Press Release from CRPR
| FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE The Coalition for the Restoration of Parental Rights www.parentsrights.org Contact CRPR National Spokesman Dan Brunetti at dan@parentsrights.net SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, APRIL 18, 2002 Today, parents in the Land of Lincoln have renewed hope that their fundamental rights are being restored. Their right to due process, protected by the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, was upheld yesterday in an extraordinary ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court. The state's highest court declared certain provisions of section 607 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, (commonly called the grandparent visitation statute) to be unconstitutional on its face. Facially flawed means that under no circumstances can this statute be considered constitutional. The cases of Wickham v. Byrne and Langman v. Langman were consolidated and reviewed by the Court. In the former case, the paternal grandmother resisted the father's decision to limit her visitation with his child after the death of his wife. Although the court was aware of the grandmother's "frivolous and unfounded" complaints to child services, and recognized her attempts to interfere in the child's medical care as attempts to undermine the parent/child relationship, it awarded some visitation. Mr. Byrne filed an "Amended Motion to Dismiss Complaint." The trial court again denied Mr. Byrne's motion, at which time he filed an application for an interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308. The appellate court denied Mr. Byrne's application. The Illinois Supreme Court granted his petition for leave to appeal. In the latter case, the paternal grandparents took issue with the mother's decision to limit visitation with her children after her husband passed away. The grandparents requested more time with their grandchildren, at which time the mother voiced concerns about their refusal to follow her directions when they baby sat her children. Ms. Langman also asserted her discomfort with the grandparent's home environment, and her children's continue exposure to their uncle's lifestyle. Ms. Langman felt it would be best if the grandparents limited their visits to time at her home, when she was present. The grandparents refused to accept this decision and filed suit. It was established that Ms. Langman was "a loving caring mother who wishes to protect her children from exposure to things she feels are inappropriate." The court felt that all parties were caring and responsible people and that its only recourse was to balance the rights of the parent and the grandparents. The decision was to assess the situation according to the "best interest of child" standard, and decided that visitation with the grandparents would be beneficial. This standard is not appropriate in such cases, because grandparents do not have rights equal to those of parents, as discussed in the United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville. The trial court still felt the grandparents were the children's only link to their deceased father's lineage. The trial court ordered visitation, beginning gradually with supervised afternoon visits, but eventually leading up to unsupervised visits for one full weekend each month. Furthermore, it was ordered that the mother split the costs of transportation with the grandparents, as well as allow one 15 minute phone call per week. Ms. Langman appealed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, citing the United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville, and Illinois' own Supreme Court case of Lulay v. Lulay in which grandparent visitation statutes were declared unconstitutional as applied. The appellate court held that the Illinois grandparent statute unconstitutionally infringed on Ms. Langman's fundamental right to decide what was best for her children, but declined to consider if the statute was facially flawed. The grandparents appealed. The State Supreme Court granted the grandparents' petition for leave to appeal and consolidated their case with that of Wickham v. Byrne. Less than two years after the Illinois Supreme Court heard the Lulay case, they were asked to consider this matter once again in the aforementioned cases. This time they were asked to consider the constitutionality of this statute on its face, rather than simply as applied to any specific case. A statute is facially invalid only if the party challenging the enactment can establish "that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid." In re C.E., quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. (1987). The Court rejected all arguments that single parents are entitled to less constitutional liberty in decisions concerning the "care, custody, and control" of their children, and indeed, declared the Illinois grandparent visitation statute to be unconstitutional on its face. The Court made it clear that they did not discount the significance of grandparent/grandchild relationships, it "simply acknowledged the presumption that a parent's decision regarding visitation is in the children's best interest." The Court went on to say that it is normal, as in all human relationships, for conflicts to arise between grandparents and parents, "Yet, this human conflict has no place in the courtroom." The Court further stated that, "Parents have the constitutionally protected latitude to raise their children as they decide, even if these decisions are perceived by some to be for arbitrary or wrong reasons. The presumption that parents act in their children's best interest prevents the court from second-guessing parents' visitation decisions. Moreover, a fit parent's constitutionally protected liberty interest to direct the care, custody, and control of his or her children mandates that parents-not judges-should be the ones to decide with whom their children will and will not associate." The Coalition for the Restoration of Parental Rights, (CRPR) a national grassroots parents' rights movement, is comprised of parents and grandparents opposed to unconstitutional grandparent visitation laws. CRPR was founded by a grandfather and is directed by grandparents. The Coalition has long declared such laws an unjust violation of parents' fundamental liberties and has been actively battling such statutes nationwide since 1996. Currently, CRPR is closely following developments in pending cases before state supreme courts in Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, California, and Massachusetts to name but a few. Parents hope to see their fundamental liberties restored in the matter of raising their children free from unwarranted governmental interference. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in the USSC case of Troxel v. Granville, "there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children." She went on to say, "As we have explained, the Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a `better' decision could be made." Members of CRPR, along with other parents across the country dealing with non-parent visitation disputes, applaud the Illinois Supreme Court for its landmark ruling. It is seen as a huge victory for all fit parents. CRPR is optimistic that other state's highest courts will soon follow suit. (Written by Sherry Holetzky) # # # |