House committee hears hours of testimony on grandparents’ visitation bill; no immediate vote

The House Judiciary Committee held an extended hearing on Senate Bill 245, which would permit grandparents who already hold court-ordered visitation to petition a court to modify or revoke those visitation orders. Committee members did not vote on the measure and indicated they would take action at a later date after reviewing additional materials.

Senator Hodges, sponsor of the bill, told the committee the measure does not change parental custody rights and “is not about custody.” Hodges said the bill amends Georgia Code §19-7-3 to include grandparents among those who may petition to modify an existing grandparent-visitation order, noting the change grew from a constituent issue and a Court of Appeals decision (the Namdar case) that he described as limiting grandparents’ ability to seek modification.

Proponents described family situations they said the bill would address. Steve and Linda Smith, retired educators and grandparents, said their son died and their court-ordered visitation was later contested by the child's mother; they told the committee they had been repeatedly prevented from seeing their granddaughter and asked the legislature to allow grandparents who already have orders to seek modification. Steve Smith told the committee they “love our granddaughter” and said court-ordered visitation previously allowed regular contact. Theresa Garcia Robertson, an adoptive parent who had testified earlier on a different bill, and others also urged the committee to give grandparents a path to preserve established relationships after a parent’s death or other changes.

Opponents, including Shelley Namdar and Jane O'Brien, argued the proposal would risk infringing parents’ constitutional rights and invite repeated, expensive litigation. Namdar described a multi-year litigation experience that she said cost more than $150,000 in Georgia-related legal expenses and a prior New Mexico proceeding; she told the panel the modification that followed harmed her family's finances and stability and that the appellate court ultimately found the Georgia modification action was not permitted under the statute. O'Brien, testifying in opposition, said grandparent-initiated modification would present “a very real possibility” of constitutional problems and criticized the bill’s use of the term “good cause” as too vague.

Committee members asked a range of detailed legal questions about standing, burden of proof, and procedural safeguards. Family-law attorney Gary Graham, present with the sponsor, explained that the statute currently requires clear-and-convincing evidence that a child’s “health or welfare” would be harmed unless visitation is granted, and that the bill would leave the existing evidentiary standards intact while adding grandparents to the list of parties who may petition for modification. Multiple committee members probed whether the bill would survive constitutional scrutiny in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent protecting parents’ fundamental rights; Graham and the sponsor said the high evidentiary standard addresses that concern.

Several witnesses described the personal effects of litigation on children and parents. Shelley Namdar recounted that a two-week summer visit ordered by a trial judge allowed her son (who has autism and epilepsy) to be taken out of state despite her objections, and she said the proceedings and appeals had strained her family and depleted an insurance policy intended to provide for the children.

After extended questioning and public testimony from both sides, Representative Townsend said committee members would receive additional written materials and that the committee would take the hearing into account when scheduling further action. The committee did not vote on SB 245 at this session.