Grandparent-Grandchild Access: A Legal Analysis

ENDNOTES

^[1] 120 S. Ct. 2054 (2000).
^[2] Brief Amici Curiae of the American Association of Retired Persons and Generations United, filed November 12, 1999.
^[3] Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Center for Law and Justice Supporting Respondent, filed December 10, 1999; Brief Amici Curiae of the Christian Legal Society and The National Association of Evangelicals, filed December 13, 1999.
^[4] Brief of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders as Amici Curiae, filed December 13, 1999.
^[5] Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Washington, filed December 13, 1999.
^[6] Brief Amicus Curriae of the National Association of Counsel for Children, filed December 13, 1999.
^[7] Canada, Report of the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access, For the Sake of the Children, available online at (date accessed, July 30, 2001). http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfoComDoc/36/1/SJCA/Studies/rap-rep/sjcarp02-e.htm
^[8] ^[2001] O.J. No. 705 (Ont. C.A.).
^[9] Wash. Rev. Code § 26.10.160 (3) (Supp.1996).
^[10] Troxel was combined with two other similar cases and is cited as Re Custody of Sara Skyanne Smith et al., 137 Wn. 2nd 1 (Wash. 1998).
^[11] Ibid at 21.
^[12] Ibid.
^[13] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 2.
^[14] Supra, Note 1 at 2059.
^[15] Ibid at 2060.
^[16] Ibid.
^[17] Ibid. See also, U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
^[18] Ibid.
^[19] Ibid.
^[20] Ibid at 2061.
^[21] 442 U.S. 584 at 602 (1979).
^[22] Supra, Note 1 at 2061.
^[23] Ibid at 2062.
^[24] Ibid.
^[25] Ibid at 2064.
^[26] Ibid.
^[27] (28 March 2000), Ontario 1131/98 (Ont. S.C.J.) [unreported].
^[28] Supra, Note 8 at para. 20.
^[29] Supra, Note 8 at paras. 21-23.
^[30] Art. 611 C.C.Q.
^[31] S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2.
^[32] R.S.A. 1980 c. p-20.
^[33] R.S.B.C. 1996, c.128, as am. by S.B.C. 1998, c.28.
^[34] R.S.Y. 1986, c.22, as am. by S.Y. 1998, c.4.
^[35] R.S.C. 1985, chap. 3.
^[36] R.S.O. 1990, chap. C.12.
^[37] D. (G.) v. M. (G.) (1999) 47 R.F.L. (4th) 16 at 27 (N.W.T.S.C.).
^[38] ^[1985] O. J. No. 725 at para. 1 (Ont. C.A.) (QL).
^[39] (1982) 24 R.F.L. (2d) 342 (Ont. C.A.).
^[40] Supra, Note 37 at 27.
^[41] (1992) 39 R.F.L. (3d) 163 at 167 (N.S. Fam. Ct.).
^[42] (1985) 45 R.F.L. (2d) 337 at 347 (B.C.S.C.).
^[43] MacGyver v. Richards (1995) 22 O.R. (3d) 481 at 492 (Ont. C.A.).
^[44] Wylde v. Wylde ^[1984] O.J. No. 764 (Ont. Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.) (QL); Moreau v. Cody (1995) 15. R.F.L. (4th) 174 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.); and Paulini v. Schmidt ^[1993] O.J. No. 2907 (O.C.J. Gen. Div.) (QL).
^[45] ^[1991] O.J. No. 1114 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.) (QL).
^[46] Corinne Wilks and Catherine Melville, Grandparents in Custody and Access Disputes (1990) 13 (3): Journal of Divorce, 1 at 3-4.
^[47] Carolyn Cogswell and Carolyn S. Henry, Grandchildren’s Perceptions of Grandparental Support in Divorced and Intact Families, (1995) 23 (3/4): Journal of Remarriage and Divorce, 127 at 147.
^[48] Supra, Note 1 at 2063.
^[49] 828 S.W. (2d) 630 at 631-632 (Ky. 1992).
^[50] Ibid at 633.
^[51] 420 N.Y.S. 2d 697 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1979).
^[52] 332 A. 2d 199 at 204-205 (N.J. 1975).
^[53] 87 Cal. App 4th 1099 (2001).
^[54] Ibid at 1110.
^[55] Ibid.
^[56] ^[1996] O.J. No. 755 at Par. 7 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.) (QL).
^[57] ^[2000] A.J. No. 1082 (Alta. Prov. Ct.) (QL).
^[58] Anne Marie Jackson, The Coming of Age of Grandparent Visitation Rights,(Winter 1994) 43 Am. U.L. Rev. 563 at 580.
^[59] Supra, Note 8 at para. 19.
^[60] Ibid at para. 17.
^[61] Andre P. Derdeyn, Grandparent Visitation Rights: Rendering Family Dissension More Pronounced? Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. (April 1985) 277 at 282.
^[62] Ross A. Thompson, Mario J. Scalora, Susan P. Limber and Lynn Castrianno, Grandparent Visitation Rights: A Psycholegal Analysis, Family and Conciliation Courts Review, January 1991, 29 (1) 9 at 16-17.
^[63] Supra, Note 8 at par. 24.
^[64] Nicholas Bala and Rebecca Jaremko, "Canada: Non-Marital Unions, Finality of Separation Agreements and Children’s Issues, submitted for publication in Andrew Bainham, ed., The International Survey of Family Law, 2002 (Jordans).
^[65] ^[1996] O.J. No. 2912 at Par. 49 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.) (QL).
^[66] (1992) 42 R.F.L. (3d) 281 (N.B.Q.B. Fam. Div.).
^[67] (1998) 13 R.F.L. (3d) 201 at 208-209 (Ont. Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.).
^[68] (1991) 122 N.B.R. (2d) 271 at 281 (N.B.Q.B. Fam. Div.).
^[69] Ibid at 278.
^[70] (May 16, 2001), Ontario 8269/00 (Ontario S.C.J.) [unreported].
^[71] Ibid at paras. 8 and 9.
^[72] Ibid at paras. 10 and 11.
^[73] (Sept. 21, 2001) Ontario 59638/01 (Ont. Div. Ct.) [unreported].
^[74] (1993) W.D.F.L. 083 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.).
^[75] ^[1991] O.J. No. 2446 (Ont. Ct. Prov. Div.) (QL).
^[76] ^[1999] S.J. No. 568 (Sask. U.F.C.) (QL).
^[77] ^[1997] S.C.J. No. 604 (N.S. Fam. Ct.) (QL).
^[78] (1996) 23 R.F.L. (4th) 106 (N.B.Q.B. Fam. Div.).
^[79] ^[1998] O.J. No. 1544 (O.C.J. Gen. Div.) (QL).
^[80] (1994) 7 R.F.L. (4th) 391 (O.C.J. Gen. Div.).
^[81] ^[1988] O.J. No. 2438 (Ont. Ct. Prov. Div.) (QL).
^[82] ^[1999] C.C.L. 5070 (S.C.J.).
^[83] ^[1998] B.C.J. No. 961 (B.C.S.C.) (QL).
^[84] Morecraft v. Morecraft (1991) 122 N.B.R. (2d) 271 (N.B.Q.B. Fam. Div.); and Parham v. J.R. et al., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
^[85] ^[1984] O.J. No. 764 (Ont. Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.) (QL).
^[86] (1998) 31 R.F.L. (4th) 351 (N.S. Fam. Ct.).
^[87] (1997) 23 R.F.L. (4th) 441 (N.B.Q.B. Fam. Div.).
^[88] (1995) 163 N.B.R. (2d) 323 (N.B.Q.B. Fam. Div.).
^[89] (1984) 34 Man. R. (2d) 158 (Man. C.A.).
^[90] ^[1982] O.J. No. 595 (Ont. Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.) (QL).
^[91] ^[1992] B.C.J. No. 1118 (B.C.S.C.) (QL).
^[92] (1993) 49 R.F.L. (3d) 437 at 440-441 (B.C.C.A.).
^[93] W. (C.G.) v. J. (M.) (1982) 24 R.F.L. (2d) 342 (Ont. C.A.); Vormittag v. Vormittag, ^[1984] O.J. No. 760 (Ont. Prov. Ct. Fam. Div.) (QL); D. (G.) v. M. (G.) (1999) 47 R.F.L. (4th) 16 (N.W.T.S.C.).
^[94] Supra, Note 81.
^[95] Supra, Note 61 at 285.
^[96] Ibid at 278.
^[97] Supra, Note 80.
^[98] Supra, Note 68 at 278.
^[99] (1986) 2 R.F.L. (3d) 414 at 415- 416 (Man. C.A.).
^[100] Supra, Note 87 at 446.
^[101] ^[1995] O.J. No. 425 at para. 19 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.).
^[102] Kathleen S. Bean, Grandparent Visitation: Can the Parent Refuse? U. Louiseville J. Fam. L. 24 393 at 435-436.
^[103] 855 S.W. (2d) 573 at 580 (Tenn. 1993).
^[104] Supra, Note 102 at 441.
^[105] Supra, Note 10 at 20.
^[106] Joan Catherine Bohl, Grandparent Visitation Law Grows Up: The Trend Toward Awarding Visitation Only When the Child Would Otherwise Suffer Harm, 48 (2000) Drake L. Rev. 279 at 315.
^[107] Supra, Note 68 at 278.
^[108] (1991) 31 R.F.L. (3d) 48 at 52 (N. S. Fam. Ct.).
^[109] Supra, Note 8 at para. 22.
^[110] (1997) 35 R.F.L. (4th) 122 at 130 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.).
^[111] ^[1998] O.J. No. 2998 at para. 15 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.) (QL).
^[112] Supra, Note 86 at 376-377.
^[113] (1995) 173 A.R. 369 (Alta. Q.B.).
^[114] (1995) 20 R.F.L. (4th) 115 at 121 (Alta. C.A.).
^[115] Supra, Note 102 at 441.
^[116] 104 Cal. App. 3d 992 at 996 (1980).
^[117] Supra, Note 102 at 441-442.
^[118] 356 N.E. 2d 277 at 281 (N.Y. App. 1976).
^[119] Supra, Note 103.
^[120] Supra, Note 10 at 29.
^[121] Supra,Note 1 at 2064.
^[122] (1992) 124 N.S.R. (2d) 273 at 274; 345 A.P.R. 273 at 274 (N.S. Fam. Ct.).
^[123] (1993) 138 N.B.R. (2d) at 330 (N.B.Q.B.).
^[124] (1996) 19 R.F.L. (4th) 177 (S.C.C.).
^[125] (1990) 30 R.F.L. (3d) 53 at 63 (Ont. C.A.).
^[126] (1999) 49 R.F.L. (4th) 250 (B.C.C.A.).
^[127] Supra, Note 85 at para. 39.
^[128] Supra, Note 87 at 446.
^[129] James G. McLeod & Alfred A. Mamo (1999, Carswell) Annual Review of Family Law at 46.
^[130] Supra, Note 86 at 374-375.
^[131] (1991) 105 N.S.R. (2d) 9, 284 A.P.R. 9 (N.S. Fam. Ct.).
^[132] Supra, Note 1 at 2062.
^[133] Supra, Note 102 at 446.
^[134] Supra, Note 86 at 377.
^[135] Supra, Note 62 at 22.
^[136] Ligate v. Richardson (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 423 (Ont. C.A.).
^[137] Dhaliwal v. Beloud, (1998) 38 R.F.L. (4th) 345 (B.C.C.A.).
^[138] Supra, Note 62 at 20.
^[139] Supra, Note 1 at 2065.
^[140] Ibid at 2079.
^[141] Wynn Legal Defense Fund at http://www.parentsrights.org/troxel/wynnlet.html (Accessed November 1, 2000, and October 14, 2001. This link no longer works.).
^[142] Supra, Note 85 at paras. 56-58.
^[143] (1997) 31 R.F.L. (4th) 440 at 445 (O.C.J. Prov. Div.).
^[144] Supra, Note 32.
^[145] Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.) 1982, c.11.
^[146] (1993) 108 D.L.R. (4th) 193 (S.C.C.).
^[147] (1993) 49 R.F.L. (3d) 317 (S.C.C.).
^[148] Supra, Note 145 at 273.
^[149] Ibid at 263.
^[150] Ibid.
^[151] (1994) 9 R.F.L. (4th) 157 (S.C.C.).
^[152] Ibid at 201.
^[153] Ibid at 204 -207.
^[154] (1990) 50 R.F.L. (4th) 63.
^[155] Ibid at 104-105.
^[156] ^[2000] S.C.J. No. 48 at paras. 11 & 12 (S.C.C.) (QL).
^[157] ^[1986] 2 S.C.R. 573.
^[158] Supra, Note 150 at 208.
^[159] Supra, Note 126 at 253.
^[160] Nicholas Bala, The Charter of Rights and Family Law in Canada: A New Era, C.F.L.Q. 18 (2000-2001) 373 at 423.
^[161] Ibid.
^[162] Supra, Note 124.
^[163] Supra, Note 159 at 426-427.
^[164] Supra, Note 124.
^[165] Supra, Note 102 at 430.
^[166] Supra, Note 103.
^[167] Supra, Note 10.
^[168] Supra, Note 111.
^[169] Supra, Note 113.
^[170] Supra, Note 1 at 2059.
^[171] 126 N.H. 388 at 391-392 (1985).
^[172] Supra , Note 106 at 296 and 331.
^[173] 29 S.W. (3d) 199 at 204 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2000).
^[174] 85 Cal. App. (4th) 848 (2000).
^[175] Ibid at 863.
^[176] Supra, Note 85 at paras. 45-47.
^[177] Supra, Note 62 at 17-18.
^[178] Supra, Note 7.
^[179] Sherry Colb, King Solomon in the 21st Century, online: Findlaw King Solomon in the 21st Century (accessed November 1, 2000).
^[180] Supra, Note 62 at 23.

Date modified:: 2022-12-21

Language selection

Search

Grandparent-Grandchild Access: A Legal Analysis

ENDNOTES