Opinion ID: 3168760
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: With regard to any application made

Text: pursuant to this section, it shall be prima facie evidence that visitation is in the child’s best interest if the applicant had, in the past, been a full-time caretaker for the child. As the Court noted in Moriarty, supra, the “structure [of N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1] underscores the fact-sensitive nature of the inquiry by detailing seven particularized considerations for the court and instructing the court to consider as well, ‘any other factor’ relevant to the child’s best interests.” 177 N.J. at 100. By virtue of its intrusion on parental autonomy, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 implicates due process principles. Federal jurisprudence, reaffirmed over nearly a century, recognizes that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the “right[] . . . to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2267, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772, 787 (1997); see also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232-33, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 154142, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 35 (1972). In actions based upon state grandparent visitation statutes, parents have invoked this constitutional principle. See, e.g., McGarity v. Jerrolds, 429 S.W.3d 562, 566 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013); Blixt v. Blixt, 774 14 N.E.2d 1052, 1056 (Mass. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1189, 123 S. Ct. 1259, 154 L. Ed. 2d 1022 (2003). In Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court sustained a due process challenge to a “breathtakingly broad” state statute that authorized any person to seek visitation of a child based solely on a judicial determination that such visitation was in the child’s best interests. 530 U.S. 57, 6668, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2060-61, 147 L. Ed. 2d 49, 57-58 (2000). A plurality of the Supreme Court declined to adopt a per se ban on state statutes allowing nonparent visitation, or to determine a standard of review for such statutes. Id. at 73-74; 120 S. Ct. at 2064, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 61-62. Instead, the Supreme Court generally reaffirmed that by virtue of a fit parent’s fundamental due process right to raise his or her children, the parent is entitled to a presumption that he or she acts in the best interests of the child, and that the parent’s determination whether to permit visitation is entitled to “special weight.” Id. at 67-69; 120 S. Ct. at 2062-63, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 57-59. The Supreme Court held that the parties seeking visitation had failed to overcome the presumption that the parent’s decisions were in the child’s best interests. Id. at 69-70, 120 S. Ct. at 2062, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 59. The Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel, in which the constitutionally infirm statute required no showing of harm, set 15 the backdrop for this Court’s review of New Jersey’s Grandparent Visitation Statute in Moriarty. There, the Court considered a surviving parent’s appeal from a trial court’s order compelling the parent to cooperate with grandparent visitation after the death of their daughter, who was the mother of the grandchildren. Moriarty, supra, 177 N.J. at 92-94. The defendant parent asserted that in light of Troxel, N.J.S.A. 9:2- 7.1 was unconstitutional and that any order of visitation entered pursuant to that statute was invalid. Id. at 94-95. This Court acknowledged that when the Legislature prescribed a cause of action for grandparent visitation of minor children in N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, it created a statutory remedy unrecognized at common law. Id. at 95 (citations omitted). It cited the United States Supreme Court’s case law with respect to a due process right to parental autonomy, and noted that New Jersey courts have “recognized unfailingly that deeply embedded right in our jurisprudence as well.” Id. at 102 (citing Watkins v. Nelson, 163 N.J. 235, 245 (2000); V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200, 217-18, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 926, 121 S. Ct. 302, 148 L. Ed. 2d 243 (2000); In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 346 (1999)); see also Fawzy v. Fawzy, 199 N.J. 456, 473 (2009) (noting primary role of parents in raising their children is “established beyond debate as an enduring tradition to which we have unflinchingly given voice”). In light of N.J.S.A. 9:2- 16 7.1’s infringement on the fundamental right to parental autonomy, this Court held in Moriarty that the statute is subject to strict scrutiny and is only constitutional if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. 177 N.J. at 103 (citing Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. at 720-21, 117 S. Ct. at 2268, 138 L. Ed. 2d at 787-88; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 155-56, 93 S. Ct. 705, 728, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 178 (1973); Brown v. City of Newark, 113 N.J. 565, 573 (1989)). Applying strict scrutiny to N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, the Court in Moriarty concluded that the need to avoid harm to the child is “the only state interest warranting the invocation of the State’s parens patriae jurisdiction to overcome the presumption in favor of a parent’s decision and to force grandparent visitation over the wishes of a fit parent[.]” Id. at 115. The Court held that absent a showing that the child would suffer harm if deprived of contact with his or her grandparents, the State could not constitutionally infringe on parental autonomy. Ibid. The Court, therefore, augmented the statutory bestinterests benchmark with a threshold determination of harm: [I]n every case in which visitation is denied, the grandparents bear the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that visitation is necessary to avoid harm to the child. The grandparents’ evidence may be expert or factual. For example, they may rely on the death of a parent or the 17 breakup of the child’s home through divorce or separation. . . . In addition, the termination of a long-standing relationship between the grandparents and the child, with expert testimony assessing the effect of those circumstances, could form the basis for a finding of harm. [Id. at 117.] The Court held that when grandparents present a showing of harm, the presumption in favor of parental decision-making is overcome. Id. at 117-18. Following such a finding, the parent is obliged to offer a visitation schedule, and if the grandparents agree to that schedule, “that will be the end of the inquiry.” Id. at 117. If the parties are unable to agree on a visitation schedule, the trial court approves a schedule “that it finds is in the child’s best interest, based on the application of the statutory factors.” Ibid. (citing N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1). Applying that test to the case before it, the Court held that the trial court had “presaged our opinion by [its] finding that visitation with the grandparents was necessary to avoid harm to the children” and reinstated the trial court’s visitation order. Id. at 122. In several cases following Moriarty, this Court and the Appellate Division held that plaintiff grandparents had failed to make the requisite showing of harm. See New Jersey Div. of Youth and Family Servs. v. P.W.R., 205 N.J. 17, 38-39 (2011) (holding in context of abuse and neglect determination pursuant 18 to Title Nine, N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 to -8.73, grandfather failed to show mental or emotional harm to child as a result of restrictions on grandparent visitation); Rente v. Rente, 390 N.J. Super. 487, 494-95 (App. Div. 2007) (holding that, given parent’s willingness to allow monthly visits, grandmother failed to allege facts showing harm to child in absence of weekly visitation); Daniels v. Daniels, 381 N.J. Super. 286, 288-89 (App. Div. 2005) (affirming denial of grandparents’ application for visitation in absence of allegation or evidence of harm to child); Mizrahi v. Cannon, 375 N.J. Super. 221, 223-25, 232 (App. Div. 2005) (reversing grant of grandparent visitation after trial court addressed best interests test but omitted inquiry into harm to child). These decisions underscore the heavy burden on grandparents seeking to satisfy the threshold requirement of Moriarty. In short, N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1 and our case law mandate a meticulous, fact-specific analysis of each application for grandparent visitation. As the Appellate Division noted in R.K., supra, each action “brings to the court its own set of unique challenges.” 434 N.J. Super. at 151. In the wake of Moriarty, “potential harm to the child is the constitutional imperative that allows the State to intervene into the otherwise private and protected realm of parent-child relations.” Fawzy, supra, 199 N.J. at 476. Absent a showing that the child will 19 suffer harm if grandparent visitation is denied, a trial court may not mandate visitation pursuant to the best-interests factors of N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, and should dismiss the complaint.