holding that the state’s grandparent visitation statute infringed on a fundamental right in a direct and substantial way
How later courts described this case
- holding that the state’s grandparent visitation statute infringed on a fundamental right in a direct and substantial way
- holding that grandparents petitioning for *388 visitation are first required to show prima facie evidence of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before a trial court applies the best interest of the child standard
- holding that grandparents petitioning for visitation are first required to show prima facie evidence of parental unfitness or exceptional circumstances before a trial court applies the best interest of the child standard
- concluding that trial court had abused its discretion in requiring mother to undergo counseling “in the absence of a factual finding that such counseling is in the best interests of the children as opposed to [the parent]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by In Re VICTORIA C., 437 Md. 567 (2014)
Victoria C. asserts, however, that her status as a Child in Need of Assistance, as well as her status as a sibling, renders her without, rather than within, a “third-party” designation, and therefore, Koshko is inapposite to the instant matter.
The opinion
ELDRIDGE, J.,
dissenting:
While I agree with the Court that Maryland Code (1984, 2006 Repl.Vol.), § 9-102, is not facially unconstitutional, I disagree with the remainder of the Court’s opinion. While the opinion states that the Court is not principally relying on Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 , 120 S.Ct. 2054 , 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000), the Court actually places a great deal of reliance on Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Troxel . That opinion, however, was not an opinion of the Supreme Court and does not appear to reflect the views of a majority of the Supreme Court. Troxel is certainly not a sufficient basis for overruling several prior opinions by this Court.
McDermott v. Dougherty, 385 Md. 320 , 869 A.2d 751 (2005), on which the majority also relies, was not a visitation case, did not involve § 9-102 of the Family Law Article, and is quite distinguishable. Moreover, if I had sat in the McDermott case, I would have joined Judge Wilner’s concurring opinion.