possible hormone therapy, in the event H.V. one day developed gender dysphoria, the Blaises said they could not support hormone treatments based on their sincerely-held religious convictions, but would still be loving and supportive of H.V.

The Department denied the Blaises’ foster care license application, and H.V. remains in non-relative foster care. The Blaises filed a federal action against the Department seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Department policy as it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Florida Religion and Family Law

I’ve written about the intersection of religion and divorce – especially as it relates to vaccinations. Religion, religious beliefs, and religious practices are not statutory factors Florida courts consider when determining parental responsibility.

Nor is religion an area in which a parent may be granted ultimate responsibility over a child. Instead, the weight religion plays in custody disputes grew over time in various cases.

That’s because placing restrictions on a parent’s right to expose his or her child to his or her religious beliefs have consistently been overturned in the absence of a clear, affirmative showing that the religious activities at issue will be harmful to the child.

Generally, Florida courts will not stop a parent from practicing their religion or from influencing the religious training of their child inconsistent with that of the other parent.

Eruption

The federal judge found the question in this case was whether Washington’s regulations covertly suppressed religious beliefs. The judge found that in practice, the Department regulations work to burden potential caregivers with sincere religious beliefs yet almost no others.

It also found that the Department’s interpretation of its regulations and policies also favored secular viewpoints over certain religious viewpoints.

For example, the Department favors religious and non-religious applicants who have neutral or pro-LGBTQ+ views over religious and non-religious applicants who have non-neutral or anti-LGBTQ+ views.

The State denied their application because the tenet of the Blaises’ faith flouted the Department’s regulations and policy, and therefore “punished the expression of religious doctrines it believes to be false.”

The Court enjoined the Department from using Policy 6900 against prospective foster parents.

The injunction order is here.

 

Grandparent Custody Goes to Federal Court

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A rare grandparent custody and timesharing case ends up in a federal court after the child in question filed a temporary restraining order to prevent county child services from sending him to Florida to live with a father he claims he’s never met.

Grandparent Custody

The Ruckus in Columbus

“John Doe” is a thirteen-year-old boy in the temporary custody of Franklin County Children Services. He had been living with his mother in Ohio, but Children Services suspected that he was being abused or neglected. So, Children Services filed a case in Ohio state court to have Doe removed from his mother’s home. The court ordered Doe removed, and it is now presiding over the resulting custody dispute.

During the proceedings, the state court gave Children Services custody of Doe. Children Services then placed him with his maternal grandmother, who he has had a relationship with for much of his life and who also lives in central Ohio. A Guardian Ad Litem, who filed a report, recommend placement with his grandmother.

The child claims he has had no contact with his father from the time he has a baby until after the case was filed, that his father has a criminal record and has two family members who died from drug overdoses. He has expressed fear of his safety if made to live with his father, as well as fear of traveling to Florida at this time during the COVID-19 pandemic, and wishes to remain with his grandmother.

However, Child Services decided the child should be put on a plane to live permanently with his father in Florida, for reasons unknown to him, with whom, as best he can recall, he has not had a relationship for his entire life.

The child then filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court, and sought a temporary restraining order (a TRO) claiming he was denied procedural due process and first amendment retaliation claims. The trial court granted his motion.

Children Services appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and moved to stay the injunction pending the appeal.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I have written extensively on grandparent visitation in Florida. In early common law, there was never a right to visitation by non-parents, and Florida has clung to that tradition. That is ironic, as a lot of elderly voters reside in Florida, and politicians have been trying to create visitation rights to grandparent voters here.

Beginning in 1978, the Florida legislature started making changes to the Florida Statutes that granted enforceable rights to visit their grandchildren.

The Florida Supreme Court built a massive wall blocking Florida grandparent visitation rights, explaining that parenting is protected by the right to privacy, a fundamental right, and any intrusion upon that right must be justified by a compelling state interest. In Florida, that compelling state interest was harm to the child:

“[W]e hold that the [s]tate may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.”

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court held that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act any custody determination or visitation determination – including grandparent rights  – are protected and enforceable under the PKPA. And, to the extent that the PKPA conflicts with Florida law, the PKPA controls under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a federal law.

The Buckeye Way

The Sixth Circuit rejected Children Services’ arguments that the district court should have abstained in favor of state proceedings:

Children Services filed the case to remove Doe from a potentially abusive home, and “the temporary removal of a child in a child-abuse context is … in aid of and closely related to criminal statutes.”

But removal proceedings are not at all “akin to criminal prosecution” as far as the child is concerned. And here, it is the child who has filed the federal lawsuit. That difference matters, because the Court has described proceedings in this second category as those that are “characteristically initiated to sanction the federal plaintiff.”

That does not describe this case, where the federal plaintiff is not an abusive parent, but a child. In the absence of full and thorough briefing, we will not broadly construe the Younger categories to apply to this different situation—especially given the Court’s instruction that Younger “extends to the three ‘exceptional circumstances’ [it has identified], but no further.”

Another argument by the agency was that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments, but the court held it has “no application to judicial review of executive action, including determinations made by a state administrative agency.”

The court found that the child was not challenging a state court judgment; he was challenging the decision of Children Services, an agency of Franklin County, Ohio.

The court also rejected Children Services’ argument that it should get a stay because it’s likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal:

The states’ interest in resolving child-custody disputes is exceptionally strong, and federal court involvement in custody proceedings will almost always be inappropriate.

Finally, the court cautioned all district courts against entangling themselves in this area of traditional state concern.

The 6th Cir. Opinion is here.

 

New Article on Grandparent Visitation

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The holiday season is in full swing. In the spirit of shameless self-promotion – and if you are looking for a last-minute gift for the family law reader in your life – what could better than my new, Game of Thrones themed article, “Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken: An Update on Grandparent Visitation”?

The Game of Thrones

The struggle for grandparent visitation rights in Florida has become a game of thrones between the three branches of Florida government.

The Florida Supreme Court has stricken all previous attempts to legislate grandparent visitation as unconstitutional. Yet, the legislature and the governor keep passing new laws to enforce grandparent visitation rights for Florida voters.

I’ve written about grandparent visitation rights before. However, this new article not only reviews the history of grandparent visitation rights in Florida, but it provides an update on those rights through the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision earlier this year.

The Wall

In early common law, there was never a right to visitation by non-parents, and Florida has clung to that tradition. That is ironic, as a a lot of elderly voters reside in Florida, and politicians have been trying to create visitation rights to grandparent voters here.

Beginning in 1978, the Florida legislature started making changes to the Florida Statutes that granted enforceable rights to visit their grandchildren.

The Florida Supreme Court built a massive wall blocking Florida grandparent visitation rights, explaining that parenting is protected by the right to privacy, a fundamental right, and any intrusion upon that right must be justified by a compelling state interest.

In Florida, that compelling state interest was harm to the child: “[W]e hold that the [s]tate may not intrude upon the parents’ fundamental right to raise their children except in cases where the child is threatened with harm.”

The High Sparrow

The U.S. Supreme Court, has also commented, reasoning that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not hold that the due process clause requires a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition for granting visitation. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court left those decisions for the states to decide because:

much state-court adjudication in this context occurs on a case-by-case basis.

There have been a few legislative attempts to grant some rights of visitation for grandparents in Florida, but they have been very modest.

Despite these recent recent legislative victories for grandparent visitation rights in Florida, a recurring problem has also been what to do about out-of-state grandparent visitation court orders.

Florida courts have been unwilling to enforce them until recently.

Dances with Dragons

This year, the Florida Supreme Court held that under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act any custody determination or visitation determination – including grandparent rights  – are protected and enforceable under the PKPA.

And, to the extent that the PKPA conflicts with Florida law, the PKPA controls under the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution because it is a federal law.

The Florida Bar Journal article is available here.

 

British Grandparent Rights

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A British grandmother who wanted to assert some grandparent rights for her grandchild, fought local authorities after a recommendation that the baby be put up for adoption. She won, and now the child is in her custody.

In Britain, the parents of the child were unable to look after the baby, and the paternal grandmother put herself forward to be the special guardian, a role similar to foster care.

The grandparent rights case, heard in Britain last month, raises questions about the challenges faced by families trying hold on to children as special guardians for their relatives’ children – mostly grandparents.

Florida Grandparent Visitation

I’ve written about grandparent rights to visitation several times. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Troxel v. Granville, held that the Due Process Clause protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

So, as long as a parent is adequately caring for his or her child, there will normally be no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family. The basic presumption in Troxel is that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.

However, the Troxel court did not hold that the Due Process Clause requires a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition to granting rights of visitation. That is a Florida law.

Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court left those decisions for the states to decide on a case-by-case basis.

It surprises many Floridians – because of the large percentage of grandparents here – but grandparent don’t have visitation rights here.

Grandparent rights to custody and time-sharing do not really exist in Florida without showing harm to the child; otherwise, it is deemed to violate parents’ privacy.

British Grandparent Battle

The grandparent rights case involved a professional who works with children, initially received what the judge described as “very positive and full assessments” about her suitability as a caregiver.

However, more than five months after care proceedings began it was followed by a second negative report who questioned her commitment. At this point, the social work team recommended that the baby instead be put up for adoption.

When the case came to court, the judge ordered that the grandmother should become the baby’s special guardian after all.

Describing the hearing, the judge said the grandmother had “expressed profound dissatisfaction about the way in which she had been assessed and treated”.

The protracted battle has meant the baby only recently joined the grandmother after a long stay in foster care.

The judge paid tribute to the grandmother as “an intelligent and courteous woman” who had “put herself out considerably to offer her grandchild the opportunity of being cared for within the natural family”.

The Buzzfeed article on grandparent rights is here.

 

Terrorists & Grandparent Custody Rights

Posted by admin on

By The Law Offices of Ronald H. Kauffman of Ronald H. Kauffman, P.A. posted in Grandparent Rights on Thursday, May 21, 2015.

Zachary Chesser threatened “South Park” creators for insulting Muhammad. Then he tried going to Somalia to join Al-Shabab. He brought his son to the airport to avoid suspicion. Does he, or the grandmother, have custody rights?

Zach’s plan didn’t work by the way. He was stopped at the airport. He was arrested and sentenced to 25 years in prison for attempting to support terrorists. He also pleaded guilty to threatening violence online.

Zach now lives in the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. His wife, a Ugandan diplomat’s daughter named Proscovia Nzabanita, had to leave the United States after pleading guilty to lying about Zach’s plans.

This case raises grandparent custody rights because the fate of Zach’s 5-year old son Talhah is the center of a dispute being heard in a federal appellate court this week.

Zach is suing, Barbara Chesser, his own mother and a lawyer in the Office of the Attorney General, and her partner, and the FBI for money damages over how she learned of his plot to flee the U.S. with Talhah.

He alleges that FBI agents interfered with his parental rights by conspiring with his mother and her partner to ensure that Talhah could not travel to Jordan to live with his wife.

Talhah is being raised by his grandmother in the U.S. The grandmother filed for custody while her son Zach was behind bars waiting trial, and the mother, Nzabanita, was facing deportation. I’ve written about grandparent visitation before.

The Judge dismissed Zach’s lawsuit because there is no expectation of privacy for prison conversations, and no reason to object when the FBI disclosed the conversation to his grandmother. Zach appealed.

Virginia, where the custody case arose, allows grandparents to win custody over parents in certain circumstances. In contrast, grandparent rights to visit their grandchildren over the objections of fit parents do not exist in Florida.

But, Zach’s case is special given that a judge declared Zach and his wife unfit. If this case arose in Florida, there is a good chance that the grandmother could request some form of custodial rights.

Some facts about Zach may make any judge question his fitness. He allegedly converted to Islam after becoming infatuated with a girl. His father said Zach began wearing loin cloth in place of underwear. He threatened to kill South Park creators over a cartoon, involved his son in his attempt to join al Shabab – a group responsible for killing 148 students in Kenya.

On those facts, with no natural parents available to raise Talhah, even Florida would find some form of custodial rights available to the grandmother.

The Fox News report on the case is here.