TROXEL v. GRANVILLE – Grandparents Rights


OCTOBER TERM, 1999

Syllabus

TROXEL et vir

v.

GRANVILLE

certiorari to the supreme court of washington

No. 99–138.

Argued January 12, 2000—Decided June 5, 2000

Washington Rev. Code § 26.10.160(3) permits “[a]ny person” to petition for visitation rights “at any time” and authorizes state superior courts to grant such rights whenever visitation may serve a child’s best interest.

Petitioners Troxel petitioned for the right to visit their deceased son’s daughters. Respondent Granville, the girls’ mother, did not oppose all visitation, but objected to the amount sought by the Troxels. The Superior Court ordered more visitation than Granville desired, and she appealed.

The State Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the Troxels’ petition.

In affirming, the State Supreme Court held, inter alia, that § 26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally infringes on parents’ fundamental right to rear their children. Reasoning that the Federal Constitution permits a State to interfere with this right only to prevent harm or potential harm to the child, it found that § 26.10.160(3) does not require a threshold showing of harm and sweeps too broadly by permitting any person to petition at any time with the only requirement being that the visitation serve the best interest of the child.

Held: The judgment is affirmed.

137 Wash. 2d 1, 969 P. 2d 21, affirmed.

Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer, concluded that § 26.10.160(3), as applied to Granville and her family, violates her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters. Pp. 63–75.

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e. g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651. Pp. 63–66. (emphasis added)

(b) Washington’s breathtakingly broad statute effectively permits a court to disregard and overturn any decision by a fit custodial parent concerning visitation whenever a third party affected by the decision files a visitation petition, based solely on the judge’s determination of the child’s best interest. A parent’s estimation of the child’s best interest is accorded no deference. The State Supreme Court had the opportunity, but declined, to give § 26.10.160(3) a narrower reading.

A combination of several factors compels the conclusion that § 26.10.160(3), as applied here, exceeded the bounds of the Due Process Clause.

First, the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. There is a presumption that fit parents act in their children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602; there is normally no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children, see, e. g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 304.

The problem here is not that the Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight to Granville’s determination of her daughters’ best interests. More importantly, that court appears to have applied the opposite presumption, favoring grandparent visitation. In effect, it placed on Granville the burden of disproving that visitation would be in her daughters’ best interest and thus failed to provide any protection for her fundamental right. The court also gave no weight to Granville’s having assented to visitation even before the filing of the petition or subsequent court intervention. These factors, when considered with the Superior Court’s slender findings, show that this case involves nothing more than a simple disagreement between the court and Granville concerning her children’s best interests, and that the visitation order was an unconstitutional infringement on Granville’s right to make decisions regarding the rearing of her children. Pp. 67–73.

(c) Because the instant decision rests on § 26.10.160(3)’s sweeping breadth and its application here, there is no need to consider the question whether the Due Process Clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation or to decide the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context. There is also no reason to remand this case for further proceedings. The visitation order clearly violated the Constitution, and the parties should not be forced into additional litigation that would further burden Granville’s parental right. Pp. 73–75.

Justice Souter concluded that the Washington Supreme Court’s second reason for invalidating its own state statute—that it sweeps too broadly in authorizing any person at any time to request (and a judge to award) visitation rights, subject only to the State’s particular best interests standard—is consistent with this Court’s prior cases. This ends the case, and there is no need to decide whether harm is required or to consider the precise scope of a parent’s right or its necessary protections. Pp. 75–79.

Justice Thomas agreed that this Court’s recognition of a fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing resolves this case, but concluded that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to infringements of fundamental rights. Here, the State lacks a compelling interest in second-guessing a fit parent’s decision regarding visitation with third parties. P. 80.

O’Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., post, p. 75, and Thomas, J., post, p. 80, filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., post, p. 80, Scalia, J., post, p. 91, and Kennedy, J., post, p. 93, filed dissenting opinions.

Mark D. Olson argued the cause for petitioners.

With him on the briefs was Eric Schnapper.

Catherine W. Smith argued the cause for respondent.

With her on the brief was Howard M. Goodfriend.*

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Washington et al. by Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, and Maureen A. Hart, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Washington et al. by Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, and Maureen A. Hart, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Bill Lockyer of California, Bill Lockyer of California, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Ken Salazar of Colorado, Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii, Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Carla J. Stovall of Kansas, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana,Joseph P. Mazurek of Montana,John J. Farmer, Jr., of New Jersey, John J. Farmer, Jr., of New Jersey,Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio,Betty D. Montgomery of Ohio, and Paul G. Summers of Tennessee and Paul G. Summers of Tennessee;;for AARP et al. by Rochelle Bobroff, for AARP et al. by Rochelle Bobroff, Bruce Vignery, Bruce Vignery, and Michael Schuster;and Michael Schuster;for Grandparents United for Children’s Rights, Inc., by Judith Sperling Newton and Carol M. Gapen; for Grandparents United for Children’s Rights, Inc., by Judith Sperling Newton and Carol M. Gapen; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowleyfor the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley and for the Grandparent Caregiver Law Center of the Brookdale Center on Aging. and for the Grandparent Caregiver Law Center of the Brookdale Center on Aging.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers by Barbara Ellen Handschu and Sanford K. Ain; for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sekulow, Colby May, Vincent McCarthy, and John P. Tuskey; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Matthew A. Coles, Michael P. Adams, Catherine Weiss, and Steven R. Shapiro; for the Coalition for the Restoration of Parental Rights by Karen A. Wyle; for the Institute for Justice et al. by William H. Mellor, Clint Bolick, and Scott G. Bullock; for the Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution by Michael P. Farris; for the Christian Legal Society et al. by Kimberlee Wood Colby, Gregory S. Baylor, and Carl H. Esbeck; for the Lambda Legal Defense

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers by Barbara Ellen Handschu and Sanford K. Ain; for the American Center for Law and Justice by Jay Alan Sekulow, Colby May, Vincent McCarthy, and John P. Tuskey; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Matthew A. Coles, Michael P. Adams, Catherine Weiss, and Steven R. Shapiro; for the Coalition for the Restoration of Parental Rights by Karen A. Wyle; for the Institute for Justice et al. by William H. Mellor, Clint Bolick, and Scott G. Bullock; for the Center for the Original Intent of the Constitution by Michael P. Farris; for the Christian Legal Society et al. by Kimberlee Wood Colby, Gregory S. Baylor, and Carl H. Esbeck; for the Lambda Legal Defense Opinion of O’Connor, J. Justice O’Connor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join. Opinion of O’Connor, J. Justice O’Connor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join.

Section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington permits “[a]ny 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.”

Section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington permits “[a]ny 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.”

Petitioners Jenifer and Gary Troxel petitioned a Washington Superior Court for the right to visit their grandchildren, Isabelle and Natalie Troxel. Respondent Tommie Granville, the mother of Isabelle and Natalie, opposed the petition.

The case ultimately reached the Washington Supreme Court, which held that § 26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children.

Petitioners Jenifer and Gary Troxel petitioned a Washington Superior Court for the right to visit their grandchildren, Isabelle and Natalie Troxel. Respondent Tommie Granville, the mother of Isabelle and Natalie, opposed the petition.

The case ultimately reached the Washington Supreme Court, which held that § 26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children.

I Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel shared a relationship that ended in June 1991. The two never married, but they had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad’s parents, and thus the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Natalie. After Tommie and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought his daughters to his parents’ home for weekend visitation. Brad committed suicide in May 1993.

Although the Troxels at first continued to see Isabelle and Natalie on a regular basis after their son’s death, Tommie Granville inand Education Fund et al. by Patricia M. Logue, Ruth E. Harlow, and Beatrice Dohrn; for the Society of Catholic Social Scientists by Stephen M. Krason and Richard W. Garnett; and for Debra Hein by Stuart M. Wilder. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Center for Children’s Policy Practice & Research at the University of Pennsylvania by Barbara Bennett Woodhouse; for the Domestic Violence Project, Inc. /Safe House (Michigan) et al. by Anne L. Argiroff and Ann L. Routt; for the National Association of Counsel for Children by Robert C. Fellmeth and Joan Hollinger; and for the Northwest Women’s Law Center et al. by Cathy J. Zavis.I Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel shared a relationship that ended in June 1991.

The two never married, but they had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad’s parents, and thus the paternal grandparents of Isabelle and Natalie. After Tommie and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought his daughters to his parents’ home for weekend visitation. Brad committed suicide in May 1993. Although the Troxels at first continued to see Isabelle and Natalie on a regular basis after their son’s death, Tommie Granville inand Education Fund et al. by Patricia M. Logue, Ruth E. Harlow, and Beatrice Dohrn; for the Society of Catholic Social Scientists by Stephen M. Krason and Richard W. Garnett; and for Debra Hein by Stuart M. Wilder.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the Center for Children’s Policy Practice & Research at the University of Pennsylvania by Barbara Bennett Woodhouse; for the Domestic Violence Project, Inc. /Safe House (Michigan) et al. by Anne L. Argiroff and Ann L. Routt; for the National Association of Counsel for Children by Robert C. Fellmeth and Joan Hollinger; and for the Northwest Women’s Law Center et al. by Cathy J. Zavis.

Opinion of O’Connor, J. formed the Troxels in October 1993 that she wished to limit their visitation with her daughters to one short visit per month.

In re Smith, 137 Wash. 2d 1, 6, 969 P. 2d 21, 23–24 (1998); Opinion of O’Connor, J. formed the Troxels in October 1993 that she wished to limit their visitation with her daughters to one short visit per month.

In re Smith, 137 Wash. 2d 1, 6, 969 P. 2d 21, 23–24 (1998); In re Troxel, 87 Wash. App. 131, 133, 940 P. 2d 698, 698–699 (1997).

In December 1993, the Troxels commenced the present action by filing, in the Washington Superior Court for Skagit County, a petition to obtain visitation rights with Isabelle and Natalie. The Troxels filed their petition under two Washington statutes, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.09.240 and 26.10.160(3) (1994).

Only the latter statute is at issue in this case. Section 26.10.160(3) provides: In re Troxel, 87 Wash. App. 131, 133, 940 P. 2d 698, 698–699 (1997). In December 1993, the Troxels commenced the present action by filing, in the Washington Superior Court for Skagit County, a petition to obtain visitation rights with Isabelle and Natalie.

The Troxels filed their petition under two Washington statutes, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.09.240 and 26.10.160(3) (1994).

Only the latter statute is at issue in this case. Section 26.10.160(3) provides:

“Any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time including, but not limited to, custody proceedings. The court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances.”

“Any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time including, but not limited to, custody proceedings. The court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances.”

At trial, the Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks of visitation each summer. Granville did not oppose visitation altogether, but instead asked the court to order one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. 87 Wash. App., at 133–134, 940 P. 2d, at 699.

At trial, the Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks of visitation each summer. Granville did not oppose visitation altogether, but instead asked the court to order one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. 87 Wash. App., at 133–134, 940 P. 2d, at 699.

In 1995, the Superior Court issued an oral ruling and entered a visitation decree ordering visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both of the petitioning grandparents’ birthdays.

In 1995, the Superior Court issued an oral ruling and entered a visitation decree ordering visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both of the petitioning grandparents’ birthdays. 137 Wash. 2d, at 6, 969 P. 2d, at 23; App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a–78a. 137 Wash. 2d, at 6, 969 P. 2d, at 23; App. to Pet. for Cert. 76a–78a.

Granville appealed, during which time she married Kelly Wynn. Before addressing the merits of Granville’s appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Superior Court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. 137 Wash. 2d, at 6, 969 P. 2d, at 23.

On remand, the Superior Court found that visitation was in Isabelle’s and Natalie’s best interests: Granville appealed, during which time she married Kelly Wynn.

Before addressing the merits of Granville’s appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Superior Court for entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law. 137 Wash. 2d, at 6, 969 P. 2d, at 23. On remand, the Superior Court found that visitation was in Isabelle’s and Natalie’s best interests:

“The Petitioners [the Troxels] are part of a large, central, loving family, all located in this area, and the Peti530US1 Unit: $U66 [10-22-01 17:41:36] PAGES PGT: OPIN 62“The Petitioners [the Troxels] are part of a large, central, loving family, all located in this area, and the Peti530US1 Unit: $U66 [10-22-01 17:41:36] PAGES PGT: OPIN 62

TROXEL v. GRANVILLE Opinion of O’Connor, J. tioners can provide opportunities for the children in the areas of cousins and music. “ TROXEL v. GRANVILLE Opinion of O’Connor, J. tioners can provide opportunities for the children in the areas of cousins and music. “

The court took into consideration all factors regarding the best interest of the children and considered all the testimony before it. The children would be benefitted from spending quality time with the Petitioners, provided that that time is balanced with time with the childrens’ [sic] nuclear family. The court finds that the childrens’ [sic] best interests are served by spending time with their mother and stepfather’s other six children.” App. 70a. The court took into consideration all factors regarding the best interest of the children and considered all the testimony before it. The children would be benefitted from spending quality time with the Petitioners, provided that that time is balanced with time with the childrens’ [sic] nuclear family. The court finds that the childrens’ [sic] best interests are served by spending time with their mother and stepfather’s other six children.” App. 70a.

Approximately nine months after the Superior Court entered its order on remand, Granville’s husband formally adopted Isabelle and Natalie. Id., at 60a–67a. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s visitation order and dismissed the Troxels’ petition for visitation, holding that nonparents lack standing to seek visitation under § 26.10.160(3) unless a custody action is pending.

In the Court of Appeals’ view, that limitation on nonparental visitation actions was “consistent with the constitutional restrictions on state interference with parents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” 87 Wash. App., at 135, 940 P. 2d, at 700 (internal quotation marks omitted). Approximately nine months after the Superior Court entered its order on remand, Granville’s husband formally adopted Isabelle and Natalie. Id., at 60a–67a.

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s visitation order and dismissed the Troxels’ petition for visitation, holding that non parents lack standing to seek visitation under § 26.10.160(3) unless a custody action is pending. In the Court of Appeals’ view, that limitation on non parental visitation actions was “consistent with the constitutional restrictions on state interference with parents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” 87 Wash. App., at 135, 940 P. 2d, at 700 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having resolved the case on the statutory ground, however, the Court of Appeals did not expressly pass on Granville’s constitutional challenge to the visitation statute. Id., at 138, 940 P. 2d, at 701. The Washington Supreme Court granted the Troxels’ petition for review and, after consolidating their case with two other visitation cases, affirmed.Having resolved the case on the statutory ground, however, the Court of Appeals did not expressly pass on Granville’s constitutional challenge to the visitation statute. Id., at 138, 940 P. 2d, at 701. The Washington Supreme Court granted the Troxels’ petition for review and, after consolidating their case with two other visitation cases, affirmed.

The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ decision on the statutory issue and found that the plain language of § 26.10.160(3) gave the Troxels standing to seek visitation, irrespective of whether a custody action was pending. 137 Wash. 2d, at 12, 969 P. 530US1 Unit: $U66 [10-22-01 17:41:36] PAGES PGT: OPIN Cite as: 530 U. S. 57 (2000) 63 Opinion of O’Connor, J. 2d, at 26–27.

The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ decision on the statutory issue and found that the plain language of § 26.10.160(3) gave the Troxels standing to seek visitation, irrespective of whether a custody action was pending. 137 Wash. 2d, at 12, 969 P. 530US1 Unit: $U66 [10-22-01 17:41:36] PAGES PGT: OPIN Cite as: 530 U. S. 57 (2000) 63 Opinion of O’Connor, J. 2d, at 26–27.

Advertisements

Discuss this post - Tell us your thoughts.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s