E.H.G. and C.L.G. v. E.R.G. and D.W.G.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/12/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2071061 E.H.G. and C.L.G. v. E.R.G. and D.W.G. Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-07-2224) Court PER CURIAM. In t h i s appeal, this court considers whether a circuit c o u r t may c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a w a r d g r a n d p a r e n t s v i s i t a t i o n with t h e i r g r a n d c h i l d r e n over t h e o b j e c t i o n o f the c h i l d r e n ' s f i t , 2071061 natural, 1 custodial parents convincing evidence cause the c h i l d r e n The The 1975, without providing clear t h a t the d e n i a l o f such v i s i t a t i o n substantial would harm. Alabama Grandparent V i s i t a t i o n Grandparent and Visitation Act ("the Act Act"), A l a . Code § 30-3-4.1, p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " ( b ) Except as o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n this s e c t i o n , any g r a n d p a r e n t may f i l e an o r i g i n a l a c t i o n f o r v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s to a minor c h i l d i f i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e m i n o r c h i l d and one o f t h e following conditions exist: " " ( 5 ) When t h e c h i l d i s l i v i n g w i t h b o t h b i o l o g i c a l p a r e n t s , who are still m a r r i e d to each o t h e r , whether or not t h e r e i s a broken r e l a t i o n s h i p between e i t h e r or I n Ex p a r t e D.W., 835 So. 2d 186 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t A l a . Code 1975, § 26-10A-30, w h i c h g r a n t s t o p r o b a t e c o u r t s t h e d i s c r e t i o n , b a s e d on t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d , to grant or m a i n t a i n v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s of the natural grandparents of an adoptee child, does not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n f r i n g e on t h e r i g h t s o f a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s . The court reasoned t h a t adoptive parents, u n l i k e n a t u r a l p a r e n t s , a c q u i r e o n l y s u c h c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s as a r e g r a n t e d by statute. Hence, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may v a l i d l y q u a l i f y t h o s e c u s t o d i a l r i g h t s , and w i t h h o l d f r o m a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s t h e r i g h t e n j o y e d by n a t u r a l p a r e n t s t o d e n y g r a n d p a r e n t visitation, w i t h o u t o f f e n d i n g due p r o c e s s . The h o l d i n g i n D.W. applies s o l e l y t o a d o p t i v e p a r e n t s and does n o t a d d r e s s t h e e x t e n t o f t h e power o f t h e s t a t e t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e grandparentv i s i t a t i o n d e c i s i o n s o f n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . H e n c e , we r e f e r i n t h i s case t o the fundamental r i g h t s of n a t u r a l p a r e n t s . 1 2 2071061 both parents of the minor and the g r a n d p a r e n t and e i t h e r o r b o t h p a r e n t s have used t h e i r p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y t o p r o h i b i t a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d and t h e grandparent. " " ( d ) Upon t h e f i l i n g o f an o r i g i n a l a c t i o n ... , the c o u r t s h a l l determine i f v i s i t a t i o n by the grandparent i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . V i s i t a t i o n s h a l l n o t be g r a n t e d i f t h e v i s i t a t i o n would endanger the p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of the c h i l d or i m p a i r the e m o t i o n a l development of the c h i l d . In d e t e r m i n i n g the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d , the court s h a l l c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g : "(1) The willingness of the grandparent or grandparents t o encourage a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e c h i l d and the parent or p a r e n t s . " ( 2 ) The p r e f e r e n c e o f t h e c h i l d , i f t h e c h i l d i s d e t e r m i n e d t o be o f s u f f i c i e n t maturity to express a preference. the " ( 3 ) The m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f child. " ( 4 ) The m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f the grandparent or grandparents. "(5) Evidence of domestic violence i n f l i c t e d by one p a r e n t upon t h e o t h e r parent or the child. If the court determines that evidence of domestic violence exists, visitation provisions s h a l l be made i n a manner p r o t e c t i n g t h e c h i l d or c h i l d r e n , p a r e n t s , or grandparents from f u r t h e r abuse. 3 2071061 "(6) Other r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n particular circumstances, including w i s h e s o f any p a r e n t who i s l i v i n g . " As construed parent who deciding the the by t h i s c o u r t , i n c o n s i d e r i n g " t h e w i s h e s o f is court l i v i n g , " pursuant to must presume the whether to allow interest of a c h i l d that grandparent and the § 30-3-4.1(d)(6), decision visitation c o u r t may of a serves 2d 178 (Ala. Civ. App. parent best award v i s i t a t i o n evidence overcoming t h a t presumption. So. the the when t h e p e t i t i o n i n g g r a n d p a r e n t a d d u c e s c l e a r and 826 any See 2002) only convincing L.B.S. v. L.M.S., (plurality opinion a u t h o r e d b y Thompson, J . , w i t h P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r r i n g ; Y a t e s , P.J., J., and M u r d o c k , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e r e s u l t ; and d i s s e n t i n g ) ; see 1039-40 ( A l a . C i v . App. Past The be a l s o J.W.J. v. Act allowed So. 2d 1035, 2007). T r e a t m e n t o f t h e Harm S t a n d a r d provides when P.K.R., 976 Crawley, that grandparent v i s i t a t i o n i t would i m p a i r the e m o t i o n a l endanger the physical development of a c h i l d , but should not health the Act or does not e x p r e s s l y r e q u i r e a p e t i t i o n i n g grandparent t o prove t h a t the d e n i a l of the requested child. I n R.S.C. v. v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d c a u s e harm t o J.B.C., 812 4 So. 2d 361 (Ala. Civ. the App. 2071061 2001) (plurality constitutionality then Judge opinion), a case considering o f § 30-3-4.1 as i t e x i s t e d Murdock s t a t e d i n t h e main before the 2003, o p i n i o n , which only Judge P i t t m a n j o i n e d , t h a t t h e s t a t e h a s a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t in preventing harm to children and that the A c t was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l because i t d i d n o t r e q u i r e p r o o f o f "harm o r potential allowed." harm to the c h i l d i f such visitation [was] not 812 So. 2d a t 372. A y e a r l a t e r , i n L.B.S. v . L.M.S., s u p r a , t h e c o u r t a g a i n addressed the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e pre-2003 A c t . Thompson, i n an o p i n i o n j o i n e d b y Judge P i t t m a n , Judge wrote: " [ A ] grandparent seeking v i s i t a t i o n bears the burden of showing, by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t the best i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d i s served by awarding grandparent visitation. We note t h a t harm o r d e t r i m e n t i s a l w a y s a f a c t o r t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n a best-interest analysis." 826 So. 2d a t 186. Judge M u r d o c k c o n c u r r e d i n t h e j u d g m e n t o f reversal only, stating: " I n g e n e r a l , t o f a l l w i t h i n t h e more l i m i t e d c l a s s o f cases t o which I b e l i e v e the statute c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y may be a p p l i e d , t h e r e must be a t h r e s h o l d s h o w i n g o f s u b s t a n t i a l harm t o t h e c h i l d i f t h e r e q u e s t e d v i s i t a t i o n i s n o t g r a n t e d , and t h i s s h o w i n g must be made b y c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence." 5 2071061 826 So. 2d a t 188. Murdock's P r e s i d i n g Judge Y a t e s c o n c u r r e d w i t h Judge reasoning. Id. As a result, a majority of the c o u r t a g r e e d t h a t t h e A c t c o u l d be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a p p l i e d i n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e p e t i t i o n i n g g r a n d p a r e n t p r o v e d by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g evidence t h a t a d e n i a l of the requested w o u l d c a u s e s u b s t a n t i a l harm t o t h e n.5. However, grandparent a majority visitation of the could child, court be 826 visitation So. d i d not awarded 2d a t agree solely s u b s t a n t i a l harm t o t h e E.D., 826 So. of L.B.S.). issued 2d 889 ( A l a . C i v . App. Nevertheless, concerning child. the I d . ; see the 2002) ( a d o p t i n g court a result a l s o A.M.K. v. reasoning i n t h e n e x t few o p i n i o n s t h i s Act, that upon s u f f i c i e n t showing t h a t the d e n i a l of v i s i t a t i o n would in 186 reversed court judgments awarding grandparent v i s i t a t i o n , or a f f i r m e d judgments d e n y i n g g r a n d p a r e n t v i s i t a t i o n , when t h e r e c o r d d i d n o t d i s c l o s e c l e a r and convincing evidence demonstrating s u b s t a n t i a l l y harmed i f v i s i t a t i o n B e c k , 865 with So. 2d 446, 449 Thompson, P i t t m a n , result; and Crawley, t h a t the c h i l d would was ( A l a . C i v . App. and J., denied. 2003) See (Yates, Murdock, J J . , c o n c u r r i n g dissenting) 6 (dicta); Beck be v. P.J., in the Richburg v. 2071061 Richburg, 895 So. C.D.P. v. D.P., In present No. 2d 927 311, 318 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 841 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e 1, p. 1084. As and 2005). amended t h e A c t t o i t s f o r m , as q u o t e d i n p a r t a b o v e . 2003-383, § 2004); A l a . A c t s 2003, A c t shown, t h e amended A c t d o e s not e x p r e s s l y r e q u i r e a p e t i t i o n i n g grandparent to prove that a c h i l d w o u l d be harmed i n o r d e r t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n that a f i t parent's d e c i s i o n regarding grandparent v i s i t a t i o n serves the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . 932 So. ("Dodd 2d 912 ( A l a . C i v . App. I " ) , Judge Thompson, maintenance 2005) P i t t m a n , i n an interpreted that I n Dodd v. B u r l e s o n , (plurality opinion omission, of the b e s t - i n t e r e s t joined as language, opinion) by well as a Judge as the legislative r e j e c t i o n o f t h e harm s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d i n L.B.S., 932 2d a t 919. does not Judge require prerequisite 932 So. P i t t m a n went on t o s t a t e t h a t due 2d a showing of harm in a t 920. However, t h e father process a l l cases t o a judgment a w a r d i n g g r a n d p a r e n t So. as a visitation. i n Dodd I h a d not p r e s e r v e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c h a l l e n g e t o t h e amended A c t , so the majority statements of the regarding court determined due-process 7 that Judge requirements Pittman's constituted 2071061 d i c t u m . 932 So. 2d a t 922-23 result, j o i n e d by B r y a n , the r e s u l t ) . (Crawley, P.J., c o n c u r r i n g i n the J . ; and M u r d o c k , J . , c o n c u r r i n g in L a t e r , on a p p e a l a f t e r remand, a m a j o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t m a i n t a i n e d t h a t t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r due p r o c e s s requires a decision showing regarding that of to overcome a f i t parent's g r a n d p a r e n t v i s i t a t i o n c o u l d n o t be d e c i d e d b e c a u s e issue Burleson, II") harm was not properly before 967 So. 2d 715, 726 (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g the court. ( A l a . C i v . App. Dodd 2007) v. ("Dodd i n t h e r e s u l t , j o i n e d b y B r y a n and Thomas, J J . ) ; s e e a l s o J.W.J., 976 So. 2d a t 1042 n.4 (noting t h a t the i s s u e remained undecided). The F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l The i s s u e now p r e s e n t s the context Circuit o f an a p p e a l Court visitation parents. over ("the the Briefly, from trial squarely court") objection f o r our review i n a judgment o f t h e of the underlying l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e trial itself History awarding grandparent f i t , natural, facts, Jefferson custodial when v i e w e d to the findings of fact entered in a by t h e c o u r t , show t h a t E.H.G. and C.L.G. ("the p a r e n t s " ) were m a r r i e d i n 1995 and t h a t t h e i r m a r r i a g e p r o d u c e d two c h i l d r e n , G.C.G., who was born i n 1996, a n d A.K.G., who 8 was born i n 2071061 1997. E.R.G. a n d D.W.G. ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s " ) what t h e t r i a l with c o u r t c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a l o v i n g the children f o r most testimony of several paternal grandmother"), of their witnesses indicates lives. that The D.W.G. ("the or acquiescence o f the parents, took a p a r t i c u l a r l y a c t i v e role rearing the children, between t h e c h i l d r e n friends. C.L.G. children blended were and t h e i r young, fostering extended testified mother's d e s i r e s . t h e time f a m i l y and that t h e two f a m i l i e s grandmother a s s e r t i n g the care o f the c h i l d r e n , relationships paternal together and had a c t e d as a s i n g l e paternal around including ("the m o t h e r " ) very with relationship t h e consent in largely young enjoyed when t h e had b a s i c a l l y unit, withthe a great deal of control over sometimes even i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e However, b e g i n n i n g i n t h e s p r i n g o f 2004, the paternal grandparents, s u p p o r t e d t h e p a r e n t s , began h a v i n g financial who h a d l o n g problems, t h e p a r e n t s began c u r t a i l i n g t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d r e n s p e n t w i t h t h e paternal grandparents. paternal grandparents, accurate, i n February withheld from According which thet r i a l 2005, a f t e r the parents t o the testimony the paternal t h e proceeds 9 court from found of to the be grandparents the sale o f 2071061 i n v e n t o r y from t h e b u s i n e s s and E.R.G. the paternal o p e r a t e d b y E.H.G. ("the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r " ) , grandparents The p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d the paternal hours children's parents terminated a f t e r three that g r a n d p a r e n t s have h a d l i t t l e the children since that communicating their t o the children's school p u b l i c events, The guidelines or four but they love petition, unconstitutional parents parents on i t s f a c e paternal placed signs f o r t h e c h i l d r e n on t h e a n d have s e e n t h e c h i l d r e n a t grandparents the months, t h e interaction with have filed a v i s i t a t i o n u n d e r t h e A c t on June 2 5 , 2007. the four as t o t h e The such as t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s o f t b a l l paternal their the c h i l d r e n t o no p e r s o n a l time, the c h i l d r e n . to resolve arrangement. continued route with to certain however, forbade i n an a g r e e m e n t a l l o w i n g to v i s i t subject care; with to family counseling grandparents p e r week, the parents from v i s i t i n g impasse, which r e s u l t e d t e m p o r a r i l y ("the f a t h e r " ) alleged games. petition seeking I n t h e i r answer t o that the and as a p p l i e d Act t o them. was The served the attorney general with t h e i r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge, and the attorney waived further p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the proceedings i n the t r i a l court. See A l a . 10 general 2071061 Code 1975, § 6-6-227. a guardian The t r i a l ad l i t e m t o r e p r e s e n t 1975, § 30-3-4.1(f). trial on A p r i l heard The t r i a l 29, 2008. testimony relatives, from friends, the Following the t r i a l , the t r i a l properly ad litem structured, monitored visitation court containing clearly May 30, 2008, See A l a . Code of of their received a report and i n i t i a l l y with the the p a r t i e s . h i s assessment arrangement court and i t examined defined, the t r i a l the t r i a l several the presence grandparents" would serve the best On and and a c q u a i n t a n c e s outside appointed c o u r t then conducted a bench parties i n camera guardian the c h i l d r e n . During that t r i a l , children the court subsequently the that from "a courtpaternal i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n . court entered a judgment c o n t a i n i n g d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. See A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 - 4 . 1 ( e ) . of law, the trial court In i t s conclusions stated: "The C o u r t t h e r e f o r e r e c o g n i z e s t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e [ p a r e n t s ' ] w i s h e s a r e p r e s u m e d t o be i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e i r c h i l d r e n . ... [The p a t e r n a l grandparents'] burden under the s t a t u t e i s t o thus overcome the said presumption, through the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t the [parents'] wishes t o t e r m i n a t e exposure o f t h e i r 11 2071061 c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r paternal grandparents i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e s a i d minor c h i l d r e n . " Among i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , the court determined: "4. The Court's interview of the said grandchildren leaves the Court with the impression d u r i n g t h e r e c e i p t o f testimony from t h e w i t n e s s e s that the s a i d g r a n d c h i l d r e n are p e r f e c t l y normal, h a p p y , a c t i v e , i n t e l l i g e n t young l a d i e s . The o n l y t o p i c w h i c h c a u s e s them t o p a u s e a n d t o become q u i e t and w i t h d r a w n i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e o n g o i n g d i s p u t e between t h e i r p a r e n t s and p a t e r n a l grandparents. " "14. The e x t r e m e c o n t r o l t h a t i s c u r r e n t l y exercised by [the parents] with regard to r e s t r i c t i n g access o f the p a t e r n a l grandparents t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n a n d , w h i c h i s meant t o be d i r e c t e d toward [the p a t e r n a l grandparents], has had t h e effect of: "a. C o m p l e t e l y a l i e n a t i n g t h e minor c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s , w i t h whom t h e y h a d previously established strong r e l a t i o n s h i p s . "b. S e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e m i n o r c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r e s t a b l i s h e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s with t h e i r extended p a t e r n a l f a m i l y w h i c h i n c l u d e s many a u n t s , u n c l e s , c o u s i n s as w e l l a s t h e i r own g o d m o t h e r s . "c. S e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e minor c h i l d r e n from r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h f r i e n d s , w h i c h f r i e n d s h i p s were n u r t u r e d as a p a r t o f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r paternal grandparents. "d. Has b e e n a c o n t r i b u t i n g c a u s e , a l o n g w i t h t h e e v e r more b i z a r r e e f f o r t s o f [ t h e p a t e r n a l grandparents] t o overcome t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s , i n d e s t r o y i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e p a r e n t [ s ] and p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t [ s ] . 12 2071061 II "These s a i d m i n o r c h i l d r e n a r e now 10 and 12 y e a r s o l d r e s p e c t i v e l y and have b e e n i s o l a t e d f r o m t h e i r paternal grandparents for approximately 3 y e a r s , so t h a t t h e y were a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7 and 9 y e a r s old, r e s p e c t i v e l y , a t t h e t i m e o f a l i e n a t i o n . From t h e r e c o r d , t h e C o u r t can f i n d n o t h i n g t o b a s e a f i n d i n g t h a t exposure t o [the p a t e r n a l grandparents] w o u l d r e t a r d t h e i r e m o t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t . The s a i d m i n o r c h i l d r e n a p p e a r t o be w e l l a d j u s t e d n o r m a l c h i l d r e n whose o n l y c a u s e f o r c o n s t e r n a t i o n and despair i s the strained relations between the p a r e n t s and p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . "Indeed, the Court f i n d s t h a t the c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e a l i e n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t s and p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s i s o f g r e a t e r p o t e n t i a l harm t o t h e s a i d minor c h i l d r e n ' s e m o t i o n [ a l ] development than any o t h e r f a c t o r i n t h e i r l i v e s a t t h i s p o i n t i n time. " " W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e m e n t a l and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h of t h e s a i d m i n o r c h i l d r e n , t h e g r e a t e s t d e t r i m e n t , the Court f i n d s , i s the ongoing u n r e g u l a t e d d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e i r p a r e n t s and p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s . " The trial c o u r t a n a l y z e d the f a c t s of the case i n w i t h the f a c t o r s s e t out i n § 30-3-4.1(d)(1)-(6) accordance i n order to determine whether the b e s t i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n would s e r v e d by those awarding factors visitation, grandparent militated the t r i a l in visitation. favor court stated: 13 of Concluding awarding be that grandparent 2071061 "The C o u r t t h e r e f o r e , a f t e r h a v i n g e n g a g e d t h e presumption i n f a v o r o f t h e ... p a r e n t s , i s c o n v i n c e d , t h r o u g h c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h a t the [parents'] e x e r t i o n of c o n t r o l over the l i v e s of the c h i l d r e n to the extent of i s o l a t i n g them f r o m t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i r g r a n d p a r e n t s and alienating them from an o t h e r w i s e loving r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not i n the best i n t e r e s t of the s a i d minor c h i l d r e n . " B a s e d on t h a t c o n c l u s i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t a w a r d e d t h e p a t e r n a l grandparents Friday session ( f r o m 3:00 p.m. and from session); and in-person v i s i t a t i o n t o 6:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m. the trial communication between court the on when school i s i n t o 6:00 p.m.) ordered paternal each school i s not i n c h i l d ' s b i r t h d a y each ( f r o m 1:00 p.m. Additionally, when t o 6:30 p.m. on t h e d a y b e f o r e e a c h on December 25 with the children daily each year; year. telephonic grandparents and t h e children. Following motion e n t r y o f t h e judgment, to alter, the parents filed a amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t , p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . P., a s s e r t i n g , among o t h e r g r o u n d s , that t h e A c t " v i o l a t e s due p r o c e s s b y f a i l i n g t o r e q u i r e a s h o w i n g of harm t o t h e c h i l d r e n a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t t o t h e a w a r d of visitation." Before the t r i a l court could rule on that m o t i o n , t h e c h i l d r e n v i s i t e d w i t h t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s on 14 2071061 June 14, 2008. The parents subsequently stay f u r t h e r v i s i t a t i o n pending moved t h e court to t h i s a p p e a l on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e A c t had b e e n a p p l i e d u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y t o them and that t h e o n e - t i m e v i s i t a t i o n had b e e n a " h o r r i f i c e x p e r i e n c e " that had placed the children trial court conducted after which stay. The i t denied F o l l o w i n g the parents filing in a an ore the then "terrifying tenus Rule h e a r i n g on July motion 59 timely of t h e i r situation." the appealed and to The 2, 2008, motion to this court. the parents n o t i c e of appeal, a g a i n moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s t a y i t s j u d g m e n t , w h i c h m o t i o n the t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d on A u g u s t 8, o r a l argument on t h i s a p p e a l 2008. on J a n u a r y 12, This court heard 2010. Discussion The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a t no s t a t e s h a l l " d e p r i v e any of The life, liberty, or p r o p e r t y without U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has "liberty" refers not only to due process person of r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the freedom from b o d i l y law." term restraint, b u t a l s o t o f r e e d o m f r o m undue g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t s and l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t s . Washington v. Among Glicksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 15 720 (1997). the 2071061 fundamental r i g h t s the right control 363, p r o t e c t e d by t h e Fourteenth of f i t n a t u r a l parents of t h e i r c h i l d r e n , Griggs 78 So. 2d 910, 916 (1955) t o the care, v. B a r n e s , Amendment i s custody, and 262 A l a . 357, ("'"The e s s e n c e o f c u s t o d y i s t h e c o m p a n i o n s h i p o f t h e c h i l d a n d t h e r i g h t t o make d e c i s i o n s regarding and P.2d h i s [or her] care religion."'" (quoting and c o n t r o l , education, In re Guardianship 761, 762 ( C a l . 1 9 5 3 ) , q u o t i n g health, of Smith, 255 i n t u r n L e r n e r v. S u p e r i o r C o u r t o f San Mateo C o u n t y , 38 C a l . 2d 676, 681, 242 P.2d 3 2 1 , 323 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ) ) , w h i c h r i g h t i n c l u d e s t h e power t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h whom t h e i r U.S. 57 children associate. (2000). That right, See T r o x e l v. G r a n v i l l e , being "fundamental," c o n f e r r e d b y t h e s t a t e upon n a t u r a l p a r e n t s inherent consequence independent of any of the caselaw, i s not b u t a r i s e s as an parent-child statute, 530 or relationship constitutional p r o v i s i o n , s e e T r o x e l , 530 U.S. a t 91 ( S c a l i a , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) (opining that the r i g h t to d i r e c t upbringing o f c h i l d i s one of the "'unalienable R i g h t s ' " r e f e r r e d t o i n the D e c l a r a t i o n o f I n d e p e n d e n c e a n d one o f t h e " ' o t h e [ r ] the people'" Constitution), i n the Ninth as an Amendment intrinsic 16 [ r i g h t s ] r e t a i n e d by to the United human right, States Smith v. 2071061 Organization "implicit of in Connecticut, Foster the 302 Families, concept U.S. 319, grounds, Benton v. "'rooted i n the traditions Massachusetts, and 816, 784 conscience U.S. 110, 97, (1977), Palko overruled U.S. 491 U.S. 845 liberty," (1937), 395 291 U.S. ordered 325 Maryland, See M i c h a e l H. v. G e r a l d D., S n y d e r v. of 431 (1969), of 122 105 on v. other that our is people.'" (1989) (1934) (quoting (Cardozo, J.), o v e r r u l e d i n p a r t on o t h e r g r o u n d s , M a l l o y v. Hogan, U.S. 1 378 (1964)). The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t has "the custody, care the parents, whose preparation hinder." and nurture primary of the long maintained child function f o r o b l i g a t i o n s the and s t a t e can P r i n c e v. M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 321 A l a b a m a c o u r t s have a l s o e n d o r s e d t h e reside f i r s t freedom 158, 166 concept t h a t in include n e i t h e r supply U.S. that nor (1944). parental a u t h o r i t y over a c h i l d ' s a s s o c i a t i o n s flows n a t u r a l l y from the "sacred duty" 4 A l a . App. Souter of r e a r i n g c h i l d r e n . 245, 247, 58 So. 2d 113, See Montgomery v. 114 (1911). As Hughes, Justice e x p l a i n e d i n h i s o p i n i o n c o n c u r r i n g i n the judgment i n Troxel: "The s t r e n g t h o f a p a r e n t ' s i n t e r e s t i n c o n t r o l l i n g a c h i l d ' s a s s o c i a t e s i s as o b v i o u s as t h e i n f l u e n c e 17 2071061 o f p e r s o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c h i l d ' s s o c i a l a n d m o r a l c h a r a c t e r . W h e t h e r f o r good or f o r i l l , a d u l t s n o t o n l y i n f l u e n c e b u t may indoctrinate children " 530 U.S. a t 78. that a parent child See charged w i t h the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f preparing a for social determine Hence, t h e l a w t r a d i t i o n a l l y h a s r e c o g n i z e d and o t h e r who s h o u l d o b l i g a t i o n s should be a b l e influence or i n d o c t r i n a t e that to child. Ex p a r t e B r o n s t e i n , 434 So. 2d 780, 782 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . Out of respect common l a w d e c l a r e d f o r that that fundamental n a t u r a l r i g h t , the f i t parents d i d n o t have a n y l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n t o allow grandparent v i s i t a t i o n . See i d . "The p o l i c y r e a s o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e common l a w r u l e ' s r e c o g n i t i o n o f a p a r e n t ' s r i g h t t o deny g r a n d p a r e n t s v i s i t a t i o n with t h e i r grandchildren included the following: "1) A parent's obligation to allow grandparent v i s i t a t i o n i s moral, not l e g a l ; "2) J u d i c i a l enforcement o f grandparent v i s i t a t i o n d i v i d e s and h i n d e r s parental authority; "3) Producing a conflict of authority between grandparent and parent i s n o t i n the 'best i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d ; ' "4) A p a r e n t visitation appropriate; alone with should judge whether grandparents i s 18 2071061 "5) N a t u r a l r e l a t i o n s , a n d n o t j u d i c i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n , a r e t h e o n l y e f f e c t i v e means of r e s t o r i n g normal f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s . " Cody L. Balzer, Note, Grandparent Visitation Rights - C o n s t i t u t i o n a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s a n d t h e Need t o D e f i n e t h e " B e s t I n t e r e s t s o f t h e C h i l d " S t a n d a r d - G o f f v . G o f f , 844 P.2d 1087 (Wyo. 1 9 9 3 ) , 29 L a n d & W a t e r L. Rev. 593, 595 (1994) . caselaw largely recognizing adhered that, absent g r a n d p a r e n t h a s no l e g a l Brock, to an the common-law agreement right by precepts, the parents, to visitation. a See B r o c k v. 281 A l a . 525, 533, 205 So. 2d 903, 910 P h i l l i p s v. P h i l l i p s , Alabama (1967); and 53 A l a . App. 1 9 1 , 298 So. 2d 613 (1974) ( a f f i r m i n g judgment a u t h o r i z i n g p a r e n t s o f d i v o r c e d f a t h e r t o p i c k up c h i l d on b e h a l f o f f a t h e r insofar as t h a t d i d not grant the grandparents v i s i t a t i o n r i g h t s ) . provision This court has f o u n d o n l y one A l a b a m a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s of this state affirmed a judgment awarding grandparents visitation over t h e o b j e c t i o n o f a f i t p a r e n t , see Kewish v. Brothers, 279 A l a . 86, 181 So. 2d 900 ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; t h a t c a s e h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d as an " a b e r r a t i o n . " 315 n.2. 19 R i c h b u r g , 895 So. 2d a t 2071061 Because o f the l o n g s t a n d i n g right to deny grandparent fundamental nature, that r e c o g n i t i o n of the parental visitation, r i g h t may a c t o r w i t h o u t due p r o c e s s o f l a w . 66. In that regard, a substantive narrowly to (1998), supra, a compelling of a 137 Smith, refused courts governmental 671 So. 2d 1334 ( A l a . 1995), supra. 137 Wash. 2d 1, 969 P.2d 21 that the only f i t parent whether to allow grandparent i s the i n t e r e s t of the state i n p r o t e c t i n g c h i l d r e n harm. reviewing statute i n t e r e s t t h a t would j u s t i f y the s t a t e i n o v e r r i d i n g decision from i t entails t h a t any s t a t e t h e W a s h i n g t o n Supreme C o u r t d e c l a r e d visitation a g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e A p i c e l l a , 809 So. 2d 865 In re Custody of Smith, compelling few further 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o L.B.S., In the see G l i c k s b e r g , s u p r a ; See S m i t h v. S c h u l t e , a b r o g a t e d on o t h e r (Ala. means more t h a n s i m p l y a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t o f i t s c i t i z e n s must be tailored interest. to i t s n o t be d e n i e d b y a s t a t e component t h a t p r o v i d e s interfering with due See T r o x e l , 580 U.S. a t 65¬ "due p r o c e s s " guarantee of " f a i r process," and Wash. 2d the United at 15-16, States 969 P.2d a t 28. In Supreme C o u r t i n T r o x e l , to address that question. 530 U.S. a t 73. A have s e i z e d on t h a t s i l e n c e as a r e j e c t i o n o f t h e 20 2071061 harm s t a n d a r d state may sufficiently espoused i n Smith and as a r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t t h e act to award grandparent when p r o v e n b y t h e p e t i t i o n i n g g r a n d p a r e n t t o be i n the b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d . C.A., visitation 137 P.3d 318 (Colo. S e e , e.g., 2006); In re Adoption of Vibbert v. V i b b e r t , 144 S.W.3d 292 (Ky. C t . App. 2 0 0 4 ) ; R i d e o u t v . R i e n d e a u , 761 A . 2 d 291 (Me. 2 0 0 0 ) ; B l a k e l y v . B l a k e l y , 83 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. 2 0 0 2 ) ; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f O ' D o n n e l l - L a m o n t , 337 Or. 86, 91 P.3d 721 (2004); (2006) . and H i l l e r v. Fausey, 588 P a . 342, 904 A . 2 d 875 As he d i d i n Dodd I a n d Dodd I I , i n h i s d i s s e n t i n t h i s case, So. 3d a t , Judge P i t t m a n r e l i e s on some o f t h o s e c a s e s t o s u p p o r t h i s p o s i t i o n t h a t due p r o c e s s does n o t require a showing grandparent o f harm t o t h e c h i l d c a n n o t be c o n s t r u e d standard the denial of visitation. However, t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e T r o x e l issue from court t o address t h e e i t h e r a s a r e j e c t i o n o f t h e harm o r a s an e n d o r s e m e n t o f t h e b e s t - i n t e r e s t standard a p p l i e d i n C.A., V i b b e r t , R i d e o u t , B l a k e l y , O ' D o n n e l l - L a m o n t , and H i l l e r , supra. The U n i t e d recognized that parental limitation ... i f i t a p p e a r s States authority 21 that Supreme C o u r t l o n g ago "may parental be subject decisions to will 2071061 jeopardize the potential Yoder, standard the for 406 health or safety significant U.S. 205, social 234 court certainly the child, burdens." (1972). b e c a u s e t h a t p o i n t was Troxel of By or have Wisconsin not restating a v. that unnecessary to i t s holding, did not imply that i t was abandoning t h a t l o n g s t a n d i n g p o s i t i o n . A m a j o r i t y of the T r o x e l c o u r t a l s o agreed t h a t a s t a t u t e v i o l a t e s due process i f i t authorizes "a c o u r t [to] and o v e r t u r n any d e c i s i o n by a f i t c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t visitation the ... based s o l e l y c h i l d ' s best applying a on interests." presumption that the concerning judge's determination Troxel, a disregard 530 parent's U.S. at decision 67. of By regarding grandparent v i s i t a t i o n serves the best i n t e r e s t s of the child, and by r e q u i r i n g g r a n d p a r e n t s t o overcome t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n by p r o v i n g t h r o u g h c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t g r a n d p a r e n t visitation may alter applicable standard i s i n the best i n t e r e s t s of the procedural law, substantive standard. applied in O'Donnell-Lamont, and v i o l a t i o n o f due but C.A., does Under Vibbert, Hiller, process, i t supra, child, not the 22 the best-interest trial remains a u t h o r i z e d court change Rideout, a the Blakely, judge, in to overturn the 2071061 decision of a f i t , natural, c u s t o d i a l parent concerning g r a n d p a r e n t v i s i t a t i o n b a s e d on t h e j u d g e ' s c o n v i c t i o n t h a t , d e s p i t e the p a r e n t s ' assessment, grandparent v i s i t a t i o n serves the best i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d . An i n t e r e s t i s not a "compelling governmental interest" when t h e s t a t e a c t s s e l e c t i v e l y t o p r o t e c t t h a t i n t e r e s t b u t " ' l e a v e s a p p r e c i a b l e damage t o t h a t s u p p o s e d l y unprotected.'" vital interest C h u r c h o f t h e L u k u m i B a b a l u A y e , I n c . v. C i t y o f H i a l e a h , 508 U.S. 520, 547 (1993) ( q u o t i n g F l o r i d a S t a r v. B . J . F . , 491 U.S. 524, 541-42 (1989) ( S c a l i a , J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e judgment)). i s s u e i n t h i s case, t o any o t h e r Other than the A c t a t t h e p a r t i e s have n o t d i r e c t e d t h i s court s t a t e s t a t u t e t h a t empowers a c o u r t o r a s t a t e agency t o o v e r r i d e t h e d e c i s i o n o f a f i t , natural, custodial parent regarding the care or c o n t r o l o f h i s or her c h i l d based s o l e l y on a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e p a r e n t a l d e c i s i o n does n o t serve the best holds that interests state courts of the c h i l d . have no Caselaw jurisdiction generally to d i s p u t e s b e t w e e n two f i t , n a t u r a l , c u s t o d i a l p a r e n t s the best interests 268 475, 107 So. 2d 885 Ala. of t h e i r child. 23 resolve regarding See K i l g r o w v . K i l g r o w , (1958). In Kilgrow, two f i t 2071061 married parents with became e m b r o i l e d attend school. the mother equal in a On from custodial rights dispute as to a p e t i t i o n of the interfering with where in their the child father seeking the child father's would to e n j o i n choice, the l o w e r c o u r t , s i t t i n g as an e q u i t y c o u r t , assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n of the direct matter the on the education theory that the o f a c h i l d was right of "'subject a parent to review c o r r e c t i o n by t h e c o u r t i f n o t e x e r c i s e d f o r t h e b e s t of the lower child.'" court considered held 268 Ala. that the at 478, 107 decision So. of a 2d at father evidence to rebut t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n by our would s e r v e d by a c o n t r a r y d e c i s i o n . supreme c o u r t d i s a g r e e d , be present interests On of appeal, stating: " I t s e e m s t o u s , i f we s h o u l d h o l d t h a t e q u i t y has j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e s u c h h o l d i n g w i l l open wide the g a t e s f o r s e t t l e m e n t i n e q u i t y of a l l s o r t s and v a r i e t i e s o f i n t i m a t e f a m i l y d i s p u t e s concerning the u p b r i n g i n g o f c h i l d r e n . The absence of cases d e a l i n g w i t h the q u e s t i o n i n d i c a t e s a r e l u c t a n c e of the courts to assume jurisdiction in disputes a r i s i n g out of the i n t i m a t e f a m i l y c i r c l e . I t does n o t t a k e much i m a g i n a t i o n t o e n v i s i o n t h e e x t e n t t o which explosive differences of opinion between parents as to the proper upbringing of their 24 The "'proper proof,'" i d . , p r e s u m a b l y by e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e b e s t t h e c h i l d w o u l d be and welfare 887. prima f a c i e c o r r e c t but t h a t a mother c o u l d to 2071061 children could solution. be b r o u g h t into court f o r attempted "In none o f o u r c a s e s h a s t h e c o u r t i n t e r v e n e d to s e t t l e a c o n t r o v e r s y between u n s e p a r a t e d parents a s t o some m a t t e r i n c i d e n t t o t h e w e l l - b e i n g o f t h e c h i l d , w h e r e t h e r e was no q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d a s t o which parent s h o u l d have c u s t o d y . In a l l of our cases t h e r e a l q u e s t i o n has been which parent s h o u l d p r o p e r l y be a w a r d e d c u s t o d y . N e v e r h a s t h e c o u r t p u t i t s e l f i n t h e p l a c e o f t h e p a r e n t s and i n t e r p o s e d its judgment as t o t h e c o u r s e which otherwise amicable parents should pursue i n d i s c h a r g i n g t h e i r p a r e n t a l duty. Here, t h e s o l e d i f f e r e n c e between the p a r t i e s i s which school the c h i l d should attend. And, t h a t d i f f e r e n c e seems n o t t o h a v e a f f e c t e d t h e c o n j u g a l a t t i t u d e o f t h e p a r e n t s one t o t h e o t h e r . "The inherent j u r i s d i c t i o n of courts of equity over i n f a n t s i s a matter of n e c e s s i t y , coming i n t o e x e r c i s e o n l y where t h e r e has been a f a i l u r e o f t h a t n a t u r a l power and o b l i g a t i o n w h i c h i s t h e p r o v i n c e of p a r e n t h o o d . I t i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n assumed by t h e courts o n l y when i t i s f o r f e i t e d by a n a t u r a l c u s t o d i a n i n c i d e n t t o a b r o k e n home o r n e g l e c t , o r as a r e s u l t o f a n a t u r a l c u s t o d i a n ' s i n c a p a c i t y , u n f i t n e s s or death. I t i s only f o r compelling reason that a parent i s deprived of the custody of h i s or her child. The c o u r t o n l y i n t e r f e r e s as b e t w e e n p a r e n t s t o t h e e x t e n t o f a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y t o t h e one or t h e o t h e r , w i t h t h e w e l f a r e of t h e c h i l d i n mind. And i t i s i n a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y t h a t t h e c o u r t i n v o k e s the p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e w e l f a r e of the c h i l d i s the c o n t r o l l i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n . We do n o t t h i n k a c o u r t of equity should undertake to settle a dispute b e t w e e n p a r e n t s as t o what i s b e s t f o r t h e i r m i n o r child when t h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n concerning the child's custody. " I t w o u l d be a n o m a l o u s t o h o l d t h a t a c o u r t o f equity may s i t i n constant s u p e r v i s i o n over a h o u s e h o l d and see t h a t e i t h e r p a r e n t ' s will and 25 2071061 determination i n the upbringing of a c h i l d i s obeyed, even though the parents' dispute might i n v o l v e what i s b e s t f o r t h e c h i l d . E v e r y d i f f e r e n c e of o p i n i o n between p a r e n t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r c h i l d ' s upbringing n e c e s s a r i l y involves the question of the c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t . "What was s a i d i n K n i g h t o n 520, 5 2 5 , 41 S o . 2 d 1 7 2 , 175 pertinent here: v . K n i g h t o n , 252 A l a . [(1949)], i s equally "'It intrigues the imagination to contemplate the lengths t o which such a p o w e r o n c e a t t e m p t e d may b e c a r r i e d , a n d t h e d i f f i c u l t y t o be e n c o u n t e r e d i n t h e enforcement of such a decree. Considerations of p o l i c y and expediency forbid a resort to injunctive r e l i e f i n such a c a s e . ' " I t may w e l l b e s u g g e s t e d t h a t a c o u r t o f e q u i t y ought to interfere to prevent such a direful c o n s e q u e n c e as d i v o r c e o r s e p a r a t i o n , r a t h e r than await the d i s r u p t i o n of the m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . Our a n s w e r t o t h i s i s t h a t i n t e r v e n t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n preventing or h e a l i n g a d i s r u p t i o n , would quite l i k e l y s e r v e as t h e s p a r k t o a s m o l d e r i n g f i r e . A mandatory court decree s u p p o r t i n g the p o s i t i o n of one parent against t h e o t h e r w o u l d h a r d l y be a composing s i t u a t i o n f o r the u n s u c c e s s f u l parent t o be c o n f r o n t e d w i t h d a i l y . One s p o u s e c o u l d s c a r c e l y be expected to e n t e r t a i n a tender, a f f e c t i o n a t e r e g a r d f o r t h e o t h e r s p o u s e who b r i n g s h i m o r h e r u n d e r r e s t r a i n t . The j u d i c i a l m i n d a n d c o n s c i e n c e i s r e p e l l e d by t h e t h o u g h t o f d i s r u p t i o n o f t h e s a c r e d m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , and u s u a l l y v o i c e s t h e hope that the breach may somehow b e h e a l e d b y m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g between the parents themselves." 268 A l a . a t 479-80, 107 S o . 2 d a t 8 8 8 - 8 9 . 26 2071061 Even i n cases o f d i v o r c e i n v o l v i n g f i t p a r e n t s , law g e n e r a l l y demands that a trial court vest statutory one of p a r t i e s w i t h a u t h o r i t y over the d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g the the best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d by e i t h e r g r a n t i n g one p a r t y c u s t o d y o f the c h i l d , see A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-1, w i t h i t s c o n c o m i t a n t r i g h t t o c o n t r o l t h e c h i l d , see G r i g g s v. B a r n e s , s u p r a , o r by e x p r e s s l y d i v i d i n g t h a t a u t h o r i t y when a w a r d i n g j o i n t See A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-151. trial not court does " s u p e r p a r e n t " by to i t s review and c o r r e c t i o n b a s e d on t h e a d i s p u t e between determining assume So. 2d exercising the parent education; trial 24, which two a state court's j u r i s d i c t i o n of 31 the plans (Ala. Civ. submitted the App. a compel arbiter by with equal i s limited the parents See Morgan v. Morgan, 2007) s t a t e may unilaterally h o w e v e r , as c o u r t may of court i s faced f i t divorced parents t h e power o f t h e and role court's notion of When a t r i a l serves the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . 964 the the s u b j e c t i n g the c u s t o d i a l parent's d e c i s i o n s custodial authority, to Once c u s t o d y i s d e c i d e d , thereafter the best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d . with custody. ("A trial not usurp any the r o l e particular of custody court form of of d i s p u t e s , the decide which of the competing p l a n s p r o f f e r e d 27 2071061 by the c u s t o d i a l child, parents considering i s i n the best the c h i l d ' s educational c o u r t may e n t e r a v a l i d , e n f o r c e a b l e The fit, general i n t e r e s t s of the order needs, i n that regard."). absence o f l e g a l a u t h o r i t y over t h e d e c i s i o n s o f natural c u s t o d i a l parents regarding the r a i s i n g of t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s t a t e h a s no c o m p e l l i n g in that interest regard. On the other hand, statutory law i s replete l e g i s l a t i v e e f f o r t s t o p r e v e n t c h i l d r e n from h a r m f u l decisions. children State when authorizes require children A l a . Code parents are 1975, the removal of a c h i l d when p a r e n t a l conduct threatens A l a . Code dependent. terminate laws the automobiles. child, and t h e 1975, § as rights State in law f r o m t h e home o f a p a r e n t the health 12-15-102, to their passengers 32-5-222. protect or safety or renders A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-128. parental parental to restrain riding § with of the the child The s t a t e may e v e n a child from harm e m a n a t i n g f r o m t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p . A l a . Code 1975, § 12-15-319. Under A l a b a m a c a s e l a w , p a r e n t a l lost to a third both of which party only implicate due t o u n f i t n e s s harm t o t h e c h i l d . 28 c u s t o d y may be or forfeiture, See, e . g . , Ex 2071061 parte Terry, routinely 494 So. 2d 628 regulates labor t o avoid U.S. significant a t 166. recognized Hence, only preservation school attendance two supra, and a v o i d a n c e o f s o c i a l b u r d e n s -- a s also and r e s t r i c t s child See P r i n c e , 321 t h e Supreme governmental the health Caselaw from other The s t a t e s o c i a l problems. i n Yoder, those of ( A l a . 1986). safety of Court interests -¬ children and compelling. j u r i s d i c t i o n s has n o t i d e n t i f i e d any s o c i a l burden a l l e v i a t e d by g r a n d p a r e n t - v i s i t a t i o n statutes. When a s s e s s i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f g r a n d p a r e n t - v i s i t a t i o n statutes courts, under including reasoning e.g., In state some o f t h e cases or federal that have upon w h i c h law, a majority o f expressly rejected the the dissent r e l i e s , see, R o t h v . W e s t o n , 259 Conn. 202, 789 A . 2 d 431 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d r e Parentage (2005), have justifying See either Linder o f C.A.M.A., 154 Wash. 2d 52, 109 P.3d 405 concluded that the only such laws i s t h e p r e v e n t i o n v. L i n d e r , compelling interest o f harm t o t h e c h i l d . 348 A r k . 322, 7 S.W.3d 841 (2002); C r a n n e y v . C o r o n a d a , 920 So. 2d 132, 134 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; B r o o k s v . P a r k e r s o n , 265 Ga. 189, 193 n.5, 454 S.E.2d 769, 773 n.5 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; Doe v . Doe, 116 Haw. 3 2 3 , 172 P.3d 1067 29 2071061 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; L u l a y v . L u l a y , 193 I l l . Ill. 2d 455, 739 N.E.2d 5 2 1 , 250 Dec. 758 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ; I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Howard, 661 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2003); Koshko v. H a i n i n g , 398 Md. 404, 921 A . 2 d 171 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; B l i x t v . B l i x t , 437 Mass. 649, 774 N.E.2d 1052 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ; Moriarty v. Bradt, 66 N . J . 426, 822 A . 2 d 203 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; In re H e r b s t , 971 P.2d 395, 399 ( O k l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ; Camburn v . S m i t h , 355 S.C. 574, 586 S.E.2d 565 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; G l i d d e n v . C o n l e y , 111, 175 V t . 820 A . 2 d 197 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; a n d W i l l i a m s v . W i l l i a m s , 256 V a . 19, 501 S.E.2d 417, 418 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . those cases, without a clear court cannot Pursuant t o the reasoning o f award and c o n v i n c i n g grandparent evidence visitation demonstrating that d e n i a l o f t h e r e q u e s t e d v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d harm t h e c h i l d . I n Hawk v . Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573 (Tenn. 1993), a case w i t h f a c t s remarkably s i m i l a r t o those a t i s s u e here, t h e Tennessee Supreme C o u r t i n v a l i d a t e d t h e T e n n e s s e e g r a n d p a r e n t - v i s i t a t i o n act because i t was inconsistent constitutional right to family privacy. of two m i n o r children enjoyed with Tennessee's I n Hawk, t h e p a r e n t s an i n t e r t w i n e d f a m i l i a l and f i n a n c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the grandparents o f the c h i l d r e n . However, a rift mother, which developed eventually between resulted 30 the grandfather i n the and t h e grandfather's 2071061 terminating t h e employment disintegration dispute of the father and a subsequent o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a d u l t s . between the adults d i d not immediately The affect the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s and t h e c h i l d r e n , which had b e e n a s t r o n g a n d b e n e f i c i a l one, b u t i t e v e n t u a l l y l e d t o the parents' restricting the grandparents' u l t i m a t e l y ending i t a l t o g e t h e r . visitation and 855 S.W.2d a t 575-76. The grandparents p e t i t i o n e d f o r grandparent v i s i t a t i o n , which t h e trial to court granted, reasoning that the parents' "objections visitation court believed [were] rooted should i n a family not interfere r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r grandparents." On a p p e a l , t h e T e n n e s s e e Supreme conflict with that the the children's 855 S.W.2d a t 577. Court stated: " A l t h o u g h c o u r t s a r e commonly c a l l e d on t o r e s o l v e c u s t o d y d i s p u t e s between p a r e n t s and t o determine c u s t o d y when p a r e n t s a r e u n f i t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s interference with the united decision of admittedly good p a r e n t s r e p r e s e n t s a v i r t u a l l y unprecedented i n t r u s i o n i n t o a p r o t e c t e d sphere o f f a m i l y l i f e . B e c a u s e t h e s t a t u t e , [Tenn. Code Ann.] § 36-6-301 (1985), suggests t h a t t h i s l e v e l o f i n t e r f e r e n c e i s p e r m i s s i b l e , we e x a m i n e t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f t h e s t a t u t e a s i t a p p l i e s t o m a r r i e d p a r e n t s whose f i t n e s s as p a r e n t s i s u n c h a l l e n g e d . " 855 S.W.2d a t 577. paternal The g r a n d p a r e n t s grandparents i n this 31 i n Hawk a r g u e d , a s do t h e case, that the state has a 2071061 compelling i n t e r e s t , pursuant protect the best beneficial relationship grandparents. 855 however, s t a t i n g : the interests child, nuclear involved." Id. recognizing c h i l d r e n by between "[W]ithout a c o u r t may intact, of S.W.2d a t 579. not s u b j e c t i v e n o t i o n s of the an t o i t s p a r e n s p a t r i a e power, t o preserving children The and Hawk c o u r t the their disagreed, a s u b s t a n t i a l d a n g e r o f harm t o constitutionally impose its 'best i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d ' family with f i t , married own when parents is I n a d d i t i o n t o r e l y i n g on T e n n e s s e e p r e c e d e n t that the state has a compelling interest in p r o t e c t i n g i t s c h i l d r e n f r o m harm, t h e T e n n e s s e e Supreme C o u r t also noted that a line a l s o support of U n i t e d States Supreme C o u r t the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t " t h e s t a t e ' s power t o i n t e r f e r e i n t h e p a r e n t - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p i s s u b j e c t t o a f i n d i n g o f harm t o t h e child. In [Wisconsin v.] Yoder, [406 U.S. 205 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ] , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme Court deemed significant the fact that Amish c h i l d r e n w o u l d n o t be harmed by r e c e i v i n g an A m i s h e d u c a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n a p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n . Y o d e r , 406 U.S. a t 230, 92 S.Ct. a t 1540. L i k e w i s e , i n P i e r c e [v. S o c i e t y o f S i s t e r s , 268 U.S. 510 (1925)], the Court found t h a t p a r e n t s ' d e c i s i o n s to send t h e i r c h i l d r e n t o p r i v a t e s c h o o l s were 'not i n h e r e n t l y h a r m f u l , ' as t h e r e was ' n o t h i n g i n t h e ... r e c o r d s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t [ t h e p r i v a t e s c h o o l s ] have f a i l e d to discharge t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s to patrons, students, o r t h e s t a t e . ' P i e r c e , 268 U.S. a t 534, 45 S.Ct. a t 573. I n M e y e r [v. N e b r a s k a , 262 U.S. 390 ( 1 9 2 3 ) ] , a 32 cases 2071061 case i n which a teacher h a d been c o n v i c t e d of teaching a c h i l d German, t h e C o u r t f o u n d that ' p r o f i c i e n c y i n a f o r e i g n language ... i s n o t i n j u r i o u s to the h e a l t h , morals or understanding of the o r d i n a r y c h i l d , ' and thus t h e s t a t e ' s d e s i r e 'to f o s t e r a homogeneous p e o p l e w i t h A m e r i c a n i d e a l s ' was insufficient justification for forbidding f o r e i g n l a n g u a g e i n s t r u c t i o n . 262 U.S. a t 402-3, 43 S.Ct. a t 628. I n S t a n l e y v. I l l i n o i s , 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , t h e C o u r t required an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d f i n d i n g o f parental neglect before s t r i p p i n g an unwed f a t h e r o f h i s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e C o u r t u p h e l d t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f a p a r e n t who a l l o w e d h e r c h i l d t o sell religious magazines, approving state i n t e r f e r e n c e designed t o prevent ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l or physical i n j u r y ' to the c h i l d . See Prince v. M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 321 U.S. 158, 170, 64 S . C t . 438, 444, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944). F e d e r a l cases, therefore, c l e a r l y r e q u i r e t h a t some harm t h r e a t e n a c h i l d ' s welfare before the state may c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h a parent's r i g h t t o rear h i s or her child. "We, t o o , a g r e e t h a t n e i t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e n o r a court may properly intervene in parenting d e c i s i o n s a b s e n t s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o t h e c h i l d f r o m t h o s e d e c i s i o n s . I n so h o l d i n g , we a p p r o v e t h e l o g i c o f S a n t o s k y v. K r a m e r , 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 ( 1 9 8 2 ) , w h i c h a p p l i e d a t w o - s t e p process to c h i l d neglect cases l e a d i n g t o f o s t e r f a m i l y p l a c e m e n t . I n S a n t o s k y , t h e Supreme C o u r t a p p r o v e d New Y o r k ' s b i f u r c a t e d p r o c e e d i n g r e q u i r i n g the s t a t e f i r s t t o e s t a b l i s h p a r e n t a l unfitness before placing a child i n foster care. This procedure a s s u r e s p a r e n t s t h a t a 'best i n t e r e s t s o f the child' analysis w i l l n o t p i t them against p o t e n t i a l f o s t e r p a r e n t s ; r a t h e r , the s t a t e cannot consider a child's 'best i n t e r e s t s ' u n t i l the n a t u r a l p a r e n t s have b e e n d e c l a r e d u n f i t . I d . a t 33 2071061 759-61, 102 S.Ct. a t 1397-98. An a p p r o a c h r e q u i r i n g a c o u r t t o make an i n i t i a l f i n d i n g o f harm t o t h e c h i l d b e f o r e e v a l u a t i n g t h e 'best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d ' works e q u a l l y w e l l i n t h i s case t o prevent j u d i c i a l s e c o n d - g u e s s i n g o f p a r e n t a l d e c i s i o n s . ... " 855 S.W.2d a t 580-81. B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g Court reversed reasoning, t h e T e n n e s s e e Supreme t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l grandparents v i s i t a t i o n . court granting the 855 S.W.2d a t 582. The c o u r t held t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t had i m p e r m i s s i b l y s t r i p p e d the parents o f their right their d e c i s i o n t o deny finding to control i n parenting the parents d e c i s i o n s by o v e r r u l i n g the grandparents unfit visitation or d i s s o l v i n g their without m a r r i a g e and b a s e d s o l e l y on t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s n o t i o n o f t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n . that I d . The c o u r t h e l d t h a t , w i t h o u t a parental decision substantially a showing harms t h e c h i l d , t h e s t a t e h a s no c o m p e l l i n g j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e fundamental r i g h t o f t h e parent the child. reasoning and c o n t r o l o f Id. Recognizing opinions t o the custody that we a r e n o t bound by the p l u r a l i t y i n Dodd I , Dodd I I , a n d L.B.S., we h e r e b y a d o p t t h e of Hawk a n d t h e m a j o r i t y of cases j u r i s d i c t i o n s by h o l d i n g t h a t a grandparent s e e k i n g 34 from other visitation 2071061 with a c h i l d over the o b j e c t i o n o f a f i t , n a t u r a l , c u s t o d i a l parent, as convincing an initial evidence matter, that the must prove denial by of clear the and requested v i s i t a t i o n w o u l d harm t h e c h i l d . I n f o l l o w i n g Hawk a n d s i m i l a r d e c i s i o n s , we do n o t i n t e n d to minimize the grandchildren or relationship the valuable between grandparents contributions that and that r e l a t i o n s h i p may make t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e g r a n d c h i l d , t o which the d i s s e n t R.S.C., refers. So. 3d a t . As s t a t e d i n supra: "If a grandparent i s p h y s i c a l l y , mentally, and morally f i t , then a g r a n d c h i l d ordinarily will b e n e f i t from a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h a t grandparent. T h a t g r a n d p a r e n t s a n d g r a n d c h i l d r e n n o r m a l l y c a n be e x p e c t e d t o have a s p e c i a l b o n d c a n n o t be d e n i e d . E a c h c a n b e n e f i t f r o m c o n t a c t w i t h t h e o t h e r . Among other t h i n g s , t h e c h i l d can l e a r n l e s s o n s o f l o v e , r e s p e c t , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a n d f a m i l y a n d community heritage." 812 So. 2d a t 365. However, we must a c k n o w l e d g e s t a t u t o r y r i g h t of a grandparent t o v i s i t with the that the c h i l d r e n over objection of a f i t , n a t u r a l , c u s t o d i a l parent i s only of a recent o r i g i n , appearing f o r the f i r s t time i n t h i s s t a t e i n 1980. Civ. See W e a t h e r s v . Compton, App. 1 9 9 8 ) . That 723 So. 2d 1284, 1286 right hardly 35 stands (Ala. a s an e n d u r i n g 2071061 tradition parental of Western c i v i l i z a t i o n right J . S . v. D.W., 835 So. 2d 174, 184 remand, Consequently, 835 So. although 2d 191 the the control t o t h e c u s t o d y and on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e D.W., on on e q u a l f o o t i n g w i t h See of c h i l d r e n . ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001), r e v ' d 835 ( A l a . 2002), So. 2d 186 (Ala. state Civ. have may App. a 2002). 2 legitimate i n t e r e s t i n f o s t e r i n g the g r a n d p a r e n t - g r a n d c h i l d r e l a t i o n s h i p , R.S.C., 812 So. 2d a t 365, t h e s t a t e may that unduly prevent just infringes such on fundamental o v e r r e a c h i n g , we n o t do so i n a manner parental hold that rights. the state To may I n Moore v. C i t y o f E a s t C l e v e l a n d , O h i o , 431 U.S. 494 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t A m e r i c a n c i t i z e n s e n j o y freedom of p e r s o n a l c h o i c e i n matters of f a m i l y l i f e . That freedom e n t a i l s the r i g h t t o form extended f a m i l i e s , w i t h grandparents a c t i n g i n loco p a r e n t i s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o l l o w i n g the death or absence of a c h i l d ' s p a r e n t s . In such c a s e s , i n w h i c h a g r a n d p a r e n t has assumed and e x e r c i s e d t h e c u s t o d i a l r o l e of the parent to the e x c l u s i o n of the parent, the s t a t e may not unduly impinge on the fundamental right of grandparents to the familial relation with their grandchildren. A l t h o u g h Moore s u p p o r t s t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t e may n o t i m p a i r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a c u s t o d i a l g r a n d p a r e n t and a g r a n d c h i l d a b s e n t a c o m p e l l i n g g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t , i t does n o t s u g g e s t t h a t a s t a t e may r a i s e t h e i n t e r e s t o f n o n c u s t o d i a l g r a n d p a r e n t s above t h a t o f f i t , natural, custodial parents. In a c o n t e s t between a f i t , n a t u r a l , c u s t o d i a l parent w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l fundamental n a t u r a l r i g h t s t o c o n t r o l a c h i l d and a n o n c u s t o d i a l g r a n d p a r e n t seeking to enforce modern state-conferred rights of v i s i t a t i o n , t h e f o r m e r p r e v a i l s as a m a t t e r o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law. 2 36 2071061 overrule the o b j e c t i o n of a f i t , n a t u r a l , c u s t o d i a l parent to grandparent v i s i t a t i o n only i n order t o p r e v e n t harm t o t h e child. I n so r u l i n g , 3d at we do n o t , as t h e d i s s e n t s u g g e s t s , , declare As p r e s e n t l y So. t h e A c t t o be f a c i a l l y u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . drafted, the Act requires grandparent-visitation case f a c t o r s i n the p a r t i c u l a r to a trial consider court "[o]ther circumstances in a relevant A l a . Code 1975, § 30-3-4.1(d)(6). S i n c e we h o l d t h a t a s h o w i n g o f harm t o t h e child from resulting prerequisite the denial of t o any a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n conclude that subsection (d)(6) visitation under is a t h e A c t , we n e c e s s a r i l y encompasses t h a t s h o w i n g as a " r e l e v a n t f a c t o r " a n d t h a t t h e A c t i s , t h e r e f o r e , facially valid. the judiciary See L.B.S., 826 So. 2d a t 185 could adopt a construction would uphold i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y ) . (holding that of a statute that We e m p h a s i z e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e s h o w i n g o f harm i s n o t t o be w e i g h e d a l o n g other factors i n § 30-3-4.1(d)(6). L.B.S. and J.W.J., a court Rather, considering with the consistent a with petition for g r a n d p a r e n t v i s i t a t i o n must f i r s t presume t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of the to decision of a f i t , natural, 37 custodial parent as 2071061 grandparent visitation and petitioning grandparent then determine has p r e s e n t e d clear whether the and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f t h e r e q u e s t e d v i s i t a t i o n w i l l harm the child. I f so, the court statutory factors to grandparent v i s i t a t i o n may determine parents. (Murdock, t h e mode See L.B.S. v. L.M.S., and narrowly extent of t h e harm t o t h e 826 J . , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e judgment visitation the other on t h e f u n d a m e n t a l ( n o t i n g t h a t due p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s only weigh necessary t o a l l e v i a t e c h i l d without further infringing the then rights of So. 2d a t 192 of reversal only) " t h a t t h e c o u r t may o r d e r tailored t o address an adjudged harm"). In this case, i n which dispute that parents of the children, that, are the f i t , natural, the t r i a l denial grandparents that of grandparent had t o prove such visitation interests. We a g r e e erroneously failed served 38 the paternal and c o n v i n c i n g evidence the with the parents that to require i n favor of the visitation, by c l e a r custodial court erred i n holding i n o r d e r t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n parents' only the parents t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s do n o t the paternal children's best the t r i a l court grandparents t o 2071061 prove t h a t the harm. d e n i a l of v i s i t a t i o n would cause the A l t h o u g h the decision to deny a l i e n a t e d the extended trial the the those In family, and and had the trial without trial contact associates, the concluded the paternal children i n t e l l i g e n t young l a d i e s . shows that socially, As trial the and children were The have out found by that the the that, paternal finding a f f e c t e d the that children. a f t e r three grandparents normal, the dissent, years and their well-adjusted, well g r a n d p a r e n t s , may decide t h e p a r e n t s and, whether So. children of the p a t e r n a l not and destruction make any performed by need to the their paternal evidence i n the r e c o r d control exerted We the had further academically, athletically. pointed court d i d not parents' visitation within parents detrimentally court with the court c o n s e q u e n c e s had the friends the grandparents, contributed r e l a t i o n s h i p between fact, grandparents c h i l d r e n from the p a t e r n a l paternal grandparents, indicated that paternal grandparents' c i r c l e , of court children may 3d later w i t h o u t the rebel against resentment of the at , resent adult the the the advice parents. parents for d e n y i n g t h e p a t e r n a l g r a n d p a r e n t s v i s i t a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s harm 39 2071061 of the nature visitation, have any record are deny that would b e c a u s e we evidence justify before i t to support paternal of their grandparents grandparent c o u r t d i d not i t s findings. indicating aware o f t h e d e c i s i o n the award conclude t h a t the t r i a l c o n t a i n s ample e v i d e n c e fully an that the The children p a r e n t s have made t o visitation. The record c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a r b o r resentment decision. or disrespect toward the parents based The r e c o r d l i k e w i s e c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e on any that indicating t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n e x h i b i t any t e n d e n c i e s t o r e b e l a g a i n s t t h e p a r e n t s and t o b r e a k l o o s e f r o m t h e i r decision. I t appears the t r i a l c o n t r o l based trial court d i d find b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t s and that the the p a t e r n a l visitation. continued grandparents g r e a t e s t t h r e a t t o the e m o t i o n a l development of the However, t h e key inquiry their c o u r t m e r e l y s p e c u l a t e d as t o the worst p o s s i b l e consequence of the d e n i a l of The on i n cases of t h i s alienation posed the children. nature i s whether t h e e m o t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c h i l d r e n w o u l d be t h r e a t e n e d by t h e c o n t i n u e d a l i e n a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a t e r n a l and the ameliorate children. that If damage. so, As the 40 grandparent grandparents visitation can circumstances of t h i s case 2071061 show, h o w e v e r , used forced a s a means grandparent f o r ending visitation family s h o u l d n o t be disharmony. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r e n t s became e v e n more a l i e n a t e d f r o m t h e paternal visitation grandparents following the one i n June 2008 t h a n t h e y h a d b e e n b e f o r e . Because the trial court awarded visitation paternal grandparents without the r e q u i s i t e the trial court unconstitutionally parents. T h e r e f o r e , we court render and court-ordered a the o f harm, the Act to the r e v e r s e t h e judgment judgment p e t i t i o n of the paternal applied showing to f o r the parents of the trial denying grandparents. REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h w r i t i n g . Pittman, J . , dissents, with w r i t i n g . 41 the 2071061 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I agree w i t h Pittman some o f t h e s e n t i m e n t s e x p r e s s e d b y Judge i n h i s dissent. judgment i n the result. of the t r i a l However, court after and a p p l y i n g considering the the ore tenus presumption i n favor o f i t s e v i d e n t i a r y f i n d i n g s , I agree t h a t the paternal convincing grandparents evidence failed to clear and t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i n f a v o r o f t h e d e c i s i o n made b y t h e s e f i t p a r e n t s , w e i g h t must be g i v e n . the main present Therefore, opinion. 42 t o which significant I concur i n the r e s u l t o f 2071061 PITTMAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I dissent. departure opinion i n Dodd v. complete (Ala. Civ. App. 2d 715 (Ala. Civ. App. U.S. a Burleson, after harm remand, standard statutes by decided, courts in consistent with the i s not the to So. in order conform a number of award 2004); R i d e o u t v. 107 have Troxel 137 to determined that P.3d the a S.W.3d 292, 761 A.2d of f i t 326-27 294-95 291, 52, (Colo. (Ky. 300-01 836 (2005) ( " n o t h i n g i n T r o x e l s u g g e s t s t h a t a Ct. (Me. N.E.2d parent's a c h i l d ' s best i n t e r e s t " ) ; 43 -¬ harm t o wishes 318, O h i o S t . 3d 44, w i s h e s s h o u l d be p l a c e d b e f o r e was required prerequisite for a Riendeau, 2 0 0 0 ) ; H a r r o l d v. C o l l i e r , guaranties Since i n Dodd -- contrary 144 grandparent- due-process states main o p i n i o n Vibbert, their Amendment. I n r e A d o p t i o n o f C.A., v. for with a constitutionally 2006) ; V i b b e r t 1172 So. 967 Fourteenth grandparent-visitation parents. 932 does n o t s t a n d f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s t a t e s must afforded 1165, a 912 visitation App. represents 2d (2000), child opinion As I made c l e a r i n Dodd, T r o x e l v. G r a n v i l l e , 530 2007). adopt main f r o m t h e a n a l y t i c a l f r a m e w o r k I e s p o u s e d i n t h e main 2005) , a p p e a l 57 The and 2071061 Hiller v. F a u s e y , 588 Pa. 342, 363-66, 904 A.2d 875, 888-90 (2006). Further, Process dispute cited authorities I in Clause of the the the proposition main opinion Fourteenth i m p o s i t i o n o f a harm s t a n d a r d . 1. (Fla. The holding D i s t . Ct. App. For of the the Due requires holds Amendment o f C r a n n e y v. 2006), that each the that 3 example: Coronada, i s predicated c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t to p r i v a c y , not the 920 So. 2d 132 upon t h a t state's f e d e r a l Due Process Clause; 2. 183 The (Iowa 2003), constitution 3. holding o f I n r e M a r r i a g e o f Howard, 661 i s based ( i d . a t 187 K o s h k o v. upon n.4); Haining, provisions in N.W.2d Iowa's state and 398 Md. 404, 921 A.2d 171 (Md. 2 0 0 7 ) , i s p r e d i c a t e d upon M a r y l a n d ' s s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n ( i d . a t 443-44 n.22, When a 921 court A.2d such c o n s t i t u t i o n a l challenge a t 194 as this n.22). one is confronted with t o a s t a t u t e s u c h as A l a . Code § 3 0 - 3 - 4 . 1 , t h a t i s d u l y e n a c t e d by a 1975, the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e , The p a r e n t s d i d not a s s e r t i n the t r i a l c o u r t any c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n A l a . Code 1975, § 3 0 - 3 - 4 . 1 , and t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901. 3 44 2071061 the this elected lawmaking state, sustain the " ' i tis act representative the unless body duty recognized of of i t i s c l e a r beyond the So. 2d 186, 190 added recognition in of, much p r i n c i p l e of review. § 30-3-4.1(d)(6), less reasonable Fed'n main to consider d e c l i n e d to i n c l u d e i n the s i n c e T r o x e l was statute. no fundamental of adhering to e n a c t s t a t u t e s p r o v i d i n g f o r , and courts of c o n t i n u i n g t o do so: House B i l l Representatives by reading Senate, a 99-0 30 y e a r s , 45 has has seen f i t t o then f u r t h e r expanding, filed rights. by Even the grandparents now, i t is 32, w h i c h p a s s e d t h e House o f vote would but That, i n a n u t s h e l l , i s to hear a c t i o n s visitation decided had opinion. L e g i s l a t u r e , over the past the reflects that guise (1944); t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has what i s t r u l y w r o n g w i t h t h e main in 815 i t s u b j u g a t e s t h e e n t i r e t h r u s t o f § 30-3¬ opportunity awards to, Rather, under the the seeking 2d 810, opinion adherence t o a t h r e s h o l d harm s t a n d a r d power o f t r i a l doubt D.W., The 4.1 The to ( q u o t i n g Alabama S t a t e ( A l a . 2002) D.W.). court Ex p a r t e o f L a b o r v. M c A d o r y , 246 A l a . 1, 9, 18 So. emphasis of the t h a t i t i s v i o l a t i v e of the fundamental law.'" 835 people and allow is a pending its grandparent to third seek 2071061 visitation parent rights with has voluntarily financially abandoned, grandchildren relinquished the child. e v e n when t h a t c h i l d ' s custody of, or has In view, the my L e g i s l a t u r e ' s decisions i n t h i s f i e l d are j u s t i f i a b l e not only by t h e r o l e o f t h e s t a t e as p a r e n s p a t r i a e o f A l a b a m a ' s m i n o r children, number but also of functions by t h e f a c t i n many that extended grandparents families, which are p e r f e c t l y congruent w i t h p a r e n t a l serve not a l l of interests: " ' S o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have i d e n t i f i e d a t l e a s t f o u r " s y m b o l i c " r o l e s t h a t h e l p e x p l a i n t h e ways i n w h i c h g r a n d p a r e n t s i n f l u e n c e t h e i r f a m i l i e s . The " b e i n g t h e r e " r o l e r e q u i r e s n o t h i n g more t h a n a grandparent's presence and may help younger generation members i n two ways. First, this presence "mitigates against the obtrusive events of the o u t s i d e w o r l d and d i s r u p t i v e e v e n t s o f r o l e transitions ... [and] s e r v e s to maintain the i d e n t i t y of the family." In times of t r a n s i t i o n , s u c h as a f t e r t h e b i r t h o f a s i b l i n g o r d u r i n g divorce, a g r a n d p a r e n t ' s p r e s e n c e may e x e r t a c a l m i n g i n f l u e n c e on g r a n d c h i l d r e n . Second, j u s t by being there, grandparents provide an important s t a b i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e p a r t i c u l a r l y important f o r c h i l d r e n born o f e a r l y teenage mothers. "'The second symbolic role played by grandparents i s t h a t o f " f a m i l y watchdog." In t h i s r o l e , t h e g r a n d p a r e n t i s a l e r t f o r s i g n s o f abuse o r n e g l e c t t h a t might i n d i c a t e t h a t the f a m i l y w i l l need active care and p r o t e c t i o n . Third, an " a r b i t r a t i n g " r o l e may be assumed when g r a n d p a r e n t s a c t i v e l y negotiate between p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n c o n c e r n i n g v a l u e s a n d b e h a v i o r s t h a t may be more c e n t r a l , i n t h e l o n g r u n , t o f a m i l y c o n t i n u i t y and 46 a 2071061 i n d i v i d u a l enhancement t h a n t h o s e t h a t t h e p a r e n t s ' authority s t a t u s a l l o w t o be e x p r e s s e d . Such negotiation may also occur when grandparents downplay v o l a t i l e o r d i s r u p t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n . The f o u r t h i m p o r t a n t symbolic r o l e f o r g r a n d p a r e n t s i s as " i n t e r p r e t e r s " o f t h e family's history. Grandparents may help g r a n d c h i l d r e n b u i l d c o n n e c t i o n s between t h e f a m i l y ' s p a s t , p r e s e n t , and f u t u r e , which h e l p c h i l d r e n form a f i r m e r sense o f i d e n t i t y . ' " Goff v. Goff, 844 P.2d 1087, 1091 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting P a t r i c i a S. F e r n a n d e z , G r a n d p a r e n t A c c e s s : A M o d e l S t a t u t e , 6 Yale L. & Pol'y R e v . 109, 109-10 (1988)). F o r t h e main opinion now t o s t a t e , opinion i n L.B.S. v. L.M.S., 826 So. 2d 178, 184 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002), that i n d i r e c t c o n t r a d i c t i o n o f t h e main the state h a s no c o m p e l l i n g interest i n p r o m o t i n g normal r e l a t i o n s h i p s between g r a n d p a r e n t s and t h e i r p r o g e n y , b u t c a n o n l y i n t e r c e d e b a s e d on a s h o w i n g o f "harm," is nothing short o f an i n s u l t to the e f f o r t s o f a l l Alabama grandparents. The main o p i n i o n further posits that j u d g m e n t i s due t o be r e v e r s e d court, i n i t s judgment, Again, o f t h e p a r t i e s and t h e o t h e r had given before I must d i s a g r e e . exhaustively testimony been The d e t a i l e d the adult witnesses the children t e s t i f i e d , 47 court's on t h e g r o u n d t h a t no s h o w i n g o f harm was made i n t h i s c a s e . trial the t r i a l that a n d i t made 2071061 findings of fact and c o n c l u s i o n s testimony and t h e documentary pertinent factual finding of law based evidence. made upon Perhaps by t h e t r i a l that t h e most court i s the following: "The e x t r e m e c o n t r o l t h a t i s c u r r e n t l y e x e r c i s e d b y [ t h e p a r e n t s , b y ] r e s t r i c t i n g a c c e s s o f t h e ... g r a n d p a r e n t s t o [ t h e ] c h i l d r e n a n d , w h i c h i s meant t o be d i r e c t e d t o w a r d [ t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s ] , h a s h a d the e f f e c t o f : "a. Completely alienating t h e ... c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r ... g r a n d p a r e n t s , with whom t h e y h a d p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d s t r o n g relationships. "b. Severely restricting t h e ... children from their established r e l a t i o n s h i p s with t h e i r extended p a t e r n a l f a m i l y w h i c h i n c l u d e s many a u n t s , u n c l e s , c o u s i n s as w e l l a s t h e i r own g o d m o t h e r s . "c. Severely restricting t h e ... c h i l d r e n from r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h f r i e n d s , w h i c h f r i e n d s h i p s were n u r t u r e d as a p a r t of their relationship with [the] grandparents. "d. ... [ C ] o n t r i b u t i n g [ t o ] , a l o n g w i t h t h e e v e r more b i z a r r e e f f o r t s o f [ t h e g r a n d p a r e n t s ] t o overcome t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s , ... d e s t r o y i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t [ s ] ... a n d [ t h e ] g r a n d p a r e n t [ s ] . " Further, the t r i a l court expressly determined that a l l the enumerated f a c t o r s s e t f o r t h i n § 30-3-4.1(d), w i t h t h e s o l e exception o f p a r e n t a l wishes, weighed 48 i n favor of granting 2071061 visitation rights t o the grandparents; preference f o r no visitation willfulness, control, was financial that the p a r e n t a l grounded i n "matters leverage and of resentment engendered by a p r o l o n g e d p e r i o d o f f i n a n c i a l l e v e r a g e enjoyed by [the grandparents]" t h a t d i d not touch "directly w e l l b e i n g o f t h e ... c h i l d r e n " ; a n d t h a t t h e p a r e n t s on t h e appeared t o be w i l l i n g e v e n t o commit p e r j u r y i n an e f f o r t t o m a i n t a i n their control, a situation that the t r i a l court deemed intolerable: "In t h e l o n g term such [ e x e r t i o n o f c o n t r o l ] i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e ... c h i l d r e n . R a t h e r t h a n l i v e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e ... c h i l d r e n l o v e t h e i r p a r e n t s and g r a n d p a r e n t s and a u t h o r i t y i s m u d d l e d b e t w e e n t h e two s e t s o f a d u l t s , which i s not i n the best i n t e r e s t s o f the c h i l d r e n , the ... children could well find themselves a l i e n a t e d from [the] g r a n d p a r e n t s and w i t h o u t t h e i r a d u l t a d v i c e , and r e s e n t f u l toward t h e i r p a r e n t s f o r e x e r t i n g t o o much c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r u p b r i n g i n g so that a t the e a r l i e s t opportunity they w i l l break l o o s e from p a r e n t a l c o n t r o l [and] r e b e l a g a i n s t p a r e n t a l c o n t r o l and t h i s t o o i s n o t i n t h e l o n g t e r m b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e ... c h i l d r e n . The ... c h i l d r e n w o u l d move f r o m a c o n d i t i o n o f h a v i n g t o o many a d u l t s i n t h e i r lives to respect, to a c o n d i t i o n where t h e y w o u l d have no a d u l t s i n t h e i r l i v e s t o r e s p e c t . E i t h e r extreme i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e ... c h i l d r e n . "The s o l u t i o n d e v i s e d b y t h e ... p a r e n t s t o t h e p e r c e i v e d d a n g e r s o f h a v i n g t o o much f a m i l y a r o u n d w i t h t h e remedy o f n e a r t o t a l i s o l a t i o n o f t h e 49 2071061 children from the ... grandparents is compensation f o r the p e r c e i v e d danger." A f t e r h a v i n g reviewed of the trial court properly p a r e n t s and of the gave due record, over[-] I believe that the deference to the wishes of the deemed them as p r i m a f a c i e i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s c h i l d r e n ; however, the a w a r d o f v i s i t a t i o n was trial court's decision that warranted i n s p i t e of those wishes an was p e r m i s s i b l e upon a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e r e m a i n i n g f a c t o r s set forth the g u a r d i a n ad that the i n § 3 0 - 3 - 4 . 1 ( d ) as w e l l as trial recommendation litem favoring v i s i t a t i o n . court's granted to the the judgment that Thus, I visitation g r a n d p a r e n t s i s s u p p o r t e d by the of believe should law and be the evidence. In accordance w i t h the foregoing v i e w s I have e x p r e s s e d , and b e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h a t none o f t h e o t h e r f o r r e v e r s a l i n the p a r e n t s ' opinion that reversing the the Alabama opportunity, court's this court b r i e f are w e l l taken, i s committing judgment under r e v i e w . Supreme to grant Court, grounds i f certiorari judgment. 50 that a grievous I dissent, court review and is asserted I am o f error and in I urge given reverse the the this

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.