By H. William Edgar | Edgar & Dow
When a parent dies, visits with that parent’s family may change overnight. The surviving parent may want the children to have more time at home while they adjust. Grandparents who once saw the children every week may wonder whether those visits will continue. California Family Code § 3102 gives certain relatives of the deceased parent a way to ask for reasonable visitation. When a fit surviving parent already allows meaningful contact, a court must give special weight to that parent’s decisions about when and how visits occur.
In a consultation after a death, I ask what contact the child had before the loss and what contact the surviving parent allows now. That gives us a clearer picture of what a proposed schedule would change for a child who is already adjusting to a loss.
Under Family Code § 3102, the deceased parent’s children, siblings, parents, and grandparents can ask for reasonable visitation with an unemancipated minor child. That includes the child’s grandparents on the deceased parent’s side and can also include other relatives, such as the deceased parent’s sibling. For an applicant other than the child’s grandparent, the statute directs the court to consider the amount of personal contact before the request. An adoption by someone other than the child’s stepparent or grandparent makes § 3102 inapplicable and automatically terminates existing visitation rights granted under it.
The statute concerns time with the child. If a grandparent needs authority to enroll a child in school, consent to medical treatment, or make decisions about where the child lives, that raises a custody or guardianship question. Our guide to who gets custody when a parent dies in California explains how the surviving parent’s rights and an existing guardianship may affect those decisions.
A fit parent has a constitutional right to make decisions about the care and upbringing of their children. In Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, the U.S. Supreme Court plurality emphasized that a court must give special weight to a fit parent’s visitation decision. That principle matters when California courts apply § 3102. A judge’s belief that more grandparent time would be beneficial is insufficient to override the surviving parent’s decision.
In Balandran v. Balandran (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 858, the Court of Appeal applied that principle where a fit surviving mother already allowed meaningful visitation. The grandparents had to show by clear and convincing evidence that the visitation the mother allowed was detrimental to the children. That inquiry focused on the effect of the parent’s actual arrangements on the children, including the visits that continued without a court order.
After the children’s father died, his parents asked the court for a regular, enforceable visitation schedule. Their mother had arranged visits voluntarily and wanted to continue doing so without a court-imposed schedule. The trial court granted the grandparents’ request, relying in part on an approximately 80-day period without visits and the importance of the grandparents’ role in keeping the children connected to their father’s memory.
The Court of Appeal looked at what happened before and after the gap. It occurred early in the family’s bereavement, amid concerns about COVID-19. Regular visits resumed and continued for more than a year before trial. The appellate court found the record insufficient to show that the mother’s arrangement harmed the children or that she was likely to deny them reasonable contact in the future. It reversed and directed the trial court to deny the petition.
The decision matters to both sides. A grandparent may want the predictability of set weekends, holidays, or overnights. A parent may choose shorter visits that fit around school, activities, and the children’s adjustment. When meaningful visits are already happening, the court has to consider how the existing arrangement is working for the children. A disagreement over the calendar alone falls short of the showing required in Balandran.
California courts applying § 3102 have also considered cases in which a fit parent denies visitation. As Balandran explains, overcoming the presumption favoring a fit parent’s decision requires clear and convincing evidence that denial of visitation would be detrimental to the child. The loss of an established relationship can matter, particularly if the grandparents were a consistent part of the child’s life before the death. The court still considers the effect on the child and gives the parent’s decision special weight.
The circumstances of the interruption matter. A child who spent several days a week with a grandparent for years and then lost all contact presents a different question from a child whose visits paused briefly while the family adjusted and later resumed. A family argument may explain the timing, but the legal question centers on the child’s experience. An abrupt change in routine, the loss of a trusted caregiver, and opportunities for contact that are actually available can all help explain what changed.
Conditions may address concerns about driving, supervision, who will be present, or how a visit fits into the child’s schedule. The practical effect matters. A daytime visit with reasonable arrangements may preserve a child’s relationship even when the grandparents had hoped for overnights. An offer with terms that make visits practically impossible may present a different question. Courts look at the family’s actual circumstances when evaluating whether the contact the parent permits is meaningful.
A surviving parent may also have a protective order or an existing guardianship to consider. The language and scope of any operative order can affect what the family can arrange and which court should address the issue. If an order already gives a grandparent visitation in their own right, its terms deserve separate review. A grandparent who previously saw the child during the deceased parent’s parenting time should distinguish that arrangement from an independent visitation order.
Some families can agree on a few regular visits, calls, or occasions that matter to the child. A predictable plan can help a child keep a connection with the deceased parent’s family while settling into a new routine. It can also give the surviving parent flexibility for school, counseling, travel, or time with siblings. A family may start with a schedule that works for the next few months and revisit it when the child’s needs or living arrangements change.
An agreement is most useful when everyone understands what it covers. For instance, a monthly visit may answer the immediate question of whether contact will continue, while leaving holiday plans to be discussed when the family is ready. Where communication is strained, a neutral mediator may help the adults discuss visitation without putting the child in the middle. If the family needs an enforceable arrangement or has safety concerns, the options depend on the circumstances and any existing orders.
Read Can Grandparents Get Court-Ordered Visitation in California? for the rules that apply when both parents are living, including §§ 3103 and 3104. For a separate question about litigation costs, see Who Pays Attorney Fees in a California Grandparent Visitation Case?.
Explore the California Child Custody and Visitation Library for related articles on grandparents and other family circumstances.
If you are a grandparent trying to preserve contact after a death, or a surviving parent responding to a request for a court-ordered schedule, contact Edgar & Dow to schedule a consultation. We can review the child’s existing arrangements and any court orders and assess how California law applies to the visitation request.
© Copyrights 2026 Edgar & Dow. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
*Images are obtained under license from Canva and other third-party stock image providers, with attribution included where required.
Digital Marketing by
