Supreme Court delivers narrow ruling on grandparents' visitation rights.

Calling a Washington state visitation rights law "breathtakingly broad," the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Troxel v. Granville that supports parents' rights to decide who sees their children but leaves it up to states to determine the circumstances of third-party visitation. (120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000).)

The plaintiffs, Jenifer and Gary Troxel, have granddaughters by their son, Brad, who committed suicide in 1993. The children's mother, Tommie Granville, never married their son but later married Kelly Wynn, who adopted the two girls. The Troxels spent every other weekend with the girls until Brad's death, then Tommie wanted to limit the time to "one short visit per month," they said.

The grandparents sued, and a Washington trial court judge ruled in their favor--though there was no finding that Tommie was an unfit parent--because under state law the court could grant visitation by finding it in the "best interests of the child."

All 50 states have visitation laws, but the Washington third-party visitation law is one of the broadest, allowing "any person" to petition for visitation rights "at any time" over the objections of the parents.

On appeal, the Washington State Supreme Court struck down the visitation statute as an unconstitutional infringement of parents' rights. It ruled the law was invalid on two grounds: that it was too broad and that the Constitution allows states to interfere with a parent's childrearing rights only to prevent harm or potential harm to the child.

The Supreme Court upheld the Washington court's ruling that the state law violated the due process rights of Granville to raise her children as she saw fit.

However, in the 6-3 majority opinion, the Supreme Court addressed only the "too broad" conclusion of the Washington court, leaving the "harm to the child" standard untouched.

"We do not consider the primary constitutional question passed on by the Washington Supreme Court [to be] whether the due process clause requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child as a condition precedent to granting visitation. We do not, and need not, define today the precise scope of the parental due process right in the visitation context," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, author of the main opinion, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The plurality said the Constitution "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."

O'Connor wrote, "So 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 child."

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and John Paul Stevens dissented. Scalia said there is no constitutional basis for parents' rights. Stevens said parental rights are not absolute; it is up to the states to decide their scope.

Family law practitioners say that the decision doesn't strike down third-party visitation statutes, but merely puts a higher burden of proof on third parties seeking visitation.

Cheryl Matheis, director of state legislation for AARP, formerly the American Association for Retired Persons, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Troxels, said the organization was pleased that the Court "moved very cautiously" and "did the right thing" in deciding the case. The Court made it clear it wasn't ruling on less broad statutes that exist in other states, but was specifically striking down the Washington law, and "it clearly left the door open for more narrowly drawn grandparent visitation statutes," Matheis said.

Because the Court didn't impose a stiffer standard on those seeking visitation rights by deciding whether a state law must require proof of harm, grandparents' rights groups say the decision is not a defeat for grandparents.

The decision reached a "middle ground recognizing changes in the American family," according to a Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund press release. Lambda heralded the ruling for not making broad legal pronouncements with adverse consequences for lesbian, gay, and other nonbiological parents, such as stepparents and other caregivers.