Law & Justice
Grandfather’s Petition for Regular Visits Limited to Five‑Minute Monthly Call; Court Denies $17,193 Legal‑Fee Claim
A grandfather who had cared for his granddaughter for almost two years sought court‑ordered visitation after the children’s mother regained custody. He filed a petition under Section 3104 of California’s Family Code in April 2024, requesting one weekend visit and two dinner visits each month, plus weekly video calls. The mother opposed the request, arguing that the grandfather had no substantial relationship with the children. The trial court granted only a five‑minute telephone call with the children each month and scheduled a hearing for a longer‑term arrangement.
The mother also asked the court to award her $17,193 in attorney’s fees and costs incurred while opposing the grandfather’s petition. The trial court denied the request, holding that the fee‑shifting provision of the Uniform Parentage Act did not apply to a grandparent visitation proceeding.
On November 3 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the lower court’s denial. The appellate judges explained that the grandfather’s petition was filed under Section 3104, which is separate from the Uniform Parentage Act, and therefore the statutory fee‑shifting rule in Family Code Section 7605 could not be invoked. They also rejected the mother’s argument that the dispute should be treated as arising from earlier juvenile dependency proceedings, noting that those proceedings serve a different legal purpose.
The appellate court upheld the denial of the $17,193 fee claim and directed both parties to bear their own appeal costs. The ruling addressed only the fee issue; it did not resolve the grandfather’s request for regular visitation. The case is available on Justia under case number D087153.
Frequently asked questions
What was the outcome of the grandfather's visitation petition?
The court granted only a five‑minute telephone call each month and scheduled a hearing for a longer‑term arrangement.
Why was the mother’s $17,193 attorney‑fee claim denied?
Because the fee‑shifting provision of the Uniform Parentage Act does not apply to a grandparent visitation proceeding under Section 3104, so the statutory fee‑shifting rule could not be invoked.
What did the appellate court decide regarding the fee claim?
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the $17,193 fee claim and directed both parties to bear their own appeal costs.