Mitch Perry
Placing a constitutional amendment up for a vote can be problematic when the proposal itself might be unconstitutional.
That’s what Lisa Carlton, the chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission’s Declaration of Rights Committee, concluded on Tuesday, when she said she could not support expanding the rights of grandparents to visit their grandchildren.
“I think that the basic flaw of the proposal is that it is changing the constitution,” said Carlton, a former state legislator.
The measure was proposed by St. Petersburg state Sen. Darryl Rouson, one of three Democrats on the 37-member CRC panel. It would have changed the Constitution to specify that the right of privacy may not be construed to limit a grandparent’s right to seek visitation of his or her grandchildren under certain circumstances, but was temporarily postponed when it didn’t appear to have support from the committee.
Florida rulings have consistently upheld that parents have the right to control who has access to their children.
But the Legislature passed and Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill in 2015 that allowed grandparents to tell family courts that they should be able to see their grandkids if both parents were dead, missing or in a persistent vegetative state. It also applied if one parent met any of the previous requirements and the other parent has been convicted of a felony.
In retrospect, however, Rouson said the bill was too narrow in scope, and still prohibited the majority of grandparents for having their visiting legal petitions considered in court.
“It’s narrowness has almost been limited to a nullity that it doesn’t even apply to a situation where it was the impetus for us to begin to work to pass it,” Rouson told the committee, before deciding that it didn’t have the votes to move forward.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also traditionally and continuously upheld the principle that parents have the fundamental right to direct the education and upbringing of their children. CRC board member John Stemberger said that knowing he couldn’t support the proposal.
“The problem with the proposal in my view is that the state puts itself the gatekeeper for parental decisions in determining what is in the best interests of the child versus not,” said Stemberger.
There were three members of the public who passionately called for the proposal to be accepted.
“We want the right to visit them” said Amanda Simon, the founder of Alienated Grandparents Anonymous International. “We want to be proactive. We don’t want just to be the victims.”
“Eight hundred thousand families of children are led by grandparents in this state. We give them nothing. No standing. No ability. That’s not what the federal right of privacy is all about,” said Marco Island-based attorney James Karl.
Karl called it “tragic” that the state stands alone when it comes to the rights of grandparents’ visitation rights.
“We give them nothing. No standing. No ability. That’s not what the federal right of privacy is all about,” Karl claimed.
Orlando grandmother Yvonne Stewart told the committee about how her daughter disappeared years ago and remains missing, while her daughter’s fiancé – the only suspect named by police in the case – has refused to let Steward see the couple’s twin children since the incident five years ago.
“How can a primary and only suspect for murder who takes the Fifth get the upper hand?” she asked the committee. “I need your help so that we don’t run in the stop sign, the Constitution as it’s written now.”
Tallahassee family attorney Shannon Novey provided expert testimony to the committee on previous legal rulings on the issue. She said there was a serious problem with giving standing to grandparents, but not other “third-parties” with established relationships with children, which she said was involution with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
“The amendment says that solely that grandparents have this carve out and not other relatives or third-parties,” Novey said, adding that other relatives, as well as non-biological parents would be excluded under the same rationale.
Carlton said the way to change the law was through the Legislature, not the Constitution. “You are talking about enshrining something in the Constitution that is very, very dangerous to do in this situation.”
Ultimately, the proposal was temporarily postponed, with Rouson vowing to fight for it on a later day.
One comment
Patrick
December 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm
Giving vindictive grandparents forced visitation rights is garbage. Plain and simple. They are trying to redo with your kids because they screwed up the first go a round with you as their children and now want to screw up your kids and have your kids resent you for not allowing them to see their grandparents. A real grandparent would not fight you or bring it to the courts. If they were genuine and sincere all of the disagreements would work out. BUT being parents of nowadays that takes two people to work, and grandparents have the time to force lawmakers to change their minds is so unbecoming of them. Also the puke staining of the AARP is paying law makers and their coffers to change the laws against standing parents. AARP has their hand in this and will do anything to make it happen. By grandparents getting laws to change in their favor is UN CONSTITUIONAL. Forcing people to give up their children. Basic family kid knapping allowed by the courts. Parents who are fighting this geritol war is a tough fight. If the courts could see what the grandparents really do, it would be an eye opener to the courts. They are very demeaning and rage out of control and belittle the parents in front of their own grandchildren. Parents need younger judges who understand and who have been in the trenches with the fight. It is disgusting on how it has turned into big business for the AARP and their other organizations who will destroy a young family just to make an old nasty heartless sow happy.
Comments are closed.