California Court Says: Parents Know Best in Grandparent Visitation Dispute
California Court Says: Parents Know Best in Grandparent Visitation Dispute
Balandran v. Balandran (2025)
When a parent passes away, grandparents often play an important role in helping grandchildren stay connected to that parent’s memory. But what happens when grandparents and a surviving parent disagree about how much visitation should take place?
A recent California Court of Appeal decision, Balandran v. Balandran (2025), sheds light on this sensitive issue — and strongly reinforces the rights of fit parents to make decisions about their children’s relationships.
The Story Behind the Case
After their son David passed away from Covid-19 in August 2021, David’s parents wanted a more structured visitation schedule with their two young granddaughters.
The children’s mother, Felicia, welcomed contact and had allowed frequent visits with her late husband’s parents. The grandparents regularly saw the children from late 2021 through 2022, though scheduling varied.
In July 2022, the grandparents requested a permanent visitation schedule, including overnights and weekday visits. In August 2022, they filed a petition under Family Code § 3102, which allows relatives of a deceased parent to request visitation if in the child’s best interests.
Felicia opposed, explaining that she preferred flexibility to maintain her children’s schedules, and was already ensuring that the children spent meaningful time with their grandparents.
The case went to trial, where the trial court sided with the grandparents, reasoning that they could provide unique stories and connections to the children’s father that Felicia could not provide. In December 2023, the judge ordered regular weekly and monthly visits, despite acknowledging that Felicia was a fit and capable parent.
Felicia appealed the Court’s decision.
What the Court of Appeal Decided
The appellate court relied heavily on Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, and California precedents (Kyle O. v. Donald R., Punsly v. Ho, Zasueta v. Zasueta) in their decision to reverse the order and side with Felicia. Here’s why:
- Parents’ rights come first. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Troxel v. Granville), courts must presume a fit parent acts in their child’s best interests. Judges can’t substitute their own view of what’s “best” for the child.
- No proof of harm. The grandparents argued that less frequent visits deprived the children of “opportunities” to connect with the memory of their father. However, the Court found no clear and convincing evidence that Felicia’s choices were causing harm or detriment.
- Visitation was already happening. Felicia wasn’t denying the grandparents all visitation with the children; she simply disagreed about how structured and frequent the visits needed to be. That kind of disagreement isn’t enough for courts to override a parent’s judgment.
Why This Case Matters
This ruling is a reminder: grandparents’ visitation rights in California are limited. While the law allows grandparents to petition for visitation after a parent’s death, their request cannot override the decisions of a fit parent unless there’s strong evidence the child will be harmed without court-ordered time.
For parents, this decision reinforces a constitutional principle: the right to decide what’s best for your child rests with you, not the courts, as long as you’re acting in good faith and providing meaningful opportunities for family connection.
The Bottom Line
Balandran highlights the balance between honoring extended family ties and protecting parental autonomy. The court ultimately affirmed that a surviving parent — not the courts — is in the best position to decide how their children maintain relationships after the loss of a loved one.
