The advocates of "forced visitation" base their position on the erroneous assumption that Constitutionally, they possess, "grandparental rights". Unfortunately, nothing, other than Billy’s account of his relationship with Monica could be further from the truth. Biblically, at Common Law, or Constitutionally, there is no such thing as "grandparents rights". A fit parent or parents, on the other hand have rights to privacy and protection against unjustified state intrusion into their sphere of parental autonomy that can be found Biblically, at Common law, and in numerous Supreme Court decisions. In many Supreme Court rulings, it has been shown that it is unconstitutional for the state to use its power of parens patrie to infringe on the autonomy of a fit parent or parents, without a compelling state interest. This hasn’t stopped our legislators, however, in their quest for campaign contributions and votes from the well-organized senior group and the organizations that lobby for their interests like the AARP. They have been quite successfully in convincing the legislatures of all fifty states to pass laws, though unconstitutional, that grant grandparents "statutory rights" to sue for visitation. The legislators have been "convinced", let me guess how, that somehow the state has a compelling interest in "forcing" grandparental visitation even though many psychological studies have clearly shown that even in the best of cases, grandparents have little positive, lasting, emotional impact on their grandchildren. These same studies have shown how emotionally and financially damaging that suits brought under these laws are to the children and families involved. Not only are these statutes "not" in the best interest of the child, they are actually harmful to the child. One can therefore, only conclude that the legislators are truly acting in "their best interests" and the "best interest" of their contributors.

The Supreme Court of the United States has long, traditionally, and continuously upheld the principle that parents have the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. A study of the rulings in these cases shows that the Supreme Court has been unwavering in its support of parental rights and has consistently conferred upon these parental rights the highest respect and protection possible. Here are some of the Supreme Court rulings that support parental rights.

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. (1923), the Supreme Court overturned a state statute because the law did not "promote" education but rather "arbitrarily and unreasonably" interfered with "the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life. The court admonished the legislature for attempting "materially to interfere . . . with the power of parents to control the education of their own." Court also said, "The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of the individual . . . to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to his own conscience."

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters Pierce, 268 U.S. (1925), the Supreme Court invalidated an Oregon law which required attendance of all children between ages eight and sixteen at public schools. The Court said, "Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children. The Court also said, "The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right and the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

In Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. (1927) the Court again upheld parental rights and freedom from state interference by overturning a state statute relating to education. The Court stated, "The capacity to impart instruction to others is given by the Almighty for beneficent purposes and its use may not be forbidden or interfered with by government — certainly not, unless such instruction is, in its nature, harmful to the public morals or imperils the public safety. The parents’ right to instruct their children clearly takes precedence over the state’s regulatory interest unless the public safety is endangered."

In Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. (1944), the Supreme Court recognized the important responsibility and right of parents to control the upbringing of their children against that of the State. They said, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder." The Court also characterized family life as distinct from state control, "the private realm…which the state may not enter."

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. (1965), the Supreme Court stated, "One of the first rights to be recognized as fundamental was ‘the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing…of children under their control.’"

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. (1972), Chief Justice Burger stated in the opinion, "This involves the fundamental interest of parents, as contrasted with that of the state, to guide the religious future and education of their children. The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring tradition."

In Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. (1977), the Supreme Court

overturned a state statute that allowed state intrusion into family privacy and defined the family entitled to protection from unwarranted state intrusion as a group of related people that made a personal decision to live together for mutual economic and social support. It did not extend the definition of the boundaries of a nuclear family to include grandparents, as supporters of G.P. visitation statutes would have you believe.

These Supreme Court ruling clearly show that it is the constitutional right of a parent to direct the upbringing and education of his child. Furthermore, a higher standard of review applies to fundamental rights such as parental liberty than to other rights. When confronted with a conflict between parents’ rights and state regulation, the court must apply the "compelling interest test." Under this test, the state must prove that its infringement on the parents’ liberty is essential to fulfill a compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of fulfilling this state interest. Simply proving the regulation is reasonable is not sufficient.

In Parham v. J.R., 442 US (1979), the Supreme Court upheld the legal presumption that parents act in their children’s best interest. The Court stated, "Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is "the mere creature of the State" and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally "have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their children] for additional obligations." Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. (1925) . . . The law’s concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s difficult decisions. More important, historically it has been recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 447; 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 190. As with so many other legal presumptions, experience and reality may rebut what the law accepts as a starting point; the incidence of child neglect and abuse cases attests to this. That some parents "may at times be acting against the interests of their children" . . . creates a basis for caution, but it is hardly a reason to discard wholesale those pages of human experience that teach that parents generally do act in the child’s best interest . . . The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition."

Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child, or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state. It is clear that the Court is recognizing parents as having the right to make judgments concerning their children who are to immature to make sound decisions. A parent’s authority to decide what is best for the child in cannot be impinged upon simply because a child disagrees. A parent’s right and autonomy must be protected and not simply transferred to some state agency.

In Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. (1982), the States Supreme Court specifically acknowledged the fundamental liberty interest of parents in the "care, custody and management" of their children.

In Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. (1990), the Court found that parental rights not only are protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments as fundamental and more important than property rights, but that they are "deemed essential. The family has a privacy interest in the upbringing and education of children and the intimacies of the marital relationship, which is protected by the Constitution against undue state interference. The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition." We have long held that there exists a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." A natural parent who has demonstrated sufficient commitment to his or her children is thereafter entitled to raise the children free from undue state interference. As Justice White explained in his opinion of the Court in Stanley v Illinois, 405 US (1972) "The court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family. The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’ Meyer v Nebraska, . . .‘basic civil rights of man,’ Skinner v Oklahoma, 316 US 535, 541 (1942), and ‘[r]ights far more precious . . . than property rights,’ May v Anderson, 345 US (1953). . . The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Meyer v Nebraska, supra."

In H.L. v. Matheson, 450 US (1991), the Supreme Court stated, "In addition, constitutional interpretation has consistently recognized that the parents’ claim to authority in their own household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the structure of our society. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 US (1968) . . .We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between the parent and the child is Constitutionally protected (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Stanley v. Illinois, Meyer v. Nebraska) . . . "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom includes preparation for obligations the state can neither supply, nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US (1944). See also Parham v. J.R.; Pierce v. Society of Sisters . . . We have recognized that parents have an important "guiding role" to play in the upbringing of their children, Bellotti II, 443 US. . which presumptively includes counseling them on important decisions.

In Vernonia School District47J v. Acton, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 115 S.Ct. (1995) the Court strengthened parental rights by reasoning that children do not have many of the rights accorded citizens, and in lack thereof, parents and guardians possess and exercise those rights and authorities in the child’s best interest: Traditionally at common law, and still today, unemancipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights of self-determination—including even the right of liberty in its narrow sense, i.e., the right to come and go at will. They are subject, even as to their physical freedom, to the control of their parents or guardians. See Am Jur 2d, Parent and Child § 10 (1987).

Thus we see many instances where the Supreme Court has recognized parental rights a fundamental and subject to the highest standard of review before being impinged upon by the state. This however has not stopped many local, state, and federal court judges, as well as state legislators from ignoring these rulings and handing down judgments, or passing laws that violate these well established parents rights: laws, which can and have done great emotional and financial harm to children and families. The time has come for all fit parents and grandparents to speak our loudly to their elected officials and stop this unconstitutional madness known as "forced"grandparent visitation and other "forced" third party visitation statutes. To do any less, is to put our freedom and our children’s best interests in harms way.