Barry v. McDaniel

Louisiana Court of Appeal
934 So. 2d 69 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state non-parental visitation statute is not facially unconstitutional if it is narrowly tailored to specific circumstances and is applied by courts in a manner that gives special weight to a fit parent's decision-making authority. The non-parent seeking visitation bears the burden of proving that the requested visitation is reasonable and in the child's best interest.

Facts:

Bryan McDaniel and RitaAnne Babin McDaniel were married and had one child, Madelynne, born on September 28, 2000.
RitaAnne, Madelynne's mother, was diagnosed with a terminal illness in January 2001 and died on June 22, 2001.
Following RitaAnne's death, her parents, J. Barry and Rita Babin, sought visitation with Madelynne, but Bryan McDaniel refused to allow them to visit.
Bryan McDaniel married Christina Harbison on November 21, 2003, and she subsequently adopted Madelynne on July 12, 2004.
During court-ordered visitations, conflicts arose between the McDaniels and the Babins over parenting decisions, including how Madelynne should be addressed, her sleeping arrangements, her health care, and visits to her deceased mother's gravesite.

Procedural Posture:

On September 12, 2001, J. Barry and Rita Babin filed a petition for visitation against Bryan McDaniel in the Family Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana (trial court).
After an initial hearing, the parties entered into a stipulated judgment on February 26, 2002, granting the Babins a regular visitation schedule.
Disputes led to Mr. McDaniel filing a motion to terminate visitation and the Babins filing multiple rules for contempt against Mr. McDaniel for denying visitation.
On September 23, 2003, Mr. McDaniel filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the trial court, seeking to have La. R.S. 9:344 declared unconstitutional.
After a trial on all pending matters, the trial court signed a judgment on June 14, 2005, which declared La. R.S. 9:344 constitutional, awarded visitation to the Babins, and found Mr. and Mrs. McDaniel in contempt of court.
Bryan and Christina McDaniel (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, where the Babins were the appellees.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Louisiana Revised Statute 9:344, which allows a court to grant reasonable visitation to grandparents of a minor child whose parent is deceased if it is in the child's best interest, unconstitutionally infringe upon a fit parent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their child?

Opinions:

Majority - Welch, J.

No, Louisiana Revised Statute 9:344 does not unconstitutionally infringe upon a fit parent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their child. The statute is facially constitutional because, unlike the 'breathtakingly broad' statute struck down in Troxel v. Granville, it is narrowly drawn, limiting both the class of petitioners (grandparents of a child whose parent is deceased, interdicted, or incarcerated) and the circumstances under which they can seek visitation. Citing precedent, the court held that the statute must be interpreted to require deference to a fit parent's rights, placing the burden on the non-parent to prove that visitation is reasonable and in the child's best interest. The court also found the statute was not unconstitutionally applied, as the trial court's specific and detailed visitation order demonstrated an awareness of and deference to the McDaniels' parental authority by addressing their specific concerns. The court did, however, reverse the contempt finding against the McDaniels, ruling it procedurally invalid because the trial court failed to recite the specific facts constituting the contempt in its order as required by statute.

Concurring - Whipple, J.

Concurring in the judgment. The author agreed with the majority's conclusion that the statute is constitutional but wrote separately to express concern that the trial court's judgment came 'perilously close to being an unconstitutional application' of the statute. The concurrence was troubled by trial court comments that seemed to disregard the parents' paramount right to make decisions about their child's religious exposure and medical care (specifically, forcing visitation with a sick child). It emphasizes that parents and grandparents are not equals before the court and that parental rights are paramount. The concurrence ultimately agreed with the outcome only because the trial court's final judgment imposed specific limitations on the grandparents' conduct, but warned that any future disregard of the parents' decisions by the grandparents would likely be unconstitutional.

Analysis:

This case is significant for interpreting a state's grandparent visitation statute in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Troxel v. Granville. It establishes that such statutes can survive a constitutional challenge if they are narrowly tailored and if courts apply them with a strong presumption in favor of a fit parent's decisions. The ruling provides a roadmap for lower courts on how to balance a child's interest in maintaining a relationship with extended family against a parent's fundamental right to privacy in child-rearing. It reinforces the principle that non-parental rights are ancillary to parental rights and requires visitation orders to be crafted with specificity to respect the parents' authority.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Barry v. McDaniel (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"