My Daughter-in-law Billed Me $200 To See My Grandkids. As A Retired Cpa, I Sent Her A Counter-invoice For $247,900. Who Is The Greedy One Now?

The next week, Jessica sent a formal letter. It was addressed to me, with copies to Michael’s email, and it was on her law firm’s letterhead.

The letter stated that due to boundary violations and an unwillingness to respect parental authority, my visitation would be limited.

It would be restricted to Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, supervised by either Michael or Jessica, with a duration not to exceed two hours per visit.

I forwarded it to Frank. His response was brief. “File the petition. I’ll have it ready by tomorrow.” He said.

The petition for grandparent visitation rights was filed on a Friday. By Monday, Jessica had responded with her own attorney, a partner at her firm who specialized in family law.

The first hearing was procedural. The judge, a woman in her 50s named Patricia Hendris, reviewed the petitions and set a timeline for discovery and mediation.

Jessica’s attorney, a sharp-eyed man named Richard Pollson, was aggressive from the start.

“Your Honor, this is a clear case of a grandparent overstepping boundaries and attempting to use legal action to force access to children against the wishes of their parents.” He argued.

“Mr. Thompson’s petition mentions an invoice he presented to my clients, which amounts to financial coercion.” He added.

Frank stood up. “Your Honor, Mr. Thompson’s invoice was a direct response to an invoice presented to him by Mrs. Thompson, demanding payment for visitation.” He stated.

“Our position is that Mr. Thompson has been an integral part of these children’s lives since birth, providing not just emotional support but substantial financial support for their education, enrichment, and care.” He continued.

“The sudden termination of this relationship, motivated by Mrs. Thompson’s demand for payment, would cause significant psychological harm to the children.” He concluded.

Judge Hendris made notes. “We’ll address the invoices and the financial aspects during discovery. For now, I’m ordering a child psychologist evaluation and setting mediation for six weeks from today.” She ruled.

“Until then, the existing visitation schedule remains in place.” She added.

Jessica stood up. “Your Honor, we object to maintaining the current schedule!” She exclaimed.

“Noted and overruled. The children have an established relationship with their grandfather. Absent evidence of harm, which you haven’t presented, that relationship continues pending resolution.” The judge stated.

The mediator was a retired family court judge named Samuel Cohen. He met with all of us in a conference room at the courthouse.

“Let’s start with what everyone wants. Mrs. Thompson?” He asked.

Jessica had her lawyer face on. “We want Robert to respect our boundaries as parents. We appreciate his involvement in the past, but we need to establish appropriate limits going forward.” She said.

“And those limits include a $200 fee per visit?” Cohen asked.

Jessica didn’t flinch. “That was a proposal to establish the value of disruption to our family schedule and the opportunity cost of alternative arrangements.” She replied.

“Mr. Thompson?” Cohen turned to me.

“I want to continue being part of my grandchildren’s lives the way I have been for eight years. I want to take them to museums, go fishing, help with homework, and be their grandfather.” I stated.

“I don’t want it commodified with fees and contracts.” I added.

Cohen looked at Michael. “And you, Mr. Thompson?” He asked.

Michael looked exhausted. “I want my kids to know their grandfather. I want my dad in their lives, but I also need to support my wife, even when she’s wrong.” He admitted.

Jessica’s head snapped toward him. “I’m not wrong!” She snapped.

“You’re trying to buy access to our children!” She yelled at me.

“I’m trying to maintain a relationship that you’re destroying because you decided to assign it a dollar value. You’re the one who made this about money, Jessica.” I replied.

Cohen held up his hand. “Let’s look at the facts. Mr. Thompson, you’ve been consistently involved in these children’s lives for eight years. You’ve provided financial support, time, and care.” He summarized.

“Mrs. Thompson, you decided to change the terms of that arrangement by requiring payment for access. Mr. Thompson responded with documentation of his own expenses. Does that summarize it?” He asked.

Both Jessica and I nodded.

“Here’s my assessment: Mrs. Thompson, you’re a lawyer. You know that grandparents’ rights cases hinge on the best interests of the child and the existence of an established relationship.” He began.

“Your husband’s father has clearly established that relationship. Your fee proposal, regardless of how you frame it, looks retaliatory and punitive.” He noted.

“Mr. Thompson, your invoice, while I understand the motivation, also looks retaliatory. Neither of you is helping these children.” He paused.

“Here’s my recommendation: Mrs. Thompson, you withdraw the access fee. Mr. Thompson, you withdraw the invoice.” He suggested.

“Both of you acknowledge that the past eight years of support and involvement were given and received in good faith as part of a family relationship. Moving forward, Mr. Thompson maintains regular visitation, with specifics to be determined, with no fees on either side.” He concluded.

Jessica’s attorney leaned over to whisper to her. She shook her head.

“We decline. We’re willing to offer supervised visitation twice a month, two hours per visit, no fee required.” She stated.

Frank looked at me, and I nodded. “We decline. We’re proceeding to trial for full visitation rights.” He said.

The Best Interests of the Children

Judge Hendris set the trial for eight weeks out. In the meantime, the child psychologist, Dr. Sarah Chen, conducted her evaluation.

She spent time with Sophia and Oliver, interviewed me, interviewed Michael and Jessica, and reviewed all the documentation. Her report was filed three days before the trial.

Frank sent me a copy. Dr. Chen’s assessment was clear: both children had a strong, healthy attachment to their grandfather.

They spoke enthusiastically about time spent with him, referenced specific activities and memories, and showed no signs of distress or confusion about the relationship.

In her professional opinion, terminating or severely limiting the relationship would cause psychological harm to both children.