noting that court did not find that “state’s interest in enabling grandparent-grandchild relationships is a ‘compelling state interest’ for purposes of [its] decisional framework under the Fourteenth Amendment”
How later courts described this case
- noting that court did not find that “state’s interest in enabling grandparent-grandchild relationships is a ‘compelling state interest’ for purposes of [its] decisional framework under the Fourteenth Amendment”
- noting that visitation is essentially form of temporary custody while it is being exercised
- original petition for grandparent visitation filed in the domestic relations division of the circuit court
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
YATES, Presiding Judge,
concurring in the result.
I agree with Judge Murdock that a parent’s right to make decisions regarding his or her child’s visitation with a nonparent is a fundamental liberty interest entitled to strict scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment. See J.S. v. D.W., [Ms. 2990431, May 4, 2001] — So.2d - (Ala.Civ.App.2001). I agree that the statutory presumption in favor of grandparent visitation established by § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975, is unconstitutional as applied, based on Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000). I also *373 agree that even if the grandparents could prove that visitation was in “the best interests of the child,” that fact would not overcome the parents’ fundamental liberty interest in making decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their child. “In contrast to parental rights, a grandparent’s right to visitation is a recent statutory creation and is not a fundamental right on an equal footing with the right of a parent.” J.S. v. D.W., — So.2d at-. I cannot, however, agree with all of the statements in the opinion.