E.S. v. P.D.
8 N.Y.3d 150, 863 N.E.2d 100 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New York's grandparent visitation statute (Domestic Relations Law § 72(1)) is constitutional as it can be applied in a manner that gives special weight to a fit parent's decisions regarding their child. A court may grant visitation over a fit parent's objection if the grandparent demonstrates standing and then overcomes the strong, but rebuttable, presumption that the parent's decision is in the child's best interest.
Facts:
- A.D. (mother) and E.D. (father) were married and had a son, C.D. In 1997, the mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
- The child's maternal grandmother, E.S., moved into the family home to care for her ill daughter and the child.
- After the mother's death in March 1998, the father invited the grandmother to continue living in the home to help raise the child.
- For approximately 3.5 years, the grandmother served as a primary caregiver and surrogate mother to the child, developing an extraordinarily close relationship with him.
- By late 2001, the relationship between the father and grandmother deteriorated due to disagreements over parenting methods regarding the child's meals, bedtime, and discipline.
- In February 2002, the father demanded that the grandmother move out of the home immediately.
- Following her departure, the father severely restricted and eventually all but eliminated contact between the grandmother and the child, prompting the grandmother to seek court-ordered visitation.
Procedural Posture:
- The grandmother, E.S., petitioned the New York Supreme Court (trial court) for an order of visitation with her grandson.
- The father, E.D., opposed the petition and cross-moved for an order prohibiting any contact between the grandmother and the child.
- Following a hearing, the Supreme Court granted the grandmother's petition and ordered a detailed visitation schedule.
- The father appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's decision to grant visitation but modified the schedule to give more deference to the father's wishes.
- The father was granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
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 New York Domestic Relations Law § 72(1), which allows a court to grant grandparent visitation over a fit parent's objection if it is in the child's 'best interest,' violate the parent's fundamental due process right to direct the care, custody, and control of their child as established in Troxel v. Granville?
Opinions:
Majority - Read, J.
No. New York Domestic Relations Law § 72(1) is not unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied in this case, because it does not inherently violate a parent's due process rights. The statute requires a two-part inquiry: first, the grandparent must establish standing (which is automatic here due to the mother's death), and second, the court must determine if visitation is in the child's best interest. Citing Troxel v. Granville, the court explained that this 'best interest' analysis must accord 'special weight' to a fit parent's decision, creating a strong presumption that the parent is acting in the child's best interest. Unlike the 'breathtakingly broad' statute in Troxel, New York's law is narrower and can be constitutionally applied by requiring the grandparent to overcome this high presumptive hurdle. In this case, the trial court correctly applied this standard; it was 'mindful' of the father's rights but found the grandmother had surmounted the presumption by showing an 'extraordinarily close relationship' akin to that of a surrogate mother, making continued visitation essential to the child's well-being.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the constitutionality of New York's grandparent visitation statute in the post-Troxel era, clarifying how it must be applied to protect parental rights. It establishes that a fit parent's decision is not an absolute bar to court-ordered visitation but is instead a strong, rebuttable presumption. The ruling provides a framework for lower courts, emphasizing that they must explicitly give 'special weight' to the parent's wishes but can override them upon a compelling showing that visitation is in the child's best interest, particularly where a significant, parent-like relationship has been established.
