IN RE MARRIAGE OF HARRIS, S101836
Where the mother had sole custody of her child and objected to the visitation rights of the paternal grandparents, Family Code section 3104(b) imposes a rebuttable presumption that the grandparents' visitation is not in the child's best interest.
- Decided 08/23/2004
- Published 08/23/2004
- Supreme Court of California
- For Appellant:
- Family Law Appellate Associates,Law Offices of Jeffrey W. Doeringer and Jeffrey W. Doeringer, Huntington Beach, for Appellant., Karen A. Wyle; Julie E. Mumma, Sacramento; Guralnick & Gilliland, and Anne L. Rauch, San Diego, for the Coalition for Restoration of Parental Rights as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Appellant., Martha Matthews, Mark D. Rosenbaum, Los Angeles; Charles A. Bird, San Diego, Jordan C. Budd; Joan H. Hollinger; Shannon Minter; and Shannan Wilber for ACLU Foundation of Southern California, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, Child Advocacy Program Law School-Boalt Hall, National Center for Lesbian Rights and Youth Law Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellant., Lawrence E. Fluharty for the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Association of Counsel for Children as Amicus Curiae.
- For Appellees:
- Law Office of Paul W. Leehey and Paul W. Leehey, Fallbrook, for Respondents., William Wesley Patton for Whittier Law School Legal Policy Clinic as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents., David Borges; Law Offices of Gollub & Golsan, Lorraine Gollub; Cooper-Gordon, Freida Gordon; Dawn Gray, Grass Valley; Stephen Temko; Woodruff, O'Hair & Posner and D. Thomas Woodruff for the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents., Myron Dean Quon, Patricia M. Logue and Jon W. Davidson for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondents.