Representative Image (AI-generated)
In April 2024, he filed a petition under Section 3104 of California’s Family Code, seeking court-ordered visitation. Of that amount, $7,193 represented expenses she had already paid when she submitted the request. She estimated that another $10,000 would be needed for continued preparation and proceedings.
Sarah challenged that decision, arguing that the grandfather’s petition fell under California’s Uniform Parentage Act and that she was therefore entitled to financial assistance under Family Code Section 7605. A grandfather who once helped raise his granddaughter for nearly two years found himself seeking court intervention to maintain contact with her after her mother regained custody. family dinners and weekly video calls, the court initially allowed him only a five-minute telephone conversation with the children once a month Although he requested regular visits. The dispute eventually reached California’s Court of Appeal, where a separate question about legal expenses became the central issue. When the juvenile court later ended its involvement in the children’s cases, it issued final custody and visitation orders. Sarah received sole physical custody of both children, along with shared legal custody with their father. The father was also granted supervised visitation. However, the grandfather wanted to maintain his relationship with the children. The trial court rejected her request, concluding that it did not have statutory authority to award attorney’s fees in a grandparent visitation case. The appellate court rejected this argument as well. It explained that juvenile dependency proceedings and Uniform Parentage Act cases serve different legal purposes. Dependency proceedings are initiated to protect children who may be at risk of harm and involve decisions about custody, parental rights and family reunification.
Sarah also argued that the visitation dispute should be treated as a proceeding arising from earlier parentage and custody judgments issued during the children’s juvenile dependency cases.
She requested $17,193 in attorney’s fees and costs. Because he had cared for her for almost two years, timothy argued that he had developed an established relationship with the older granddaughter. He also alleged that Sarah had refused to let him visit the children. His petition requested one weekend visit and two dinnertime visits every month, along with weekly video calls. Sarah opposed the request, arguing that her father-in-law did not have a substantial relationship with the children that justified court-ordered visitation. the trial court issued an interim order allowing Timothy one telephone call with the children each month While the long-term visitation dispute remained unresolved. The call was limited to five minutes. The court also scheduled a hearing to consider a longer-term visitation arrangement. Meanwhile, Sarah sought to recover the legal expenses she had incurred while fighting the grandfather’s petition.
Sarah H, issued on November 3, 2026, by California’s Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, is available on Justia under case number D087153. The appeal was brought by the children’s mother, who wanted the grandfather to pay $17,193 in attorney’s fees and legal costs she incurred while opposing his visitation petition. The ruling in Timothy S v. The appellate court upheld the lower court’s refusal to award the money, explaining that the law governing attorney’s fees in parentage proceedings did not apply to a separate petition for grandparent visitation.