Ed H. v. Ashley C.
14 Cal. App. 5th 899
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Ed and Yvonne H. seek visitation with their great-grandchildren under the California grandparent-visitation statutes but are not the grandchildren; they petition for joinder and independent great-grandparent visitation after Ashley and Zachary’s dissolution and Ashley’s custody award.
- Zachary consented to the visitation petition, but he had not been deprived of parental rights; Ashley has sole legal/physical custody of the great-grandchildren.
- The trial court ruled there is no statutory basis to join great-grandparents and denied visitation, concluding Ed and Yvonne lacked standing under sections 3103–3104 after dissolution.
- The court relied on Harris to limit standing under 3103 and held 3104 does not extend visitation rights to great-grandparents.
- Ed and Yvonne argue de facto/psychological parent status could confer standing, but the court rejected this for noncustodial, non-dependency contexts and found no abuse of discretion in the ruling.
- The appellate court affirms, concluding the Legislature did not intend 3104 to include great-grandparents and there is no statutory basis for joinder or de facto-parent standing here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether great-grandparents have standing under 3104 to petition for visitation | Great-grandparents are grandparents by relation and should be included | 3104 limits standing to grandparents of the minor child; great-grandparents excluded | 3104 does not grant great-grandparents standing |
| Whether 3103 provides standing after dissolution and custody award | 3103 should allow grandparent visitation in proceedings; includes consent from Zachary | Harris limits 3103 post-dissolution to certain procedures; not applicable here | 3103 does not apply to Ed and Yvonne post-dissolution |
| Whether joinder under Rule 5.24 applies given lack of statutory standing | Rule 5.24 allows joinder when a party consents and has custody/visitation claims | Joinder requires statutory standing; none here | Court did not abuse discretion; no statutory basis for joinder |
| Whether de facto/psychological parental status creates standing | Ed and Yvonne may be de facto or psychological parents with standing | De facto status does not grant visitation rights where custody is not at issue | De facto-parent status does not confer standing to seek visitation |
| Whether Troxel v. Granville affects the outcome | Troxel supports broader nonparent visitation rights | Troxel supports limits consistent with Harris and 3104’s scope | Troxel does not overcome statutory limits on grandparent visitation here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Harris, 34 Cal.4th 210 (Cal. Supreme Court 2004) (statutes defining grandparent visitation; 3103 vs 3104; limits on who may petition)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court 2000) (parental rights; strict scrutiny of broad visitation statutes)
- Kieshia E., 6 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. Supreme Court 1993) (de facto parent doctrine; limits on standing outside dependency context)
- In re B.G., 11 Cal.3d 679 (Cal. Supreme Court 1974) (de facto parent standing; parental rights context)
- In re A.F., 227 Cal.App.4th 692 (Cal. App. 2014) (de facto parent status consequences and rights)
- In re P.L., 134 Cal.App.4th 1357 (Cal. App. 2005) (limits of de facto parent standing in custody proceedings)
- In re Robin N., 7 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. App. 1992) (visitation after dependency; standing conventions)