Ex Parte Erg
73 So. 3d 634
Ala.2011Background
- Grandparents sought court-ordered visitation under the Alabama Grandparent Visitation Act (the Act) amid parents' obstruction and eventual termination of contact.
- The Jefferson Circuit Court awarded visitation after guardian ad litem endorsed it, noting the parents' alienation harmed the child.
- Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court, upholding the Act but applying a harm standard contrary to the Act's plain text.
- Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals, holding the Act unconstitutional in its entirety for violating parental fundamental rights and not using narrowly tailored means.
- The majority concluded the Act overrode a fit parent's constitutionally protected rights without the required presumption or least-restrictive means, and that severing the Act would be appropriate since the d(6) harm-related provision is intertwined with the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 30-3-4.1Unconstitutional on its face or as applied | E.R.G./D.W.G.: Act overrules parental rights without presumption in favor of parents. | E.H.G./C.L.G.: Act serves child’s best interests and conforms with Troxel framework. | Act unconstitutional in full as applied and facially. |
| Whether harm-to-child requirement is necessary under Troxel | Grandparents need not show harm to grant visitation. | State may consider harm as part of best interests. | Harm showing not required by text, but the Act fails to preserve parental rights; thus invalid. |
| Whether severability saves the Act | If core provision unconstitutional, severance may salvage others. | Severability would not save the Act since d(6) is intertwined with rest. | Severability rejected; entire Act unconstitutional. |
| Whether Troxel mandates special weight for parental decisions | Troxel requires special weight to fit parent's decisions. | Troxel does not mandate a harm standard but recognizes parental deference. | Act lacks required parental deference and is unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parental rights and special weight given to fit parent’s decisions; not per se harm standard)
- Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (parents have liberty to direct upbringing; fundamental right)
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (parents’ liberty to direct upbringing; education choice protected)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (clear-and-convincing standard for parental unfitness; state interest limited if parents fit)
- Ex parte J.E., 1 So.3d 1002 (2008) (recognizes fundamental parental rights in Alabama context)