Split Decisions: Can Grandparents Take Kids Away?

When a child is thriving with grandparents during a family crisis, does stability outweigh a biological parent’s right to custody?

In this episode of Split Decisions, veteran family law attorneys Tim Miranda and Carlos Tavares go head-to-head in a mock family court battle over a deeply emotional question. An eight-year-old child has spent the past year living with his grandparents while his mother entered rehab and his father struggled with unemployment and housing instability. Now that the father claims he’s back on his feet, should custody automatically return to him—or should the court prioritize the stability the grandparents have provided?

Carlos argues on behalf of the grandparents, emphasizing continuity, emotional security, and the child’s best interests. Tim represents the father, asserting constitutional parental rights and warning against grandparents overstepping their role.

Every trial has two sides. You be the judge. Who made the stronger case?

Cast your vote and join the debate.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:06

Today's case centers around the question: if a child is thriving living with his grandparents during a crisis, should his father automatically get him back? This is split decisions where veteran divorce attorneys go head-to-head over real-life scenarios, often seen in family court.

SPEAKER_00 0:30

The grandparents have been providing all care for the child, including school and medical needs. In agreement with the mother, they seek to retain custody of the child in opposition to father's request for custody.

SPEAKER_01 0:42

The mother entered rehab a year ago and the father was unemployed. Both are now stable. But the question remains: what is best for the child?

SPEAKER_00 0:52

Every trial has two sides. Which one wins? You be the judge. I'm Carlos Tavares, and I'll be representing the grandparents.

SPEAKER_01 0:59

I'm Tim Miranda, and I'll be representing the father.

SPEAKER_00 1:02

We'll each take turns making our arguments, with the moving party getting the final word with a one-minute rebuttal. Good morning, Your Honor. Today we're here on competing motions between father and the grandparents in alignment with mother. Six years ago, the parties entered into a 50-50 custody order, which they haven't followed for the last six years. A year ago, mother was having issues with alcohol, and father had become unemployed and didn't have a place to live. At that time, they agreed that the child could live with their grandparents. For the last year, that child has resided with mother's parents, and those grandparents have provided all the stability for this child. Medical, academic, therapeutic, all of it. Mom went to rehab, dad went about trying to find a new place to work and securing housing. Now the child is eight, mom has been out of rehab and sober for three months, and dad now has a job and a place to live. He seeks to modify that custody order and for the child to live with him as a primary custodial parent. We think the grandparents should retain custody of the child, having provided custody and consistency for the child for the last year without incident. And it's undisputed that they've done a very good job. These parents are not quite capable of going back to whatever their primary custodial arrangement is, and father's time, okay, great, child's now eight. He now has a job and suddenly wants to just reinsert himself back into the child's life after the prior six or seven years of upheaval. So today we ask the court to allow the child to continue to reside with the grandparents, having provided structure, consistency, and medical services, basically taking the primary role in taking care of this child for the last year. And that even though dad is now on his feet and is the father, we think the best interest of the child and the stability are better provided by the grandparents. Additionally, mother is in agreement with this request as a parent. Thank you, Your Honor.

SPEAKER_01 3:20

This is emblematic of opportunistic exploitation. We have here grandparents that are jumping on the bandwagon of a sick person. We have the mother who, congratulations, 90 days sober. Let me know when you're nine months or nine years sober, and then we can give you some applause. We have the grandparents interjecting themselves, and my client doesn't diminish what they did, how they assisted, when both of the parents needed that help. But to come in now and say, we want to assume the role as parents, abridging my client's constitutional rights, and let's back up. What really happened? He had problems with his employment because she's a drunk. She couldn't get dry, she couldn't be sober, and this was compelled. To their credit, again, thank you, grandparents, for stepping in. But that's enough. Time to step back. My client filed this motion to obtain additional custody. This was temporary because he had no place to live. That's what happens when you live with someone who has a substance abuse or an alcohol issue. So he had a temporary problem. They help. Thank you. The child is eight. For the past year, they've been doing everything for an eight-year-old. What does that really mean? And what does that say then? Because mother's aligned, what does that say about her? What's her role? They have to step in because she's incapable? That's what it sounds like. They're supporting her and she's supporting them? Really? Or are they just paying the legal bills? By the way, I like the application to get custody. You can't do that. I guess they could get some kind of grandparent visitation, but where's the application on their behalf to pay child support? I didn't see any financial support coming. This is a joke. The court should kick this. Procedurally, you could grant it, but why? My client had no place to live. It's not pursuit of happiness, living in bathrooms in the metro or in a hostel. This is, I didn't have a place to live, that was the safest thing for my kid, but now the money is fine. Finally, if the grandparents want to have visitation, my client is not opposed to that vicariously. They should do what they've been doing for the past year. Be non-professional, supervising monitors. The drunk mother has to be supervised. So they can do that and they can enjoy visitation while mother is enjoying her visitation. We don't need to make any changes there. My client's request should be granted. Thank you, Your Honor.

SPEAKER_00 5:59

Your Honor, last year when the parties both agreed that the grandparents would take custody of the child, they were conceding that they were both incapable of parenting that child. No disparagement about the grandparents' supervision or caregiving for the child have been raised. This child needs the stability of the grandparents, and both of these parents have not yet stepped up to that task. We ask that the court allow the child to remain with the grandparents. Thank you, Your Honor.

SPEAKER_01 6:34

Those are our cases. You be the judge. Has dad's newfound stability been long enough to warrant a custody transfer?

SPEAKER_00 6:40

Or should the court prioritize emotional continuity and stability for the child?

SPEAKER_01 6:45

Cast your vote in the comments or the poll and tell us who you think made the stronger case.

SPEAKER_00 6:50

This is split decisions, a segment for the AM sidebar podcast from Antonian Miranda.

SPEAKER_01 6:55

Subscribe for more debates where the arguments collide, and you decide.