# R.S.C. v. J.B.C.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · August 31, 2001 · 812 So. 2d 361

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7749420

## Case

- **Full name:** R.S.C. and C.Y.C. v. J.B.C.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** August 31, 2001
- **Citations:** 812 So. 2d 361; 2001 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 508
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Crawley
- **Judges:** Murdock, Pittman, Yates, Crawley, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7749420

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

CRAWLEY, Judge,
concurring in the result.
I agree with the discussion of the applicable legal principles. However, I conclude that AIa.Code 1975, § 30-3-4.1, is per se, or facially, unconstitutional. The opinion recognizes that a fit parent has a fundamental right “in the absence of harm or potential harm to the child” to determine when a grandparent may visit his or her child and that § 30-3-4.1 is not narrowly tailored to protect that fundamental right. 812 So.2d at 372. I agree with that reasoning except for the phrase I quoted above — “in the absence of harm or potential harm to the child.” Our state has a procedure for protecting children from harm — the invocation of dependency jurisdiction. See Ala.Code 1975, § 12-15-1 et seq., and § 26-18-1 et seq. See also my opinion concurring in the result in J.S. v. D.W., [Ms. 2990431, May 4, 2001] — So.2d-(Ala.Civ.App.2001).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7749420. Public record. Not legal advice.