Paternal grandparents petitioned for visitation with children born out-of-wedlock. The Superior Court, Skagit County, Michael Rickert, J., awarded visitation, and mother appealed. The Court of Appeals, 87 Wash.App. 131, 940 P.2d 698, reversed, and grandparents appealed. The Washington Supreme Court, Madsen, J., affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, held that Washington statute providing that any person may petition court for visitation at any time, and that court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve best interest of child, violated substantive due process rights of mother, as applied to permit paternal grandparents, following deathof children's father, to obtain increased court-ordered visitation, in excess of what mother had thought appropriate, based solely on state trial judge's disagreement with mother as to whether children would benefit from such increased visitation.
Affirmed.

Justice Souter concurred in judgment and filed opinion.
Justice Thomas concurred in judgment and filed opinion.
Justice Stevens dissented and filed opinion.
Justice Scalia dissented and filed opinion.
Justice Kennedy dissented and filed opinion.

[1] KeyCite Notes

92 Constitutional Law
   92XII Due Process of Law
     92k252.5 k. Rights, Interests, Benefits, or Privileges Involved, in General. Most Cited Cases

92 Constitutional Law KeyCite Notes
   92XII Due Process of Law
     92k254.1 k. Liberties and Liberty Interests Protected. Most Cited Cases

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, guarantees more than fair process; it also includes substantive component that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 5, 14.

[2] KeyCite Notes

76D Child Custody
   76DII Grounds and Factors in General
     76DII(A) In General
       76Dk22 k. Persons Entitled in General. Most Cited Cases
        (Formerly 285k2(2))

Custody, care and nurture of child reside first with parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparing for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. (Per Justice O'Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.)

 [3] KeyCite Notes

92 Constitutional Law
   92XII Due Process of Law
     92k274 Deprivation of Personal Rights in General
       92k274(5) k. Privacy; Marriage, Family, and Sexual Matters. Most Cited Cases

Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects fundamental right of parents to make decisions as to care, custody, and control of their children. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14.

[4] KeyCite Notes

76D Child Custody
   76DVIII Proceedings
     76DVIII(B) Evidence
       76Dk466 Weight and Sufficiency
         76Dk473 k. Grandparents. Most Cited Cases
          (Formerly 285k2(17))

92 Constitutional Law KeyCite Notes
   92XII Due Process of Law
     92k274 Deprivation of Personal Rights in General
       92k274(5) k. Privacy; Marriage, Family, and Sexual Matters. Most Cited Cases

Washington statute providing that any person may petition court for visitation at any time, and that court may order visitation rights for any person when visitation may serve best interest of child, violated substantive due process rights of mother, as applied to permit paternal grandparents, following death of children's father, to obtain increased court-ordered visitation, in excess of what mother had thought appropriate, based solely on state trial judge's disagreement with mother as to whether children would benefit from such increased visitation; at minimum, trial judge had to accord special weight to mother's own determination of her children's best interests. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; West's RCWA 26.10.160(3). (Per Justice O'Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.)

[5] KeyCite Notes

76D Child Custody
   76DVIII Proceedings
     76DVIII(B) Evidence
       76Dk453 Presumptions
         76Dk455 k. Fitness. Most Cited Cases
          (Formerly 285k2(8))

There is presumption that fit parents act in best interests of their children. (Per Justice O'Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.)

[6] KeyCite Notes

285 Parent and Child
   285k2.5 k. Right of Parent to Control, Restrain, or Punish Child. Most Cited Cases
    (Formerly 285k2(2))

As long as parent adequately cares for his or her children, i.e., is fit, there will normally be no reason for state to inject itself into private realm of the family, in order to further question ability of that parent to make best decisions as to rearing of that parent's children. (Per Justice O'Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.)

[7] KeyCite Notes

76D Child Custody
   76DVII Particular Status or Relationship
     76DVII(B) Grandparents
       76Dk282 Grandparent Visitation and Access to Child
         76Dk286 k. Objections of Parent. Most Cited Cases
          (Formerly 285k2(17))

Whether it will be beneficial to child to have relationship with grandparent is, in any specific case, a decision for parent to make in first instance, and if a fit parent's decision becomes subject to judicial review, court must accord at least some special weight to parent's own determination. (Per Justice O'Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.)

[8] KeyCite Notes

92 Constitutional Law
   92XII Due Process of Law
     92k274 Deprivation of Personal Rights in General
       92k274(5) k. Privacy; Marriage, Family, and Sexual Matters. Most Cited Cases

Due Process Clause does not permit state to infringe on fundamental right of parents to make child-rearing decisions simply because state judge believes a "better" decision could be made. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14. (Per Justice O'Connor, with the Chief Justice and two Justices concurring, and with two Justices concurring in result.)

FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Washington Rev.Code § 26.10.160(3) permits "[a]ny person" to petition for visitation rights "at any time" and authorizes state superior courts to grant such rights whenever visitation may serve a child's best interest. Petitioners Troxel petitioned for the right to visit their deceased son's daughters. Respondent Granville, the girls' mother, did not oppose all visitation, but objected to the amount sought by the Troxels. The Superior Court ordered more visitation than Granville desired, and she appealed. The State Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the Troxels' petition. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held, inter alia, that § 26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally infringes on parents' fundamental right to rear their children. Reasoning that the Federal Constitution permits a State to interfere with this right only to prevent harm or potential harm to **2056 the child, it found that § 26.10.160(3) does not require a threshold showing of harm and sweeps too broadly by permitting any person to petition at any time with the only requirement being that the visitation serve the best interest of the child.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
137