Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!
Journal of Family Issues
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Grandparent Visitation Rights

Justices’ Interpretation of the Best Interests of the Child Standard

Tammy L. Henderson

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

The purpose of the study was to review grandparent visitation cases to determine how justices interpreted the best interests of the child standard. Using grounded theory methods, the author conducted a study on 46 grandparent visitation cases. Based on the critical review of these cases, three themes emerged: parental rights, children’s rights, and child development. These themes help to explain how courts influence the social construction of power within families. The author closes the study with implications and suggestions for future research.

Key Words: family law • rights • grandparent • children • visitation • best interests of the child

References

  • Aldous, J. (1998). Public policy and grandparents: Contrasting perspectives. In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on grandparenthood (pp. 230-246). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  • Avin, J. E. (1994). Grandparent visitation: The one and only standard—Best interests of the child. University of Baltimore Law Review, 24. Retrieved on December 4, 1998, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
  • Balzer, C. L. (1994). Grandparent visitation rights—Constitutional considerations and the need to define the "best interests of the child standard. " Land and Water Law Review, 29, 593-613.
  • Banks, S. P., Louie, E., & Einerson, M. (2000). Constructing personal identities in holiday letters. Journal of Social and Personal Relationship, 17, 299-327.
  • Barnhill, S. (1996). Three generations at risk: Imprisoned women, their children, and grandmother caregivers. Generations, 20, 39-40.
  • Beagle v. Beagle, 678 So. 2d 1271; 1996 Fla. LEXIS 1419.
  • Becker v. Becker, 262 N.J. Super. 311; 620 A.2d 1092; 1992 N.J. Super. LEXIS 479.
  • Beckman et al. v. Boggs et ux., 337 Md. 688; 655 A.2d 901; 1995 Md. LEXIS 38.
  • Bee, H. (1989). The developing child. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Bellotti v. Baird, 322 U.S. 622 (1979).
  • Berg v. Bragdon, 695 A.2d 1212; 1997 Me. LEXIS 136.
  • Berlin, L. J., & Cassidy, J. (1999). Relations among relationships: Contributions from attachment theory and research. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 688-712). New York: Guilford.
  • Bishop v. Piller, 536 Pa. 41; 637 A.2d 976; 1994 Pa. LEXIS 39.
  • Bohl, J. C. (1996). The unprecedented intrusion: A survey and analysis of selected grandparent visitation cases. Oklahoma Law Review, 33. Retrieved on December 4, 1998, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
  • Bohl, J. C. (2000). Grandparent visitation law grows up: The trend toward awarding visitation only when the child would otherwise suffer harm. Drake Law Review, 48. Retrieved on July 30, 2000, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
  • Bostock, C. (1994). Does the expansion of grandparent rights promote the best interests of the child?: A survey of grandparent visitation laws in the fifty states. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 27, 319-373.
  • Brooks et al. v. Parkerson, 265 Ga. 189; 454 S.E.2d 769; 1995 Ga. LEXIS 157; 95 Fulton County DR P1103.
  • Brown v. Earnhardt, 302 S.C. 374; 396 S.E.2d 358; 1990 S.C. LEXIS 185.
  • Burns, E. M. (1991). Grandparent visitation rights: Is it time for the pendulum to fall? Family Law Quarterly, 25, 59-81.
  • Burton, L. (1992). Black grandparents rearing children of drug-addicted parents: Stressors, outcomes, and social service needs. The Gerontologist, 32, 744-751.[Abstract]
  • Campbell v. Campbell, 265 Utah Adv. Rep.17; 896 P2d 635; 1995 Utah App. LEXIS 51.
  • Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).
  • Cherlin, A. J., & Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in the family, a life apart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Clarke v. Evans, 778 S.W. 2d (Tenn., App. 1989).
  • Cox, C. B. (2000). Why grandchildren are going to and staying at grandmother’s house and what happens when they get there. In C. B. Cox (Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Perspectives on custodial grandparents (pp. 3-19). New York: Springer.
  • David J. & Rita K. v. Theresa K. & Lora Lane, Hockessin, 1993 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 32.
  • Domestic Relations, 13 Del. C. § 722 (1999).
  • Eberspacher v. Hulme et al., 248 Neb. 202; 533 N.W.2d 103; 1995 Neb. LEXIS 150.
  • Ellis v. Ellis, 1993 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 103.
  • Erickson, R. J., & Simon, R. J. (1998). The use of social science data in Supreme Court decisions. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Fairbanks et ux. v. McCarter, 330 Md. 39; 622 A. 2d 121; 1993 Md. LEXIS 44.
  • Family Law, Mont. Code Anno., § 40-4-217 (1993).
  • Giarrusso, R., Silverstein, M., & Bengston, V. L. (1996). Family complexity and the grandparent role. Generations, 21, 17-23.
  • Hamner, T. J., & Turner, P. H. (2001). Parenting in contemporary society (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Hartfield, B. W. (1996). Legal recognition of the value of intergenerational nurturance: Grandparent visitation statutes in the nineties. Generations, 20. Retrieved on August 5, 1998, from http://web2.searchbank.com/infortrac
  • Harvard Law Review. (1980). Developments in the law: The Constitution and the family. Boston, MA: Author.
  • Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S. W. 2d (Tenn., 1993).
  • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 108 S. Ct. 562, 98 L. Ed. 2d 592 (1988).
  • Henderson, T. L., & Moran, P. (2001). Grandparent visitation rights: Testing the parameters of parental rights. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 619-638.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Herndon v. Tuhey, 857 S. W. 2d 203; 1993 Mo. LEXIS NEXIS 72.
  • Hill, T. J. (2000). Legally extending the family: An event history analysis of grandparent visitation rights laws. Journal of Family Issues, 21, 246-261.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hill, T. J. (2001). What’s a grandparent to do? The legal status of grandparents in the extended family. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 594-618.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hintz, P. A. (1994). Grandparents’ visitation rights following adoption: Expanding traditional boundaries in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Law Review. Retrieved December 4, 1998, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
  • Hirshorn, B. A. (1998). Grandparents as caregivers. In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on grandparenthood (pp. 200-214). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  • Hooyman, N., & Kiyak, H. A. (1996). Social gerontology: A multidisciplinary perspective (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Schuster & Schuster.
  • Indermark, K. J. (1992). Permissive intervention: Grandparents’ key to entering adoption proceedings. Georgia Law Review, 26. Retrieved December 4, 1998, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
  • In re Adoption of Ridenour et al., 61 Ohio St. 3d 319; 574 N.E.2d 1055; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 1931.
  • In re the Custody of Sara Skyanne Smith, 137 Wash. 2d. 1; 969 P.2d 21; 1998 Wash. LEXIS 947.
  • In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
  • In the Guardianship of Norman and Others, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 402; 607 N.E. 2d 414 1996 Mass. App. LEXIS 815.
  • In the Interests of R. N. C., A Minor Child, 768 S.W.2d 516, 1989 Tex App. Lexis 1112.
  • In the Matter of the Application of Christopher Steven Herbst, 1998 OK 100; 1998 Okla. LEXIS 110; 69 O.B.A.J. 3508.
  • In the Matter of the Grandparental Visitation of C. G. F., H. F., T. F. v. T. F. &D.L., 168 Wis. 2d 62; 483 N.W.2d 803; 1992 Wisc. LEXIS 199.
  • In re the Petition of Sharon K. Nearhoof to Adopt David Andrew Nearhoof, 178 W.Va. 359 S.E.2d587; 1987 W.Va. LEXIS 594.
  • In re Schmidt et al., 25 Ohio St. 3d 331; 496 N.E.2d 952; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 734; 25 Ohio B. Rep. 386.
  • In re the Visitation of Herschel Walker, 665 N.E.2d 586; 1996 Ind. LEXIS 53.
  • In re Whitaker, 36 Ohio St 3d 213; 522 N.E. 2d 563, 1988 Ohio LEXIS 125.
  • Jackson, A. M. (1994). The coming of age of grandparent visitation rights. American University Law Review, 563, 563-600.
  • Jendrek, M. P. (1994). Grandparents who parent their grandchildren: Circumstances and decisions. The Gerontologist, 34, 206-216.[Abstract]
  • Johnson, C. L. (1988). Ex familia: Grandparents, parents, and children, adjust to divorce. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Johnson, C. L., & Barer, B. M. (1987). Marital instability and the changing kinship networks of grandparents. The Gerontologist, 27, 330-335.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kennedy, G. E., & Kennedy, C. E. (1993). Grandparents: A special resource for children in stepfamilies. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 19, 45-68.
  • King v. King, 929 S. W. 2d 630 (KY, 1992).
  • Klyman, A. C. (1994). Hawk v. Hawk: Grandparent visitation rights—Court protects parental privacy rights over "child’s best interests. " Memphis State Law Review, 24, 413-427.
  • Lehrer et al. v. Davis et al., 571 AR 2d 691 (1990).
  • Maner et ux. v. Stephenson et ux., 342 Md. 461; 677 A.2d 560; 1996 Md. LEXIS 53.
  • Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912; 1997 Miss. LEXIS 169.
  • Mary Jean H. v. Pamela Kay R., 198 W.Va. 690; 482 S.e.2d675; 1996 W.Va. LEXIS 248.
  • McCrimmon, C. A., & Howell, R. J. (1989). Grandparents legal rights to visitation in the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Bulletin of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 17, 355-366.
  • McMainv. Iowa District Court for Polk County, 559N.W.2d12; 1997Iowa Sup.LEXIS60.
  • Melton, G. B. (1987). Reforming the law: Impact of child development research. New York: Guilford.
  • Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
  • Mills, T. L. (2002). Research on grandparent-grandchild relationships in the new millennium. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 403-406.
  • Mills, T. L., Wakeman, M. A., & Fea, C. B. (2001). Adult grandchildren’s perceptions of emotional closeness and consensus with their maternal and paternal grandparents. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 427-455.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Minkler, M., & Roe, K. M. (1993). Grandparents as caregivers: Raising children of the crack cocaine epidemic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Minkler, M., & Roe, K. M. (1996). Grandparents as surrogate parents. Generations, 20, 34-38.
  • Mnookin, R. H., & Weisburg, D. K. (1993). Child, family, and state: Problems and materials on children and law (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
  • Morris v. Corzatt, 255 Neb. 182; 583 N.W.2d 26; 1998 Neb. LEXIS 193.
  • Mullen, F. (2000). Grandparents and welfare reform. In C. B. Cox (Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Perspectives on custodial grandparents (pp. 113-131). New York: Springer.
  • Murray v. Marks, 1993 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 86.
  • Nation v. Nation, 715 P.2d 198; 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 504.
  • National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. (1997). Grandparents’ guide to navigating the legal system. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Nevada Domestic Relations, Nev. Rev. State. Ann. § 125C.050 (2000).
  • New Hampshire Domestic Relations, RSA 458:17d (1999).
  • Nicholson, C. W., & Singerman, M. O. (1992). Grandparent visitation in intact marriages: An unresolved Maryland family law issue. University of Baltimore Law Review, 21. Retrieved on December 4, 1998, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com
  • O’Brien v. O’Brien, 141 N.H. 435; 648 A.2d 1352; 1996 N.H. LEXIS 118.
  • Olson v. Flinn, 484 So. 2d 1015; 1986 Miss. LEXIS 2417.
  • Olson v. Olson, 534 N.W.2d 547; 1995 Minn. LEXIS 613.
  • Perez-Porter, M., & Flynt, M. M. (2000). Grandparent caregiving: Legal status issues and state policy. In C. B. Cox (Ed.), To grandmother’s house we go and stay: Perspectives on custodial grandparents (pp. 132-148). New York: Springer.
  • Pierce v. the Society of Sisters, 268 U S. 510; 45 S. Ct. 571; 1925 U.S. LEXIS 589; 69 L. Ed. 1070; 39 A.L.R. 468.
  • Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).
  • Preston v. Mercieri, 133 N.H. 36; 573 A.2d 128; 1990 N.H. LEXIS 28.
  • Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
  • Puleo et al. v. Forgue et al., 634 A. 2d 857; 1993 R. I. LEXIS 264.
  • Purnell, M., & Bagby, B. H. (1993). Grandparents’ rights: Implications for family specialists. Family Relations, 42, 173-178.[CrossRef]
  • Pyle, R. C. (1994). Family law. Albany, NY: Delmar.
  • Ruth I. J. & Shirley A. K. v. James R. M., 1993 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 66.
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
  • Segal, E. C., & Karp, N. (1989). Grandparent visitation disputes: A legal resource manual. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly.
  • Shandling, J. L. (1986). The constitutional constraints on grandparents’ visitation statutes. Columbia Law Review, 86. Retrieved on December 4, 1998, from http://web.lexisnexis.com
  • Skinner, D. A., & Kohler, J. K. (2002). Parental rights in diverse family contexts: Current legal developments. Family Relations, 51, 291-300.
  • Smith v. Smith, 1993 Del. Fam. Ct. LEXIS 52.
  • Sposato v. Sposato, 1997 ND 207; 570 N.W.2d 212; 1997 N.D. LEXIS 265.
  • Sprey, J., & Matthews, S. H. (1982). Contemporary grandparenthood: A systematic transition. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 464, 91-103.[Abstract]
  • Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645; 92 S. Ct. 1208; 1972 U.S. LEXIS 70; 31 L. Ed. 2d 551.
  • Steward v. Steward, 111 Nev. 259; 890 P.2d 777; 1995 Nev. LEXIS 17.
  • Stone v. Short, 1991 Tex. App. LEXIS 337.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Strouse v. Olson, 397 N.W.2d 651; 1986 S.D. LEXIS 354.
  • Szinovacz, M. E. (Ed.). (1998a). Grandparent research: Past, present, and future. In M. E Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook of grandparenthood (pp.1-20). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
  • Szinovacz, M. E. (Ed.). (1998b). Grandparents today: A demographic profile. The Gerontologist, 38, 37-52.[Abstract]
  • Tanke, E. D., & Tanke, T. J. (1979). Getting off a slippery slope: Social science in the judicial process. American Psychologist, 34, 1130-1138.[CrossRef]
  • Thompson, R. A., Tinsley, B. R., Scalora, M. J., & Parke, R. D. (1989). Grandparent visitation rights: Legalizing the ties that bind. American Psychologist, 44, 1217-1222.[CrossRef]
  • Thompson v. Vanaman, 212N.J. Super. 596;515A.2d1254;1986N.J. Super. LEXIS1420.
  • Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503; 89 S. Ct. 733; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 222.
  • Troxel v. Granville, 120 S. Ct. 2054; 2000 U. S. LEXIS 3767; 147 L. Ed. 2d 49; 68 U. S. L. W. 4458’2000 Cal. Daily Op. Services 4345; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5831; 13 Fla. Law W. Fed. S 365.
  • Walters, L. H. (1983). The role of the family specialist and research in the law. Family Relations, 32, 521-526.[CrossRef]
  • Walther, D. L. (1997). Survey of grandparents visitation rights. American Journal of Family Law, 11, 95-107.
  • Williamson, M. (1997). The healing of America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder. 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Journal of Family Issues, Vol. 26, No. 5, 638-664 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X04272740
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Family IssuesHome page
L. M. McWey, T. L. Henderson, and J. Burroughs Alexander
Parental Rights and the Foster Care System: A Glimpse of Decision Making in Virginia
Journal of Family Issues, August 1, 2008; 29(8): 1031 - 1050.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Family IssuesHome page
E. A. Suter, K. L. Daas, and K. M. Bergen
Negotiating Lesbian Family Identity via Symbols and Rituals
Journal of Family Issues, January 1, 2008; 29(1): 26 - 47.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?