Sicking v. Sicking
2000 OK CIV APP 32, 1999 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 158, 996 P.2d 471 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a divorce proceeding, a court may constitutionally grant visitation rights to grandparents without a showing of harm to the child, provided the visitation is in the child's best interest and occurs with the consent of the non-custodial parent during their allotted time.
Facts:
- Erica Sicking (Mother) and James D. Sicking, Jr. (Father) married on April 30, 1996, and Mother filed for divorce approximately three months later while pregnant.
- An agreed divorce was entered in November 1996, before their daughter, C, was born the following February.
- After C's birth, animosity between Mother and Father persisted, and visitation became a source of contention.
- Father's parents, James D. Sicking and Gloria J. Sicking (Grandparents), sought visitation with their granddaughter, C.
- Father supported the Grandparents' request for visitation with C.
- Mother objected to the Grandparents being granted visitation rights independent of the Father.
Procedural Posture:
- In the context of Mother and Father's divorce proceeding, the paternal Grandparents filed a petition to intervene, seeking visitation with their granddaughter, C.
- The trial court entered an order granting Father specific visitation and also ordered that Grandparents could visit C during Father's allotted time, or in his place if he was unable to attend.
- The trial court denied Grandparents' request for attorney fees from Mother but ordered Mother to pay a portion of Father's attorney fees and Father to pay a portion of Mother's.
- Grandparents appealed the trial court's order denying their request for attorney fees to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals.
- Mother filed a counter-appeal, challenging the order granting Grandparents visitation and the order requiring her to pay a portion of Father's attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an Oklahoma statute authorizing court-ordered grandparent visitation unconstitutional as applied to a divorced family when it does not require a showing of harm to the child, and the visitation occurs during the consenting non-custodial parent's allotted time?
Opinions:
Majority - Adams, Judge
No. The statute is not unconstitutional as applied in this context. A state may interfere with parental rights in cases of divorce without a showing of harm to the child, as the divorce itself brings the child's domestic situation within the purview of the court. This case is distinct from precedent involving intact nuclear families where a showing of harm is required to infringe upon the parents' fundamental rights. Here, the Father, as a parent, has a right to foster a relationship between his child and the Grandparents during his allotted visitation time. The visitation order does not invade the custodial Mother's time or rights, and she does not have a constitutional right to exercise a unilateral veto over who the child associates with during the Father's time, provided the arrangement is in the child's best interest.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of grandparent visitation rights by distinguishing between intact families and families undergoing divorce. It establishes that the high constitutional threshold of showing harm to a child, required before a state can interfere with an intact family's parental decisions, does not apply once a divorce action brings the family under court jurisdiction. The ruling reinforces the individual rights of a non-custodial parent to direct their child's associations during their own visitation periods. This precedent provides a clearer legal path for grandparents to secure visitation in divorce cases, especially when they have the support of their own child (the non-custodial parent), shifting the focus from parental autonomy to the child's best interest as determined by the court.
