E.S. v. A.D., 8 N.Y.3d 151, 861 N.E.2d 466, 831 N.Y.S.2d 360 (2006)

New York’s Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), allowing grandparent visitation, is constitutional both facially and as applied, provided courts give special weight to a fit parent’s decisions regarding their child’s best interests.

Summary

This case addresses whether a grandmother was properly granted visitation rights with her grandson under New York Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), and whether the statute is constitutional under Troxel v. Granville. The Court of Appeals held that § 72(1) is constitutional, both facially and as applied. The Court emphasized that while grandparents can seek visitation, courts must give special weight to the decisions of fit parents. The Court found the grandmother established a close relationship with the child, making visitation in the child’s best interest, and the trial court properly considered the father’s parental rights.

Facts

A.D. (mother) married E.D. (father) and had a son, C.D., in 1993. In 1997, A.D. was diagnosed with cancer. A.D.’s mother, E.S. (grandmother), moved in to care for A.D. and C.D. After A.D.’s death in 1998, the grandmother continued living with the father and son for 3.5 years, providing significant care for the child. In 2001, the relationship between the father and grandmother deteriorated. In 2002, the father asked the grandmother to move out and initially forbade contact between her and C.D. Later, he allowed limited, supervised visits. In 2003, the grandmother sought court-ordered visitation.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court granted visitation to the grandmother. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court’s judgment, modifying the visitation schedule to accommodate the father’s wishes. The Appellate Division also rejected the father’s constitutional challenge to the statute. The father then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Was the grandparent properly granted visitation with her grandson pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72(1)?

2. Is Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) facially unconstitutional in light of Troxel v. Granville?

3. Was Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) unconstitutionally applied in this case?

Holding

1. Yes, because the record supported the determination that visitation was in the child’s best interest.

2. No, because the statute can be interpreted to accord deference to a parent’s decision.

3. No, because the trial court properly considered the father’s parental prerogatives and applied the presumption that the parent’s wishes represent the child’s best interests.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that § 72(1) provides a procedural mechanism for grandparents to seek visitation, but it does not create an absolute right. The statute requires a two-part inquiry: first, the court must find standing based on death or equitable circumstances; second, the court must determine if visitation is in the best interest of the grandchild. The court emphasized that the presumption that a fit parent’s decisions are in the child’s best interests is a strong one. The Court distinguished Troxel, where the trial court failed to give special weight to the parent’s decision and effectively placed the burden on the parent to disprove that visitation was in the child’s best interest. Here, the trial court was mindful of the father’s right to raise his child, but the grandmother had established an extraordinarily close relationship with the child. The Court noted that, “so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent’s children”. Because the trial court gave proper weight to the father’s parental rights and then considered the child’s best interest, § 72(1) was constitutionally applied. The Court stated, “Troxel does not prohibit judicial intervention when a fit parent refuses visitation, but only requires that a court accord ‘some special weight to the parent’s own determination’ when applying a nonparental visitation statute”.