Facts: In 1994 the Washington legislature passed §26.10.160(3), which permitted ‘…any person’ to petition a Superior Court for visitation rights and authorized superior courts to grant such rights whenever ‘…visitation…serve[s] the best interest of the child.’ Petitioners Gary and Jennifer Troxel petitioned the Superior Court for Skagit County for the right to visit their grandchildren, Isabelle and Natalie Troxel. Respondent Tommie Granville, Isabelle and Natalie’s mother, opposed the petition. In 1995, the Superior Court entered a visitation decree, finding that in light of all of the evidence before it, the children would benefit from spending time with the petitioners. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court’s visitation order, holding that non-parents lack standing under §26.10.160(3) to seek visitation unless a custody action is pending. This decision was appealed by Troxel to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Does §26.10.160(3) permit non-parents not seeking custody to seek visitation?

Does §26.10.160(3) violate the fundamental right of parents under the United States Constitution to direct the upbringing of their children?

Conclusion: The Court held that the plain meaning of §26.10.160(3) confers standing upon non-parents not involved in custody proceedings to seek visitation rights as it declined to read qualifications into the statute on the basis of a perceived error of omission on the part of the legislature. Turning subsequently to the federal constitutional question presented, the Court ruled that §26.10.160(3) was unconstitutional. Justice Madsen’s opinion for the Court held that the ‘…fundamental right to autonomy in child-rearing decisions’ enjoyed by parents as part of the liberty interest guaranteed by the 14th Amendment rendered §26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally overbroad. As the right of parents to rear their children is subject to state interference only under circumstances in which the state is seeking to prevent physical or psychological harm to children, the ‘…best interest of child’ standard was not sufficiently narrowly tailored to override parental decisions regarding visitation only under such circumstances. Absent a showing of harm, the Court held, parents have an inviolable constitutional right to limit visitation of their children with third persons even if such visitation may be beneficial.

Docket No. 65605-3; 65699-1; 66207-0

Petitioner: Jennifer Troxel

(Counsel: Mark D. Olson and David G. Metcalf)

Respondent: Tommie Granville

(Counsel: Catherine Wright Smith, Howard M. Goodfriend, Christon C. Skinner, Kenneth W. Masters, Mark D. Theune, and Grace S. Wagner)

Argument: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, December 24th, 1998

Prevailing Party: Tommie Granville (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Opinion: 137 Wn.2d 1 (1998)

Court: Durham3 Court (1996-1998)

Durham

Dolliver

Smith

Guy

Johnson

Madsen

Alexander

Talmadge

Sanders

This case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). For more information, visit The Oyez Project.