Herbst v. Sayre
69 O.B.A.J. 3508, 971 P.2d 395, 1998 OK 100 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute permitting a court to grant grandparental visitation rights over the objections of fit parents in an intact nuclear family, based solely on a child's "best interests," is an unconstitutional infringement upon the parents' fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their child.
Facts:
- Christopher Herbst is the maternal grandfather of the minor child, S.D.S.
- The child's parents, Brett and Christi Sayre, are married and live together as an intact nuclear family.
- Herbst's relationship with his daughter, Christi Sayre, had deteriorated before the child's birth, and he has never met his grandchild.
- Both parents oppose any court-ordered visitation between Herbst and their child.
- Herbst did not allege that the parents were unfit or that the child was in danger of harm in their care.
- Herbst sought visitation by arguing it was in the child's best interests to have contact with him.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Herbst filed an application for grandparental visitation in an Oklahoma district court.
- The child's parents, Brett and Christi Sayre, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the grandparent visitation statute was unconstitutional as applied to them.
- The district court (trial court) denied Herbst's application, ruling the statute unconstitutional as applied.
- Herbst, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals.
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 a state statute that allows a court to grant grandparental visitation rights over the objections of fit parents in an intact nuclear family, based solely on the child's 'best interests,' unconstitutionally infringe upon the parents' fundamental right to raise their child?
Opinions:
Majority - Simms, J.
Yes, a state statute allowing court-ordered grandparent visitation against the wishes of fit parents in an intact family based on a 'best interests' standard unconstitutionally infringes upon the parents' fundamental rights. The relationship between a parent and child is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The state may only infringe upon this right when there is a compelling state interest, which arises only when a child is subject to harm or threat of harm, or when the parents are found to be unfit. A vague 'best interest of the child' standard is not a compelling interest and is insufficient to override the decisions of fit parents. Therefore, without a threshold showing of harm to the child, the state has no license to interfere with the parents' decision to deny visitation.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Opala, J.
No, the statute is not unconstitutional as applied, because the court should not have reached the constitutional question. This case should have been decided on non-constitutional, equitable grounds under the prudential rule of judicial restraint, which dictates that constitutional issues should be avoided when a case can be resolved otherwise. The grandfather, Herbst, has no existing relationship with the child and is a 'total stranger' to his family; therefore, he has no equities in his favor that would support a claim for visitation. The trial court's denial of visitation could and should have been affirmed on these equitable grounds alone, without unnecessarily declaring the statute unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the constitutional protection afforded to parental rights within an intact nuclear family. It establishes a high threshold for state intervention, clarifying that the 'best interests of the child' standard alone is insufficient to override the decisions of fit parents. The ruling mandates that before a court can interfere with parental autonomy regarding third-party visitation, there must be a showing of harm to the child, thus limiting the scope of grandparent visitation statutes. This case foreshadows the U.S. Supreme Court's later decision in Troxel v. Granville, which similarly emphasized the special weight that must be given to the decisions of fit parents.
Unlock the full brief for Herbst v. Sayre