Troxel v. Granville (2000): Special Weight for a Fit Parent's Decisions

The short answer

In Troxel v. Granville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for a mother who objected to a court order giving her children's grandparents more visitation than she wanted. The Court affirmed the Washington Supreme Court's judgment Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). But no single opinion spoke for a majority of the Justices. Justice O'Connor's opinion for four Justices, called the plurality opinion, concluded that Washington's visitation law, "as applied in this case, is unconstitutional," because the trial judge gave no special weight to a fit parent's decision Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

A fit parent is a parent who adequately cares for his or her children. The plurality used the word that way Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

What the case was about

A Washington law said: "Any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time including, but not limited to, custody proceedings. The court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Jenifer and Gary Troxel asked a Washington court for the right to visit their grandchildren. They filed soon after the death of their son, the children's father Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). The children's mother, Tommie Granville, did not oppose all visits. She asked for one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. The grandparents asked for two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks each summer Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). The trial court ordered one weekend per month, one week in the summer, and four hours on each grandparent's birthday Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The Washington Court of Appeals reversed that order and dismissed the petition. The Washington Supreme Court held that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and affirmed Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

What the court decided

Justice O'Connor announced the judgment and wrote an opinion joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. Justices Souter and Thomas each concurred in the judgment, and Justices Stevens, Scalia and Kennedy each dissented Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). So the result, affirmance, had six votes, but the reasoning below comes from the four-Justice plurality. It is not a holding of a majority of the Court.

The plurality called parents' interest in the care, custody, and control of their children "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." It traced that right back to Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Prince v. Massachusetts, and to later cases Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The plurality called the Washington statute "breathtakingly broad." Under it, a parent's decision against visitation got no deference at all Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). No one claimed, and no court found, that the mother was unfit. That mattered, the plurality said, because "there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The plurality said the problem was not that the trial court stepped in. It was that the court gave "no special weight at all" to the mother's view of her daughters' best interests. In effect, the judge made the fit parent prove that visitation would not be in her daughters' best interest Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Due process, the plurality said, does not let a State override a parent's child-rearing decisions "simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The plurality kept its ruling narrow. It did not decide whether due process requires all nonparental visitation statutes to include a showing of harm or potential harm to the child. It did not define the exact scope of the parental right in visitation cases. It said it would be "hesitant" to strike down visitation statutes as a per se matter Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). It also saw no reason to send the case back for more hearings Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

The concurrences took other paths. Justice Souter concurred in affirming the Washington Supreme Court, whose "facial invalidation" of its own statute he found consistent with the Court's prior cases. Justice Thomas agreed with the plurality that the parental right resolves the case, but wrote that he "would apply strict scrutiny to infringements of fundamental rights" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

In the court's words

These quotes are from the plurality opinion, not a majority opinion.

there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.

In plain English: a court starts from the idea that a fit parent is acting for the child's good Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

the decision whether such an intergenerational relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance.

In plain English: the parent decides first whether time with grandparents is good for the child Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

And, if a fit parent's decision of the kind at issue here becomes subject to judicial review, the court must accord at least some special weight to the parent's own determination.

In plain English: if a judge reviews that choice, the judge must give the fit parent's view real weight Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Why it matters for Texas families

Troxel was not a CPS case. It was a private visitation dispute between grandparents and a mother, under a Washington statute Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Still, the plurality's discussion of parents' rights draws on the same line of cases explained elsewhere on this site, from Meyer and Pierce onward Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). It described the right of parents to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of their children as beyond doubt under the Due Process Clause Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). It also said that, so long as a parent is fit, "there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).

Be careful about how far Troxel reaches. It has no majority opinion. The plurality ruled only on how the Washington statute was applied in that one case, and it left open the harm question Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). In 2000 the plurality noted that "All 50 States have statutes that provide for grandparent visitation in some form" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). How Troxel applies to another State's law depends on that law and on how that State's courts apply it. This page does not describe Texas visitation law. If a grandparent or other relative is asking a Texas court for access to your child, talk to a Texas family lawyer.

If your family's situation involves CPS, different steps apply. See The Texas CPS Investigation Process, Step by Step (Family Code §§261.301–261.302) and Your Rights When Texas CPS Contacts You (Family Code §261.307). This page is legal information, not legal advice.

Related

• Santosky v. Kramer (1982): The Proof Needed to End Parental Rights
• Parham v. J. R. (1979): Parents, the State and a Child's Mental Hospital Admission
• Stanley v. Illinois (1972): An Unwed Father's Right to a Fitness Hearing
• Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): The Right to Bring Up Your Children
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): Parents' Right to Direct Their Children's Education
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972): Parents, Religion and Schooling After Eighth Grade