Lockhart v. Lockhart
| Decision Date | 18 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 10A04-9201-CV-28,10A04-9201-CV-28 |
| Citation | 603 N.E.2d 864 |
| Parties | Silas L. LOCKHART and Joyce Lockhart, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Silas G. LOCKHART and Debrah J. Jones, Appellees-Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joan B. Henderson, Jeffersonville, for appellants-plaintiffs.
John F. Dietrich, Scottsburg, for appellees-respondents.
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Silas L. and Joyce Lockhart ("Grandparents"), appeal the dismissal of their petition for grandparent visitation filed against Silas G. Lockhart ("Father") and Debrah Jones ("Mother"). We affirm.
Grandparents present three issues for review which we restate as follows:
1. Whether Indiana's Grandparent Visitation Rights Act violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sec. 23 of the Indiana Constitution.
2. Whether Grandparents, whose son was awarded joint custody and primary physical custody of his minor child, have standing to bring suit for visitation under Ind.Code Sec. 31-1-11.7.
3. Whether Grandparents may circumvent the requirements for visitation under IC Sec. 31-1-11.7-2 and gain standing to bring suit for visitation under IC Sec. 31-1-11.7-3.
Father was granted joint custody of Jeffery Lockhart, ("Grandson") with Mother following their divorce. Primary physical custody of Grandson was awarded to Father. Subsequently, Father denied Grandparents visitation privileges. Grandparents then filed a Petition for Visitation or in the Alternative Petition for Change of Custody. The trial court granted Father's and Mother's Motion to Dismiss.
We must decide whether the Grandparent Visitation Rights Act ("Act") violates federal and state equal protection clauses. Grandparents claim that the statute creates two classes of grandparents:
(a) A court may not grant visitation under this chapter after May 9, 1989 to a grandparent who is the parent of a person:
(1) who is not deceased; and
(2) who has been awarded custody of the grandchild.
IC Sec. 31-1-11.7-2. One class of grandparents may petition for visitation if their child is deceased or has not been awarded custody of the grandchild. The other class of grandparents may not gain visitation privileges if their child is living and has custody of the grandchild. Grandparents argue that because both classes of persons are grandparents, they are similarly situated. We disagree.
In most instances, a parent who has custody of a child will allow grandparent visitation. When a parent loses his or her custodial rights as a parent, that parent has a reduced right to participate in child-rearing decisions. It is precisely when one parent has less legal control over the child that the grandparent-grandchild relationship may be jeopardized. A grandparent whose child is the noncustodial parent may have difficulty obtaining visitation with the grandchild. Thus, a grandparent whose child is a noncustodial parent is not similarly situated to a grandparent whose child has custody rights.
Although the statute protects one class of grandparents, "[t]he equal protection clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitution do not preclude legislative classification so long as there is a rational and reasonable basis for the classification and so long as it bears a fair relationship to the purpose of the statute." Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334, 370 N.E.2d 333, 336. Because of the problems inherent in a situation where a grandparent's child does not have custody, there is a rational and reasonable basis for the classification. The statute is reasonably designed to protect the rights of a certain class of grandparents.
We do not allow a grandparent control over the upbringing of the grandchild over the wishes of the parent when the parents are married or their child still retains legal custody of the grandchild. It is only when the parent does not have custody that the grandparents receive legislative protection. When a married couple has children, the grandparents have no right to court-ordered visitation.
Grandparents are not afforded any additional rights under Indiana's equal privileges clause. Although early Indiana cases noted that federal cases interpreting the federal equal protection clause are not binding on the Indiana Supreme Court in making and interpreting the Indiana Constitution, but rather have only persuasive force, subsequent decisions emphasize that the federal and state equal protection guarantees are co-extensive and protect identical rights. See Kent v. Cook (N.D.Ind.1986), 637 F.Supp. 1005. In the absence of a fundamental right or suspect classification, Indiana courts have used a highly deferential approach in sustaining statutes which are grounded on a rational basis. See, e.g., Sobieralski v. City of South Bend (1985), Ind.App., 479 N.E.2d 98, reh. denied, trans. denied.
Additionally, when drafting the Act, the legislature had to balance two competing interests: the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit and rights of the grandparents to participate in the lives of their grandchildren. It has long been recognized in our traditions and collective conscience that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit. Unless there is some compelling governmental interest, it is well-established that government will not intervene in private family matters. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510. Because privacy inheres in the concept of liberty protected by the due process clause, it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution to infringe on parents' rights in raising their children, without a rational basis for so doing.
We must now decide whether Grandparents, whose son was awarded joint custody and primary physical custody of Grandson, have standing to bring suit for visitation. Ind.Code Sec. 31-1-11.7-2(a)(2) states that grandparent visitation may not be awarded to the parent of a person "[w]ho has been awarded custody of the grandchild." Because Father and Mother have joint custody, and neither have sole custody, Grandparents argue that they are entitled to visitation under the statute.
We recently noted the unambiguous nature of the language used in the Act: " In re Visitation of A.B. (1991), Ind.App., 582 N.E.2d 913, 915 [emphasis added]. 1
Grandparents make a distinction between joint and sole custody. The distinction is not relevant to the purposes of the Act. "Joint legal custody means that the persons awarded joint custody will share authority and responsibility for the major decisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frame v. Nehls, Docket No. 102139
...A grandparent whose child is the noncustodial parent may have difficulty obtaining visitation with the grandchild. [Lockhart v. Lockhart, 603 N.E.2d 864, 865 (Ind.App., 1992).][ The same concerns of unreasonable denial of grandparent communication are present when the parents never marry, b......
-
Crafton v. Gibson
...trans. denied; see also Kennedy v. Kennedy, 688 N.E.2d 1264, 1268 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), trans. denied, and Lockhart v. Lockhart, 603 N.E.2d 864, 866 (Ind.Ct.App. 1992). The Sightes case involved a child that was born out of wedlock. Id. at 225. Paternity was subsequently established in the ch......
-
Sightes v. Barker
...(c). The only circumstances in which a grandparent may seek visitation rights are those enumerated in the Act. Lockhart v. Lockhart, 603 N.E.2d 864, 867 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). Pursuant to the Act, a grandparent who is seeking visitation of a grandchild born out of wedlock must file the petition......
-
Ridenour v. Ridenour
...whom society has traditionally recognized as playing an important role in the raising of their grandchildren."); Lockhart v. Lockhart, 603 N.E.2d 864, 866 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (recognizes the competing interests of "the rights of [the] parents to raise their children as they see fit and [the] ......