IMPORTANT NOTICE.
The California Supreme Court has granted review of the case Butler v. Harris where the Court of Appeal held that grandparents could obtain visitation over the objection of a fit parent if they could prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's refusal to allow visitation would be detrimental to the child.
Look for updates on the case at this site.

    When a step-parent adopts their step-child(ren) they assume all of the
duties of parenthood as well as all of the parental rights. Family Code
Section 8616 states, "After adoption, the adopted child and the adoptive
parents shall sustain towards each other the legal relationship of parent and
child and have all the rights and are subject to all the duties of that
relationship." Those parental rights include the right to decide who may and
may not visit the minor child.
     A recent appellate court ruling held a step-parent adoption qualified as
a change of circumstance which required the court to grant the parent's
motion to terminate the maternal grandparents' visitation rights. (Lopez v.
Martinez, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12953).
     Factually, the grandparents (the Lopezes) provided care and assistance
and helped raise their grandson, Daniel, from his birth in 1991 until he was
four and one-half years old. During that time, the mother (their daughter)
lived with them while she worked and attended school. In 1995 Daniel's mother
married and moved out. From that point on, she refused to allow the Lopezes
to see their grandchild.
     In 1998, the Lopezes petitioned for visitation rights pursuant to
California Family Code Section 3104 which allows grandparents standing to
petition for visitation. Under that code, grandparents have standing to
petition under the following circumstances: when the parents are married but
currently living separately and apart on a permanent or indefinite basis, or
one of the parents has been absent for more than one month without the other
spouse knowing the whereabout of the absent spouse. Daniel's biological
father was never a part of his life. The grandparent's petition was granted
in 1999.

     Meanwhile, Daniel's step-father (Mr. Martinez) initiated adoption
proceedings and the adoption was granted in 1999. Thereafter, the Martinezes
sought to terminate the grandparent's visitation.

     During the lower court proceedings, a clinical psychologist testified
that denial of grandparent visitation would have negative repercussions on
Daniel's emotion welfare since his grandparents had been his primary
caretakers for so long. Therefore, the trial court found it was in Daniel's
best interest to continue visitation with his grandparents.

     The appellate court overturned that decision. It ruled if a court grants
grandparental visit pursuant to one of the above listed circumstances and
later a change of circumstances occurs such that none of these circumstances
exist, and the parent moves the court to terminate grandparental visitation,
then the court shall grant the termination.

     Specifically, a petition for grandparent visitation may not be filed
while the natural or adoptive parents are married and living together. Under
the code, although the grandparents had standing to petition before Daniel
was adopted, however, when Daniel was adopted, his step-father became his
parent for all purposes. Daniel now had a legal father and this change of
circumstance allowed Daniel's parents to petition the court to terminate the
grandparent's visitation.

     In discussing California's Grandparent Visitation law, the appellate
court further stated "Even when grandparents are statutorily given standing
to petition for visitation rights, there is always a "rebuttable presumption"
in favor of the parents when the parents conclude visitation is not in the
best interests of the child. Therefore, there is a balance between the
child's interest in the grandparental relationship and the right of the
parents to rear their own child as they see fit."