1. Lewis Castro
4848 S. Staples Street
Portland, Oregon 97301
July 14, 2014
Mr. Tom Harbin and Mrs. Michelle Harbin
333 Erwin Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97301
RE: Grandparent visitation rights under the law
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Harbin.
Thank you for choosing our office about your concern with the law regarding your rights to visit
your grandchildren Sam and Lola. We are truly honored to potentially represent you in the peculiar
issues of this case.
We have applied the information and facts you provided the office with the laws of the State of
Oregon.
Your issue appears to be a new and developing area of law. “[I]n some jurisdictions, a
grandparent may have a statutory right to visitation notwithstanding the unmarried status of the child's
parents.” (Larson). Other jurisdictions have held that grandparents do not have a statutory right to
visitation.
In Hruby and Hruby, 304 Or 500 (1987), the court ruled that, “the court should not deprive
natural parents of control over their children unless it is necessary 'to protect the children from some
compelling threat to their present or future well-being'”. (Collins).
Another legal concept in Oregon is the 'best interest' standard in awarding visitation and
custody. This applies to two parents (biological parents, step-parents or 'psychological parents') who
are separated or divorced. This standard is not applicable to your case since the father of the children is
deceased as a result of an auto accident.
Yet another concept the courts apply in Oregon is the 'compelling reason' standard. This
reasoning came about as a result of either one of the parents seeking custody or visitation who were not
fit to rear the child. (Schuster). A third party (grandparent) must also over come the hurdle of the
parent's 'supervening right', Sleeper and Sleeper, 982 P.2d 1126 (Or. 1999).
A parent also has a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution that “[h]as a substantive component that provides heightened protection
against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Troxel v.
Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997 )). These liberties
include the 'freedom' to rear their children in a positive manner and to refrain to introduce them to third
parties and ideas. Troxel 530 U.S. 57.

2. Mr and Mrs. Michelle and Tom Harbin
July 14, 2014
Page 2 of 3
To satisfy the Due Process Clause for parents and to give grandparents equal rights to custody
and visitation rights, the Oregon Legislature passed Oregon Revised Statute 109.119. This statute
requires a petitioner in a child visitation case to meet the (5) five non-exclusive factors.
In your case this means that you do not have to show all of the factors. Nor do you have to
show that a parent is 'unfit' to care for a child. All that has to be met is at least (1) one factor. Under
the facts of the case, it appears that you have clearly met at least (3) three of these factors.
In relevant part, O.R.S. 109.119 stutute provides:
Except as otherwise provided.... (4)(a) In deciding...whether the presumption described
in subsection (2)(a) of this section has been rebutted and whether to award visitation
or contact rights over the objection of legal parent, the court may consider factors
including, but not limited to, the following, which may be shown by the evidence:
(A) The petitioner or intervenor is or recently has been the child's primary caretaker; (For
the past 10 years you have been actively involved in the children's lives by babysitting
them on 'numerous' occasions and have babysitted them when the parents went out
of town. You also took care of the children during full weeks when mother went
back to work).
(B) Circumstances detrimental to the child exist if relief is denied; (“(b) ‘Circumstances
detrimental to the child’[] includes but is not limited to circumstances that may cause
psychological, emotional or physical harm to a child.”) O.R.S. 109.119 (4) (8) (b).
(By moving to a different state, the children in all probability will suffer
'emotionally' by not being able to see their grandparents as often as they were used
to).
(C) The legal parent has fostered, encouraged or consented to the relationship between
the child and the petitioner or intervenor; (Obviously, the mother has consented to
relationship when she allowed the babysitting over 10 years and when she had to get
back to work).
(D) Granting relief would not substantially interfere with the custodial relationship; or
(E) The legal parent has unreasonably denied or limited contact between the child and the
or intervenor. (The mother of the children has 'abruptly' stopped visitation recently
for no reason and is planning to move to another state).
You have overcome many if not all of the hurdles that a judge should move in your favor.
In order to seek relief you would need to file a Petition for Intervention with the Court. Once a
Petition is filed we can file Temporary Orders as the case progresses.

3. Mr and Mrs. Michelle and Tom Harbin
July 14, 2014
Page 3 of 3
Below are some websites that I have provided for you. You can visit these sites to get a gist of
common family law issues. These websites also provide further tabs and links to other resources that
can assist you.
• http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/aboutus/pages/index.aspx; and
• http://oregonlawhelp.org/issues/family/child-custody-and-parenting-time
Again, on behalf of the office, we thank you for choosing us to guide you in the right direction
with regards to any plan of action you may wish to pursue. Enclosed are (3) three business cards with
information on how to contact us. You are also welcome to contact me outside of business hours at any
time you feel comfortable at 503-555-8765.
Sincerely,
Lewis Castro
Paralegal to Henry Gonzalez
cc: File