November 2003

The Status of Grandparent Visitation Statutes, Post-Troxel

Laura W. Morgan

1. A.M.K. v. E.D., 826 So.2d 889 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (construing Ala. Code § 30-3-4.1).

2. Kinnard v. Kinnard, 43 P.3d 150 (Alaska 2002) (declining to consider constitutionality of Alaska Stat. § 25.24.150).

3. McGovern v. McGovern, 201 Ariz. 172, 33 P.3d 506 (2001); Jackson v. Tangreen, 199 Ariz. 306, 18 P.3d 100 (2000) (construing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-409).

4. Seagrave v. Price, 349 Ark. 433, 79 S.W.3d 339 (2002); Linder v. Linder, 348 Ark. 322, 72 S.W.3d 841 (2002) (construing Ark. Code § 9-13-103).

5. Cal. Fam. Code § 3102 allows grandparents ( and certain other relatives) to seek visitation with their grandchildren when one of the children's parents is deceased. Section 3103 allows grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchildren in a pending dissolution proceeding or other family law proceeding in which custody of the children is already at issue. Section 3104 allows grandparents to seek visitation with their grandchildren in other circumstances. Section 3102 was declared unconstitutional as applied. Zasueta v. Zasueta, 102 Cal. App.4th 1242, 1244, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 (2002); Herbst v. Swan, 102 Cal.App.4th 813, 814, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 (2002); Punsly v. Ho, 87 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1101, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 (2001); Kyle O. v. Donald R., 85 Cal.App.4th 848, 861, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 476 (2001).

6. In re Petition of R.A., 66 P.3d 146 (Colo. App. 2002) (holding Colo. Rev. Stat. § 19-1-117 not unconstitutional on face when applied to adoptive parents; case remanded to determine whether unconstitutional as applied); In re Custody of C.M., 74 P.3d 342 (Colo. App. 2002).

7. Roth v. Weston, 259 Conn. 202, 789 A.2d 431 (2002) (construing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-59).

8. In re T.L.M., 2003 WL 22268640 (Del. Fam. Ct. June 9, 2003) (assuming, without discussion, that Del. Code tit. 10, § 1031 is constitutional).

9. Belair v. Drew, 776 So.2d 1105, 1107 (Fla. DCA 2001) (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 752.01(1)(b), now renumbered § 752.01(1)(a), unconstitutional); Saul v. Brunetti, 753 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2000) (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 752.01(1)(d) unconstitutional).

10. Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587, 544 S.E.2d 99 (holding Ga. Code § 19-7-1(b.1) constitutional with narrowing construction).

11. Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill.2d 309, 769 N.E.2d 1 (2002) (holding 750 ILCS 5/607(b) in its entirety unconstitutional on its face).

12. Crafton v. Gibson, 752 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (construing Ind. Code § 31-17-5-6). Accord McCune v. Frey, 783 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. App. 2003).

13. Santi v. Santi, 633 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2001) (construing Iowa Code § 598.35(7)); In re Marriage of Howard, 661 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2003) (construing Iowa Code § 598.35(1)); Lamberts v. Lillig, 2003 WL 22299336 (Iowa Oct. 8, 2003) (construing Iowa Code § 598.35(3)).

14. Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services v. Paillet, 270 Kan. 646, 16 P.3d 962 (2001) (construing K.S.A. § 38-129, general grandparent visitation statute); Skov v. Wicker, 272 Kan. 240, 32 P.3d 1122 (2001) (construing K.S.A. § 60-1616(b), grandparent visitation in a divorce action). Accord DeGraeve v. Holm, 30 Kan. App. 3d 865, 50 P.3d 509 (2002).

15. Scott v. Scott, 80 S.W.3d 447 (Ky. Ct. App. 2002) (construing Ky. Rev. Stat. § 405.021).

16. Wood v. Wood, 835 So. 2d 568 (La. App. 2002) (construing La. R.S. § 9:344); Galjour v. Harris, 795 So. 2d 350 (La. App.), writs denied 793 So.2d 1229 (La.), 534 U.S. 1020 (2001) (same).

17. Rideout v. Riendeau, 761 A.2d 291 (Me. 2000) (construing Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, §§ 1801-1805).

18. Brice v. Brice, 133 Md. App. 302, 309, 754 A.2d 1132 (2000) (construing Md. Code, Family Law § 9-102).

19. Blixt v. Blixt, 437 Mass. 649, 774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002) (upholding constitutionality of Mass. Gen. Laws c. 119, § 39D as more narrowly construed).

20. DeRose v. DeRose, 469 Mich. 320, 666 N.W.2d 636 (2003) (construing Mich. Con. Laws. Ann. § 722.27b).

21. Stacy v. Ross, 798 So.2d 1275 (Miss. 2001) (construing § 93-16-13(3)); Zeman v. Stanford, 789 So. 2d 798 (Miss. 2001) (construing § 93-16-3(1)).

22. Barker v. Barker, 98 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. 2003) (construing Mo. Rev. Stat. § 452.402).

23. Nelson v. Nelson, 2003 WL 1798939 (Neb. Ct. App. April 8, 2003) (construing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1801 et seq.).

24. Wilde v. Wilde, 341 N.J. Super. 381, 775 A.2d 535 (App. Div. 2001) (construing N.J. Stat. § 9:2-7.1). See also Moriarty v. Bradt, 177 N.J. 84, 88, 827 A.2d 203 (2003).

25. Williams v. Williams, 132 N.M. 445, 50 P.3d 194 (Ct. App. 2002) (construing N.M. Stat. § 40-9-1 et seq.).

26. Hertz v. Hertz, 291 A.D.2d 91, 738 N.Y.S.2d 62 (2d Dep't 2002); Morgan v. Grzesik, 287 A.D.2d 150, 732 N.Y.S.2d 773 (4^th Dep't 2002) (both construing Dom. Rel. Law § 72).

27. Oliver v. Feldner, 149 Ohio App.3d 114, 776 N.E.2d 499 (2002) (construing R.C. § 3109.11 and § 3109.12, which govern grandparent visitation when the parent of a child is deceased or the child is born to an unmarried mother).

28. Baker v. Baker, 2003 WL 356280 (Ohio App. 12 Dist., Feb 18, 2003) (construing R.C. § 3109.051, which governs grandparent visitation when the parents are divorced, citing Epps v. Epps (Aug. 9, 2001), Ashland App. No. 01COA01403; Fischer v. Wright (2001) Coshocton App. Nos. 00-CA-028, 01-CA-003, 2001-Ohio-1900).

29. Neal v. Lee, 14 P.3d 547 (Okla. 2000) (construing Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 5).

30. In re Marriage of Winczewski, 188 Or. App. 667, 72 P.3d 1012 (2003) (construing ORS § 109.119); see also Harrington v. Daum, 172 Or. App. 188, 18 P.3d 456 (2001).

31. Camburn v. Smith, 586 S.E.2d 565 (S.C. 2003) (construing S.C. Code § 20-7-420(33) to be unconstitutional as applied).

32. Currey v. Currey, 650 N.W.2d 273 (S.D. 2002) (holding grandparent visitation statute, SDCL § 25-4-52, was not unconstitutionally overbroad, but that portion of statute creating presumption in favor of grandparents was required to be severed as unconstitutional).

33. See Redman v. Redman, 2002 WL 1609741 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 2002) (construing prior statute and case law).

34. Roby v. Adams, 68 S.W.3d 822, (Tex.App.-El Paso 2002, pet. denied).

35. Lilley v. Lilley, 43 S.W.3d 703 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, no pet.) (construing Tex. Fam. Code § 153.433); see also Dolman v. Dolman, 586 S.W.2d 606, 608 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1979, writ dism'd); Deweese v. Crawford, 520 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), overruled on other grounds by Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768 (Tex.1989).

36. Glidden v. Conley, 820 A.2d 197 (Vt. 2003) (construing 15 V.S.A. § 1011(a) to be constitutional).

37. In re Custody of RRB, 108 Wash. App. 602, 31 P.3d 1212 (2001) (construing RCWA § 26.10.100).

38. State ex rel Brandon L. v. Moats, 209 W. Va. 752, 551 S.E.2d 674 (2001) (construing W.Va. Code § 48-2B-1).

39. In re Paternity of Roger D.H., 250 Wis. 2d 747, 641 N.W.2d 440 (2002) (construing Wis. Stat. § 767.245(3)).

 

Current Cases

Current Periodicals