Grandparents' Rights Have Limits
The U.S. Supreme Court has drawn sharper lines on the rights of grandparents.
On Monday, the High Court ruled 6-3 that a Washington state law went too far in giving grandparents the right to see grandchildren over the objections of the parents.
CBS News Correspondent Eric Engberg reports the court strongly reaffirmed the right of parents to control the rearing of their children in striking down the law, which two grandparents used to try to win more time with their grandchildren.
The ruling written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- a grandmother herself -- and joined in by five other Justices holds that the U.S. Constitution's due process clause "protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."
Grandparents, the court indicated, do have rights. Fifty states have laws recognizing that. But Washington's law was the broadest of them all -- and now the court has erected strict limits.
"Washington's law allowed anyone, a baby-sitter, a teacher, a child's car pool driver to seek visitation rights," said CBSNews.com Legal Consultant Andrew Cohen, who added that "the sheer scope of the law made those justices nervous enough to void the law on a variety of legal grounds."
Another key factor in the case was that no one charged the mother of the children was unfit, so O'Connor wrote the "presumption is ... she was acting in the best interests of the children." In such cases, O'Connor said, the parent's wishes about visitation by others should be given "special weight" by the courts. It all added up, she concluded, to an unconstitutional abridgement of a parent's rights.
The grandparents in this case -- whose son separated from the mother, then died -- had petitioned the courts for two weekends a month with their grandchildren.
"It's hard enough to lose a child and when you think that you're going to lose your grandchildren. You're going to do everything that you can to make sure that you're going to be able to see those grandchildren," said Jennifer Troxell, one of the grandparents.
O'Connor's opinion, on a subject fraught with deep emotions, is likely to be one that she will be remembered for. She noted almost wistfully, "in an ideal world, parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds between grandparents and their grandchildren." She then added, "… that's not how life really works."
|
CBS News Correspondent Cynthia Bowers reports if you want to see how far one parent is willing to go to control who has access to her child, look no further than Julie Mehring. For the last seven months, the southern Illinois woman has been jailed on contempt charges for refusing to allow her former in-laws to visit her seven-year-old daughter Jenna.
"She doesn't need another party confusing her. She needs support, she needs love. That's what I give her," said Mehring.
Jenna Mehring has been at the heart of this legal tug-of-war ever since her father Michael died three years ago. At issue is whether the paternal grandmother Ella has the right to see the little girl. The judge in the case says yes. Julie Mehring says no. But no one expected jail to enter into the equation.
Each side in the Mehring case sees the High Court's ruling in a different light. Julie Mehring's attorney said the court's endorsement of parental authority will give his client more ammunition in further appeals. The grandmother's attorney believes that since the justices didn't strike down visitation in principle, the ruling should have little effect.
One family law expert said grandparents should relax because they still have rights, but just not as many as parents do.
"What this decision does say, it recognizes that before you take away a parent's responsibility to make decisions for his or her own child, a fit parent, you have to have some special circumstance," said Bruce Boyer of Northwestern University Law School.
How Monday's ruling will affect this particular case remains to be seen, but it is certain to come up in future hearings. Until then a grandmother will continue to wait, and Julie Mehring will continue to do time.
And that isn't the only custody case worth watching in the wake of the High Court's ruling.
"Well, now we have a glimpse of what the Supreme Court might rule if it is ever asked to chime in on the Elian Gonzalez case," said Andrew Cohen.
"The main opinion…," he added, "holds that as long as a parent adequately cares for his or her child the state shouldn't interfere - and that isn't too much of a stretch from the very issues the court would be asked to comment on in the Elian case."