Jones v. Jones
2013 UT App 174
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Mother and Father (deceased) shared custody of Child; after Father's death (May 2009) Mother limited contact between Child and paternal grandparents (Grandparents). Grandparents sued under Utah's Grandparent Visitation Statute.
- Grandparents sought visitation comparable to a noncustodial parent's; trial awarded ~36 hours/month after finding grandparents had rebutted the parental-presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- Key factual findings: Grandparents were fit; visitation had been denied or unreasonably limited by Mother; Father had died; the court concluded denial "has likely caused harm" and that visitation was in Child's best interests.
- Mother appealed, arguing the statute—as applied—violated her fundamental parental rights because it was not narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest.
- The panel majority applied strict scrutiny, held the statute as applied here failed (no compelling state interest shown; evidence of harm was speculative), and reversed. A dissent would have deferred to Uzelac and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Grandparents’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality / level of scrutiny | Grandparent-visitation statute infringes a fundamental parental right; strict scrutiny applies | Uzelac upheld statute; trial-level protections (clear & convincing proof, factors) suffice | Majority: strict scrutiny applies to statutes overriding fit parents' decisions |
| Compelling state interest (harm requirement) | State must show a compelling interest—typically prevention of significant harm to the child; here no such showing | Grandparents: death of parent + history of contact suffice to justify visitation | Majority: no compelling interest shown here; statute does not require a harm showing and application failed strict scrutiny |
| Sufficiency of evidence to rebut parental presumption | Evidence of harm and of a truly ‘‘substantial’’ grandparent-child relationship was speculative / insufficient | Grandparents: fit, prior caregiving, unreasonable limitation by Mother, best interest findings support rebuttal | Majority: evidence of likely harm was speculative; other factors (death, limited relationship) insufficient to meet strict scrutiny burden |
| Narrow tailoring of remedy (visitation order) | Even if interest existed, the order was not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest | Grandparents: visitation award was reasonable and limited compared to parental schedules | Majority: both prongs failed (no compelling interest; narrow tailoring not satisfied); reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality invalidated overly broad grandparent-visitation statute and emphasized parental decisionmaking receives special weight)
- Uzelac v. Thurgood (In re Estate of S.T.T.), 144 P.3d 1083 (Utah 2006) (upheld Utah's statute under Troxel when parental-presumption rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and provided guidance on factor analysis)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard required for fundamental parental-rights deprivations such as termination)
- Jensen ex rel. Jensen v. Cunningham, 250 P.3d 465 (Utah 2011) (under Utah Constitution, statutes infringing parental rights require a compelling interest and narrow tailoring)
- Wells v. Children’s Aid Soc’y of Utah, 681 P.2d 199 (Utah 1984) (articulated Utah test for legislation infringing parental rights: compelling interest and narrow tailoring)