Opinion ID: 2791466
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The right to familial association

Text: General restrictions on contact with children do not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary in an ordinary case where a defendant has committed a sex offense against children or other vulnerable victims. United States v. Smith, 606 F.3d 1270, 1282–83 (10th Cir. 2010). “But restrictions on a defendant’s contact with his own children are subject to stricter scrutiny,” United States v. Bear, 769 F.3d 1221, 1229 (10th Cir. 2013), because “the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected,” and “a father has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining his familial relationship with his [children],” United States v. Edgin, 92 F.3d 1044, 1049 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the importance of this liberty -37- interest, “special conditions that interfere with the [parental] right of familial association can do so only in compelling circumstances,” and must “be especially fine-tuned to achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing.” Bear, 769 F.3d at 1229 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. White does not claim to have any minor children. Thus, the issue presented turns on the degree to which conditions of supervised release may intrude on his familial association with his minor grandchildren and nieces.19 To put our analysis in context, we first address the scope of the parental right to familial association. We then explore the extent to which similar rights have been afforded to other family members. Finally, we apply that jurisprudence to the facts of this case and conclude the record must be developed on remand to resolve this issue. The liberty interest parents have in the care, custody, and control of their children is a substantive due process right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000). Indeed, it “is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental 19 The government contends that the constitutional right of familial association is limited to parent/child relationships. In the district court, Mr. White made no attempt to address that argument or to define the rights enjoyed by grandparents or uncles. In this court, he addressed these issues only by supplemental authority filed prior to oral argument. Ordinarily, arguments inadequately briefed in an appellant’s opening brief are waived. United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011). But we have vacated Mr. White’s sentence and remanded this case for resentencing on other grounds. Under these circumstances, both Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) provide a vehicle for Mr. White to request modification of the conditions of supervised release even if he has waived his challenge for purposes of this appeal. We therefore depart from our usual practices with respect to preservation only to assist the district court on remand. -38- liberty interests recognized by [the Supreme] Court.” Id. The Court first held the Due Process Clause protects a parent’s substantive right to “establish a home and bring up children” and “to control the education of their own” in Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923). Shortly thereafter, it held restrictions on the “liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control” are unconstitutional. Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534–35 (1925). The Court reaffirmed this right in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944), and more recently announced “it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.” Troxel, 530 U.S. at 66.20 20 See, e.g., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (“In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the ‘liberty’ specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] ... to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children.” (citations omitted)); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982) (discussing “[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child”); Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979) (“Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course.”); Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978) (“We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected” because the right to “custody, care and nurture of the child reside[s] first in the parents.”); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232 (1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) (“It is plain that the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children ‘come[s] to this Court with a momentum for respect lacking when appeal Continued . . . -39- Although the Supreme Court has also recognized familial rights in persons other than parents, the parameters of that interest are less well-defined. Compare Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 496, 505–06 (1977) (rejecting argument that right of familial association is limited to parents and striking as unconstitutional a city zoning ordinance subjecting grandmother to prosecution for living with her son and two grandsons, one of whom was the child of her deceased daughter), with Troxel, 530 U.S. at 60–61 (2000) (holding unconstitutional a state statute allowing the court to order minor children to exercise visitation with grandparents, over a fit parent’s objection). In Trujillo v. Board of County Commissioners, this circuit held that a mother and a sister of an adult decedent could bring a § 1983 wrongful death claim based on the loss of their constitutional right to familial association. 768 F.2d 1186, 1188–89 (10th Cir. 1985). Citing Moore, we explained that the liberty interest in familial relationships includes interests “other than strictly parental ones,” which could include grandparent-grandchild relationships. Id. at 1188; see also Suasnavas v. Stover, 196 F. App’x 647, 657 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (relying on Trujillo in upholding the denial of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action based on child welfare workers’ violation of the grandparents’ clearly established constitutional right of familial association). But when grandparents are not playing any sort of custodial role, we have not afforded their right to familial association ______________________________________ Cont. is made to liberties which derive merely from shifting economic arrangements.’” (citation omitted)). -40- the same degree of protection as a parental right. Trujillo, 768 F.2d at 1189 (“[T]he parental relationship . . . warrant[s] the greatest degree of protection and require[s] the state to demonstrate a more compelling interest to justify an intrusion on that relationship” than intrusions on other familial relationships.); Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen, 710 F.3d 1168, 1175 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining in dicta that “[w]hen extending the right [of familial association] to grandparents, however, courts often consider whether the grandparents are ‘custodial figure[s]’ or ‘acting in loco parentis,’ and ‘whether there is a potential conflict between the rights of the [grandparent] and the rights or interests of the [child’s] natural parents.’” (citations omitted) (second, third, and fourth alterations in original)).21 21 This approach is consistent with that adopted by other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of Cincinnati, 310 F.3d 484, 499–501 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that a grandparent has a due process right of familial association with her grandchildren if she participates in child-rearing, for instance as an active participant in the lives and activities of her grandchildren with the consent and support of the children’s mother, even if the grandmother might not have had a due process right if she had only visited the grandchildren); Miller v. California, 355 F.3d 1172, 1175–76 (9th Cir. 2004) (ruling that grandparents have no substantive due process right to family integrity and association relative to grandchildren because they had not formed a family unit, the grandchildren were effectively wards of the state, and the grandparents’ interests conflicted with that of the children’s mother); Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 796 (9th Cir. 1995) (rejecting an argument that a biological grandmother had a constitutional interest in the adoption or society of her grandchildren where she had only maintained occasional contact with her grandchildren and lacked any emotional, financial or custodial history with them); Ellis v. Hamilton, 669 F.2d 510, 512–14 (7th Cir. 1982) (ruling that a plaintiff who was a child’s great-aunt, adoptive grandmother, de facto mother and father, and custodian had a due process right to associate with the child). -41- These authorities lead to the conclusion that while a special condition of supervised release may only infringe on the parental right to familial association if there are compelling circumstances, a non-custodial grandparent’s right to familial association is entitled to less constitutional protection. If Mr. White chooses to pursue this argument on remand, it will be his burden to demonstrate the nature of his relationship to his grandchildren and nieces. The district court is free to consider the degree to which that relationship resembles a parental one and impose conditions of supervised release accordingly. We do note, however, that the district court has already identified several facts relevant to this determination. Specifically, the district court noted that Mr. White’s seven-year-old victim was “close to a relative” and someone he considered “like a daughter.” Although the court acknowledged the rehabilitative benefits of access to family, it explained that the conditions did not forbid Mr. White from association with his family. Instead, they merely required Mr. White to obtain prior permission and to be appropriately supervised when in the presence of children. The district court further clarified that the supervising adult could be a relative. We agree that the specific circumstances identified by the district court here are relevant, and that they are likely sufficient to justify restrictions on a non-custodial grandparent’s right to familial association. But if Mr. White’s familial relationships are custodial, more information may be necessary. In reversing special conditions of supervised release that infringed on the defendant’s parental right of familial association -42- in Bear, we noted the government had presented no evidence that “in the twelve years since Mr. Bear’s sex offense conviction he has committed any sexual offense, displayed a propensity to commit future sexual offenses, or exhibited a proclivity toward sexual violence.” 769 F.3d at 1229. And we further stated there was no evidence in the record that Mr. Bear had “continuing deviant sexual tendencies, fantasizes about having sex with children, or has otherwise displayed a danger to his own . . . children.” Id. In light of our decision in Bear, the district court may need to consider the length of time since Mr. White’s original conviction and any relevant information predictive of his future conduct when deciding on conditions of supervised release. On remand, the district court should consider the nature of Mr. White’s relationship with his grandchildren and nieces and afford him a level of constitutional protection directly proportional to the significance of that liberty interest. The district court should also enter specific findings justifying any conditions of supervised release that infringe on a protected right of familial association. If a parent-like right is impacted, the conditions must be supported by express findings of compelling circumstances.