What are grandparents rights to there grandchildren in henrico county in the state of Virginia and what is the Williams law were grandchidren are concerned?

Answer 1

NOTE: This is for the legal department of Wiki s ... There is no copyright laws attached to this information.

Below is an association derived of grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., that know the law and will help you with any questions you need to ask. You have more rights than you realize. Please read further down for 'Virginia Law.'

GRANDCHILDREN AND GRANDPARENTS RIGHTS

YES GRANDCHILDREN DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR GRANDPARENTS

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LOUISIANA GRANDPARENTS VISITATION LAW RELYING ON THE LIBERTY INTEREST OF THE CHILD TO MAINTAIN AN ALREADY ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP. even against the objections of a fit parent. NOVEMBER 14, 2001.

WHEN SEEKING COURT ORDERED VISITATION WITH YOUR GRANDCHILD CONSIDER PETITIONING AS A FRIEND OF THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE CHILD'S LIBERTY INTEREST TO CONTINUE AN ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIP.

THE STATE MUST PROVIDE AN AVENUE FOR THE CHILD TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY INTEREST RIGHTS.

FREE LEGAL RESEARCH FOR ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTING GRANDPARENTS FOR VISITATION OR FOR CUSTODY AFTER A CHILD HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM PARENTS FOR ABUSE/NEGLECT IF THE STATE FAILS TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL ADOPTION SAFE FAMILY ACT, TO PLACE CHILDREN WITH A RELATIVE CARE TAKER INSTEAD OF FOSTER CARE.

LOLA

BRIGITTE

GRANDPARENT VISITATION LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL

There seems to be some confusion following the recent U.S. supreme Court Case of TROXEL v GRANVILLE. On June 5, 2000, the high Court released its opinion. The High Court ruled that each case must be decided on a 'CASE BY CASE BASIS," and "IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD."

The Court then went on to cite ALL FIFTY STATE GRANDPARENT VISITAITON STATUES AND HOLD THAT THEY WERE NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

U.S. Supreme Court NEW YORK FOUNDLING HOSPITAL v. GATTI, 203 U.S. 429 (1906)

"THE GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS PARAMOUNT TO THAT OF THEIR NATURAL PARENTS. THE COURT OR JUDGE STILL ACTS WITH SUBMISSION TO THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPLE OF AT THE DISCRETION THE PREROGATIVE AND ACCORDING TO ACCORDING TO ITS OPINION OF THEIR INTEREST AND SAFETY."the court or judge still acts with submission to the original principle,

'IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD' as defined by the state of West Virginia one of the few states that have a written definition.

Definition of the "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD"

Senate Bill 639 By Senator Donna Boley Introduced February 22, 1999 adopted by the WV Legislature and Sign by Governor Underwood.

For GRANDCHILDREN/GrandParents Rights for WV

'THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IS MEETING HIS/HER PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, MEDICAL, PRIMARY EDUCATION AND SPIRITUAL NEEDS.. PROVIDING EMOTIONAL STABILITY, PROTECTING HIS/HER LEGAL RIGHTS AS WELL AS ASSURING SAFE HOUSING, FOOD,AND CLOTHING TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. SO THAT THE CHILD WILL ACHIEVE TO THE BEST OF THEIRS." IT IS NOT THE INTEREST "IN" THE CHILD, BUT "OF" THE CHILD SYLLABUS BY THE U.S.SUPRME COURT (a) The love, affection, and other emotional ties existing between the parties involved and the child.

IT IS THE CHILD-PARENT RELATIONSHIP THAT IS RECONIZED BY THE U.S. Constitution.

SANTOSKY v. KRAMER, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) 455 U.S. 745 In all OF the US supreme Courts rulings the Best Interest of the Child is the paramount consideration protecting not the parental rights but the relationship of the children to the parent. A relationship worthy of constitutional protection. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION EXTENDS TO PSYCHOLOGIAL, DE FACTO AND LOCO PARENTS

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 844 (1977); that there are times that the parent and the child's interest are different. Parental rights do not spring full- blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring." 6 441 U.S., at 397 (emphasis added). 16 "[T]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association,{LIBERTY INTEREST} and from the role it plays in `promot[ing] a way of life' through the instruction of children . . . as well as from the fact of blood relationship." Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 844 (1977) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231 -233 (1972)). 17 [463 U.S. 248, 262] The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the parents the chance to develope a relationship with their child.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1996 Term No. 23465 IN RE: JONATHAN G. 11. A child has a right to continued association with individuals with whom he has formed a close emotional bond, including foster parents, provided that a determination is made that such continued contact is in the best interests of the child.

In situation like this the courts must use "THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD." U.S. Supreme Court New York FOUNDLING HOSPITAL v. GATTI, 203 U.S. 429 (1906) which implies that the guardianship of infants IS paramount to that of their natural parents.

There are very few lawyers that will acknowleged that Federal Laws are paramount to state laws. Save your self a lot of time and money know the laws prior to seeking a lawyer. Other wise the entire Family Court system is set up to intimidate.

WE ARE HERE TO INSURE THAT ALL STATES ABIDE BY THESE WORDS AND BY THE RULINGS OF U.S. SUPREME COURT(WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND) AND THE NEW FEDERAL LAWS THAT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CHILDREN MUST BE PARAMOUNT TO ALL OTHERS.

"ADOPTION SAFE FAMILY CHILD ACT AND KINSHIP CARE"

6 CHILDREN DIE EACH DAY IN THE US AT THE HANDS OF A PARENT/CARETAKER. EVERY 3 SECONDS A CHILD IS NEGLECTED AND ABUSED BY A PARENT/CARETAKER. TO PUT THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AT RISK AT 10,483,200 EACH YEAR. IN SOME CASES THE CHILDREN THAT DIE ARE THE LUCKY ONES. IF YOU DON'T THINK ONE OF THESE CHILDREN ARE NOT GOING TO TOUCH YOUR LIFE IN SOMEWAY JUST REMEMBER 9/11/01. WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO IGNORE THE ABUSE OF CHILDREN. PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW IN OCT. 1997 BY PRESIDENT CLINTON WILL CHANGE THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS FOR EVER.

PRIMARY CONSIDERATION!

THE CHILD'S "SAFETY AND HEALTH" IN AND OUT OF THE HOME MUST BE THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN DETERMING 'THE BEST INTEREST "OF" THE CHILD"

CONGRESS PASSES MAJOR NEW ADOPTION/FOSTER CARE REFORM LAW P> BASED ON THE NEW ZEALAND ACT THE THOUGHT IS THAT FAMILY SHOULD SOLVE PROBLEMS NOT DEPEND ON GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE IT FOR THEM.

Working on the strengths of the family to come up with a plan to 'BEST' MEET" and "BEST SERVE" THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD.

"THE SYSTEM MUST MEET THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD NOT THE CHILD MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE SYSTEM"

CONCURRENT PLANNING FOR THE PERMANENT

PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN WHILE FAMILIES WORK ON REUNIFICATION TO SHORTEN TIME IN FOSTER CARE.

KINSHIP CARE PLACEMENT OF ABUSED AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN WITH THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS TO REDUCE THE TRAUMA TO THE CHILD.

REASON:

(1) Deaths of children in protection

(2) Abuse of the system

(3) Growth of foster care

(4) Reasonable Effort

(5) Family Preservation

What it will do:

(A) The system must meet the needs of the CHILD "NOT" the child meeting the needs of the system.

(a) Based on the New Zealand Act requires Personal Plan of Reunification or concurrent planning. "FAMILY FIRST." two plans at the same time concurrent planning will permit permanent placement for children faster.

(B) More funds for family reunification

(1) FAMILY CONFERENCE All family members and can also include ministers, teachers or friends.

(a) Shorter period of time before termination of parental rights.

(b) JOB TRAINING FOR PARENTS OR OTHER SERVICES TO PERSEVERE THE FAMILY.

(c) drug rehabilitation

(C) Health coverage for children

(1) Low income

(2) Special Needs children

(3) Health care for children in foster care

(D) Funding for children placed through social services

(a) with kinship care providers

(b) Funding to increase permanent placement of children in shorter period of time.

(c) others

E. Accountability of the state

(1) Definition of "REASONABLE EFFORT"

F. HOLDS STATES ACCOUNTABLE

States must follow the intent of the law to receive federal funding. Failure to do will result in lost MILLIONS OF $$$

(1) States will be audited for compliance

(2) Oversight Committee to review all cases

WHAT STATES MUST DO

(1) write laws to comply with Federal Laws or lose Federal Funding

(2) examine "REASONABLE EFFORT" FAMILY PRESERVATION

(3) COURT REFORM, ONE FAMILY ONE COURT SYSTEM.

(4) TRAINING FOR JUDGES AND LAWYERS

(5) TRAINING FOR SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS, CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ADVOCATES.

(6) Incentives to increase the number of adoptions for foster children.

(7) FUNDING FOR KINSHIP CARE PROVIDERS.

We are in the progress of estiblishing support groups through out WEST VIRGINA FOR KINSHIP CARE PROVIDERS

WORKING TO BRING ALL STATE AGENCIES, COURT SYSTEM, SCHOOLS, MEDICAL,POLICE AND COMMUNITIY TOGETHER TO MAKE IT WORK. FOR THE CHILDREN.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT US

GRANDCHILDREN/grandparents, Inc.

BILL AND LOLA BAILEY Co-Presidents

TELEPHONE 304-652-4587

E mail webailey@rcvideo. com

Arthur T. Vanderbilt, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a foreword to Virtue, Basic Structure for Children's Services in Michigan (1953), p. x: "In their zeal to care for children neither juvenile judges nor welfare workers can be permitted to violate the CONSTITUTION, especially the CONSTITUTIONAL provisions as to DUE PROCESS that are involved in moving a child from its home.

"Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act [406 U.S. 205, 233] of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." 268 U.S., at 534-535.

The duty to prepare the child for "additional obligations," referred to by the Court, must be read to include the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship. Pierce, of course, recognized that where nothing more than the general interest of the parent in the nurture and education of his children is involved, it is beyond dispute that the State acts "reasonably" and constitutionally in requiring education to age 16 in some public or private school meeting the standards prescribed by the State. However read, the Court's holding in Pierce stands as a charter of the rights of parents to direct the religious up-bringing of their children. And, when the interests of parenthood are combined with a free exercise claim of the nature revealed by this record, more than merely a "reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State" is required to sustain the validity of the State's requirement under the First Amendment. To be sure, the power of the parent, even when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subject to limitation under Prince [406 U.S. 205, 234] if it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health or safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens.

Arthur T. Vanderbilt, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in a foreword to Virtue, Basic Structure for Children's Services in Michigan (1953), p. x: "In their zeal to care for children neither juvenile judges nor welfare workers can be permitted to violate the CONSTITUTION, especially the CONSTITUTIONAL provisions as to DUE PROCESS that are involved in moving a child from its home. The indispensable elements of due process.

LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)

Justice Stewart correctly observed: "Even if it be assumed that each married parent after divorce has some substantive due process right to maintain his or her parental relationship, cf. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-863 (opinion concurring in judgment), it by no means follows that each unwed parent has any such right. Parental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring." 441 U.S., at 397 (emphasis added).16 In a similar vein, the other three dissenters in Caban were prepared to "assume that, if and when one develops, the relationship between a father and his natural child is entitled to protection against arbitrary state action as a matter of due process." Caban v. Mohammed, supra, at 414 (emphasis added). [463 U.S. 248, 261] The difference between the developed parent-child relationship that was implicated in Stanley and Caban, and the potential relationship involved in Quilloin and this case, is both clear and significant. When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by "com[ing] forward to participate in the rearing of his child," Caban, 441 U.S., at 392, his interest in personal contact with his child acquires substantial protection under the Due Process Clause. At that point it may be said that he "act[s] as a father toward his children." Id., at 389, n. 7. But the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection. The actions of judges neither create nor sever genetic bonds. "[T]he importance of the familial relationship, to the individuals involved and to the society, stems from the emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association, and from the role it plays in `promot[ing] a way of life' through the instruction of children . . . as well as from the fact of blood relationship." Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 844 (1977) (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231-233 (1972)).17 [463 U.S. 248, 262] The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development.18 If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.

MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition.14 Over the years millions [431 U.S. 494, 505] of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning child rearing, which Yoder, Meyer, Pierce and other cases have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household - indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children.15 Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here.16 Whether or not such a household is established because of personal tragedy, the choice of relatives in this degree [431 U.S. 494, 506] of kinship to live together may not lightly be denied by the State. Pierce struck down an Oregon law requiring all children to attend the State's public schools, holding that the Constitution "excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only." 268 U.S., at 535. By the same token the Constitution prevents East Cleveland from standardizing its children - and its adults - by forcing all to live in certain narrowly defined family patterns.

Reversed.

Links to other sites on the Web

RIGHTS OF A CHILD

Wisconsin v. Yoder

UnMarried Fathers Responsibility

PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF THE HOLY NAMES OF

PRINCE v. COM. OF MASS., 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

WEST VIRGINIA GRANDPARENT VISITATION LAW:

1) ARTICLE 2B. GRANDPARENT VISITATION. (a) The Legislature finds that circumstances may arise where it is appropriate for circuit courts of this state to have jurisdiction to grant to the grandparents of minor children a right of visitation to enhance the best interests of the minor child or children as well as the grandparent. It is the express intent of the Legislature that the provisions for grandparent visitation set forth in this article shall be exclusive and under all circumstances the interests of the child or children involved shall be the court's first and paramount consideration. (b) For purposes of this article, "grandparent" means a biological grandparent, a person married or previously married to a biological grandparent, or a person who has previously been granted custody of the(foster parent) minor child with whom visitation is sought by a court of competent jurisdiction.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA September 1996 Term ____________ No. 23465 ____________ Reguarding JONATHAN G.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. The foster parents' involvement in abuse and neglect proceedings should be separate and distinct from the fact-finding portion of the termination proceeding and should be structured for the purpose of providing the circuit court with all pertinent information regarding the child. The level and type of participation in such cases is left to the sound discretion of the circuit court with due consideration of the length of time the child has been cared for by the foster parents and the relationship that has developed. To the extent that this holding is inconsistent with Bowens v. Maynard, 174 W. Va. 184, 324 S.E.2d 145 (1984), that decision is hereby modified.

2. "Parental rights may be terminated where there is clear and convincing evidence that the infant child has suffered extensive physical abuse while in the custody of his or her parents, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the conditions of abuse can be substantially corrected because the perpetrator of the abuse has not been identified and the parents, even in the face of knowledge of the abuse, have taken no action to identify the abuser." Syl. Pt. 3, In re Jeffrey R.L., 190 W. Va. 24, 435 S.E.2d 162 (1993).

3. "Child abuse and neglect cases must be recognized as being among the highest priority for the courts' attention. Unjustified procedural delays wreak havoc on a child's development, stability and security." Syl. Pt. 1, in part, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991).

4. "'Under W. Va. Code, 49-6-2(b) (1984), when an improvement period is authorized, then the court by order shall require the Department of Human Services to prepare a family case plan pursuant to W. Va. Code, 49-6D-3 (1984).' Syl. Pt. 3, State ex rel. West Virginia Dept. of Human Serv. v. Cheryl M., 177 W. Va. 688, 356 S.E.2d 181 (1987)." Syl. Pt. 3, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991).

5. " In formulating the improvement period and family case plans, courts and social service workers should cooperate to provide a workable approach for the resolution of family problems which have prevented the child or children from receiving appropriate care from their parents. The formulation of the improvement period and family case plans should therefore be a consolidated, multi-disciplinary effort among the court system, the parents, attorneys, social service agencies, and any other helping personnel involved in assisting the family." Syl. Pt. 4, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991).

6. "The clear import of the statute [West Virginia Code § 49-6-2(d)] is that matters involving the abuse and neglect of children shall take precedence over almost every other matter with which a court deals on a daily basis, and it clearly reflects the goal that such proceedings must be resolved as expeditiously as possible." Syl. Pt. 5, In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991).

7. "At the conclusion of the improvement period, the court shall review the performance of the parents in attempting to attain the goals of the improvement period and shall, in the court's discretion, determine whether the conditions of the improvement period have been satisfied and whether sufficient improvement has been made in the context of all the circumstances of the case to justify the return of the child." Syl. Pt. 6,In re Carlita B., 185 W. Va. 613, 408 S.E.2d 365 (1991).

8. "It is a traumatic experience for children to undergo sudden and dramatic changes in their permanent custodians. Lower courts in cases such as these should provide, whenever possible, for a gradual transition period, especially where young children are involved. Further, such gradual transition periods should be developed in a manner intended to foster the emotional adjustment of the children to this change and to maintain as much stability as possible in their lives." Syl. Pt. 3, James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991).

9. "In cases where there is a termination of parental rights, the circuit court should consider whether continued association with siblings in other placements is in the child's best interests, and if such continued association is in such child's best interests, the court should enter an appropriate order to preserve the rights of siblings to continued contact." Syl. Pt. 4, James M. v. Maynard, 185 W. Va. 648, 408 S.E.2d 400 (1991).

10. "When parental rights are terminated due to neglect or abuse, the circuit court may nevertheless in appropriate cases consider whether continued visitation or other contact with the abusing parent is in the best interest of the child. Among other things, the circuit court should consider whether a close emotional bond has been established between parent and child and the child's wishes, is he or she is of appropriate maturity to make such request. The evidence must indicate that such visitation or continued contact would not be detrimental to the child's well being and would be in the child's best interest." Syl. Pt. 5, In re Christina L., 194 W. Va. 446, 460 S.E.2d 692 (1995).

11. A child has a right to continued association with individuals with whom he has formed a close emotional bond, including foster parents, provided that a determination is made that such continued contact is in the best interests of the child.<

© 1997 webailey@rcvideo.com

Hope this helps

God Bless