Troxel V. Granville

1. A scrutinized look Troxel V. Granville

2. The Parties • In the matter of visitation of Natalie Anne Troxel & Isabelle Rose Troxel • Plaintiff: Jenifer & Gary Troxel (Grandparents) • Defendant: Tommie Granville (Mother) • Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel (parents) • Had a relationship but never married; Split in 1991 • Had two children Natalie & Isabelle • After the split, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought his daughters over for weekend visitation • Brad committed suicide in May 1993

3. Causes of the action • After Brad’s death in May 1993 the Troxel’s regularly saw their grandchildren • They did not stay overnight • In October 1993, Granville (Wynn) informed the Troxels that she wished to limit visitation to one short visit per month. • The Troxel’s denied her offer. • Between October & December they did not see the girls. • They resumed regular visitation in April 1994 after a temporary visitation order was put in place when the Troxels began proceedings in December of 1993

4. The Trial • December 1994, the girls were ages 3 & 5 • The Troxels request • Two weekends per month of overnight visitation • Two weeks of visitation every summer • Granville's offer • One day of visitation each month with no overnight stay • Suggested the Troxel’s participate in Granville’s holiday celebrations

5. The Ruling • The court ruled • One weekend per month • One week during the summer • Four hours on the birthdays of each of the Troxel’s • "I look back on some personal experiences . . . . We always spent as kids a week with one set of grandparents and another set of grandparents, and it happened to work out in our family that it turned out to be an enjoyable experience. Maybe that can, in this family, if that is how it works out."

6. The Appeal • Granville appealed the decision • Findings (questions) of fact • Question about the activities that took place between the parties that caused them to go to court can only be appealed when the jury is plainly wrong as a matter of law. • Conclusions (questions) of law • Questions relating to the application or interpretation of law • At this time she also married Kelly Wynn who adopted both girls about nine months after the ruling

7. The Appeal cont. • Granville’s claim • Argues that the Troxels lack standing to petition for visitation • The Troxels counter • That the plain meaning of RCW 26.10.160(3) allows them to so petition for such visitation • RCW 26.1.160(3) • 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 personwhen visitation may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances. • Wisconsin statute §767.43 (effective Jan 1st, 2007) • Upon petition by a grandparent, great grandparent, stepparent or person who has maintained a relationship similar to a parent-child relationship with the child, the court may grant reasonable visitation rights to that person if the parents have notice of the hearing and if the court determines that visitation is in the best interest of the child.

8. Granville’s Challenges • That her husband's adoption of both girls eliminates the Troxels' right to petition for visitation • She also claims that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to follow the recommendations of her expert witnesses • She argues that the visitation statute impermissibly interferes with parents' constitutionally protected interest in child-rearing • She also claims that, in determining the best interests of the child in a nonparental visitation proceeding, a court's inquiry should be whether failure to order visitation would be detrimental to the child's development

9. Appellate decision • They reversed the visitation decree and dismissed the Troxels' petition for visitation. • ". . . 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 children's [sic] nuclear family. The court finds that the children's [sic] best interests are served by spending time with their mother and stepfather's other six children." • ELLINGTON, Judge, dissenting (disagree). • I must respectfully disagree with the majority's construction of the statute involved here, I therefore dissent.

10. Courts statement • 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."

11. Troxel’s petition for review • The Washington Supreme Court granted the Troxels' petition for review • The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals' decision on the statutory issue • They agreed with the Court of Appeals' ultimate conclusion that the Troxels could not obtain visitation of Isabelle and Natalie • The court rested its decision on the Federal Constitution, holding that § 26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children

12. Washington Supreme Court • There were two main reasons they affirmed (approved) the decision • The Constitution permits a State to interfere with the right of parents to rear their children only to prevent harm or potential harm to a child. • Section 26.10.160(3) fails that standard because it requires no threshold showing of harm • Second, by allowing "`any person to petition for forced visitation of a child at any time with the only requirement being that the visitation serve the best interest of the child," the Washington visitation statute sweeps too broadly. • "It is not within the province of the state to make significant decisions concerning the custody of children merely because it could make a `better' decision.” (referring to the judges personal experiences)

13. Justices Scalia’s opinion • Judicial vindication of "parental rights" under a Constitution that does not even mention them requires not only a judicially crafted definition of parents, but also--unless, as no one believes, the parental rights are to be absolute--judicially approved assessments of "harm to the child" and judicially defined progression of other persons who may have some claim against the wishes of the parents. If we embrace this right, I think it obvious--whether we affirm or reverse the judgment here, or remand as Justice Stevens or Justice Kennedy would do--that we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment below.

14. Justice Thomas’s Opinion • Consequently, I agree with the plurality that this Court's recognition of a fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children resolves this case. Our decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S 510 (1925), holds that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to rear their children, including the right to determine who shall educate and socialize them. On this basis, I would affirm (approve) the judgment below.

15. Justice O’Connor’s Opinion • 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 (14th Amendment) to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters. Held: The judgment is affirmed.

16. References • http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15519861446754282201&hl=en&as_sdt=400000000000002&as_vis=1 • http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-138