Re: Nada got a lawyer

December 10, 2008

You have just described the worst-case scenario: bpds who are also

powerful, influential, rich, and hostile to you.

Its just a Godsend that your husband is also a lawyer, he knows the

territory and will be your best defense against your malignant nada.

I think all you can do at this point is to follow his lead. Do not do

anything that will make you appear to be over-reacting.

If indeed it winds up that you must expose your children to nada, make

sure it is *on your terms*:

give nada clear guidelines on what may be discussed, and specify no

criticism of the children or you, their parents.

supervised visits only, and make sure that there is a third party

there besides yourself as a witness, and

make sure that all visits are taped.

That will do two things:

1.Allowing supervised visitation will show that you are willing to

compromise and allow contact; i.e., you are not irrational.

2.It will force nada to be kind and gentle during her visits with your

children, because if she says hurtful things to them or refuses to

follow your wishes and denies having violated your rules, it will all

be witnessed and recorded.

-Annie

>

> Ugh. I've been NC for over a year now following an episode where

> nada called my daughter " hideous " and told my kids that they looked

> like orphans, and the subsequent insults, attacks, and denials when

> I told her not to do that. Well, my husband (an attorney) got an e-

> mail today from an attorney from another firm who is a long-time

> family friend of nada/dad (actually a classmate of my sister). I'll

> just copy the e-mail here:

>

> " Hi [hubby] - thanks for the chance to visit a few minutes ago. I

> don't know, and don't need to know, the background on the issues,

> but I know you and [writermanque] are really good people, and I've

> know [Dad] and [nada] forever and they are really good people, and

> they would love to be able to see you, [writermanque] and the kids

> again if possible. I don't claim to be any good at things like

> this, but I care, and would like to help in any way possible to

> hopefully open some lines of communication. Thanks for listening. "

>

> I realize that he hasn't been formally " retained " on their behalf,

> at least it doesn't appear to be the case. I do think, however,

> that their choice of this particular intermediary who happens to be

> a lawyer is a veiled threat. This is the type of thing they do, but

> when you call them on it they say " Oh, we just chose him because he

> and [hubby] are colleagues... "

>

> I feel sick to my stomach right now. The emotional part of me wants

> to send him a three-page reply detailing all of the BS that nada has

> pulled. The rational part of me knows that I should just politely

> say it's none of his business. The mother bear part of me is

> FREAKING OUT as I keep having this irrational fear that they're

> going to come after my kids, and since I'm far from a perfect mom

> and they have such a friggin' hypocritical but pristine public

> perception that they might prevail--not in getting custody, but in

> getting limited visitation, and I'll be forced to WATCH my kids get

> manipulated and see my fiendish nada get her way, no matter what my

> wishes are.

>

> Help!?!

>

December 10, 2008

Talk to your hubby about whether your parents would even have

standing in your state to take any sort of action in court. In the

two states where I'm licensed to practice law, grandparents have no

standing to seek visitation unless there is an existing custody

proceeding (initiated by a parent) or child welfare proceeding

(initiated by the State) , and then the Court determines what is

in " the best interests of the child " (which would be a whole

different challenge - you don't want it to get that far). They do

not have standing to bring any lawsuit themselves, unless the

grandchildren are in and have been in the grandparents' care for a

substantial period of time, then they can initiate a guardianship or

perhaps even a parental rights termination proceeding. If nada is

truly out of control, she might lodge a complaint with Child Welfare

and manufacture things to support it - then Child Welfare will

investigate and find no basis for the complaint. Her legal options

(if any) are dictated by the laws of your state.

My suspected-BPD grandma keeps threatening to pursue " grandparents'

rights " and get my soon-to-be adoptive daughter back (it's a kinship

foster/adopt situation, little one is her great-granddaughter and

grandma fostered her for almost a year before she was sent to me in

spring '07. Grandma went all crazy vindictive after I established

boundaries this summer and said little one couldn't visit her without

me anymore because grandma kept making bad decisions that disrupted

little one's sense of security and belonging, which was causing us

both HUGE distress - I'll share the story here one of these days).

BUT, there's no such animal in our state, and despite her apparent

belief that a new law will get enacted immediately and will be

effective immediately when the Legislature convenes in January

because she's talked to a legislator who's in the [seriously]

minority party and that legislator is diplomatic with her, uh, the

system don't work that way.

She actually claimed a new grandparents' rights law was " going into

effect in January, " which didn't make sense because (a) I hadn't

heard about it, which, given my job, I would expect to have heard

about it, and (2) effective January 1 didn't jibe with the usual

timeline for newly-enacted statutes here. But just to be sure, I

reviewed the State Lege's website's list of titles/descriptions of

all newly-enacted laws from the '08 session, and there was nothing

remotely related. She's made these threats to me, to my boyfriend,

to my mom, and to a cousin who's like a sister to me. Let her

threaten all she wants - the only entity that can disrupt the

placement at this time is our state child and family services agency,

and they are confident about the placement and are very well-

acquainted with my grandma's erratic behavior by this point.

Even if such a law were passed, there are substantial Constitutional

arguments to be made against enforcement (substantive due process

protection afforded by the 14th Amendment and the fundamental right

to parent one's children as one deems fit - government laws that

limit a parent's control over raising their children have to be

narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest (e.g.,

laws against abuse and neglect or mandating school attendance), or

they're unconstitutional). Hey, I'd develop and brief some of those

arguments in a hurry and would be all over citizen-lobbying the Lege

if I heard they were even considering a " grandparents' rights " law.

So point is, talk to hubby, who may need to talk to a colleague who

practices in family/child welfare law - you may be worrying

needlessly. And if you're worrying needlessly, she " wins. "

- get happy73

>

> Ugh. I've been NC for over a year now following an episode where

> nada called my daughter " hideous " and told my kids that they looked

> like orphans, and the subsequent insults, attacks, and denials when

> I told her not to do that. Well, my husband (an attorney) got an e-

> mail today from an attorney from another firm who is a long-time

> family friend of nada/dad (actually a classmate of my sister).

I'll