WASHINGTON — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund have filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Family Research Council at the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the nation’s highest court to review a Pennsylvania court’s decision ordering non-parent visitation over the objections of a fit biological parent.
“Unless there’s proven harm to a child, the decisions of the child’s biological parents in child-rearing should always take precedence over the wishes of non-parents,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Chris Stovall. “Fit parents have the fundamental right to bring up their children as they deem best. That includes the right to decide how much time their children will spend with non-parents--including relatives--and under what circumstances, without having to get court approval for their decisions.”
The friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed defends the basic right of a boy’s biological father to make childrearing decisions in raising his son. Shane and Stephanie Fausey raised their only child together before Stephanie Fausey died of cancer when their son was seven years old.
Shane Fausey continued to raise his son and made sure the boy’s maternal grandparents continued their relationship with him. But when Fausey disagreed with his former mother-in-law, Cheryl Hiller, as to the length and frequency of those visits, Hiller sued Fausey.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in the 2000 case
Troxel v. Granville the fundamental right of fit biological parents to make childrearing decisions. In
Troxel, seven justices found that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.
In the state court decision at issue, Pennsylvania’s high court ruled in favor of Hiller, granting her more extensive visitation with Fausey’s son than Fausey believed to be in his son’s best interests. In a concurring decision, one judge went so far as to argue that Pennsylvania should find that children have a fundamental right, competing with their parents’ fundamental right, to have their best interests determined by courts. The concurrence favorably cited a British court’s declaration that the rights of children prevail over the rights of parents.
“This case is extremely important particularly in light of current ‘psychological parenting’ cases popping up across the nation,” said Stovall. “Statutes and case law involving third-party visitation claims are being twisted by activists and activist courts to usurp the basic rights of moms and dads to bring up their children, by granting parental rights to non-parents. If left unchallenged, this new ‘psychological parenting’ movement will devastate children and cause further breakdown of the family unit.”
A copy of the friend-of-the-court brief ADF attorneys filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in
Fausey v. Hiller can be read at
www.telladf.org/UserDocs/FauseyAmicus.pdf.
ADF is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
www.telladf.org