Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Butler v. Harris

California Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 2004No. S101836Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CHIN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the majority’s conclusion

that under the circumstances of this case, Family Code section 31041 governs the request of respondents Leanne Harris and Charles Harris, Jr. (Grandparents) for visitation with their granddaughter Emily.

However, I disagree with the majority’s unprecedented and troubling conclusion that if a noncustodial parent supports a grandparent’s visitation request, a visitation order like the one at issue here—which required a six-year-old child to fly unaccompanied to another state and effectively transferred her custody to a…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Troxel v. GranvilleSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API