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 report also noted that Sophia, the eight-year-old, had asked her mother why she couldn’t see Grandpa as much anymore.

Jessica’s response had been: “Because Grandpa doesn’t want to follow our rules.” The report cited.

Dr. Chen flagged this as concerning, noting that it falsely placed blame on the grandfather and could damage the child’s trust.

The trial was held on a Wednesday morning. The courtroom was small and wood-paneled, with fluorescent lights that gave everything a harsh clarity.

Jessica’s attorney called her as the first witness. She was polished, professional, and completely composed.

“Mrs. Thompson, can you explain why you felt it necessary to limit Mr. Thompson’s access to your children?” The attorney asked.

Jessica looked directly at Judge Hendris. “Robert has been wonderful with Sophia and Oliver. We’ve never questioned his love for them or his commitment.” She said.

“But as they’ve gotten older, we’ve needed to establish more structure and boundaries. When I proposed a compensation arrangement for scheduled visits, Robert responded with what I can only describe as financial intimidation.” She stated.

“You’re referring to the invoice for $247,000?” Her lawyer asked.

“Yes. These were gifts freely given over eight years. To suddenly claim they were loans or expenses requiring repayment is not only legally questionable, it shows a transactional approach to family relationships that concerns me.” She answered.

Frank cross-examined her. “Mrs. Thompson, before we discuss Mr. Thompson’s invoice, let’s discuss yours. You proposed a fee of $200 per visit. What was the basis for that amount?” He asked.

“Market research on comparable childcare and enrichment services in the Denver area.” She replied.

“So you assigned a market value to your children’s time with their grandfather?” Frank pressed.

She hesitated. “I was establishing the value of our time and disruption to our schedule.” She said.

“Did you consult with your husband before presenting this proposal to Mr. Thompson?” Frank asked.

“We discussed it.” She answered.

“Did he agree with it? That’s not what I asked. Did he agree with charging his father $200 per visit to see his own grandchildren?” Frank pushed.

Jessica’s composure cracked slightly. “We made the decision together.” She said.

Frank pulled out a document. “Your Honor, I’d like to submit a text message exchange between Michael Thompson and his father, dated three days after the fee proposal.” He stated.

In it, Michael apologizes to his father and says: “I tried to talk Jessica out of this, but she insists we need to establish boundaries. I don’t know what to do.” The message read.

Judge Hendris reviewed the message and admitted it. Frank continued.

“Mrs. Thompson, you’re an attorney. You understand the concept of good faith in family relationships. Do you believe demanding payment for grandparent access demonstrates good faith?” He asked.

“I was trying to establish appropriate boundaries by commodifying a relationship.” She started to answer, but her attorney objected. The point, however, was made.

I testified after lunch. Frank walked me through eight years of involvement: the weekly visits, the summer camps, the college funds, the fishing trips, the homework help, and the birthday parties.

“Mr. Thompson, why did you create an invoice in response to Mrs. Thompson’s fee proposal?” He asked.

“I wanted her to understand what she was doing. She was putting a price on something that should never have a price.” I explained.

“I thought if she saw the actual dollar value of our relationship—if she saw that I could play the same game—she’d realize how wrong it was.” I added.

“Did you actually intend to collect the $247,000?” He asked.

“No. I wanted to maintain a relationship with my grandchildren without paying a toll for access. The invoice was a mirror showing her the absurdity of her position.” I answered.

Frank showed me a photo. “Mr. Thompson, can you tell the court what this is?” He asked.

“It’s Oliver’s sixth birthday party. We built a volcano in my backyard. He’d been studying volcanoes at school and was fascinated by them.” I described.

“Jessica had wanted to hire a party entertainer, but Oliver specifically asked if I could help him build a volcano. We spent two weeks preparing. Twenty kids came to the party, and we set off the eruption. Oliver talked about it for months.” I recalled.

“And this one?” Frank asked, showing another photo.

“That’s Sophia at the science museum. She loves the planetarium. We have a monthly tradition: the first Saturday of every month, we go to the museum.” I said.

“She plans which exhibits she wants to see. We pack lunches and spend the whole day there. She’s been going since she was two months old.” I added.

Judge Hendris asked to see the photos. She looked through them for a long moment.

The hardest part was when Sophia and Oliver were called to testify. They didn’t come into the courtroom; Dr. Chen interviewed them privately in chambers, and the judge reviewed the recordings.

When the trial resumed, Judge Hendris looked tired.

“I’ve reviewed all the testimony, all the evidence, Dr. Chen’s evaluation, and the interviews with both children. This is one of the more unusual cases I’ve encountered, primarily because both sides have turned what should be a family relationship into a business transaction.” She began.

She looked at Jessica. “Mrs. Thompson, I understand you’re trying to establish boundaries as a parent. That’s your right and your responsibility.” She said.

“But your method of doing so, by assigning a monetary value to your children’s time with their grandfather, was frankly inappropriate and harmful.” She stated.

“Your children love their grandfather. They have a healthy, beneficial relationship with him. Your attempt to limit that relationship appears to be motivated more by conflict with your father-in-law than by any legitimate concern for your children’s welfare.” She added.

Then she looked at me. “Mr. Thompson, I understand why you created that invoice. I also understand it was primarily a rhetorical point.” She said.

“But you’re an adult, and you should have found a better way to handle this conflict than by mirroring behavior you found objectionable.” She noted.

She returned to her notes. “That said, the evidence overwhelmingly supports that Mr. Thompson has been an integral part of these children’s lives and that terminating or severely limiting that relationship would harm them.” She declared.

“Therefore, I’m granting Mr. Thompson’s petition for visitation rights.” She ruled.

Jessica sat up straighter.

“Specifically, Mr. Thompson will have visitation every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., one weeknight evening per week to be mutually agreed upon, and two weeks during the summer.” The judge ordered.

“This is a legal order. Violation of this order will result in contempt charges. Additionally, both parties will attend six sessions of family mediation to address communication and boundary issues.” She added.

She closed the file. “I hope both of you understand that these children are the ones who’ve been hurt by this conflict. They love both of you. They should never have been put in a position of being used as leverage in adult disputes. Court dismissed.” She concluded.

The first Saturday under the court order, I picked up Sophia and Oliver at 10:00 a.m. exactly. Michael answered the door; Jessica was nowhere to be seen.

“Hey, Dad. The kids have been ready since nine.” Michael said.

Sophia and Oliver came running. “Grandpa! Are we going fishing?” They yelled.