# L.B.S. v. L.M.S.

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · January 29, 2002 · 826 So. 2d 178

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7753439

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re L.B.S. v. L.M.S. and L.S. and L.S., interveners)
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** January 29, 2002
- **Citations:** 826 So. 2d 178; 2002 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 67
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Yates
- **Judges:** Crawley, Murdock, Only, Pittman, Thompson, Yates
- **Cited by:** 43 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/7753439

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing dual requirements under strict-scrutiny analysis that, in order to justify government interference with the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children, the State must have a "compelling state interest" and the State's interferen…
- recognizing that state must use the most narrowly tailored means of serving compelling state interest of protecting the best interests and welfare of children
- holding that the judiciary could adopt a construction of a statute that would uphold its constitutionality
- noting that due process requires `that the court may order only visitation narrowly tailored to address an adjudged harm'

## Opinion text

YATES, Presiding Judge,
concurring in the judgment of reversal only.
I agree with the reasoning in Judge Murdock’s special writing. I write specially to note that Judge Thompson agrees that § 30-3-4.1, Ala.Code 1975, may constitutionally be applied within the boundaries upon which Judge Murdock and I agree, although Judge Thompson (joined by Judge Pittman) would go further and uphold the application of the statute in a somewhat broader class of cases. Therefore, a majority of this court agrees: (1) that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their children and because a determination of grandparent-visitation rights directly interferes with a parent’s fundamental right to rear his or her children, a strict-scrutiny analysis applies to such an infringement upon a fundamental right; (2) that there is a presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interest of his or her child and that this presumption places on the grandparent petitioning for visitation the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the best interest of the child is served by awarding visitation if substantial harm to the child by not awarding visitation is shown; and (3) that this court should not invalidate the grandparent-visitation statute on constitutional grounds if by reasonable construction, it can be given a field of operation within constitutionally imposed limitations. However, because Judge Crawley is of the view that the statute may not be constitutionally applied to any cases, the effect of this court’s decision will be to bar application of the statute to any class of cases beyond those described in Judge Murdock’s writing, as to which a majority of this court agrees.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7753439. Public record. Not legal advice.