A content analysis of court opinions about grandparent visitation rights Public Deposited

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/b8515r16v

Descriptions

Attribute NameValues
Creator
Abstract or Summary
  • The current study was a content analysis of court opinions on grandparent visitation rights using the method of grounded theory. The research questions addressed in this study were: (a) On what bases were grandparents granted legal standing to petition for visitation with their grandchildren? (b) What was the legal reasoning for denying or granting visitation rights to grandparents who obtained legal standing? Results showed that 32 out of 103 (31%) grandparents were denied legal standing. Of those grandparents who acquired legal standing (n=71), 34% were denied visitation. Failure to meet statutory requirements was the leading justification for denying grandparents legal standing and visitation rights. Hesitation to intrude on parents' fundamental rights and a strict interpretation of the best interest of the child standard were also justifications used to deny grandparents legal standing and visitation rights. Although parental rights often superceded grandparent rights, this study found that grandparents have gained some legal ground. Thirty-one out of 103 (31%) grandparents in this study were awarded visitation with their grandchild. Some grandparents were awarded visitation with grandchildren in intact families. Visitation rights for five grandparents were given or upheld following the adoption of the grandchild. Gains in legal rights were evident in decisions that interpreted grandparent visitation statutes as seeking to balance the rights of parents, grandparents, and children instead of only parents and children. These facts illustrate a slow shift in family law.
Resource Type
Date Available
Date Copyright
Date Issued
Degree Level
Degree Name
Degree Field
Degree Grantor
Commencement Year
Advisor
Academic Affiliation
Non-Academic Affiliation
Subject
Rights Statement
Peer Reviewed
Language
Digitization Specifications
  • File scanned at 300 ppi (Monochrome) using Capture Perfect 3.0.82 on a Canon DR-9080C in PDF format. CVista PdfCompressor 4.0 was used for pdf compression and textual OCR.
Replaces
Additional Information
  • description.provenance : Submitted by Kevin Martin (martikev@onid.orst.edu) on 2012-08-29T19:15:26Z No. of bitstreams: 1 HendersonTammyL2000.pdf: 2191607 bytes, checksum: c3914bb978529285f1eb7ff9713ec2fc (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Made available in DSpace on 2012-08-29T21:15:58Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 HendersonTammyL2000.pdf: 2191607 bytes, checksum: c3914bb978529285f1eb7ff9713ec2fc (MD5) Previous issue date: 1999-07-14
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2012-08-29T21:13:10Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 HendersonTammyL2000.pdf: 2191607 bytes, checksum: c3914bb978529285f1eb7ff9713ec2fc (MD5)
  • description.provenance : Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Black(patricia.black@oregonstate.edu) on 2012-08-29T21:15:58Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 HendersonTammyL2000.pdf: 2191607 bytes, checksum: c3914bb978529285f1eb7ff9713ec2fc (MD5)

Relationships

In Administrative Set:
Last modified: 08/09/2017

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Citations:

EndNote | Zotero | Mendeley

Items