Who Pays Attorney Fees in a California Grandparent Visitation Case?

By H. William Edgar | Edgar & Dow

Families facing a California grandparent visitation case often ask whether the court can make the other side pay their attorney fees. The answer depends on the legal authority for a fee award and the type of case before the court. In a published appeal from Riverside County, Timothy S. v. Sarah H. (Nov. 3, 2026, D087153), the Court of Appeal held that Family Code § 7605 did not authorize an award of attorney fees and costs to a mother opposing a standalone grandparent visitation petition under § 3104.

I separate the visitation dispute from the cost of defending it. A parent can have a serious objection to visitation and still need a separate statutory basis for asking the other side to pay attorney fees. I want families to understand that distinction before they budget for the case.

What was the parent asking the court to pay?

A grandfather filed a petition for visitation with his two grandchildren under § 3104. Their mother opposed the request and asked for attorney fees and costs. The trial court entered an interim order for limited telephone contact and set the long-term visitation question for trial. It denied the mother’s fee request. On appeal, the mother argued that § 7605 gave the court authority to order the grandfather to contribute to the cost of her representation.

The appeal concerned fees and costs. The Court of Appeal affirmed the fee denial without deciding what long-term visitation arrangement the children should have. The merits of the visitation request and the source of authority for fees presented separate questions.

When does Family Code § 7605 apply?

Family Code § 7605 is part of California’s Uniform Parentage Act. It provides for need-based attorney fees and costs in qualifying proceedings to establish custody or visitation under that Act and in proceedings subsequent to a related judgment. When the statute applies, the court assesses access to counsel, financial disparity, and ability to pay. The scope of the statute comes first.

The grandfather brought his petition under § 3104, California’s separate grandparent visitation statute. The Court of Appeal held that his petition was outside the Uniform Parentage Act. The fact that the children’s parents had never married did not turn the grandfather’s statutory visitation request into a parentage proceeding. The identity of the parties, the nature of the petition, and the legal source of the requested relief all mattered.

Do earlier custody or parentage orders change the result?

The mother also argued that the grandparent visitation proceeding followed related parentage judgments. The juvenile court had made parentage determinations and issued custody and visitation orders in earlier dependency cases. The Court of Appeal held that those determinations and orders, on the record before it, were not related judgments under the Uniform Parentage Act for purposes of § 7605.

A prior court order can establish who has custody or how a child spends time with a parent. Its significance for attorney fees depends on the proceeding that produced it and how it relates to the current request. For a family with a history of multiple cases, the court papers may refer to parentage and custody in several places. Counsel needs to identify which orders were entered, under what authority, and which proceeding the current petition belongs to.

Does a difference in income decide who pays?

In a proceeding covered by § 7605, financial disparity and access to representation can drive a need-based fee decision. In the standalone § 3104 proceeding in Timothy S., § 7605 did not reach the case. Evidence that one party needed help paying counsel could not supply that missing statutory authority.

A parent or grandparent may understandably expect that the person who initiated the dispute, has greater resources, or loses the visitation hearing will bear the other side’s bills. Each of those assumptions can affect how someone budgets for the case. A court order requiring one party to contribute to another party’s fees depends on the legal basis for the award. It is sensible to understand how your own representation will be paid while the case is pending, even when a fee request is under consideration.

Does the decision address every possible basis for fees?

The published decision resolves the mother’s claim under § 7605. She did not challenge the trial court’s treatment of §§ 2030 and 2031 on appeal. Those provisions concern fee requests in proceedings such as dissolution, legal separation, and nullity. Whether any other authority applies depends on the type of proceeding, who is involved, and what relief is being sought. A grandparent’s request arising in a pending divorce presents a different procedural setting from the standalone § 3104 petition in Timothy S..

Litigation fees are also a different expense from transportation or other costs of carrying out an actual visitation schedule. If a proposed arrangement involves significant travel, those expenses may be important to the family even when the immediate dispute concerns who will pay for counsel. The court’s authority to address each expense depends on the applicable law and the issues before it.

Related custody and visitation articles

Read Can Grandparents Get Court-Ordered Visitation in California? for the differences between §§ 3103 and 3104, and Grandparent Visitation After a Parent Dies in California for § 3102 and the rights of a surviving parent.

Explore the California Child Custody and Visitation Library for related articles on grandparents and other family circumstances.

Speak with Edgar & Dow

If you are considering a grandparent visitation petition or have been served with one, contact Edgar & Dow to schedule a consultation. We can assess the visitation issue, review any related cases, and discuss the potential cost of the proceeding and whether the circumstances support a request for fees.