8/13/2019 Troxel Assignment

1/2

Amanda Weiner 1Family LawProf. Flynn

Troxel v. Granville : Questions (spend the most time on the questions in bold )

1. The plurality opinion (announ in! the "ud!ment of the #ourt) finds fault $oth with the WA statute and

with the trial ourt%s de ision. What are the diffi ulties with the way the WA statute is drafted&The plurality opinion finds that the lan!ua!e of the statute un onstitutionally infrin!es on a

fundamental parental ri!ht'the interest of parents in the are ustody and ontrol of their hildren.Additionally the statute is o erwhelmin!ly $road. The lan!ua!e of the statute effe ti ely permits any third

party see*in! isitation to su$"e t any de ision $y a parent on ernin! isitation of the hildren to state+ ourtre iew. ,n e the isitation petition has $een filed a parent%s de ision that isitation would not $e in the hild%s

$est interests is a orded no deferen e. The statute ontains no requirement that a ourt a ord the parent%sde ision any presumption of alidity or any wei!ht whatsoe er. -nstead the !rants the "ud!e sole determinationin de ided the $est interest of the hild the "ud!e%s iew would always pre ail despite the parent%s de ision.

/. What are the pluralitys objections to the trial courts decision?

The plurality%s o$"e tions to the trial ourt%s de ision is that it !a e no spe ial wei!ht at all to themother%s determination of her dau!hter%s% $est interests. The "ud!e%s omments su!!ested that he

presumed the !randparents% request should $e !ranted unless the hildren would $e 0impa tedad ersely. -n effe t the "ud!e in orre tly pla ed the $urden on the mother the fit ustodial parent ofdispro in! that isitation would $e in her dau!hters% $est interest. This framewor* used $y the trial ourtdire tly ontra ened the traditional presumption that a fit parent will a t in the $est interest of his2herhild. The ourt%s presumption failed to !i e any prote tion to the mother%s ri!ht to ma*e de isionson ernin! the rearin! of her own dau!hters. The plurality $elie ed that if a fit parent%s de ision of this*ind $e omes su$"e t to "udi ial re iew the ourt must a ord at least some spe ial wei!ht to the

parent%s own determination.

3. What onstitutional ri!ht is iolated& -f you *now of any earlier ases in whi h the #ourt upheld asimilar ri!ht please mention $riefly.The onstitutional ri!ht that is iolated is the fundamental ri!ht of parents to ma*e de isions

on ernin! the are ustody and ontrol of their hildren. This ri!ht was also an issue an earlier asessu h as Meyer v. Nebraska Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder .

4. Does the plurality set out a standard to use in future cases? If so, what is the standard? If not,what guidance, if any, does the plurality give?

The plurality mentions that the de ision as to whether an inter!enerational relationship would $e $enefi ial in any spe ifi ase is for the parent to ma*e in the first instan e. -f a fit parent%s de ision ofthis *ind $e omes su$"e t to "udi ial re iew the ourt must a ord at least some spe ial wei!ht to the

parent%s own determination.

5. The primary holdin! of the WA 6upreme #ourt was that for isitation to $e !ranted o er a parent%so$"e tion the person see*in! isitation must show that the hild will $e harmed (or potentially harmed)if isitation is denied the ourt held that 7ue Pro ess #lause requires this. Briefly e8plain why thema"ority doesn%t address this issue.

The ma"ority did not address this issue primarily $e ause their de ision restin! on the $readth ofthe statute and the appli ation of that $road unlimited power in this ase. The ma"ority stated that they didnot2need not define at that time the pre ise s ope of the parental due pro ess ri!ht in the isitation onte8t.

8/13/2019 Troxel Assignment

2/2

9. What are Justice Stevens objections to the WA Supre e !ourts holding? "lease discuss in detail#usti e 6te ens first o$"e ts to the their de ision to !rant ertiorari. ;i en then pro$lemati

hara ter of the trial ourt%s de ision and the uniqueness of the statute there was no pressin! need tore iew a 6tate 6upreme #ourt de ision that requires the state le!islature to draft a $etter statute. ennedy says that 0there are real and onsequential differen es $etween the standards of 0harmto the hild and 0the hild%s $est interests.