Opinion ID: 2516375
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Court Ordered Grandparent Visitation

Text: ¶ 5 Grandparent visitation was recently addressed by the United Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). In Troxel, the biological parents of two daughters were never married. After the parents' separation, the father lived with his parents, and the daughters visited their paternal grandparents often. After the father committed suicide, the paternal grandparents petitioned the court for visitation with their granddaughters. The mother did not oppose visitation but wanted more limited visitation than the grandparents requested. The lower court granted grandparent visitation. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. ¶ 6 The United Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of section 26.10.160(3) of the Revised Code of Washington which allowed any person at any time to obtain visitation rights whenever the visitation was in the child's best interest. The United Supreme Court invalidated the statute finding that it impermissibly interfered with the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. Troxel, 530 U.S. at ___, 120 S.Ct. at 2060. ¶ 7 The decision was based on several factors. First, the grandparents did not allege and the lower court did not find that the mother was unfit. Id. at 2061. The Court elaborated: [S]o long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children. Id. Second, the lower court gave no special weight at all to [the mother's] determination of her daughters' best interests. Id. at 2062. Third, the lower court placed the burden on the mother to show that grandparent visitation would not be in her daughters' best interest. Id. Fourth, the lower court did not invoke the traditional presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of his or her child. Id. [A] court must accord some special weight to the parent's own determination. Id. Fifth, the mother allowed some visitation with the grandparents. Id. at 2062-63. However, the Supreme Court refused to consider whether, under the United States Constitution, a showing of harm or potential harm to the child [is] a condition precedent to granting [non-parental] visitation. Id. at 2063. ¶ 8 The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in Troxel. The mother in Troxel was the surviving parent of a child whose father was deceased as is Kristina Nesvold, Joshua's surviving parent. As in Troxel, Karen Sue Neal has not alleged and no court has found that Kristina Nesvold is an unfit mother or that the children will suffer harm without court ordered grandparent visitation. Even though the mother in Troxel allowed some visitation and the Nesvolds oppose any visitation, this one factor does alter the Troxel decision's application to the present case. This analysis is even more compelling as applied to Whitney and Hunter who are living with both biological parents and both parents oppose grandparent visitation. We find under Troxel, grandparent visitation in the present case violated Kristina Nesvold's federal constitutional rights as the mother of Joshua, Whitney, and Hunter and Keehan Nesvold's constitutional rights as the father of Whitney and Hunter.