| Troxel v. Granville | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued January 12, 2000 Decided June 5, 2000 |
||||||
| Full case name | Troxel et vir v. Granville | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. A law that allows anyone to petition a court for child visitation rights over parental objections unconstitutionally infringes on parents' fundamental right to rear their children. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Plurality | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Ginsburg, Breyer | |||||
| Concurrence | Souter | |||||
| Concurrence | Thomas | |||||
| Dissent | Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Scalia | |||||
| Dissent | Kennedy | |||||
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to rear their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.
In the case of Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court has said that "the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court."[2] The Supreme Court also made it clear that this fundamental right is implicated in grandparent visitation cases. The plurality opinion stated at the outset that statutes allowing grandparent visitation orders to be imposed over parental objection "present questions of constitutional import." The Supreme Court flatly declared that a parent's fundamental right to the "care, custody and control of their children" was "at issue in this case." The Supreme Court struck down the Washington grandparent visitation statute because it unconstitutionally infringed on that fundamental parental right.
State courts considering non-parent visitation petitions must apply "a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.".[3] Troxel requires that State courts must give "special weight" to a fit parent's decision to deny non-parent visitation. “Choices [parents make] about the upbringing of children . . . are among associational rights . . . sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”[4] This principle must inform our understanding of the “special weight” Troxel requires courts to give to parents’ decisions concerning whether, when and how grandparents will associate with their children. Even though Troxel does not define "special weight," previous Supreme Court precedent indicates that "special weight" is a strong term signifying very considerable deference.[5] The "special weight" requirement, as illuminated by these prior Supreme Court cases, means that the deference provided to the parent's wishes will only be overcome by some compelling governmental interest and overwhelmingly clear factual circumstances supporting that governmental interest.
Works related to [[wikisource:Troxel v. Granville|Troxel v. Granville]] at Wikisource