Title: Malinowski v Farnam

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Malinowski v Farnam (2001-165); 174 Vt. 527; 811 A.2d 177

[Filed 27-Aug-2002]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-165

                             JANUARY TERM, 2002


  Andrea Malinowski	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
       v.	                       }	Bennington Family Court
                                       }
  William Farnam, Jr. and	       }
  Luella and William Farnam, Sr.       }	DOCKET NO. 276-10-00 Bndm

                                                Trial Judge: David Howard

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Andrea Malinowski, mother of two children, ages eleven and nine,
  appeals from an order of the Bennington Family Court, modifying but not
  eliminating a grandparent visitation order in favor of the paternal
  grandparents, Luella and William Farnam, Sr.  Mother challenges the
  constitutionality of Vermont's grandparent visitation statutes, 15 V.S.A.
  §§ 1011-1016.  We decline to reach the constitutional challenge and affirm.

       Mother and William Farnam, Jr., were married in 1990, and they were
  divorced in 1996 in New York, with mother receiving primary custody of
  their two children subject to father's visitation.  In October of 1997, the
  paternal grandparents petitioned for a visitation order pursuant to the New
  York grandparent visitation law.  At the time, mother lived with the
  children in Vermont, and father and the grandparents resided in New York. 
  In June 1998, all the parties settled the grandparent visitation proceeding
  by allowing the grandparents one week of visitation during each summer and
  one day of visitation during the father's weekend visitation on two
  weekends of each month.  The settlement was embodied in an order of the
  Rensselaer New York Family Court.

       Visitation occurred under the New York order until September 28, 2000,
  when mother filed a motion in the Bennington Family Court seeking to end
  grandparent visitation under the New York order.  Mother alleged that the
  grandparents were interfering with her parental decisions and that they
  failed to follow notification provisions in the order.  She further alleged
  that circumstances had changed since the time of the original order, in
  that at that time the father had not been communicating with the
  grandparents, while at the time of the motion the relationship was good and
  the grandparents could see the children during the father's scheduled
  weekend visits; that the schedule of visitation was difficult for the
  children; and that she had recently had a child of a new marriage and
  wanted the children subject to the order to spend more time with their new
  brother.  She never suggested that the grandparent visitation laws of
  Vermont or New York were unconstitutional.

 
     
       The court held hearings on the motion on February 28 and March 5,
  2001; the witnesses were mother, father and grandmother.  Following the
  evidence, the trial judge indicated that he was unsure of the standard for
  modification of a grandparent visitation order and invited the parties to
  address that question and any other by oral and written argument.  During
  the closing argument, mother's counsel made the following statement:

     Generally, regarding the best interest standard, your honor, and
    regarding the standards in this case, I think there is clearly,
    pursuant to the 14th Amendment due process clause, a component
    that provides heightened protection against governmental intrusion
    with certain fundamental rights, and I think this includes a
    parent's fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care
    and custody and control of their children.  This is not a
    grandparent's right but it's a parent's right.

     Andrea testified that she feels that this is no longer in the best
    interests of the children, and I think this court should place
    great weight on this testimony.  As it is - as I guess, first off,
    Andrea is fit to make that decision.  She is a parent that's fit
    to make - there's been no testimony that she's an unfit parent; so
    therefore, she's fit to make the decision as to what is in the
    best interest of her children

     And I would like the court [to] . . . have a case. . . .

     . . . .

     This is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in
    June.  It is not on all fours with this case.  This is a State of
    Washington case, but in some ways, it's even more of an extreme
    situation than we have here. . . .

     . . . .

     [The Supreme Court] held that the [grandparent visitation] statute
    in question is - unconstitutionally it infringes on a parent's
    fundamental right to rear their children.

     And some of the arguments they made earlier are the arguments that
    the court made; that is, that it violated the mother's right to
    make decisions regarding concerning the care, custody, control of
    her daughter.  It cited the 14th Amendment's due process clause
    which includes a parent's fundamental right to make decisions
    concerning the care, custody and control of their children.  And I
    believe that this court must consider that right when considering
    the criteria set out in our statute.
   
 

     Because any friction between the grandparents and the parents -
    and there seems to be friction both with Mrs. Malinowski and her
    ex-husband, with his parents.  Any infringement by the
    grandparents into their zone is an infringement of their
    fundamental right, my client's fundamental right, and it can only
    lead to the conclusion that it's not in the best interests of the
    children.

  The case that mother's counsel provided the court was Troxel v. Granville,