200 So. 3d 654
Ala. Civ. App.2015Background
- Grandmother petitioned (Mar. 28, 2014) in Autauga Circuit Court under Alabama’s Grandparent Visitation Act (GVA), § 30-3-4.1, seeking visitation with grandchildren; mother filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the GVA is facially unconstitutional.
- Attorney General appeared to defend the statute; trial court denied mother’s counterclaim and certified its order as final under Rule 54(b); mother appealed.
- The appeal challenges only the facial constitutionality of the 2011-amended GVA (particularly § 30-3-4.1(d)), not any specific visitation award; the trial court had not yet applied the statute to grant visitation.
- The 2011 amendments added a rebuttable presumption that a custodial parent’s decision is in the child’s best interests and listed factors courts must consider in a best-interests inquiry, but did not require a prior finding of parental unfitness.
- The court framed the question whether the 2011 amendments cured constitutional defects identified in Ex parte E.R.G., which had invalidated the prior statute for infringing parental due-process rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s Rule 54(b) certification produced an appealable final judgment | Weldon: counterclaim adjudicated; certification proper | Grandmother/State: certification acceptable; underlying visitation claim remains | Court: certification was proper; appealable final judgment affirmed |
| Whether the 2011 amendments to § 30-3-4.1 cure the constitutional defects found in Ex parte E.R.G. | Weldon: amendments insufficient because statute still lets court override fit custodial parents based on best-interests without threshold finding of unfitness | State/Grandmother: rebuttable presumption and burden on grandparent cure Troxel-related defects | Court: amendments add a Troxel-style presumption but do not require an adequate standard (e.g., unfitness or harm) to overcome it; statute remains unconstitutional |
| Whether a facial challenge can succeed given some applications of the GVA are constitutional | Weldon: GVA cannot constitutionally apply to disputes involving fit custodial parents | State: some non-parent-custody scenarios render statute salvageable | Court: because subsection (d) remains the operative decision mechanism and is infirm, the entire statute is facially unconstitutional |
| Remedy: severability and disposition | Weldon: statute should be invalidated and petition dismissed | State/Grandmother: seek preservation of statute or narrower remedy | Court: declines to save the statute by severance; reverses trial court and instructs dismissal of grandmother’s petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality: courts must give at least some special weight to a fit parent's decision about third-party visitation)
- Ex parte E.R.G., 73 So.3d 634 (Ala. 2011) (plurality) (prior version of Alabama GVA struck down for infringing parental due-process rights)
- Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) (Due Process forbids state from breaking up natural family absent showing of unfitness)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) (parental unfitness requires heightened proof before state can override parental rights)
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1 (1980) (counterclaims are treated as separate claims for Rule 54(b) purposes)