Leake v. Grissom
1980 OK 114, 614 P.2d 1107, 1980 Okla. LEXIS 300 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Grandparents do not have a constitutional or common law right to visitation with their grandchildren. Any such right must be explicitly granted by statute, and a stepparent adoption by a non-blood relative severs the legal relationship with the former parent's family, terminating any potential visitation rights not specifically preserved by law.
Facts:
- Don and Jeanne Leake are the natural paternal grandparents of two children, M.L.G. and S.R.G.
- The children's natural parents divorced.
- The parental rights of the children's natural father, the Leakes' son, were terminated due to his failure to provide child support for over a year.
- The children's natural mother remarried Richard Clarence Grissom.
- Richard Clarence Grissom, who is not a blood relative of the children, adopted the children.
- The natural mother consented to her new husband's adoption of her children.
- The Leakes were subsequently denied visitation with their grandchildren.
Procedural Posture:
- Don and Jeanne Leake filed an application in the Oklahoma district court, a court of first instance, seeking visitation rights with their grandchildren.
- The district court denied the application, ruling that the controlling state statutes did not authorize visitation under the circumstances.
- The Leakes, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do paternal grandparents have a statutory or constitutional right to compel visitation with their grandchildren after the children have been adopted by their natural mother's new husband, who is not a blood relative?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, Justice.
No. Grandparents have no legal right to visitation following a stepparent adoption unless explicitly granted by statute, and the relevant statutes do not apply here. The statute allowing for grandparent visitation post-adoption, 10 O.S.Supp.1978 § 60.16(3), is inapplicable because it requires that consent to adoption be given to a 'blood relative,' and the stepfather is not a blood relative. The grandparents' argument for a 'joint adoption' by the mother and stepfather fails because a natural parent cannot legally adopt their own child unless their parental rights have been previously severed. Furthermore, parents possess a fundamental constitutional right to the care, custody, and management of their children, which includes the discretion to determine who may visit them. In the absence of a statute dictating otherwise, a court cannot compel parents to permit grandparental visitation.
Dissenting - Opala, Justice,
Yes. The court should recognize a right to visitation because the majority's statutory interpretation is unacceptably narrow and ignores the legislature's intent to preserve family bonds when a child remains with a blood relative. The statutes, read together, were meant to prevent alienation from grandparents so long as the adoption does not place the child entirely outside their line of consanguinity. More importantly, independent of any statute, courts of equity have the inherent power to grant visitation if it serves the child's best interests. By refusing to exercise this equitable jurisdiction, the court reinforces a 'self-imposed' and outdated legal barrier that harms children by severing beneficial relationships with grandparents, who often provide stability in the wake of a divorce.
Analysis:
This decision represents a strict constructionist approach to family law statutes, firmly establishing that grandparent visitation rights are a legislative privilege, not a fundamental right. It reinforces the legal finality of adoption in severing prior familial ties, placing the adoptive parent's right to control their child's upbringing above the grandparents' desire for contact. The case highlights the tension between the traditional, nuclear family model protected by law and the evolving reality of blended families. The dissent's strong appeal to equity foreshadowed a continuing legal and legislative debate over expanding the scope of 'grandparents' rights' to better reflect the social importance of extended family.
