Troxel v. Granville
- Decided
- June 5, 2000
- Docket
- 99-138
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,943 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions as to care, custody, and control of their children — In Re the Marriage of Ciesluk (2005)
- holding that mere fact that statute may be applied unconstitutionally need not result in facial unconstitutionality — Treacy v. Municipality of Anchorage (2004)
- recognizing that parent’s constitutional right to raise child can be implicated by burden of litigating domestic relations proceeding — Glidden v. Conley (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*60] Justice O’Connor announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join.
Section 26.10.160(B) of the Revised Code of Washington permits “[a]ny person” to petition a superior court for visitation rights “at any time,” and authorizes that court to grant such visitation rights whenever “visitation may serve the best interest of the child.” Petitioners Jenifer and Gary Troxel petitioned a Washington Superior Court for the right to visit their grandchildren, Isabelle and Natalie Troxel. Respondent Tommie Granville, the mother of Isabelle and Natalie, opposed the petition. The ease ultimately reached the Washington Supreme Court, which held that §26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally interferes with the fundamental right of parents to rear their children.
I
Cite this
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.