Bains v. Kaur CA3

Filed 1/26/26 Bains v. Kaur CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

SURINDER SINGH BAINS, C103190

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23FL04686)

v.

SANDEEP KAUR,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Surinder Singh Bains appeals from the trial court’s order denying his request for grandparent visitation. Defendant Sandeep Kaur (mother), the mother of his granddaughter with his son (father), objected to plaintiff’s request. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We adopt the facts from the trial court’s order on plaintiff’s request for grandparent visitation because the record does not contain the motions or a reporter’s transcript of the hearing.

1

“For 34 years, [plaintiff] has been incarcerated for first degree murder. [Plaintiff] testified that, during [f]ather’s parenting time, he has FaceTime calls with the minor child . . . . These calls began in 2021, when the child was 2 years old. The calls ceased from May 2023 until December 2023, and then resumed. [Plaintiff]’s declaration states, consistent with his testimony [at the hearing], that he desires to be involved in his granddaughter’s life, and he enjoys their regular FaceTime calls. [Plaintiff] testified that he is concerned that [m]other may cut off his contact with the child. [Plaintiff] seeks an order requiring grandparent visitation of at least two Face[T]ime calls per week as well as in-person visits at the prison. Mother opposes the request. Father [was] not present at th[e] hearing. Although [f]ather’s counsel makes legal arguments on [father]’s behalf, and counsel represents that [f]ather supports [plaintiff]’s request, [f]ather has submitted no evidence of a bond between the child and [plaintiff], nor how visitation serves her best interests. Nor is there evidence that the balance of parental rights tips toward ordering the child to have twice-weekly FaceTime visits or in-person visits with [plaintiff] over [m]other’s opposition.” Accordingly, the trial court denied plaintiff’s request for grandparent visitation. Plaintiff appeals. DISCUSSION Plaintiff contends the trial court erred because it did not give enough weight to the wishes of father, who had shared physical and legal custody of his granddaughter, and instead deferred to the wishes of mother. We disagree. Plaintiff based his request for visitation on Family Code1 section 3104, which permits the trial court to grant reasonable visitation rights to the grandparent if the court (1) “[f]inds that there is a preexisting relationship between the grandparent and the