June 14, 2000

Ruling keeps parents in charge of offspring

Do parents have the right to control who does or does not spend time with their children? In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court declared, yes.

The case at hand concerned a Washington law which allowed "any person" to petition a court for visitation rights "at any time." Under the law, a Washington court had granted visitation rights to the grandparents of two young girls whose father committed suicide in 1993.

For whatever reasons, the girls' mother did not wish to grant extensive visitation, and she fought the ruling. The Supreme Court agreed.

The Washington law, the court correctly ruled, was overly broad. What's more, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority, "So long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e. is fit), there will normally be no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that person's child."

The Washington law struck down by the court conceivably would allow any number of people to sue for visitation: ex-daycare providers, neighbors &emdash; "any person," the law said. It granted the state, as the high court noted, "unlimited power."

Governments should not have unlimited power in any realm, least of all family law.

It is important to note that the court's ruling itself is not recklessly sweeping. It leaves the door open, provided states come up with reasonable limitations and guarantees of due process, for grandparents and others to seek visitation rights under the law.

Nevertheless, the court clearly stated that absent evidence of parental mistreatment of children, a parent's home remains his or her castle. And that's exactly as it should be..