Patten v. Ardis
304 Ga. 140
Ga.2018Background
- In 2015 Robert Shaughnessy died after marrying Katie Patten; Patten gave birth to their child and allowed limited visits by Shaughnessy’s mother, Mary Jo Ardis.
- Ardis filed a petition under OCGA § 19-7-3(d) (Grandparent Visitation Rights Act of 2012) seeking court-ordered visitation after reported problematic visits.
- Patten moved to dismiss, contending § 19-7-3(d) is unconstitutional because it permits grandparent visitation over the objection of a fit parent without a clear-and-convincing showing of harm.
- The trial court denied dismissal, found § 19-7-3(d) constitutional, and granted visitation to Ardis; Patten appealed.
- The Georgia Supreme Court reviewed whether § 19-7-3(d) conflicts with the parental right to care, custody, and control of children as protected by the Georgia Constitution, following precedent in Brooks v. Parkerson.
- Because the trial court based its judgment solely on § 19-7-3(d), the Court reversed that award and remanded to consider relief, if any, under § 19-7-3(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCGA § 19-7-3(d) permits court-ordered grandparent visitation over a fit parent’s objection without the required burden of proof | Patten: § 19-7-3(d) violates parents’ constitutional right; state may only override parental decisions on proof of actual or imminent harm (clear and convincing) | Ardis/State: statute is constitutional; grants visitation in limited circumstances (death, incapacity, incarceration of a parent) and is in child’s best interests | The statute violates the Georgia Constitution (per Brooks). It authorizes visitation over a fit parent’s objection without a clear-and-convincing showing of actual or threatened harm; judgment awarding visitation under (d) reversed and case remanded to consider (c) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189 (Georgia 1995) (held grandparent-visitation statute unconstitutional when it allowed visitation over fit parents’ objections absent proof of harm)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (recognizes parental right to make child-rearing decisions as fundamental liberty interest)
- Miller v. Wallace, 76 Ga. 479 (Ga. 1886) (explains parental right is prima facie and may be overcome only by clear and strong evidence of unfitness or grave cause)
- In re L.H.R., 253 Ga. 439 (Ga. 1984) (addresses parental custody rights and standards for state interference)
- In re Suggs, 249 Ga. 365 (Ga. 1982) (required clear-and-convincing proof when state overrides parental custody/control)
- Nix v. Dept. of Human Resources, 236 Ga. 794 (Ga. 1976) (reiterates the fundamental nature of parental custody and control rights)