|
|
| In the best interest of kids | |
| As I walk in the door, Jeremy, my 14-month-old, proudly toddles up to greet me -- his face smeared with chocolate, a cookie remnant clutched in his sticky hand. ``He's only had one,'' my mother offers -- knowing my anti-sugar stance. It's hard to be angry with her; she and Dad deliver weekly supplies from the baby store, are there when the babies are sick and when my husband and I need a night out. And I am not alone. According to the American Association of Retired Persons, more than 40 percent of grandparents see their grandchildren once a week, with 10 percent involved in daily caretaking -- a necessity in families where both parents work. But, does this involvement generate a right? Say it wasn't a cookie, but rather a piece of chicken that was given to my vegetarian child, should I be able to prevent my mother from seeing her grandchild? And what if the baby sitter my twins love started teaching them a religion different from my own? Could I stop her from demanding visitation? These are the questions before the Supreme Court in the case of Troxel vs. Granville. The Troxels are suing for the right to visit with their granddaughters after their son Brad, the father, committed suicide. Their ``right'' was overturned by the Washington court of appeals. Before his death, Brad lived with the Troxels, and his visitation with the children was at their home. In the face of his death, the Troxels wanted to continue overnight visitation, something the girls' mother did not support. The law that allowed the visitation not only allows access to grandparents, but to any party when visitation ``may serve the best interest of the child.'' Simple
questions are never simple when it comes to
families. A child being raised by a gay couple
believes he has two parents, but the court does
not. What happens if that couple splits (as it
does in more than 50 percent of heterosexual
unions), is the ``nonparent'' in the couple
without legal rights? What about the grandparent
who has raised the child of a drug-addicted
parent till age 3? Can that parent return and
deny the child access to the grandparent to whom
he has bonded? The most important thing for a child, especially in the face of family disruption, is to feel psychologically safe. Where does that leave grandparents and significant others? The American Civil Liberties Union amicus brief against the Troxel's right to visitation states that a law using a substantial-harm standard as opposed to best-interest-of-the-child might be constitutional. This means that a party would have to prove factually that a grandparent not seeing the child would harm the child. This would resolve the question of the grandparent who raised the child during the early years and the gay co-parent. From a child-development perspective, it is important that the child trust in his parent's judgment. As the child ages, the parent will have to answer for his decision. And if a grandparent dies in the meantime, the parent is at risk of having made a mistake that can never be corrected. Supervised visitation programs may be an option for some families. Open discussions of parenting decisions may lead to greater understanding. When issues cannot be resolved, phone calls and letters may keep contact going during difficult times. And times do change; steady, nonthreatening contact can heal many wounds. My heart smiles whenever I see my children jump into my parents' arms. I cannot imagine denying Jeremy and Hannah that pleasure. But there may be situations where limiting access to family members may be appropriate. Unless there is harm to the child, it is in the ``best interest of the child'' that the parent, and not the court, make those difficult family decisions. |
|
| If you are interested in
additional information, or would like to set up a
Families Worldwide Chapter in your community,
please feel free to contact us via
e-mail. Families
Worldwide Send comments and mail to Webmaster |
