To Whom It May Concern,

I’m writing to ask for your support to pass bill A2886 proposed by Assemblywoman Woerner concerning Grandparent Visitation Rights.  This is an issue that has impacted my family personally, and I want to do my part to prevent other families from going through what we’ve experienced and continue to face at present.

In 2018, my mother sued me and my wife for Grandparent Visitation Rights. During the time of litigation, our case was heard by Judge Jill Kehn at Rensselaer County Family Court. At the time, Judge Kehn was only elected as Troy City Court Judge in the year of 2015. Somewhere between the time of her election and our case, she was placed in a county family court seat by the Unified Court system.

After three separate days of litigation, our son’s guardian ad litem had recommended, in his final written statement to the judge, that my mother be denied any contact. Unfortunately, Judge Kehn went against our and our son's guardian ad litem’s wishes. My mother now takes him every third Sunday of the month. 

My wife and I are both married and fit parents. Almost no other state in our country will allow proceedings to even take place unless there's a divorce or death that has occurred. 

We have tried appealing the judge's decision, however the law as written, allows inexperienced judges to make decisions against what should be a parent's choice. It also tiptoes around the fact that it violates parents’ constitutional rights to rear their children as they see fit.

My wife and I have accrued a total of $75,000 in court-related fees which has created a financial burden and undue stress within our family as a whole. 

For the last few years, I have spent countless hours trying to wrap my head around how any of this was even possible. I've wasted a great deal of energy trying to fight something I've ultimately realized I can't personally change. I have worked hundreds of additional hours and spent less time with my son, only to hand the extra money earned over to attorneys and other court-related fees. It has taken us years to pay off the credit cards used to satisfy court fees as the matter progressed, along with the additional interest accrued each month.

Many people have recommended in the past we break the court order, uproot everything we’ve built together here in our home state, and move to a state that would protect us from NYS having any authority over us whatsoever. I envy those who are fortunate enough to have children and not be governed when it comes to the decisions of who is or is not allowed to be a part of their family’s lives as a whole.

I would welcome any opportunity to express how this matter has negatively impacted my family. In the years passed, I wish I had the positive energy to promote previously proposed changes to the law; however, all of my efforts were spent trying to prevent what was happening to my family at that point in time.

Now that Judge Kehn has ruled against us, she's created a new case law that can be used in future cases, by attorneys and judges against unsuspecting, fit, married parents like us. By doing so, she’s drawn a new line in the sand and it’s become a dangerously intrusive matter that can no longer be overlooked. The courts should not lightly intrude on the family relationship against a fit parent’s wishes. The presumption that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interest is a strong one; however, both my wife, and I, were forced into a courtroom to defend our parental decisions and I refuse to let my family become a statistic.

I can't stop what’s happened to us at this point. The decision will ultimately be made by our son when he's old enough to decide what he wants. At that time, he’ll be forced into the same courtroom, in front of the same judge, and hopefully she’ll respect his wishes.

I do, however, want to do my part in helping future "fit" parents prevent this from happening to their families’. It is unjust and needs to be stopped.

This is the last paragraph of our son’s guardian ad litem’s final written statement to the judge:

“I have struggled with this case, and while I would normally suggest at the very least, a couple of hours each month for the Petitioner in a public place with the Respondents being allowed to loosely supervise the visit, it appears after meeting with my client, from the testimony gathered at trial and the aforementioned case law, and after much soul searching, that denial of the Petitioner's grandparent visitation petition at this junction would be in the child's best interests.”

This is a relevant portion of the Judge’s ruling:

ADJUDGED that the petitioner has met her burden in showing it is in the best of the child’s interests to have contact with her: and ORDERED that the child will have contact with his grandmother for five hours on the third Sunday of each month from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and such other and further times as agreed upon by the parties

I have attached to this letter the only portion of my mother’s testimony I need to validate why I’ll never accept the GPR law as it stands today.  This is only the surface of a lie that originated three years prior to her testimony, and the foundation goes much deeper. It has changed shape several times throughout its existence and that’s why I have persisted over and over. She finally gave me the answer I needed, while testifying before the judge.

My mother had alienated my wife from my extended family on a vacation that was originally planned by me and my wife alone. She’d been running her campaign against my wife for many years and she’s a bully. My wife was cast out for not engaging socially because of things said about her, by my mother, which had gotten back to her. I won’t stand for it and I don’t want my son exposed to her at all, however we all remain handcuffed a court order we never should have been served.  

The current Grandparent Visitation law is unjust, meddlesome, and belittles the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. I understand that family dynamics are difficult to judge and we all have our own viewpoints, what I don't understand is why someone should be able to overrule "fit" parents that are acting in their child's best interest by weaponizing the court system. This law supplies grandparents the additional ammunition needed to overstep the boundaries that were originally set by the parents prior to being sued.

I kindly ask you to please help to assist Assemblywoman Woerner pass her proposed bill A2886.  My son never deserved the stress created in our household because of this, and my mother does not deserve “the right” to see him!

Thank you for taking the time to read about our story, and for any support you are able to provide.

Attached:

Grandparent’s testimony

Q Ms. Grandmother, you said you just finished your testimony by saying 
everything was okay, I assume you meant everything was okay between you, son 
and daughter in law, correct?
A Uhm-hrnm.
Q Okay and you think everything was okay even in light of the fact that the 
things you actually said about daughter in law that got back to her?
MS. Attorney: Objection, Your Honor, time frame, foundation, I don't know.
Q Well, isn't it true that you called her a, for lack of a better term, a 
stiff-neck or is she a stiff-neck? You could laugh, but isn't it true that you 
said that?
A I'm laughing because I didn't call her anything, no. son and I have been 
over this a hundred times and he keeps asking me this over and over and I keep 
telling him the same thing. Daughter in law ignored us at dinner one night, 
she kept her neck like this, my family was all together or somebody said, what 
does Daughter in law have a stiff neck. From there it got to be kind of a, a
joke, it was, it was among the family, nothing was ever said to Daughter in 
law. How it got back to her I have no idea because she was not around as she 
avoided us the whole week for the most part. I
Q Well, isn't it true that –
A So, no, I did not call her a name.
Q Didn't you say in, during the Maine vacation in July of 2015, quote, 
Daughter in law must have a stiff neck from trying so hard to ignore everyone 
at the table?
MS. Attorney: Asked and answered.
MR. Attorney: I didn't ask it that way.
THE COURT: Overruled, I, overruled.
A Somebody said it originally, it was not me at first.
Q Well, did you say it second?
A Second, third, I don't know.
Q Well, do you remember writing in an email to your son, son, where you said, 
it started when I said quote, Daughter in law must have a stiff neck from 
trying so hard to ignore everyone at the table?
A Okay.
Q Yes, you said that?
A Apparently.
Q Okay, you said you wanted things to kind of go back to the way they were, 
right, before this so- called rift?
A That would be nice.
Q All right and, and your solution to getting that done is file a petition 
here in court and –
MS. Attorney : Objection.
Q -- have a judge to order that to happen?
MS. Attorney : Objection.

Relevant portion of email:

I HAVE answered that to the best of my ability. I've answered it the same way every time and I cannot help that you do not like or accept my answer. It started when I said "Daughter in law must have a stiff neck from trying so hard to ignore everyone at the table." -or something like that. After that, it was shortened and said several times by several different people, including me. Every time you've asked me I've told I said it. I've also told you I don't remember the semantics - "is" vs "has". So if you don't like my answer, and it's an honest answer, what would you like me to do? Shall I change my answer?