• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

WA Supreme Court Strikes Down GPV

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

W

WA_DAD

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? WA State

Thursday, April 7, 2005 · Last updated 5:32 p.m. PT

State Supreme Court strikes down grandparent visitation law

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- For the second time, the state Supreme Court has struck down Washington's grandparent visitation law as unconstitutional.

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the court said parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, and Washington's law amounted to government meddling.

The current law replaced another state law that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2000, forcing dozens of states to rewrite their own statutes.

"This has a larger implication, which is personal autonomy," said attorney Jordan Gross, who represented the father in the Washington state case. "Fit parents have a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children free from state interference."

The case revolves around a girl who was born on Christmas Day in 1992. Her parents split up after she was born, and when she was a baby she moved with her father to Germany, where they lived with her father's parents.

When the girl was four, her father returned to the United States and she stayed with her grandparents in Germany for three years. In 2000, the girl went to live with her father and his new wife in Snohomish County, Wash. The father's parents petitioned the court for visitation.

Supreme Court papers did not say why the grandparents decided to petition for visitation.

The court said Thursday that the grandparents have no right to court-ordered visits because Washington's law on the matter is unconstitutional.

The state law says visits with a grandparent are presumed to be in the child's best interest, even if the parent disagrees. This section, Justice Richard Sanders wrote in the unanimous opinion, "directly contravenes the constitutionally required presumption that the fit parent acts in the child's best interests."

Unless a parent is mistreating a child, the courts have held that parenting is a fundamental right with which the government should not interfere. A court should be allowed to order visits only if the grandparent can prove that lack of visitation would harm the child, the Supreme Court said.

For now, this means Washington has no grandparent visitation law. That worries Dave McRae, Seattle chapter chairman of the Grandparents Rights Organization of Washington. He's working with legislators to write a new law that would allow grandparents to ask a court for visitation rights.

"It's just heartbreaking, the stories we hear about kids being cut off from people who love them and who are good for them, just because of arguments or a divorce or a death of one parent," McRae said. "We're not trying to take away rights from anybody - all we're asking for is a reasonable solution for grandparents."

The case is In Re: The Parentage of C.A.M.A, No. 75262-1.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20SCOW%20Grandparents'%20Rights

Here is the case:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=752621MAJ
 


LdiJ

LdiJ

Senior Member
WA_DAD said:
What is the name of your state? WA State

Thursday, April 7, 2005 · Last updated 5:32 p.m. PT

State Supreme Court strikes down grandparent visitation law

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- For the second time, the state Supreme Court has struck down Washington's grandparent visitation law as unconstitutional.

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the court said parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, and Washington's law amounted to government meddling.

The current law replaced another state law that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2000, forcing dozens of states to rewrite their own statutes.

"This has a larger implication, which is personal autonomy," said attorney Jordan Gross, who represented the father in the Washington state case. "Fit parents have a fundamental constitutional right to raise their children free from state interference."

The case revolves around a girl who was born on Christmas Day in 1992. Her parents split up after she was born, and when she was a baby she moved with her father to Germany, where they lived with her father's parents.

When the girl was four, her father returned to the United States and she stayed with her grandparents in Germany for three years. In 2000, the girl went to live with her father and his new wife in Snohomish County, Wash. The father's parents petitioned the court for visitation.

Supreme Court papers did not say why the grandparents decided to petition for visitation.

The court said Thursday that the grandparents have no right to court-ordered visits because Washington's law on the matter is unconstitutional.

The state law says visits with a grandparent are presumed to be in the child's best interest, even if the parent disagrees. This section, Justice Richard Sanders wrote in the unanimous opinion, "directly contravenes the constitutionally required presumption that the fit parent acts in the child's best interests."

Unless a parent is mistreating a child, the courts have held that parenting is a fundamental right with which the government should not interfere. A court should be allowed to order visits only if the grandparent can prove that lack of visitation would harm the child, the Supreme Court said.

For now, this means Washington has no grandparent visitation law. That worries Dave McRae, Seattle chapter chairman of the Grandparents Rights Organization of Washington. He's working with legislators to write a new law that would allow grandparents to ask a court for visitation rights.

"It's just heartbreaking, the stories we hear about kids being cut off from people who love them and who are good for them, just because of arguments or a divorce or a death of one parent," McRae said. "We're not trying to take away rights from anybody - all we're asking for is a reasonable solution for grandparents."

The case is In Re: The Parentage of C.A.M.A, No. 75262-1.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20SCOW%20Grandparents'%20Rights

Here is the case:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=752621MAJ
Click to expand...
Well...I just took the time to read the case. That takes care of your problem...purely and simply.

Did they ever sue you for visitation? If not, you don't have to worry about it now. They can't. However please note that they might hire an attorney who doesn't keep up with case law...so they still might petition and you might have to respond with a petition to dismiss based on this ruling. It shouldn't happen...but it might.

If you are already in the middle of a case, then you again need to petition for the case to be dismissed based on this ruling.
 
W

WA_DAD

Junior Member
LdiJ said:
Well...I just took the time to read the case. That takes care of your problem...purely and simply.

Did they ever sue you for visitation? If not, you don't have to worry about it now. They can't. However please note that they might hire an attorney who doesn't keep up with case law...so they still might petition and you might have to respond with a petition to dismiss based on this ruling. It shouldn't happen...but it might.

If you are already in the middle of a case, then you again need to petition for the case to be dismissed based on this ruling.
Click to expand...
LdiJ, sorry it took so long to respond. Yes, that takes care of the situation. I as well as many other parents can breathe easier. At least in WA State. With 1 US Supreme Court, and 2 WA State Supreme Court Rulings against GP Visitation. They never sued for visitation.

Do you think the WA State legislature could try again? Especially with a Governors election that has been contested. Christine Gregoire won by a hair (Supposedly) She was the attorney general of WA State when the USSC ruled on the Troxel v Granville case. She filed her Amicus Brief on behalf of grandparent visitation.

http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-138/99-138fo1/brief/brief01.html

What are the chances that the Legislature might try to change/re-write the Law (AGAIN), and with Gregoire in the governors mansion it might pass? Would the legislature have the Cahones? What are the implications if this were to happen, especially in light of this recent WA Supreme Court ruling?
What are your thoughts? What does Everyone think??? Just thinking about Michigan, and what happened there.

Thanks, WA_DAD
 
LdiJ

LdiJ

Senior Member
WA_DAD said:
LdiJ, sorry it took so long to respond. Yes, that takes care of the situation. I as well as many other parents can breathe easier. At least in WA State. With 1 US Supreme Court, and 2 WA State Supreme Court Rulings against GP Visitation. They never sued for visitation.

Do you think the WA State legislature could try again? Especially with a Governors election that has been contested. Christine Gregoire won by a hair (Supposedly) She was the attorney general of WA State when the USSC ruled on the Troxel v Granville case. She filed her Amicus Brief on behalf of grandparent visitation.

http://supreme.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-138/99-138fo1/brief/brief01.html

What are the chances that the Legislature might try to change/re-write the Law (AGAIN), and with Gregoire in the governors mansion it might pass? Would the legislature have the Cahones? What are the implications if this were to happen, especially in light of this recent WA Supreme Court ruling?
What are your thoughts? What does Everyone think??? Just thinking about Michigan, and what happened there.

Thanks, WA_DAD
Click to expand...
It happened in Michigan, Tennesee and Illinois. Michigan's law is pretty decent now, and odds are it will stand. Illinois's got so watered down by the "grannie groups" that its likely to get struck down again sometime in the next couple of years (as soon as another parent takes it to the IL Supreme Court), TN keeps writing new legislation and it keeps regularly getting struck down every couple of years. Florida hasn't managed to pass new legislation and its going on seven years now.

This is twice for Washington State. Once for the previous statute (the one that had to do with Troxel) and now again on the newer statute. Therefore its going to be tough as nails for them to pass new legislation....particularly legislation that would pass constitutional muster. Most likely somebody will sponsor a bill sometime in the next couple of years that will start out passing constitutional muster...but then the "grannie groups" will lobby to water it down..and it won't end up getting passed.

By the time it happens....and I really doubt its going to happen....your child will no longer have an established relationship with the gp...so you are probably safe no matter what happens.
 
B

Bay1954

Member
Those of us who believe in the constitution and not the efforts of mass lobbying groups (such as the AARP) must remain ever vigilant. GPV suits against fit parents will continue to be shot down in the higher courts and the lobbying groups will continue to come up with their version of a new and "improved" statute. And then, we fight again.
It ain't easy to remain free. You have to work at it.
Congratulations and thank you to you and your family. Not only did you help yourself but you have, indeed, helped many others.
 
F

fgs

Member
GPV legal precedents

Wondering if any of you had any links to cases applying to AL or GA regarding the GP visitation. The link for WA State was very good. Thanks for any input.
 
LdiJ

LdiJ

Senior Member
fgs said:
Wondering if any of you had any links to cases applying to AL or GA regarding the GP visitation. The link for WA State was very good. Thanks for any input.
Click to expand...
I can't provide you any links, unfortunately...but here is some info:

Some good cases for Georgia are:

Rainey vs Lange
Hunter vs Carter
Binkley vs Flatt
Rogers vs Barnett

Here is an excerpt that gives you a good sense of the status of gpv in GA:

The statutory provision authorizing grandparent visitation rights is O.C.G.A. § 19-7- 3, which states:

The court may grant any grandparent of the child reasonable visitation rights if the court finds the health or welfare of the child would be harmed unless such visitation is granted, and if the best interests of the child would be served by such visitation. The court shall make specific written findings of fact in support of its ruling. There shall be no presumption in favor of visitation by any grandparent.

See also Binkley v. Flatt. n1 "O.C.G.A. § 19-7-3 (c) does not require a finding that a parent is unfit, but simply that 'the health or welfare of the child would be harmed unless such visitation is granted.'" Rogers v. Barnett. n2 "Absent clear and convincing evidence that the child [will] experience actual physical, mental, or emotional harm if visitation was denied, the trial court cannot justify mandating grandparent [***3] visitation over the objections of the parents." Hunter v. Carter. n3

Alabama is one of those states that still is resisting applying the standards of Troxel to grandparent visitation cases. There are two possible courts were a gpv case can be held in AL….Juvenile Court and Circuit Court. Cases heard in Juvenile Court tend to go in favor of the grandparents, but tend to get struck down frequently on appeal, due to Juvenile Court not having jurisdiction. Juvenile Court only properly has jurisdiction if the child is ALREADY before the court on another matter.

Cases in Circuit Court tend to be more favorable to the parents.
 
D

dallas702

Senior Member
That pretty well spells it out, but I have to laugh at the part where the court claims to not want "government meddling". Considering that the courts continuously uphold the "right" of a child, or a child with the help of a judge, to have an abortion without the parent's consent or notification....their adamant profession of the protection of parent's rights is hypocritical (at best). That's just one example of dozens of ways the government "meddles" in the family....all with the blessing and enforcement of the courts.
 
W

WA_DAD

Junior Member
Here We Go Again

WA State

Yep, after numerous Appellate Court rulings, WA State Supreme Court rulings, and Troxel v Granville against GPV,the legislature is trying again. Or should I say some legislators are trying. I mean, the WA State Supreme Court just ruled last April 2005 that the whole statute was Unconstitutional in the Parentage Of C.A.M.A What are these guys thinking? How long do parents have to keep worrying???

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/search.aspx?term=grandparent&year=2006

It also seems that the SAME legislators year after year try and do this. Can YOU SAY SPECIAL INTERESTS? I know in Florida they try this every year as well, but it never passes, or is expired in committee. Does anyone have any advice on what to write to the members of the legislature, or is it a lost cause? I am looking for honest advice, that is serious in nature, without all the Kelly, or IAAL crap.

WA_DAD
 
Just Blue

Just Blue

Senior Member
WA_DAD said:
WA State

Yep, after numerous Appellate Court rulings, WA State Supreme Court rulings, and Troxel v Granville against GPV,the legislature is trying again. Or should I say some legislators are trying. I mean, the WA State Supreme Court just ruled last April 2005 that the whole statute was Unconstitutional in the Parentage Of C.A.M.A What are these guys thinking? How long do parents have to keep worrying???

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/search.aspx?term=grandparent&year=2006

It also seems that the SAME legislators year after year try and do this. Can YOU SAY SPECIAL INTERESTS? I know in Florida they try this every year as well, but it never passes, or is expired in committee. Does anyone have any advice on what to write to the members of the legislature, or is it a lost cause? I am looking for honest advice, that is serious in nature, without all the Kelly, or IAAL crap.

WA_DAD
Click to expand...
Kelly has been banned...Iaal is being a good boy...for now!
 
LdiJ

LdiJ

Senior Member
It appears that there are 5 different bills in play. I have read all of them and here is my take:

HB 2000 – forget that one…its not going to fly and was introduced before the WA Supreme court even ruled.

HB 2711 – That one isn’t going to fly either. They blew it by the clause transferring the burden of proof to the parent. It might have had a chance without that.

SB 5944 - That one has no hope either…it barely gives lip service to the higher court rulings.

SB 6316 – That one starts out strong….but does the same thing as HB 2711, its transfers the burden of proof to the parents.

SB 6683 – Only pays lip service to the supreme court ruling and again, shifts the burden of proof to the parents.

The only bill in there that I see having any hope of both getting passed, and meeting constitutional muster is SB 6316. However, if they don't remove the clause that shifts the burden of proof to the parent...Its doomed. Troxel made it absolutely clear that the burden of proof cannot be placed on the parent in these cases.....and the WA supreme court has made it clear that they will adhere to the Troxel standards.

None of the bills have made it any distance yet in the process. They have only had their first readings and at least all of the senate bills have been referred to the judiciary, so I suspect that they may not get any further than that. Its impossible to know whether or not any bill will get passed, or whether any bill that gets passed even remotely ressembles any of these when its finally done.
 
Last edited:
W

WA_DAD

Junior Member
LdiJ said:
It appears that there are 5 different bills in play. I have read all of them and here is my take:

HB 2000 – forget that one…its not going to fly and was introduced before the WA Supreme court even ruled.

HB 2711 – That one isn’t going to fly either. They blew it by the clause transferring the burden of proof to the parent. It might have had a chance without that.

SB 5944 - That one has no hope either…it barely gives lip service to the higher court rulings.

SB 6316 – That one starts out strong….but does the same thing as HB 2711, its transfers the burden of proof to the parents.

SB 6683 – Only pays lip service to the supreme court ruling and again, shifts the burden of proof to the parents.

The only bill in there that I see having any hope of both getting passed, and meeting constitutional muster is SB 6316. However, if they don't remove the clause that shifts the burden of proof to the parent...Its doomed. Troxel made it absolutely clear that the burden of proof cannot be placed on the parent in these cases.....and the WA supreme court has made it clear that they will adhere to the Troxel standards.

None of the bills have made it any distance yet in the process. They have only had their first readings and at least all of the senate bills have been referred to the judiciary, so I suspect that they may not get any further than that. Its impossible to know whether or not any bill will get passed, or whether any bill that gets passed even remotely ressembles any of these when its finally done.
Click to expand...
Thank You LdiJ.. I appreciate your response. Anyone else???

WA_DAD
 
T

tigger22472

Senior Member
Just wanted to thank you for keeping this thread together and all the information here. I'm doing my next paper on grandparents rights and these links and bills will be a nice additive.
 
LdiJ

LdiJ

Senior Member
tigger22472 said:
Just wanted to thank you for keeping this thread together and all the information here. I'm doing my next paper on grandparents rights and these links and bills will be a nice additive.
Click to expand...
Tig...I have a slamming law review on the issue that you might want to read. It was written by a law professor out of Boston. PM me and we can figure out a way for me to get it to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top