Patten v. Ardis, 304 Ga. 140

Katie Patten gave birth in 2015 after her husband Robert Shaughnessy died; maternal grandmother Mary Jo Ardis later sought court-ordered visitation with the child.
Ardis filed under OCGA § 19-7-3(d) (Grandparent Visitation Rights Act of 2012), which permits a court to award visitation to a parent of a deceased, incapacitated, or incarcerated parent if visitation is in the child’s best interests—even over objection of a fit parent.
Patten moved to dismiss, arguing § 19-7-3(d) is unconstitutional under Georgia’s Constitution because it allows state interference with parental rights without a clear-and-convincing showing of harm to the child.
The trial court denied the motion, upheld the statute’s constitutionality, and granted visitation to Ardis solely under subsection (d).
The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed: it held § 19-7-3(d) violates the state Constitution by permitting visitation over a fit parent’s objection without a showing (by clear and convincing evidence) of actual or threatened harm, and remanded for consideration of § 19-7-3(c).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Patten)	Defendant's Argument (Ardis)	Held
Whether OCGA § 19-7-3(d) authorizing grandparent visitation over a fit parent’s objection is constitutional under the Georgia Constitution	§ 19-7-3(d) infringes parental right to care, custody, and control because it allows interference absent clear-and-convincing proof of harm to the child	The statute is constitutional; in circumstances of a parent’s death/incapacity/incarceration, courts may award visitation based on best interests without a harm showing	Held unconstitutional: § 19-7-3(d) violates parental rights because it permits visitation over objection of a fit parent without proof (clear and convincing) of actual or threatened harm
Remedy and next steps	N/A (seeks dismissal of § 19-7-3(d)-based petition and reversal of visitation order)	Trial court relied solely on § 19-7-3(d) to grant visitation	Judgment granting visitation under § 19-7-3(d) reversed; case remanded for trial court to consider relief under § 19-7-3(c) (which requires clear-and-convincing harm showing)

Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189 (1995) (held prior grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional where it allowed visitation over fit parents’ objections without showing of harm)
Miller v. Wallace, 76 Ga. 479 (1886) (parent’s custody right is paramount; interference requires clear and strong proof of unfitness or grave cause)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (recognizes parental right to make child-rearing decisions as a fundamental liberty interest)
Nix v. Dept. of Human Resources, 236 Ga. 794 (1977) (describes parental right to offspring as fundamental and fiercely guarded)
In re L. H. R., 253 Ga. 439 (1984) (discusses parental right to care, custody, and control)
Sloan v. Jones, 130 Ga. 836 (1908) (early recognition of parental paramountcy in custody)
Moore v. Dozier, 128 Ga. 90 (1907) (parental rights may be overcome only by grave and substantial cause)
Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587 (2001) (applies Brooks; discusses state constitutional protection for parental rights)
In re Suggs, 249 Ga. 365 (1981) (requires clear-and-convincing evidence where state interferes with parental custody)
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (recognizes parents’ primary role in upbringing as a deep-rooted tradition)