E.S. v. P.D., 8 N.Y.3d 150 (2007)
New York’s grandparent visitation statute (Domestic Relations Law § 72(1)) is constitutional, both facially and as applied, because it allows judicial intervention only when equitable circumstances exist, requires consideration of the child’s best interests, and presumes that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interests.
Summary
After a mother’s death, the maternal grandmother provided substantial care for her grandson for several years. When the relationship between the grandmother and the child’s father soured, the father limited the grandmother’s access to the child. The grandmother petitioned for visitation rights under Domestic Relations Law § 72(1). The New York Court of Appeals held that the statute was constitutional and that the visitation order was appropriate, emphasizing that the statute provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to acquire standing, while still according special weight to the parent’s decisions regarding the child’s best interests, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville.
Facts
A mother (A.D.) died of cancer, and her mother (E.S., the grandmother) moved into the marital home to care for A.D. and her son (C.D.). After A.D.’s death, the grandmother continued to live with the father (P.D.) and C.D. for 3.5 years, providing significant care for C.D. The relationship between the father and grandmother deteriorated, leading the father to demand that the grandmother move out and restricting her contact with C.D.
Procedural History
The grandmother commenced a proceeding in Supreme Court seeking visitation rights. The Supreme Court granted visitation to the grandmother. The Appellate Division affirmed, modifying the visitation schedule in deference to the father’s wishes. The father appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) was unconstitutional in light of Troxel v. Granville.
Issue(s)
1. Whether Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) is facially unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Troxel v. Granville?
2. Whether Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) was unconstitutionally applied in this case?
Holding
1. No, because Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) is narrowly drafted, affording a grandparent standing only when a parent is deceased or where equitable circumstances exist, and requires a determination of the child’s best interest, giving the parent’s decision presumptive weight.
2. No, because the trial court was mindful of the father’s parental rights and employed the presumption that the parent’s wishes represent the child’s best interests, but the grandmother overcame this presumption by demonstrating the extraordinarily close relationship she had with the child and the child’s deep love for her.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) is facially constitutional because it is narrower than the Washington statute in Troxel, which allowed “any person” to petition for visitation “at any time.” New York’s statute requires either the death of a parent or a showing of circumstances where equity would intervene. The court emphasized that the statute provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to acquire standing to seek visitation, but the court must still determine if visitation is in the best interest of the grandchild, giving special weight to the parent’s determination. The court noted the Troxel decision requires that courts accord “at least some special weight to the parent’s own determination.”
The court distinguished this case from Troxel, noting that the trial court was “mindful” of the father’s parental prerogatives and employed the presumption that the parent’s wishes represent the child’s best interests. The grandmother successfully demonstrated an extraordinarily close relationship with the child during the nearly five years she lived with him, essentially acting as his surrogate mother. The court found the father’s complaints about the grandmother’s caregiving skills were contrived. The court properly considered all the circumstances and the law guardian’s assessment before granting visitation.
The Court of Appeals cited Matter of Emanuel S. v Joseph E., 78 NY2d 178, 181 (1991), emphasizing that visits with a grandparent are “often a precious part of a child’s experience” and provide benefits the child cannot derive from other relationships.