Grandparents Legal Section
On this page:
-The latest
list of state grandparent visitation statutes
-The latest information on grandparent visitation
issues
-Tips for Parents and Grandparents From Dr. Kornhaber
-Recent developments in the Grandparent Visitation Laws
-Support Groups in Canada
If you
have specific questions concerning rights in your state, contact:
www.grandparentsforchildren.org
G.R.O.: Grandparent's Rights Organization, (248) 646-7191.
The National Coalition of
Grandparents at (608) 238-8751
www. grandparentchildconnect.org
They'll give you up to date information concerning the laws in your state.
General Suggestions:
You can find out about a local contact by logging on to
www.grandparentsforchildren.org, Learn about the laws in your state by logging
on to www.aarp.org. or www.gu.org, or calling GRO at 248-646-7191. Also
see www.grandparentchildconnect.org.
In England, log on to:
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk/forum/
It's always a good idea to consult a local lawyer to learn about your specific rights
in your state. Try legal aid or the local bar association if finances are a problem.
Also consult Dr. Kornhaber's book "The Grandparent Guide" for specific advice,
support and guidance. You can get it from your local bookstore or library or
on-line at www.amazon.com.
Legal News
California
Subject: A request from another grandparents' group
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:36:37 -0700
Hello,I am writing to you as a grandparent who has been arbitrarily alienated by my former daughter-in-law and my own son from seeing or having any contact with my two grandsons who live in San Diego, California. I live in Oregon. In 2004-05 I spent almost $7000 on attorneys trying to legally get visitation but couldn't even get my request for mediation approved by a San Diego family court judge.
I decided that changing the law in California is the only avenue for grandparents who have been disenfranchised.
Through researching on the internet, I have met other California grandparents who unfortunately have also been alienated from their grandchildren. Someof us haven’t seen our grands for 4 to 5 years. This group of grandparents is becoming politically active with a focus on attempting to amend and/or change the law in California that addresses objections by both parents to grandparents petitioning for visitation. Because a section of the California family code specifically states that when both parents object, a grandparent cannot even petition for visitation, grandparents have absolutely no recourse. There is nothing they can do. We would like to see that law changed. We know that changing state laws is the only way that grandparents can make any
progress towards remaining in their grandchildren’s lives when selfish children alienate their children from good, loving grandparents..
Therefore, in preparation for the 2009 legislative session, we are gearing up now to present our proposal to California legislators for their consideration. Specifically, our proposal would require a mandatory evaluation of all parties when both parents object. We hope that this evaluation will shed light on why the parents are objecting and reveal if it is for malicious or retaliatory reasons. This evaluation would be paid for by the grandparents. Our group, Advocates for the Birthright of Children from Divided and Estranged Families (ABCDEF), has placed a petition on the Care2 Petition site that states as follows:
Reunite Grandchildren and Grandparents in California
Target: California State Legislature
Sponsored by:
"Advocates for the Birthright of Children from Divided and Estranged Families"
All across California there are thousands of children who are being denied access and contact with their loving and caring Grandparents (GP). Some of the children have spent a large part of their lives with the GP before all visitation was denied. Many times this is the result of parents involved with drugs or crime.
California law promotes the right of FIT parents to raise children without government interference. To ensure this 14th amendment right, Family Code 3104(e) assumes that FIT parents will do what is in the best interest of the child. 3104 states that for GP to have visitation over the objection of a
parent, GP must prove that child will be harmed without GP visitation, a high legal barrier.
The Courts know the inherent goodness a GP relationship can provide and that some parents are denying GP access to children for vindictive, retaliatory, and other reasons not in the best interest of the child.
THIS PETITION will provide a means of rebutting the parents' decision to deny access if it is based on other than the child's best interest. It will require the mandatory psychological evaluation of both parents and GPs at the initial court appearance. The results will provide the Court with information in regard to the parents' fitness in making
Would you be willing to post the link to our petition on your site, requesting your members to sign it? We need all the California resident signatures that we can obtain in order to make a case that the legislators will listen to.
The link is: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/reunite-grandchildren-and-grandparents-in-california
Thank you for your consideration of this request. We appreciate any and all help you might be able to give. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Cheryl Bennett ABCDEF Trail213@msn.com
TEXAS May 2007.
Grandparent Access in Texas
by Jimmy L. Verner, Jr.
Board Certified, Family & Civil Trial Law.
Texas Board of Legal Specialization Also admitted in New Mexico
In past years, the right of a grandparent to have access to a grandchild against the parent's wishes has been unclear under Texas law. Except for the rare family feud that keeps grandchildren and grandparents apart, grandparent access cases usually come about when the grandparent's child has died or has had his or her parental rights terminated. In such cases, the grandparents seek to retain access to their grandchildren, but the remaining parent can be cautious of the grandparents, especially in termination cases, and often want to move on to a new life. In either event, remarriage by the surviving parent followed, at times, by a stepparent adoption can create even greater distance between grandparents and the remaining parent.
On June 5, 2000, the United States Supreme Court decided a grandparent access case called Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Troxel addressed what rights grandparents have to maintain a relationship with their grandchildren after their child has died and over the surviving parent's objection. The decision in Troxel - consisting of a plurality opinion, two concurrences and three dissents - further muddied an already unclear are of the law. The only clear holding from Troxel was that a "fit" parent had the right to decide whether a child's grandparents could have access to the child.
In the years following Troxel, Texas appellate courts struggled to apply the case, but the Texas Supreme Court did not address Troxel until its brief, per curiam opinion in In re: Mays-Hooper, 189 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). In that case, the Court applied Troxel to Texas' old grandparent rights statutes but declined to analyze them more extensively because the 2005 legislature had amended them. More recently, the Court considered the amended grandparent rights statutes, Tex. Fam. Code section 153.431 et seq., in In re: Derzapf, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 270, 50 Tex. Sup. 563 (2007) (per curiam), where the Court conditionally granted mandamus because the trial court had abused its discretion by requiring grandparent access.
These two Texas Supreme Court cases have greatly clarified the Texas grandparent rights statutes, both substantively and procedurally. These clarifications are summarized in the following points:
1. If It Looks Like a Duck . . . In Mays-Hooper, the Court found Troxel's facts "in all relevant respects the same as those here." According to Mays-Hooper, a plurality of the Troxel bench found the Washington visitation statute "unconstitutional as applied, pointing to three factors: (1) the child's mother was not unfit, (2) her decisions about grandparent access were given no deference, and (3) she was willing to allow some visitation." Because the facts in Mays-Hooper were "virtually the same" as in Troxel, "the judgment must be the same, too." This meant that the trial court's order allowing grandparent access could not stand. The lesson to be learned? If the facts in a given grandparent access case are like Troxel or Mays-Hooper, then grandparent access cannot be imposed.
2. A Little Possession Prevents More. In Troxel and Mays-Hooper, an important fact mentioned by both courts was that the mother had permitted the grandparents "some" visitation. In Troxel, that visitation consisted of one day per month; in Mays-Hooper, the Court stated only that there was "no evidence that [the mother] intended to exclude [the grandparent's] access completely." Although neither Troxel nor Mays-Hooper so states, one might very well reason that a parent who shuts off grandparent access significantly impairs a child's physical health or emotional well-being. Under Troxel and Mays-Hooper, a parent who allows "some" access will prevail in a grandparent access suit. Only a parent who disallows access completely risks a court order requiring access.
3. Evidence of Significant Impairment Must Be Stout. As amended, Tex. Fam. Code section 153.433(2) permits grandparent access orders over the parent's objection only if denial of access "would significantly impair the child's physical health or emotional well-being." In Derzapf, the Court emphasized how tough this standard is. An expert psychologist testified that cutting off grandparent access could be "harmful" to one of the children. He also said that "it was in the children's best interest that they have some contact with their grandparents." Finally, the expert "noted the children's 'sadness' at being unable to see their grandparents," but he conceded that the feelings of sadness "did not rise to the level of a significant emotional impairment." Emphasizing the word "significant," the Derzapf Court concluded that there had been no showing that depriving the children of grandparent access would significantly impair the children's physical health or emotional well-being.
4. Mandamus Can Be Appropriate Relief. Except in termination cases - which are not defined as suits affecting the parent-child relationship in Texas - there is no right of accelerated appeal from a court order granting or denying possession or access. But Mays-Hooper and Derzapf both have shown that mandamus relief is appropriate in cases where a trial court has ordered grandparent access. In Mays-Hooper, the Court did not struggle with whether the extraordinary remedy of mandamus might be appropriate because both parties agreed that the remedy should apply. The Derzapf Court formalized the availability of mandamus relief for grandparent cases:
The temporary orders here divest a fit parent of possession of his children, in violation of Troxel's cardinal principle and without overcoming the statutory presumption that the father is acting in his children's best interest. Such a divestiture is irremediable, and mandamus relief is therefore appropriate.
This reasoning does not, however, support the conclusion that stymied grandparents necessarily could invoke mandamus relief. To the contrary, the Derzapf Court emphasized that "grandparents' rights are generally subordinate to a parent's."
5. Fit Parents Rule. In Troxel, Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion stated: "So long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family . . . ." Mays-Hooper quoted this language, as did Derzapf. Obviously, the Texas Supreme Court has taken this language to heart.
For more information contact: Jimmy L. Verner, Jr. Verner & Brumley, P.C. 3131
Turtle Creek Blvd. Penthouse Suite Dallas, Texas 75219
214.526.5234 e-mail: jverner@vernerbrumley.com
website: www.vernerbrumley.com
October 2005
Ohio Court Upholds
Visitation Rights for Grandparents
Reported by UPI.
October 11, 2005 The Ohio Supreme Court sided with maternal grandparents who wanted to visit a granddaughter following the death of her mother but were challenged by the girl's father. The girl's parents were never married.The grandparents had raised the girl until she was 5 years old after the mother died of cancer.Monday's ruling said Ohio law properly balances the wishes of parents and the best interests of a child.
.August 2004
"Court Backs
Rights of Grandparent" in California.
With proof that no harm would result, visits with a grandchild may be allowed
over custodial parent's objection, rules the state's top jurists.
Reported by the L.A. Times Tuesday, August 24, 2004.
State Grandparent Visitation Laws
Also see.
www.gu.org. and www.aarp.org.
for updates
The following criteria are important when grandparent visitation rights
are considered. They can be quite different from state to state and are
subject to change. We have listed specific criteria and then show which
state uses what criteria. If you are actively involved in a visitation
issue make sure to check with a local attorney, or bar association, to be absolutely sure
about the statutes in your state. And please let us know of any changes.
Criteria
1. Best Interest of Child
2. Must Show Harm
3. Prior Grandparent/Grandchild Relationship
4. Effect on Parent/Child Relationship
5. Any Marital Status of Parents
6. Parents are Deceased, Divorced and/or Unmarried.
7. After Stepparent Adoption
Criteria in Individual States
AL 1,4,5,7 A
AK 1,3,5,7
AZ 1.3.6.7
AR 1,6,
CA 1,3,4,6,7
CO 1,6
CT 1,5
DE 1,6
FL 1,3,4,5,7 A
GA 1,2,6,7
HI 1,5
ID 1.5
IL 1,7
IN 1,3,6,7
IA 1,2,5,7 A
KS 1,3,5,7
KY 1,5
LA 1,6,7
ME 1,3,4,5
MD 1,5
MA 1,6,7
MI 1,6,7
MN 1,3,4,5,7 B
MS 1,3,5,7 A
MO 1,5,7
MT 1,5,7
NE 1,3,4,6
NV 1,3,4,6
NH 1,3,4,6,7
NJ 1,3,4,5
NM 1,3,5 B
NY 1,5,
NC 1,2,6,7
ND 1,3,5,7
OH 1,6
OK 1,3,4,5,7
OR 1,3,5,7 A
PA 1,3,4,5,7 B
RI 1,5 A
SC 1,3,4,6
SD 1,5,7
TN 1,3,4,6,7
TX 1,3,5 B
UT 1,5 A
VT 1,3,4,6,7
VA 1,4,6 C
WA 1,3,4,5
WV 1,3,4,5,7
WI 1,3,5,
WY 1,4,5,7
A Only if denied visitation
B Only if child previously resided with grandparent
C The Supreme Court of Virginia held that statute could apply to an
intact marriage only if there is a finding of harm to the child in the
absence of visitation
This material has been compiled with the help of individual
grandparents, the American Bar association, the AARP web site at
AARP.org, , and many grandparent organizations.
This section
contains:
Recent developments in State Laws:New Jersey, Alabama, Florida,
New Mexico.
Comments on the Visitation Rights Enforcement Act (with tips for parents and
grandparents from Dr. Kornhaber).
The Visitation Rights Enforcement Act.
United States Public laws. 105th Congress--2nd Session. Public Law 105-374 [H.R. 4164]
This bill, amending title 28, United States Code (with respect to the enforcement of child custody and visitation orders), was sponsored New Jersey Congressman Andrews, and signed into law by the President on November 12, 1998.
This guarantees that grandparents can visit their grandchildren anywhere in the United States as long as they have visitation rights in one state. This law does not impose a federal decision about a grandparent's visitation right in any state. It calls for reciprocal recognition of grandparents' rights once a state has established those rights.
Grandparent visitation laws are recent. Several decades ago, increasing numbers of grandparents were being legislated out of existence because of family feuds. In response, grandparents joined together to get laws passed assuring grandparents the right to petition for visitation in the case of parental death or divorce. One by one these laws were adopted, in various forms, until every state had one.
But then a problem arose: once the laws were established it was found that grandparents who had visitation in one state would have to litigate all over again if their grandchild's custodian moved to another state.
This bill has solved this problem. It is a giant step forward in achieving a uniform state visitation law making provisions for grandparent visitation consistent from state to state.
Tips For Parents and Grandparents From Dr. Kornhaber
Following are some findings from our own research that may help alienated families to reconcile:
 | Never completely banish a parent or grandparent from the life of a child (of course unless there is blatant pathology that would endanger the child). |
| When conflicts occur, concentrate on getting rid of the problems -- not the people. And use every option to do so, including professional help. |
| Many of the attitudes and situations leading to parent-grandparent problems are temporary. People grow and change. Forgiveness is important. Our experience and research shows that many parents eventually regret having separated their children from their grandparents. Parent-grandparent alienation is painful for all and rips apart the fabric of the family. Find another way. |
| It is a terrible example for children when parents do not let them see their grandparents. Indeed, it hurts the parent-child relationship too. Children become insecure and afraid of their parents. Many wonder if their own parents will get rid of them too if they are not "good." Additionally, children have to lead a double life when they love their grandparents. They are afraid to tell their own parents they love and miss their grandparents for fear their parents will be angry with them. |
| Many children reconcile with their grandparents as soon as they come of age. |
| Children need both their parents and grandparents. We tell feuding parents and grandparents that they have to love the child more than they "love" the anger they may feel toward one another. Rarely should the grandparent-grandchild bond ever be permanently ruptured. Parents should know that research shows grandparents rarely inflict the conflicts and problems on grandchildren that they may have inflicted on their children. Growing up is a good teacher. |
| Rarely should litigation take place -- and only as a last resort. It ups the ante of misery and can create a permanent solution for what might be a temporary problem. However, when people do go to court the Judge should sentence the family to healing. And follow-up to make sure this process is happening. At no time should grandparent-grandchild contact be stopped. In extreme cases it can be controlled or supervised, but rarely should it be terminated altogether. |
DEVELOPMENTS
Grandparent Visitation Law struck down in Illinois on April 2002.
The Illinois Supreme court nullified the grandparent visitation law when it ruled that a parent has full authority to raise its child unless the child's health or safety is in danger. The court overturned two trial court decisions where grandparents were able to obtain visitation to a grandchild with one surviving parent. This piggy backs on the decision that grandparents have no rights when a marriage is "intact (two parents).
New Jersey Statute 9:2-7.1 was amended to modify the circumstances under which a grandparent or sibling may apply for visitation. Grandparents or siblings must show whether visitation is in the best interest of the child. What is new here is that, if appropriate parameters are met, visitation may occur even if the parents' marriage is "intact."
August 1999. Alabama expands conditions allowing grandparents to sue for right to visit biological grandchildren involved with conditions of death, divorce, out of wedlock birth, abandonment, or intact marriage.
Grandparents' Rights Lost in Florida
In 1996, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that a Florida statute that allowed grandparents to petition a court for visitation with grandchildren, whose parents had denied such visitation, was anIn VonEiff vs. Azieri (Fla. Nov. 12, 1998) the court ruled that the maternal grandparents of a child whose mother had died could not be granted independent visitation rights with their grandchild over the objection of the child's father, where the father was otherwise a "loving, nurturing and fit parent."
Although the father had since remarried and his wife had adopted the child, making for all legal purposes an "Intact" family similar to that of the family in the 1996 case, the court emphasized that their decision was not at all dependent on that fact. Rather, the court ruled that the surviving parent retains all of the authority that the parents originally enjoyed. The decision turned in part on the Constitutional right of privacy set forth in the Florida Constitution. Parents enjoy a right to be free of governmental intrusion into parenting decisions unless a complainant can demonstrate threatened harm to the child. On this point the court said~
Neither the legislature nor the courts may properly intervene in parental decisionmaking absent significant to the child threatened by or resulting from those decisions…This threshold requirement thus ensures that focus will not be on the perceived benefits of a grandparent-grandchild relationship before the need for government intervention is assessed.
The court emphasized that the statute had required courts to grant grandparent visitation if one parent was deceased, without regard to any showing of harm to the child by the denial of visitation, as long as the visitation was in the child's best interests,
The court summarized as follows-,
We recognize that the death of a biological parent may be a traumatic event for a child and that a family may deal with that tragic event in many different ways. Some parents may decide that counseling is beneficial for the Child; others may disagree, Some parents may decide that the child should spend more time with the deceased biological parent's grandparents, siblings or close friends, Others may restrict those relationships. Interaction with the grandparents may help case the pain of loss for both grandparent and child and, thus, be beneficial to the child. However, . - - it is irrelevant, to this constitutional analysis, that it might in many instances be 'better’ or 'desirable' for a child to maintain contact with a grandparent. [reference to quoted phrase omitted]
Although a news report on the case describes advocates for grandparents' rights as "outraged" by the court decision, I would expect that in cases where grandparents already maintain a solid relationship with the grandchildren at the time of a tragedy, then showing harm to the children by attempting to end that relationship would not be difficult. Social service and mental health experts will favor maintaining extended family relationships where they already exist,
In essence, this shifts the burden of persuasion from the neutral "best interests of the child" test, to the grandparents, who now must show a specific harm in the denial of visitation in their particular case, It perhaps shifts the burden of expense as well.
Just what level of harm the courts will require remains to be seen.The New Mexico Grandparent Visitation Law Bill Passes
SENATE BILL 174: 44TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - FIRST SESSION, 1999 INTRODUCED BY Linda M. Lopez
AN ACT
RELATING TO FAMILY LAW; EXPANDING THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE COURT WHEN A GRANDPARENT
PETITIONS FOR VISITATION WITH A CHILD; AMENDING A SECTION OF THE NMSA 1978.BE IT ENACTED
BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. Section 40-9-2 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1993,
Chapter 93, Section 3) is amended to read:
"40-9-2. CHILDREN--VISITATION BY GRANDPARENT--PETITION--MEDIATION.--
A. In rendering a judgment of dissolution of marriage, legal
separation or the existence of the parent and child relationship pursuant to the
provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act, or at any time after the entry of the judgment,
the district court may grant reasonable visitation privileges to a grandparent of a minor
child, not in conflict with the child's education or prior established visitation or
time-sharing privileges.
B. If one or both parents of a minor child are deceased, any grandparent of the minor child may petition the district court for visitation privileges with respect to the minor. The district court may order temporary visitation privileges until a final order regarding visitation privileges is issued by the court.
C. If a minor child resided with a grandparent for a period of at least three months and the child was less than six years of age at the beginning of the three-month period and the child was subsequently removed from the grandparent's home by the child's parent or any other person, the grandparent may petition the district court for visitation privileges with respect to the child, if the child's home state is New Mexico, as provided in the Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
D. If a minor child resided with a grandparent for a period of at least six months and the child was six years of age or older at the beginning of the six-month period and the child was subsequently removed from the grandparent's home by the child's parent or any other person, the grandparent may petition the district court for visitation privileges with respect to the child, if the child's home state is New Mexico, as provided in the Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.
E. A biological grandparent may petition the district court for visitation privileges with respect to a grandchild when the grandchild has been adopted or adoption is sought, pursuant to the provisions of the Adoption Act, by:
(1) a stepparent;
(2) a relative of the grandchild;
(3) a person designated to care for the grandchild in the provisions of a deceased
parent's will; or
(4) a person who sponsored the grandchild at a baptism or confirmation conducted by a recognized religious organization.
F. When a minor child is adopted by a stepparent and the parental rights of the natural parent terminate or are relinquished, the biological grandparents are not precluded from attempting to establish visitation privileges. When a petition filed pursuant to the provisions of the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act is filed during the tendency of an adoption proceeding, the petition shall be filed as part of the adoption proceedings. The provisions of the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act shall have no application in the event of a relinquishment or termination of parental rights in cases of other statutory adoption proceedings.
G. When considering a grandparent's petition for visitation privileges with a
child, the district court shall assess:
(1) the best interests of the child;
(2) the prior interaction between the grandparent and the child;
(3) the prior interaction of the grandparent and each parent of the child;
(4) the present relationship between the grandparent and each parent of the child; [and]
(5) time-sharing or visitation arrangements that were in place prior to filing of the
petition;
(6) the amount of time that may have elapsed since the child last had contact with the
grandparent;
(7) the effect the visitation with the grandparent will have on the relationship between
the child and the child's parent or the person with whom the child resides;
(8) any history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect by the grandparent;
(9) the good faith of the grandparent in filing the application; and
(10) other factors relevant to the best interests of the child.
H. It shall be prima facie evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest if in the past the grandparent had been a full-time caretaker for the child.
H.] I. The district court may order mediation and evaluation in any matter when a grandparent's visitation privileges with respect to a minor child are at issue. When a judicial district has established a domestic relations mediation program pursuant to the provisions of the Domestic Relations Mediation Act, the mediation shall conform with the provisions of that act. Upon motion and hearing, the district court shall act promptly on the recommendations set forth in a mediation report and consider assessment of mediation and evaluation to the parties. The district court may order temporary visitation privileges until a final order regarding visitation privileges is issued by the court.
[I.] J. When the district court decides that visitation is not in the best interest of the child, the court
may issue an order requiring other reasonable contact between the grandparent and the child, including regular communication by telephone, mail or any other reasonable means.
[J.] K. The provisions of the Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act and Section 30-4-4 NMSA 1978, regarding custodial interference, are applicable to the provisions of the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act."
Section 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.--The effective date of the provisions of this act is July 1, 199
Support Groups in Canada
Ottawa branch president: Madeleine Bremner
1998 Anthony Ave., Ottawa, Ontario,K2B 6T9, Ph:(613)722-3310
Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity (G.R.A.N.D.) Society & Chapters:
Toronto Nucleus/President/Founder: Joan Brooks
219 Browning Ave., Toronto, Ontario, M4K 1X1,Ph:(416)469-5471
Ottawa chapter president: Lilliane George
1516 Boucier Drive, Orleans, Ontario, K1E 3J5, Ph/Fax:(613)837-8371
Manitoba chapter president: Eileen Britton
153 Roquette St., Winnepeg, Manitoba, R3K 1M6, Ph:(204)888-0482,
E-mail:britton@mb.sympatico.ca
Quebec chapter president: Mathilde Goldberg
12 Park Place, Apt. 1, Westmont, Quebec, H32 2K5, Ph:(514)846-0574, Fax:(514)846-0235
Hamilton chapter president: Sylvia Chappell
154 Balmoral St., N., Hamilton, Ontario, L8L 7R8, Ph:(905)544-2668
New Brunswick chapter:
1010 Dornridge Rd., Burtts Corner, New Brunswick, E6L 2V2, Ph/Fax:(506)363-5743
Helping Unite Grandparents and Grandchildren, (H.U.G.G.'s)
607 Pine Ridge Ave., Amherstburg, Ontario, N9V 3W3, Ph:(519)736-5116,
Fax:(519)736-0189
Oakville-Hamilton chapter:
19 BlueHeron Lane, Carlisle, Ontario, L0R 1H1, Ph:(905)690-4026, Fax:(905)690-4969
The Association To Reunite Grandparents & Families
President: Betty Cornelius
RR#1, McArthurs Mills, Ontario, K0L 2M0, Ph:(613)474-0035, E-mail:
grandma@northcom.net or ICQ #20937540
other chapters at:
Oshawa: (905)723-9954 or (905)435-0489, Uxbridge: (905)985-0066, Waterloo:
(519)746-2254, Oakville: (905)339-2465, Bancroft: (613)474-0035
Copyright 1998 by The Foundation For Grandparenting
Last revised: 08 Apr 2008
