A 2025 decision from the California Court of Appeal (Balandran v. Balandran (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 858.) is a significant victory for parental autonomy, particularly in the sensitive context of Family Code section 3102 (providing relatives of deceased parent visitation with children).
The Conflict between Mom and In-Laws
After the untimely passing of David Balandran from COVID-19, his wife Felicia—the mother of their two young daughters—continued to facilitate voluntary visitation between the children and their paternal grandparents. In most months, the grandparents saw their grandchildren multiple times per month. Regular visits were interrupted temporarily due to several events but resumed a couple of months later. Despite enjoying mostly regular visits, the grandparents petitioned the court for a structured visitation schedule for alternate weekends (including overnights), weekday dinners, and various holiday and vacation periods.
Mom objected, that, while she was willing to facilitate reasonable visitation, she objected to court-ordered visitation that would interfere with the girls’ busy activities and schedules, which included therapy, gymnastics, swimming, etc.
The trial court sided with the grandparents, reasoning that they provided a unique connection to the children’s late father. The grandparents were given court-ordered visitation on first and third Sundays and dinner every Wednesday.
Mom appealed, arguing that as a fit parent who was already providing “meaningful visitation,” she should not have her parenting schedule dictated by the state.
The Appellate Ruling: Deference to the “Fit Parent” Over Grandparents
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, grounding its decision in the constitutional principles established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville (2000). The Court of Appeal emphasized three critical points:
- The Presumption of Best Interest: A fit parent is legally presumed to act in their children’s best interests. If a parent is “fit,” the court cannot simply substitute its own opinion of what would be “better” for the children.
- “Special Weight” is Mandatory: Courts must give “special weight” to a surviving parent’s determination of what constitutes reasonable visitation. In this case, the mother was not denying access; she was simply prioritizing her children’s busy schedules (school, therapy, gymnastics) over the grandparents’ desire for a rigid visitation schedule.
- The High Burden of Proof: To override a fit parent’s decision, grandparents must show by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s current visitation arrangement is actually detrimental to the child. The court found that an 80-day gap in visits during a period of intense grief and COVID-19 concerns did not meet this high bar of “harm.”
For parents, Balandran offers a shield against over-litigation of schedules. For grandparents, it serves as a reminder that maintaining a collaborative relationship with the surviving parent is usually more effective than seeking a court order.
