Troxel v. Granville
Jennifer Troxel couldn't prevent the tears from rolling down her face as she walked in the front door. They had just returned home from Brad's funeral, and the house seemed empty without him. She couldn't believe he was gone, and her mind refused to wrap itself around how they had lost their beloved son. Jennifer knew Brad had feeling a bit down recently, but suicide? Her heart was devastated. She couldn't help but wonder if she could have prevented it. After all, Brad had been living at home for the last few years, and she saw him daily. How had she missed the signs?
But the past was the past, and she couldn't change the reality that her son was gone. Although she dearly missed him, and deeply mourned his loss, she was thankful her granddaughters lived near by and would still be over to visit, just like when Brad was alive. Those sweet, precious girls were a piece of Brad she could hold onto.
* * * * *
Tommie Granville could almost hear the wedding bells ringing at her and Kelly Wynn's future wedding. Tommie and Kelly both had children from previous relationships and anticipated some adjustment as they blended their respective families, but life was great! They were in love; they had wonderful children, supportive extended family and couldn't have been happier! Tommie's girls would continue to visit their father at his parent's house, where he lived, every other weekend. During the week they would be with Tommie and Kelly. Having both a step-father and a father would certainly be an adjustment for Tommie's daughters, but it was one they were confident would work out because Kelly loved those girls dearly, and both Tommie and Kelly were committed to giving those girls the very best love and home they could possibly provide.
The news of Brad's suicide changed everything.
Losing their father had been hard Tommie's daughters, so at first Tommie decided there was no need to disrupt the schedule they were so used to. The girls continued to visit their grandparent's home, just like when Brad was alive.
But Brad's absence was hard on the girls. Tommie's daughters had lost their father, and were about to gain a step-dad. She began to think if it would be best for the girls to begin establishing a more solid father-daughter relationship with Kelly, now that Brad was gone. Certainly Brad wasn't someone to forget, and she had no intention of pushing his parents out of the girl's lives. It was clear Grandma Jennifer loved those girls so dearly! Tommie knew that her girls were blessed to have grandparents who loved them so much. Tommie decided to talk with Jennifer about her decision that the girls spend more of their weekends with their own family. Kelly began making plans to formally adopt the girls he had grown to love.
When the doorbell rang that evening, Jennifer was getting fresh cookies out of the oven. It had been five months since her son's death, and it felt like eternity between visits with her granddaughters.
Jennifer opened the door and the girls ran to her. "Grandma!" they exclaimed, as their little arms granted an invitation for anyone to hug them. Jennifer bent down so those arms could be filled. "Isabelle! Natalie! I'm so happy you're here to visit again! I have cookies in the kitchen, but you can only have one until after youve had your dinner."
Jennifer rose to her feet and said "Thanks, Tommie" as she reached for the girls backpack. "You have no idea how much this time with the girls means to us." Her eyes got misty as they listened to the childlike discussion over which cookies were the cream of the crop.
Tommie realized all over again just how difficult this conversation was going to be.
"Jennifer, can I come in for a minute" Tommie began. "I have something I need to talk to you about."
Jennifer felt like she had been punched in the stomach. She could hear the girls giggling in the other room as Tommie and she sat at the kitchen table in silence. After all she had been through, how could Tommie now want to take away their granddaughters as well! Sure, they were still going to come visit, but Jennifer so cherished being able to spend those weekends with the girls. They had been a part of Jennifer's home on those weekends for so long, how would Tommie just tear them away from her like this? And what about the girls? Certainly they loved visiting, and always had so much fun! It was wrong for Tommie to deny them that chance to know Brad's family. These were her grandkids! Her flesh and blood!
Tommie knew this would not be easy. Nothing in the last few months had been easy when it came to the lingering effects of Brad's death. But Tommie knew this was best for the girls, for their adjustment to life as it was, and to their future as a family.
Jennifer had gone around and around with Tommie about visitation schedules. Jennifer thought they weren't visiting enough. Tommie firmly believed Jennifer was being unrealistic in her expectations. Jennifer's requests were demanding and detracting from their family life. It was totally out of balance. While Tommie was certainly sympathetic to Jennifer's desire to see the girls, and understood the feeling of loss now that the girls were not visiting with their father, her responsibility as a mother was to do what was best for the girls, not what was best for Jennifer.
But the last thing Tommie expected when she opened the door that December evening was to see a Sheriff Deputy standing on her porch. "Good evening, m'am" he began "I have some papers for you; if you could just sign here please." He held out a clipboard and a pen. "You've been served."
Tommie thanked the man and closed the door. It didn't take long for Tommie to realize Jennifer was suing her for visitation of the girls.
Jennifer wanted two weekends (with overnights) per month, and two full weeks in the summer. Tommie believed one short visit per month (no overnights) was entirely reasonable and best for the girls. Initially, "The court finds that the children's best interests are served by spending time with their mother and stepfather's other six children." However, the court made a "Solomon-like midway compromise" and said the girls would visit their grandparents one weekend a month (overnight) one week in the summer, and four hours of visitation on both grandparents' birthdays, and that notice of the girls activities be given to the grandparents, and ordered a "nickname" may not be used when addressing one of the girls.
Initially they were in the
Washington Superior Court.
Tommie appealed to the
Washington Court of Appeals.
The
Court of Appeals sent the case back to
Superior Court resulting in the above decision.
The
Court of Appeals then heard the case and Tommie won.
Jennifer, now the "loser" appealed to the
Washington Supreme Court and lost.
Jennifer then appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States. (SCOTUS)
(Confused yet?)
* * * * *
"We'll hear argument now. Jennifer Troxel v. Tommie Granville. Mr. Olson, I believe you are representing Mrs. Troxel. We are ready to hear your arguments."
The time was upon them. The SCOTUS was hearing the case deciding this case. Tommie and her attorney had been successful in saying the court had wrongfully interfered with her decision as a parent. Would the SCOTUS agree?
Mr. Olson stood and began. "This case was decided in the best interest of the child. The intrusion in our case is slight and does not interfere with a parent's fundamental right to raise their child. There is no intrusion on a religious belief, right to educate or any other matter. There is no parental decision that is beyond government regulation, and this decision is in the best interest of the child. Even the Mother has stipulated that visitation is in the children's best interest..." Mr. Olson's argument was broken into by one of the Justices.
"And you say the State can regulate just whenever it's in the best interest of the child?? So if the parent says
"no candy" the state says oh that's unreasonable, just give the kid some candy once a week, on Friday's, or whatever. That would be very little intrusion. Do you think the state can tell a parent that's in the "best interest of a child" according to ONE JUDGE who sits as the agent of the state and likes candy?"
Mr. Olson answered the Court's question and continued to be bombarded with a number of follow up questions by the various Justices.
Tommie's attorney rose to her feet when it was her time to speak and was immediately presented with questions from the court. She spoke confidently as she explained why parents, and not the court, should have the right to make day-to-day decisions regarding their own children.
"The best interest of the child standard should be the flip side of the harm to a child" standard. If I want my child to play football instead of the violin, you as a non-parent may disagree that my choice is "best", but as long as the outcome of that choice isn't harmful, that choice rightfully belongs to the parent."
Justice O'Connor collected her thoughts before delivering the opinion of the Court. "Unfortunately," she says "the members of this Court were no more able to reach a resolution then were the parties to the case."
There are six different opinions from nine Justices: Four for the majority and two concurrences in support of Tommie. Of the three Justices who dissent ("disagree"), their reasons include a lot of legal semantics, more then any actual disagreement, (Author note: That's a very large generalization on my part).
However, what we are left with is the SCOTUS decision in Troxel v. Granville, which says clearly that as long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family. The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a "better" decision could be made.
In other words, as long as you're being a good parent, the state can't tell you what is "better" for your children simply because they disagree with your decision, so long as you aren't harming your child.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nothing I say is legal advice, and be aware that I took some writers liberty to develop the story. However, I believe Justice Scalia deserves credit for the "candy analogy." He cracked me up throughout the
oral arguments! (His "candy analogy" can be heard at 6:55-7:22, 14:20-14:30, 15:50-16:00 and 47:50-48:00).
I would encourage you to read the
Troxel v. Granville decision for yourself.
I also really liked
this article on the topic of parents and grandparents rights.
