I know this is going to sound like a stupid question, but I need to know, so if I offened anyone. My girlfriend and I had a very close relationship, we were like sisters. I baptised one of her daughters, I have become very close to my god-daughter. We had a falling out and it does not look like we are going to patch things out any time soon, too long of a story. My question is do godparents have any rights, I understand that grandparents have rights, but they are family and I understand that, is there anyone out there who can give me some advise.. I am all ears..

You know, I actually tried to find information on this for you, because in some states there are provisions in the codes about people other than immediate family and grandparents having grounds for visitation. Unfortunately, in NY (if I remember correctly, that is where you are from. If I am wrong, let me know) there are no statutes that address this. I suppose that you could try to file for visitation. Theoretically, you can ask the court for anything (legal, anyway). But I don't think it will go very far.

You know, I actually tried to find information on this for you, because in some states there are provisions in the codes about people other than immediate family and grandparents having grounds for visitation. Unfortunately, in NY (if I remember correctly, that is where you are from. If I am wrong, let me know) there are no statutes that address this. I suppose that you could try to file for visitation. Theoretically, you can ask the court for anything (legal, anyway). But I don't think it will go very far.


I have done a lot of research on grandparent rights and the like and there are no provisions giving 3rd parties (other than grandparents), and those are very specific, defining them very specifically. God-parents do not have standing for visitation. Another big issue in these cases too is whether this is an intact family, but either way god-parents would not have standing and treated as any other stranger.

I have done a lot of research on grandparent rights and the like and there are no provisions giving 3rd parties (other than grandparents), and those are very specific, defining them very specifically. God-parents do not have standing for visitation. Another big issue in these cases too is whether this is an intact family, but either way god-parents would not have standing and treated as any other stranger.
4 states allow third party visitation other than grandparents and step parents. They are Connecticut, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Most others allow for visitation by step parents. That is why this question intrigued me. The standards are set very high to be awarded visitation if the person is not a blood relative, but some states DO have provisions for it. :)

4 states allow third party visitation other than grandparents and step parents. They are Connecticut, North Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming. Most others allow for visitation by step parents. That is why this question intrigued me. The standards are set very high to be awarded visitation if the person is not a blood relative, but some states DO have provisions for it. :)

I would have to check on Lexis Nexis on those cases and statutes because it would not surprise me if they were not found to be unconstitutional. That is why Troxel was so successful. Many people (not saying you) believe Troxel was successful against GPV but in reality that's not what it was. Washington's statute gave ANY third party the right to sue for visitation of a child. That's the part that was found unconstitutional. The statutes have to be very specific and even then many are being shot down unconstitutionally due to the rights of a parent to raise their child without government interference.

I would have to check on Lexis Nexis on those cases and statutes because it would not surprise me if they were not found to be unconstitutional. That is why Troxel was so successful. Many people (not saying you) believe Troxel was successful against GPV but in reality that's not what it was. Washington's statute gave ANY third party the right to sue for visitation of a child. That's the part that was found unconstitutional. The statutes have to be very specific and even then many are being shot down unconstitutionally due to the rights of a parent to raise their child without government interference.
I actually started by looking at Connecticut. :) In ALL cases, if the family is intact, there are not grounds for a third party to be awarded visitaiton, as it infringes on the rights of the parents to determine who has access to their child(ren)

I actually started by looking at Connecticut. :) In ALL cases, if the family is intact, there are not grounds for a third party to be awarded visitaiton, as it infringes on the rights of the parents to determine who has access to their child(ren)

Right and a LOT of states are that way. However, if there is a divorce or a death of a parent in most states that opens it up. For example in Troxel the father had died and his parents sued the mother. In Indiana, if the parents are divorced IN Indiana, then grandparents can sue, and in MANY MANY states even a step-parent adoption does not stop that. However, most states specify the relationship. I have heard that Illinois has granted step-parent visitation but again I haven't looks specifically at the cases. There are even several states (can't remember off the top of my head) that do allow intact families to be sued... it's all based on the premisis that it's in the best interest of the child.

One thing that really bugs me about these cases is they are generally so financially draining that the parents oftentimes cannot appeal and let a ruling for visitation stand. Many judges know this and rule based on their own beliefs rather than what should be done.

In the cases in Connecticut, what kind of cases are you looking at? I mean what sort of 3rd party visitation is being granted?

Right and a LOT of states are that way. However, if there is a divorce or a death of a parent in most states that opens it up. For example in Troxel the father had died and his parents sued the mother. In Indiana, if the parents are divorced IN Indiana, then grandparents can sue, and in MANY MANY states even a step-parent adoption does not stop that. However, most states specify the relationship. I have heard that Illinois has granted step-parent visitation but again I haven't looks specifically at the cases. There are even several states (can't remember off the top of my head) that do allow intact families to be sued... it's all based on the premisis that it's in the best interest of the child.

One thing that really bugs me about these cases is they are generally so financially draining that the parents oftentimes cannot appeal and let a ruling for visitation stand. Many judges know this and rule based on their own beliefs rather than what should be done.

In the cases in Connecticut, what kind of cases are you looking at? I mean what sort of 3rd party visitation is being granted?
Oh, I don't disagree with you. :)

In Conn, here is just a simple list.

Antonucci vs Frances-Cameron (3-3-99) lesbian granted visitation rights with her former partner's adopted child.

Paraskevas vs Tunik (4-24-1997) A former boyfriend of the mother granted visitation rights to her biological child. Boyfriend has no biologic relation to the child.

Michaud vs Warwick (1988) mother permitted visitation after adoption of the child

Temple vs Meyer former bf who actuall filed for custody was granted visitation when it was determined that he was not the father of the child.

Here is a chart that just lists which states currently allow for what. No cases listed, just based on what state statutes allow for. :)

www.abanet.org/family/familylaw/FLQWin05thirdpartychart.pdf

Oh, I don't disagree with you. :)

In Conn, here is just a simple list.

Antonucci vs Frances-Cameron (3-3-99) lesbian granted visitation rights with her former partner's adopted child.

Paraskevas vs Tunik (4-24-1997) A former boyfriend of the mother granted visitation rights to her biological child. Boyfriend has no biologic relation to the child.

Michaud vs Warwick (1988) mother permitted visitation after adoption of the child

Temple vs Meyer former bf who actuall filed for custody was granted visitation when it was determined that he was not the father of the child.

Here is a chart that just lists which states currently allow for what. No cases listed, just based on what state statutes allow for. :)

www.abanet.org/family/familylaw/FLQWin05thirdpartychart.pdf


I'll check out that site but in some of those cases I can understand, especially the first one. In some of the others where an ex bf was granted visitation without looking case specific I would gander to guess that they were in the role of 'acting' as a parent. I remember a movie (ha ha) based on a case of a man who had raised a child with a gf (don't think they were married) believing he was the father. When they split she up and said he wasn't the father and produced the biological father. In the end if I'm not mistaken the man was granted custody (it was at least visitation.. but I think custody) based on the fact he was the 'acting' father and all the child knew.

We've gotten off track with the OP here though because A) they have not been back and B) does not indicate really that there is much standing for her to have visitation without much more information.

I'll check out that site but in some of those cases I can understand, especially the first one. In some of the others where an ex bf was granted visitation without looking case specific I would gander to guess that they were in the role of 'acting' as a parent. I remember a movie (ha ha) based on a case of a man who had raised a child with a gf (don't think they were married) believing he was the father. When they split she up and said he wasn't the father and produced the biological father. In the end if I'm not mistaken the man was granted custody (it was at least visitation.. but I think custody) based on the fact he was the 'acting' father and all the child knew.

We've gotten off track with the OP here though because A) they have not been back and B) does not indicate really that there is much standing for her to have visitation without much more information.
You are correct that the OP does not have any standing to sue for visitation. :)