Neal v. Lee
2000 WL 1671219, 2000 OK 90, 14 P.3d 547 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the U.S. and Oklahoma Constitutions, a court may not grant grandparent visitation over the objection of a fit parent unless there is a showing that the child would suffer harm or potential harm without the visitation. A 'best interest of the child' standard alone is insufficient to override a fit parent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.
Facts:
- Kristina Nesvold gave birth to her son, Joshua, in 1989 while she was single.
- Joshua's biological father, who never married Kristina, died in 1991.
- Kristina later married Keehan Nesvold, and they had two children together, Whitney and Hunter.
- Karen Sue Neal, Kristina's mother and the grandmother to all three children, sought court-ordered visitation with them.
- Kristina and Keehan Nesvold, the children's parents, opposed court-ordered visitation with Karen Neal.
- Keehan Nesvold initiated proceedings to adopt Joshua, his step-son.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Sue Neal filed a petition in the district court seeking grandparent visitation rights with her three grandchildren.
- Kristina and Keehan Nesvold, the children's parents, opposed the petition.
- The parties agreed to a court order allowing three supervised visits and for a child therapist to formulate a visitation plan.
- After the therapist filed a visitation plan, the Nesvolds filed an objection and a motion to terminate grandparent visitation.
- The district court, over the Nesvolds' objection, entered an order granting grandparent visitation as recommended by the therapist's report.
- The Nesvolds (appellants) appealed the district court's order to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, arguing that the grandparent visitation statute was unconstitutional.
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 court order granting grandparent visitation over the objection of a fit parent, based solely on a 'best interest of the child' standard, unconstitutionally infringe upon the parent's fundamental right to the care, custody, and control of their child?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
Yes, a court order granting grandparent visitation over a fit parent's objection based solely on a 'best interest of the child' standard is unconstitutional. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Troxel v. Granville, the court found that the Oklahoma statute, when applied this way, impermissibly interferes with the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The court reaffirmed its precedent from In re Herbst, which holds that under the Oklahoma Constitution, grandparent visitation may only be imposed over the objection of fit parents upon a showing that the child would suffer harm without it. The trial court erred because it applied the 'best interest' standard without first requiring the grandmother to allege and prove that the children would be harmed by their parents' decision to deny visitation. The court also held that a surviving parent's constitutional rights are not diminished simply because the other biological parent is deceased.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'harm standard' as a constitutional prerequisite for compelled grandparent visitation in Oklahoma, reinforcing the due process rights of fit parents. By aligning Oklahoma law with the principles of Troxel v. Granville, the court significantly raises the bar for non-parents seeking court-ordered visitation against the wishes of a fit parent. The ruling establishes that a judge's subjective view of a child's 'best interests' cannot override a fit parent's decision-making authority. This precedent protects the autonomy of the nuclear and blended family unit from state interference unless a threshold showing of potential harm to the child is met.
