Troxel v. Granville

United States Supreme Court · 2000 · Family Law

530 U.S. 57 (2000)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawgrandparent visitationparental rightssubstantive due processFourteenth Amendmentbest interests of the childfit parent presumptionspecial weight

Facts

After Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel separated, Brad regularly brought their two daughters to visit his parents, Jenifer and Gary Troxel. After Brad's suicide, the grandparents continued seeing the children, but Granville later decided to limit visitation to one short visit per month rather than the broader schedule the grandparents wanted. The Troxels petitioned under Wash. Rev. Code § 26.10.160(3), which allowed any person to seek visitation at any time whenever visitation might serve the child's best interests. The trial court ordered one weekend per month, one summer week, and birthday visitation, even though Granville did not oppose visitation altogether and no court found her unfit.

Issue

Whether Washington's nonparental visitation statute, as applied to Granville and her family, violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause by allowing a court to override a fit parent's visitation decision based only on a judge's view of the child's best interests.

Rule

The Due Process Clause protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. When a fit parent's visitation decision is subjected to judicial review, the court must give at least some special weight to the parent's own determination, and the State may not infringe that right merely because a judge believes a better decision could be made.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, a fit mother, Elena Ruiz, allows her son's former step-grandmother to visit the child for one afternoon every six weeks. The step-grandmother petitions under a state statute allowing any person to seek visitation whenever a court finds it may serve the child's best interests, and the judge expands visitation because he thinks more contact would be better for the child.

If Elena challenges the order on substantive due process grounds, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a fit parent has a fundamental due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her child. When a court reviews a fit parent's visitation decision, it must give at least some special weight to that decision and may not override it merely because the judge believes a better arrangement could be made. The lead opinion did not require proof of harm and did not treat allowing some visitation as a waiver.