finding constitutional a custody and visitation statute that requires only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for a non-parent to rebut the presumption that the legal parent acts in the best interest of the child
How later courts described this case
- finding constitutional a custody and visitation statute that requires only a “preponderance of the evidence” standard for a non-parent to rebut the presumption that the legal parent acts in the best interest of the child
- “[MJother’s fundamental right to parent is entitled to heightened protection and cannot be infringed absent a compelling state interest.
- board lacked authority to “correct” erroneous post-prison supervision term embodied in judgment
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM
Affirmed by an equally divided court.
Deits, C. J., concurring.
Edmonds, J., dissenting.
Brewer, J., dissenting.
Schuman, J., dissenting.