Whether an undocumented and unaccompanied child may receive lawful permanent resident status in the United States?

The new form of relief available to undocumented and unaccompanied children is called Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. This form of relief is only the first step in obtaining lawful permanent residence. The procedure goes as follows: (1) first, the State that the unaccompanied child is residing in must issue a State Predicate Order; (2) then, the child must petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status; (3) finally, the child may receive lawful permanent residence instead of being sent back to his or her country of origin.

For undocumented and unaccompanied children to qualify for SIJS status, they must prove: (1) they are under 21 years of age; (2) unmarried; (3) dependent on a “juvenile court” or placed in custody of an individual or entity; (4) reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and (5) it is not in the best interests for the child to return to their home country.

This form of relief is important because even though border security policies have strengthened in the United States, SIJS remains an avenue for undocumented and unaccompanied children to receive lawful permanent residence. From my experience, these children have been exposed to many traumatic experiences. Some of these experiences include: complete abandonment from their parents, exposure to gang violence, and exposure to forced human trafficking. Although I believe that border security should be strengthened, I also believe that the United States should maintain an exception for these children. These children did not create the situations that they are in, they were born into these situations.

In conclusion, an undocumented and unaccompanied child may receive lawful permanent residence through the SIJS process.

Whether grandparents have a right to visitation of their grandchild whenever visitation may serve the best interests of the child?

Section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington permits “any person” to petition a superior court for visitation rights “at any time,” and authorizes that court to grant such visitation rights whenever “visitation may serve the best interest of the child. However, on June 5, 2000, the Washington Supreme Court held that §26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. Troxel v. Granville (2005).

            Parents have a fundamental right in the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel. Furthermore, the Washington State Supreme Court based its decision on two additional reasons. First, the Court held that a state can constitutionally interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child. Troxel. The statute at issue failed that standard because it requires no proof of harm to the child. Therefore, grandparents do not have a right to visitation simply because visitation will serve the best interests of the child. In addition, the Court held that the statute was too broad because it allows “any person to petition a superior court for visitation rights at any time.” This is unconstitutional because this means that the person requesting visitation might not be related to the child in any way.

            Therefore, rather than proving visitation is in the best interests of the child, a third-party must show that the child is likely to suffer harm or a substantial risk of harm if visitation is denied. My recommendation is that the Washington Legislature look to other jurisdictions to see how they have implemented their third-party visitation statutes and evaluate how effective they are. The reason for this is because there are certain circumstances where third-parties should have a right to visitation because they will be able to promote a child’s welfare by involving themselves in the child’s life. However, this will be impossible until the legislature formulates a new rule. For now, grandparents have no right to visitation solely because visitation will serve the best interests of the child.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton