However, the Supreme Court did say that the lower court applied the statute incorrectly. because it presumed that the grandparents' request for additional visitation was in the children's best interests, rather than presuming that the parent was acting in the best interests of her children in refusing the grandparents more than brief visits. This led the lower court judge to conclude that visitation should be granted unless the mother could prove that the additional visits would have an adverse impact on the children. The Supreme Court thought that this approach did not adequately protect a parent's fundamental right to make decisions for her children.

How the Troxel Decision Affects Other States

Many states have permissive visitation laws similar to Washington's. These states don't see grandparent or caretaker visitation as a severe restriction on the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children. Instead, they classify visitation as only a slight burden on that right. Therefore, the states need only justify the burden with a "rational" reason. Preserving the right of children to maintain strong bonds with their grandparents generally qualifies as such a reason.

In addition, the Court in Troxel appeared to be swayed by the fact that the mother was not seeking to cut off the grandparents' visitation entirely. Instead, she chose to limit the visitation to one, nonovernight visit per month, plus some special holidays. If the mother had tried to bar the grandparents from visiting their grandchildren completely, it is possible that the Court would have reached a different conclusion.

Buy it now! Building a Parenting Agreement That Works: How to Put Your Kids First When Your Marriage Doesn't Last by Mimi E. Lyster.

Reprint permissions

« prev  1 2 3  next »