Grandparents’ Rights Lawyers Helping Families Navigate California Custody Matters
Orange County Grandparents’ Rights Lawyers Providing Clients With The Advice And Representation They Need
There are times when grandparents find themselves shut out of their grandchildren’s lives. This often happens after a family goes through a major transition such as divorce, separation, the death of a parent, or a parent’s incarceration. When that happens, the emotional toll on both the grandchild and the grandparents can be significant, and it can feel like there is nowhere to turn.
California law does give grandparents a path to seek court-ordered visitation, and in some circumstances a path to seek custody through guardianship. Neither path is automatic, and neither is guaranteed. At Sarieh Family Law, we help Orange County grandparents understand exactly what the law requires, what the courts will and will not order, and how to build the strongest possible case for their family. Call us for a free 45-minute case evaluation.
Grandparents ask us many of the same questions when they first come to our office:
- What legal rights do grandparents actually have in California?
- When can a grandparent ask a court for visitation?
- What do the courts require to approve that visitation?
- Can a grandparent get custody of a grandchild?
- What is the difference between visitation and custody for a grandparent?
We answer each of these below.
What Clients are saying
What Legal Rights Do Grandparents Have?
California grandparents do not have an automatic right to see their grandchildren. What the law provides instead is a right, under specific circumstances explained below, to petition the court for reasonable visitation. If the court grants the petition, it can order anything from a few hours a month to regular overnight visits, depending on the family’s circumstances and what the court finds is in the child’s best interest.
It is important to set expectations correctly from the start: the law is written to protect a fit parent’s authority to make decisions for their own child, including decisions about who the child spends time with. A grandparent’s request has to overcome that protection, not simply show that visitation would be nice to have.
- Catching the Warning Signs of Marital Strife Knowing the warning signs of marital strife is key to having a healthy relationship with your spouse. These signs—communication breakdown, no emotional connection, constant criticism—can all mean deeper issues in the marriage. Addressing these signs early can stop the decline and build a more supportive partnership. Another big warning sign is living separate lives, emotional disconnection, and isolation. This can damage the bond between spouses and children, so we need… Read More
- The Social Media Evidence Trap in a Divorce Every day, millions of people share details on social media. In Orange County divorce proceedings, those moments become evidence that can significantly impact your case. According to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, over 80 percent of divorce attorneys have reported increased use of social media as evidence in divorce cases. A photograph showing you enjoying luxury vacations while claiming financial hardship creates a contradiction that judges notice. Screenshots and… Read More
When Can a Grandparent Ask the Court for Visitation?
California law gives grandparents two distinct ways to ask a court for visitation, and the page most competitors publish blurs the two together. Getting this right matters because it determines which court you are in, what you have to prove, and how strong the parents’ objection is likely to be.
Family Code Section 3103 lets a grandparent request visitation only inside a custody or divorce case that is already pending between the child’s parents. If the parents are in an active dissolution, legal separation, or custody proceeding, a grandparent can ask the court hearing that case to also address grandparent visitation.
Family Code Section 3104 lets a grandparent file a separate, standalone petition for visitation, but only when the parents are not married and living together. Under Section 3104(b), that means one of the following has to be true:
- The parents are divorced or legally separated
- One parent has been absent for more than one month, and the other parent does not know where they are
- One of the parents joins the grandparent’s petition
- The child does not live with either parent
- The child has been adopted by a stepparent
- A parent has been incarcerated or placed in a mental health treatment facility
| Family Code Section 3103 | Family Code Section 3104 | |
|---|---|---|
| When it applies | A custody or divorce case is already pending between the parents | Parents are not married and living together (divorced, separated, one parent missing or incarcerated, etc.) |
| Where it is filed | As a request inside the existing family law case | As its own standalone petition |
| Who else must be involved | Both parents are already parties to the pending case | Depends on which Section 3104(b) circumstance applies |
Whichever section applies, the grandparent also has to show a “preexisting relationship” with the grandchild under Family Code Section 3104(a), one close enough that the court finds a bond has formed, and that balancing that bond against the parents’ rights favors visitation.
There is a third path worth knowing about: Family Code Section 3102, which allows visitation requests by the grandparents (and other relatives) of a deceased parent. If your child’s other parent has passed away, this is a separate and specific statute, not the same standard used in a living-parents case.
California Law
Understanding Domestic Violence Under California Law
California law provides a broad and protective definition of domestic violence. Under California Family Code Section 6203, California Legislative Information, domestic violence includes abuse committed against a protected person. Abuse is defined as any of the following:
- Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury
- Sexual assault
- Placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury
- Engaging in behavior prohibited under Family Code Sections 6320 to 6322, including harassment, stalking, threatening, disturbing the peace, and destroying personal property
Importantly, domestic violence in California is not limited to physical harm. Emotional abuse, psychological manipulation, financial control, and digital harassment can all qualify as domestic violence under the law.
What Do the Courts Require to Approve Visitation?
Beyond the statutory pathway and the parental presumption, a family court weighing a grandparent visitation request will look:
- Whether a real, existing bond has formed between the grandparent and the child
- The wishes of the child, depending on the child’s age and maturity
- The reasons the parent is objecting, and whether those reasons relate to the child’s welfare or to a personal conflict with the grandparent
- The history of contact between the grandparent and the child before the request was filed
- Whether visitation would interfere with the parent-child relationship or with an existing custody or visitation order
Many California family courts also require mediation before a contested grandparent visitation hearing, under local court rules rather than a single statewide mandate. Mediation gives the family a chance to work out a schedule without a judge imposing one, and it is often the fastest way to resolve these disputes. It is not always successful, which is why it helps to have an attorney involved from the beginning rather than waiting until mediation has already broken down.
Can a Grandparent Get Custody of a Grandchild?
Visitation and custody are not the same thing, and the process for each is different. If a grandparent is not simply asking for time with a grandchild but wants full legal responsibility for that child, typically because a parent is unable or unwilling to provide care, that is a guardianship case, not a family court custody case.
Guardianship petitions in California are filed in the probate division of the superior court under the Probate Code, not in family court. The court’s central question, under Probate Code Section 1514(e), is what arrangement serves the best interest of the child. Grandparents are not given automatic priority over other relatives or interested parties simply by virtue of being grandparents. The court looks at who can provide a safe, stable home and appropriate care, and a grandparent who has already been the child’s caregiver is often in a strong position to make that case.
| Visitation | Guardianship | |
|---|---|---|
| What it gives you | Court-ordered time with the grandchild | Full legal and physical custody of the grandchild |
| Governing law | Family Code Sections 3100 to 3104 | Probate Code Section 1514 and related sections |
| Court | Family court (or the family law division within superior court) | Probate division of the superior court |
| Legal standard | Overcoming the presumption favoring the parents’ decision | Best interest of the child, open to any qualified petitioner |
| Typical situation | Parents are separated, divorced, or one is absent, and a grandparent wants continued contact | A parent cannot currently care for the child and someone needs legal authority to make decisions for them |
How Sarieh Family Law Can Help
Grandparents’ rights cases sit at the intersection of family law and probate law, and it is easy to file in the wrong court or under the wrong statute if you have not handled these cases before. Attorney Wail Sarieh is a State Bar of California Certified Family Law Specialist, holds a Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, and is admitted to practice in California state courts and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He is a member of the California Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the Orange County Bar Association, the Los Angeles County Bar Association, the Hispanic Bar Association of Orange County, and the Arab American Lawyers Association of Southern California.
Our firm has represented grandparents and parents on both sides of these disputes, which means we understand how the objecting parent’s attorney is likely to approach your case before they file anything. We will tell you honestly whether your situation meets the statutory requirements before we take a fee, help you gather the evidence a judge will actually want to see, and represent you through mediation or a contested hearing if it comes to that.
Call us to schedule your free 45-minute case evaluation, or visit us at one of our Orange County office in Costa Mesa.
Recent Case Results
-
Our client in this case was the mother of the only child of marriage. Our child custody law firm took the case that started in 2009 with the mother filing a Petition for custody and support of a child against the father where the parties reached a stipulation and order awarding the mother sole legal and sole physical custody. Later on the mother filed a divorce case and since the father failed to respond, the mother entered his default in 2010. The divorce case was consolidated with the paternity case.
In early 2012, the mother and without notifying the father moved to another State. The father filed a police report and hired a very aggressive Orange County Family Law attorney who filed an emergency motion with the court (ex parte application) and obtained custody for the father and appointed a child custody investigator.
The mother was arrested on a DUI despite the fact that her car was parked and she was not driving; the police justified the DUI charge as they found an open container in the car.
The child custody investigation report, based on the mother’s DUI conviction and the fact that she moved away without notifying the father, came to the conclusion that the mother should only have supervised visitation with the child and that father should have sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child.
The matter was further complicated by the mother agreeing to “bifurcate” the trial on the custody and visitation issues and the trial was set for the second half of 2013.
The mother decided to retain Sarieh Family Law to help her litigate the child custody during the bifurcated trial.
Mr. Sarieh, an Orange County Certified Family Law Specialist challenged the entire proceedings from 2010 to 2013. Mr. Sarieh argued that every document filed including but not limited to the child investigation report and every court order rendered after the entry of default in 2010 is null and void.
Our firm was very proud of the results and very proud of our judicial officers. The judge agreed with Mr. Sarieh that the court has no jurisdiction since the default was entered in 2010. The trial by default was set in month and our client obtained a dissolution judgment awarding her sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child.
-
Our client in this case was the father of two children; the parties were not married but cohabited together for over a decade. Throughout their cohabitation both parties worked hard to support their children; the parties lived in an upper-middle class life style during their cohabitation. Shortly after their separation, the mother claimed disability due to Reactive Airway Disease (RAD) she quit her job as mortgage broker, collected State Disability checks and filed Worker’s Compensation claim alleging her disability resulted from the poor air quality at her office.
Mr. Sarieh, an Orange County Certified Family Law Attorney, filed with the court a request to vocationally evaluate the mother. Unfortunately the vocational evaluation report concluded that the mother is employable but her employability depended on her health condition, which was beyond the vocational evaluator expertise.
In a trial that spanned over the period of months, Mr. Sarieh was able to successfully cross-examine Petitioner’s primary care physician who came to testify on her behalf. The physician admitted that his patient; the mother is able to work under certain conditions.
Mr. Sarieh subpoenaed all medical reports from the Worker’s Compensation case and was able to establish the mother’s ability to work. The Court agreed with Mr. Sarieh and stated that the mother has the obligation to support the children; the court imputed income to the mother and the child support was calculated according to the mother’s imputed income even though she was still not working at the time of trial.
-
Our client in this case was the husband, who with the wife’s agreement entered into a stipulated judgment awarding the family residence to the wife; neither party was represented and they entered the judgment with the assistance of a paralegal in Orange County. The parties were married for long time and have adult children from their marriage.
The untold story was despite the written judgment; the parties had verbally agreed that once the house is sold the wife will give the husband his fair share of the proceeds.
Of course, wife sold the house and refused to pay husband any monies. The husband sought the assistance of Sarieh Family Law; Orange County Divorce attorneys.
We began our investigation by examining the judgment, which stated unequivocally that wife gets the house. We were also faced with the legal hurdle that it is almost impossible to set aside a judgment in California if the judgment only dealt with property division and without fraud, duress or undue influence.
We noticed on the Resister of Action on the Court’s website that the initial submission of judgment was rejected by the court and that the judgment was returned. The judgment was re-submitted again and the court accepted it. We asked our client whether he knew anything about the rejection of the judgment and he indicated that he knew nothing about this rejection.
We asked for a copy of the entire file from the court itself and we did not rely only on what our client gave us. We set the wife’s deposition at our office.
We received the ordered copy of the court’s file on the morning of the wife’s scheduled deposition at our office. After a careful examination of the court’s file with our client, we found out the signature on our client’s Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure was not his.
We confronted the wife during her deposition about the falsified document but she denied any involvement and blamed the paralegal. She acknowledged that the document was not signed by our client.
We subpoenaed the paralegal to the court’s hearing to prove the wife’s fraud and we retained a handwriting expert to prove that our client’s signature was falsified by the wife herself and no one else.
Right before we entered the court room to try our case, the wife’s attorney approached us with a settlement offer giving our client what he was promised. Our client accepted the offer for the sake of the parties’ adult children.