A U.S. Supreme Court decision on grandparents' rights seemed to offer something for just about everyone except the grandparents who filed the suit, as we reported in last week's Outlines.
Praise flowed from NGLTF Policy Institute on the left to the Family Research Council on the right, as the nine Justices split six ways in Troxel v. Granville, released June 5.
The central issue was whether a Washington State law went too far in allowing courts to order visitation rights for grandparents. A six-member majority said yes, at least in this instance, but for three different reasons.
The Troxel's son had fathered two children but never married the mother, and committed suicide after the pair split. The mother later married and allowed the grandparents access to the children, but not as much as they wanted, so they sued.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the plurality that included Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. "So long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children," she said, "There will normally be no reason for the state to inject itself into the private realm of the family."
While gay or lesbian concerns were not specifically raised in the case, O'Connor noted, "the demographic changes of the past century make it difficult to speak of an average American family. The composition of families varies greatly from household to household."
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in dissent, emphasized "emotional attachments that derive from the intimacy of daily association" as being at the core of familial relations. He supported giving weight to the best interests of the child in making these decisions.
Justice John Paul Stevens argued for the rights of children, calling parental rights "arbitrary." He "reject [ ed ] any suggestion that when it comes to parental rights, children are so much chattel."
Gay and lesbian families are at the forefront of changes in family law, said Ruth E. Harlow, deputy legal director for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "The Court adopted a sound, middle course in this case, one that not only appropriately respects the rights of parents, but acknowledges that no hard-and-fast rule should govern every single family dispute."
Lambda Legal's Beatrice Dohrn was "heartened that the Court adopted a respectful tone about the many kinds of families who raise children well. The decision leaves legal room for adults, like lesbian and gay parents without biological or legal ties to children, to play a role in their children's upbringing."
"We're pleased that the Supreme Court's decision tells state lawmakers and judges that diverse family structures may be legally recognized in certain contexts," said Paula Ettelbrick, family policy director of the NLGTF Policy Institute. "The biological, nuclear family is not the only model for defining parent-child relationships."
Even the right-wing Family Research Council praised the decision. Jan LaRue, its senior director of legal studies, took the unusual step of praising one of the more liberal Justices. "We agree with Justice Souter that …the law was unconstitutional 'on its face' and not just as applied," she said.