The Big Little Truth About Grandparent Custody
HBO's "Big Little Lies" poses a potential reality.
August 20, 2019 at 12:42 PM
5 minute read
The HBO series “Big Little Lies” follows the lives of five mothers in Monterey, California, who (spoiler alert) are brought together after the mysterious death of Perry Wright. In the just-concluded second season, his widow (Celeste, played by Nicole Kidman) faces a custody challenge when Perry’s mother (Mary Louise, played by Meryl Streep) hires a lawyer and questions whether Celeste is fit to raise her twin sons alone.
Following the season finale, several clients contacted us asking:
- “Can what Mary Louise did to Celeste really happen?”
- “Do grandparents really have the right to seek custody of my children over my objection?”
The short answer is … yes.
While there is a general presumption that children should be raised by their parents, that presumption is rebuttable. In other words, courts generally assume that parents should have custody of their children, but a third party can come forward to contest that assumption and try to prove otherwise in court under certain specific circumstances.
It’s not an easy burden to surmount a parent’s rights to a child, but under specific facts and circumstances the law does allow grandparents and other third parties to seek custodial rights of a child, even over an objection by that child’s parent.
In Georgia, there are three separate statutes—one that just went into effect this July—that allow certain third parties to seek custodial rights of children.
Third-Party Custody
The first statute is O.C.G.A. § 19-7-1, which provides that parents can lose their parental power if grandparents—or other types of listed relatives—demonstrate to the court that primary custody to a third party would be in the child’s best interest. This code section allows for an action, regardless of whether the parents are still together.
The law interpreting this statute sets out that a third party has a higher burden to meet than when custody is at issue between parents. The third party must show that substantial harm will arise to the child if the third party is not granted custody. If after hearing and taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case the court agrees the custodial change is in the best interest of the child, a court can exercise its discretion and award custody to a third party.
Grandparent Visitation
The second statute is O.C.G.A. § 19-7-3, which allows grandparents to file an action or seek to intervene in an existing custody action involving a child and seek visitation rights. In order to proceed pursuant to this statute, the parents must be separated.
There is no presumption that any grandparent has the right to visit with a grandchild, but a court may grant reasonable visitation rights if the court finds the health or welfare of a child would be harmed unless such visitation is granted. In other words, the court must determine that the best interests of the child would be served by such grandparent visitation.
Equitable Caregiver
The third statute, which was just signed into law by Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, is O.C.G.A. § 19-7-3.1 and is, by far, the broadest statute authorizing custody rights to a third party. This new law allows a wide variety of persons to seek custody of a child, basing that person’s ability to have standing and seek custody on his or her involvement in the child’s life and not on biological or familial ties.
This means stepparents, friends and even distant relatives who have been substantially involved in the upbringing of a child can now petition a court for child custody or visitation. In order to establish the right to seek custody as an equitable caregiver, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the third party meets a set of elements demonstrating that he or she has engaged in consistent caretaking of the child.
This statute does not disenfranchise a parent’s own custodial rights, which means, even if a third party seeks custody, both parents could also still seek custodial and visitation rights from the court.
So, yes, while Mary Louise did have the right to challenge Celeste’s primary custody in the court, ultimately it fell to the judge to determine what would be in the twins’ best interests. And in the case of “Big Little Lies” at least, we think the judge got it right.
Jessica Reece Fagan is a partner at Hedgepeth Heredia Family Law in Atlanta.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readIn RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250