# Koshko v. Haining

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · January 12, 2007 · 398 Md. 404

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756683

## Case

- **Full name:** Glen KOSHKO, Et Ux. v. John HAINING, Et Ux.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** January 12, 2007
- **Citations:** 398 Md. 404; 921 A.2d 171; 2007 Md. LEXIS 10
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Eldridge
- **Judges:** Bell, Raker, Wilner, Cathell, Harrell, Greene, Eldridge
- **Cited by:** 84 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/9756683

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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]”
- holding that the Maryland grandparent visitation statute worked a "direct and substantial interference" upon parental rights with respect to the court-ordered visitation with their children by the grandparents

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9756683. Public record. Not legal advice.