Martin v. Coop, 95-CA-01174-SCT
| Decision Date | 08 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-CA-01174-SCT,95-CA-01174-SCT |
| Parties | Norma Christine MARTIN v. James Sidney COOP and Sandra L. Coop. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Steven G. Roberts, Memphis, TN, for appellant.
Gerald W. Chatham, Sr., Hernando, for appellee.
Before PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN and SMITH, JJ.
This case is an appeal from a decree awarding the grandparents of Jesse Robert Coop ("Jesse") visitation, pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. §§ 93-16-1 et seq. The Coops are the parents of Jesse's deceased father. The following visitation was granted to the grandparents: every second and fourth weekend of each Norma Christine Martin, Jesse's mother appealed to this Court asserting the following as error:
month; eight different holidays in alternating years (with Christmas comprising four days); each grandparent's birthday; and four weeks during the summer. This visitation totals 86 days per year in even years and 81 days per year in odd years.
I. The trial court erred in granting the petition for grandparent visitation to the natural paternal grandparents after the death of the minor child's father, where the minor child lives in an intact nuclear family, and visitation by the grandparents has not been unreasonably denied.
II. The amount of visitation granted to the grandparents is excessive and thus not in the best interests of the child.
The review of the chancellor's decision is one of manifest error. As we have stated before, absent an abuse of discretion, we will uphold the decision of the chancellor. This Court will not disturb the factual findings of the chancellor unless said factual findings are manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous. McAdory v. McAdory, 608 So.2d 695, 699 (Miss.1992).
Section 93-16-3(1) of the Mississippi Code Annotated provides that when a parent "of a minor child dies, either parent of the child's parents who ... has died may petition the ... chancery court in which the child resides, and seek visitation rights with such child." Miss.Code Ann. § 93-16-3(1) (1994 rev. ed.). The chancellor in this case found that under this section the petitioners are in fact the grandparents of Jesse and that their son is deceased. Thus, all the proof necessary under § 93-16-3(1) was present and, therefore, the grandparents should be awarded visitation. The statute reads very clearly and applies to this case. The grandparents had a statutory right to petition the court to grant them visitation and they proved the necessary facts. Thus, the chancellor did not err in granting the grandparents visitation.
Norma challenges the chancellor's ruling by contending that § 93-16-3 is unconstitutional. She asserts:
1. Section 93-16-3(1) is unconstitutional when applied to an existing nuclear family.
2. Section 93-16-3(2) is unconstitutional on its face.
3. Section 93-16-3(2) is unconstitutional as applied in the present case where the grandparents were not unreasonably denied visitation.
Norma's challenges to the constitutionality of § 93-16-3(2) are not appropriate for consideration or review by this Court. The chancellor did not rule under subsection two. He specifically stated that he did not have to proceed to or use that subsection because he found that subsection one allowed the grandparents visitation. Therefore, the constitutional challenge to subsection two does not Norma also challenges the constitutionality of § 93-16-3(1) when it is applied to an "existing nuclear family." She contends that in order to grant visitation under subsection one, there must be a disruption in the family unit. She argues that there has been no disruption in her family unit because there is a reconstituted family consisting of she and her husband and Jesse.
have to be considered at this time by this Court because that particular subsection was not applied in this case.
This argument is unpersuasive because "disruption of the nuclear family" is not a requirement of the statute. Even if it was a requirement, Norma's contention would fail because the disruption lies in the death of the natural father. The Legislature obviously intended that the father's parents have the right to petition the court for visitation privileges. This is the clear language of the statute. It is not ambiguous.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution proscribe governmental interference with individual liberties such as a parent's right to determine his child's care, custody and management. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394-95, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). However, this right is not absolute. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) (). The Mississippi Legislature has determined that a grandparent may petition the court for visitation if a parent has died. This statute does not deprive the parents of their right to raise their children by determining the care, custody and management of the child. Mississippi's grandparent visitation act does not intrude upon this parental liberty, and as such, it is constitutional.
The chancellor did not err in granting visitation to the grandparents under Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-16-3(1) (1994 rev. ed.).
Norma's final argument is that the chancellor erred in awarding excessive visitation. With this argument, we agree. In support of her contention, Norma cites Sketo v. Brown, 559 So.2d 381 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990). It should be noted that in Sketo, which is factually the same as the case sub judice, the Court held that the statute allowing grandparent visitation, if one of the parents is deceased, is not unconstitutional if the visitation is in the best interest of the child. Sketo, 559 So.2d at 382.
The Court in Sketo, after finding the statute constitutional, proceeded to review the reasonableness of the order granting visitation. It held that the record did not reflect that it was in the child's best interest to allow extensive visitation with the grandparent. Therefore, the Court reversed the case and remanded it to the lower court so that the lower court could set forth specific findings of fact to support the extensive visitation. Sketo, 559 So.2d at 383.
In setting forth his findings to support the visitation in this case, the chancellor stated that under § 93-16-5, he had the power to set "reasonable rights of visitation." The opinion of the chancellor was that
[r]easonable rights of visitation are always interpreted by this Court, except in unusual circumstances, as being those set forth by what is sometimes referred to as the "Farese Visitation Schedule." I see no reason in this circumstances [sic] that the term reasonable rights of visitation should be anything short of that. Based upon that I'm going to award unto the Plaintiffs all visitation which would normally be awarded to a natural parent under the "Farese Visitation Schedule"...
This Court has stated that "[v]isitation and restrictions placed upon it are within the discretion of the chancery court." White v. Thompson, 569 So.2d 1181, 1185 (Miss.1990). This Court is bound to accept the findings of the chancellor unless he is manifestly wrong or there is clearly an abuse of discretion. See Newsom v. Newsom, 557 So.2d 511, 514 (Miss.1990); and Clark v. Myrick, 523 So.2d 79, 80-81 (Miss.1988). In this case, we find that the chancellor abused his discretion in awarding the grandparents the same visitation that he would award to a non-custodial parent. Grandparents do not [n]atural grandparents have no common-law "right" of visitation with their grandchildren. Matter of Adoption of a Minor, 558 So.2d 854, 856 (Miss.1990). Such a right must come from a legislative enactment. Id.; Olson v. Flinn, 484 So.2d 1015, 1017 (Miss.1986). Although the Mississippi Legislature created this right by enacting § 93-16-3, it is clear that natural grandparents do not have a right to visit their grandchildren that is as comprehensive as the rights of a parent.
stand in lieu of or in the shoes of the deceased parent. As this Court stated in Settle v. Galloway, 682 So.2d 1032, (Miss.1996), in expressing its concern over excessive grandparent visitation
Settle v. Galloway, 682 So.2d 1032, 1035 (Miss.1996). It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graville v. Dodge
...595, 778 P.2d 365, 368 (1989); King, 828 S.W.2d at 632; Petition of Santoro, 578 N.W.2d 369, 381 (Minn.Ct.App.1998); Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912, 915 (Miss.1997); Herndon v. Tuhey, 857 S.W.2d 203, 208 (Mo.1993); R.T., 650 A.2d at 16; Ridenour v. Ridenour, 120 N.M. 352, 901 P.2d 770, 774 (......
-
Linder v. Linder
...Inclusion of factors the trial court must consider in its analysis required under the statute would also be helpful. See, Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912 (Miss.1997). Nonetheless, under the facts of this case, I would affirm the trial court's decision holding the statute was not unconstitutio......
-
Bryant v. Bryant
...1526, 32 L.Ed. 2d 15 (1972) (parental decisions may be curtailed by the State as in the best interest of the child). Martin v. Coop , 693 So. 2d 912, 915 (Miss. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by Smith v. Martin , 222 So. 3d 255 (Miss. 2017). We recognize that while parents have the right......
-
Linder v. Linder
...Inclusion of factors the trial court must consider in its analysis required under the statute would also be helpful. See, Martin v. Coop, 693 So.2d 912 (Miss. 1997). Nonetheless, under the facts of this case, I would affirm the trial court's decision holding the statute was not unconstituti......