When Sarah H. regained custody of her two children in August 2021, her father‑in‑law, Timothy S., had spent almost twenty‑four months caring for the eldest child. The mother, who was never married to Timothy’s son, had placed the children under her sole physical custody and shared legal custody with their father.
In April 2024, Timothy filed a Section 3104 petition seeking one weekend and two dinner visits per month, plus weekly video calls. The court, however, only granted a five‑minute monthly phone call and scheduled a hearing for a longer‑term arrangement.
Sarah sued for $17,193 in attorney fees, citing costs incurred in opposing the visitation request. The trial court rejected the claim, citing that fee‑shifting statutes apply only to Uniform Parentage Act cases, not to Section 3104 petitions.
On November 3, 2026, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision, explaining that Timothy’s petition fell under the grandparent provisions of the Family Code, which are excluded from Section 7605. The judges highlighted the distinction between juvenile dependency proceedings and grandparent visitation cases.
The ruling leaves the visitation dispute at the same impasse; the parties will now negotiate or seek a new hearing, while the children, aged five and two, continue to live solely with Sarah.