Opinion ID: 2244544
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Langman Petition

Text: Amy and Rhett Langman were married and had two children, T.L., born September 3, 1995, and P.L., born June 25, 1998. Rhett died on September 20, 1998. Prior to Rhett's death, his parents, Rita and Brent Langman (Rita and Brent), maintained a close relationship with their grandchildren, seeing the children two to three times a month. Immediately after Rhett's death, Rita and Brent continued this relationship by baby-sitting the children each Tuesday night so that Amy could attend social activities. Rita and Brent asked Amy for more time with the children, including overnight visits. Amy rejected the idea and told Rita and Brent that she was unhappy with their refusal to follow her directions when they baby-sat the children. Amy also explained to Rita and Brent that she was uncomfortable with their home environment and the children's exposure to their uncle's lifestyle. Amy agreed to visitation, but she demanded Rita and Brent visit the children at her home, while she was present. Unable to resolve their differences, Rita and Brent filed a petition in the circuit court of Kankakee County for grandparent visitation under section 607(b)(1). The petition stated, in part: That it is in the minor children's best interest that the Petitioners [Rita and Brent] be allowed specific visitation with them outside of the presence of the Respondent [Amy] in order to further and foster the close family relationship that they previously shared and in order that they grow up sharing the love and concern of their father's family as well as that of their mother. After Rita and Brent filed their petition for visitation, Amy moved to Missouri, six hours away from Rita and Brent, with the children to make a fresh start, telling Rita and Brent, I don't come back for my own family and I don't come back for my friends. On March 17, 1999, at the hearing on the petition for visitation, 17 witnesses testified. Additionally, the parties submitted written closing arguments to the court, which included suggested visitation schedules. On August 2, 2000, the trial court issued its order with an accompanying memorandum. In its memorandum, the trial court stated: [T]estimony revealed the mother is a loving caring mother who wishes to protect her children from exposure to things she feels are in appropriate [ sic. ]    All of the parties are responsible, moral and caring people. The children's mother does not object to visitation but only on her terms, which appear to be supervised visits in her presence. This is a particularly difficult case because all of the parties believe they are doing what is in the best interest of the children. The Court can not do more than balance the right of the parent and grandparents. The State of Illinois has sought to protect relationships children have with their grandparents yet it also must protect the rights of a parent to whose preliminary right and responsibility it is to care for and nurture their children. The real test, in the best interest of the children, is the test that must be applied here. It has been the law of Illinois for over 30 years that when considering the best interest of the children the Court must look at `all matters that have a bearing upon the welfare of the child.' The trial court continued: [T]here is a strong indication that unsupervised grandparental visitation would be of great benefit to the children. Their father is deceased, his surviving family is the only connection the children can have with those who had an intimate and close family relationship. The trial court ordered visitation, beginning gradually with afternoon visits, and eventually leading to unsupervised visits one full weekend each month. The trial court ordered that Amy split the costs of transportation with Rita and Brent. Further, the trial court ordered telephone contact one day a week for up to 15 minutes. Amy appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court order. 325 Ill.App.3d 101, 108, 258 Ill.Dec. 816, 757 N.E.2d 505. Citing to Troxel and Lulay, the appellate court held that section 607(b)(1) of the Act, as applied in this case, unconstitutionally infringed on Amy's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children. 325 Ill.App.3d at 107, 258 Ill.Dec. 816, 757 N.E.2d 505. The appellate court declined to consider whether section 607(b)(1) is facially unconstitutional. 325 Ill.App.3d at 107, 258 Ill.Dec. 816, 757 N.E.2d 505. We granted Rita and Brent's petition for leave to appeal and consolidated these cases.