The Truth about “TROXEL”

Frequently, the reference to “Troxel” arises when discussing the issue of the “best interest of a child” v. “a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children.” 

To be clear, for the purpose of defining the bill’s intent, the “best interest of a child”, refers to the safety and the physical, emotional, and psychological well-being of a child and does not refer to “the child’s best interests” in the subjective context of… should a child “be raised in an affluent family vs. and impoverished family”, or “raised by intelligent parents rather than people of average intelligence”, or, “raised in a conventional life style rather than an unconventional life style” or “placement of children with the worthiest members of society”…Again, the sole purpose of this bill is to protect the child by passing a common sense law focusing and prioritizing the safety and physical, emotional, and psychological well-being of the child…preventing harm and detriment to the child…a compelling state interest!

It is crucial to clarify the facts involved in the 2000 “Troxel v. Granville” United States Supreme Court case and to understand the context in which the decision was rendered.

The Troxels, the paternal grandparents, did not allege “unfitness” of the biological mother, Tommie Granville, nor was there ever a suggestion of unfitness, nor was there ever a ruling by any court, at any time, that Tommie Granville was “unfit.”  Of course, there is a presumption that “fit” parents act in their children’s best interest and should then maintain their “fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.”

This case involves the paternal grandparents, the Troxels, and their petition to have certain prescribed visitation rights after their son committed suicide; and, the mother, a “fit” parent, exercising her right to limit the visitation time, acting within a “fit” parent’s presumptive right to “make decisions concerning the care, custody and control of their children”.

Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel, an unmarried couple, had two daughters together.  Tommie and Brad separated in 1991. After the separation, Brad lived with his parents, Jenifer and Gary Troxel, the paternal grandparents of the two little girls.  Brad committed suicide in May, 1993. The Troxels continued to see the children after their son’s death on a regular basis. However, in October, 1993, the children’s mother, a “fit” mother, informed the Troxels that she wanted to limit their visitation.  The case went back and forth through the various court systems until it finally reached the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court upheld the mother’s “right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters”.

This case has been taken out of context and unfairly capitalized to justify the failure to pass a law protecting the safety and welfare of the thousands of children in guardianship. When biological parents have been legally declared “unfit” in a court of law, it’s serious; not an inconsequential finding by any measure.  Remember, well over 90% of the estimated 11,000 children in Wyoming currently being raised by grandparents and other family members are in this precarious set of circumstances because their biological parents have neglected, abandoned, and oftentimes abused them, are actively involved in ongoing drug use and associated criminal behaviors.  These are documented facts. The Troxel case lacks applicability for these Wyoming children because Tommie Troxel had never been ruled unfit, nor was there a court finding that the “psychological parent” relationship existed between the grandparents and the two children, thus, the “harm to the child” standard did not apply.

Shouldn’t a parent that has been found “unfit” by the court due to serious factors that endanger a child…neglect, abandonment, ongoing drug use, perpetration of domestic violence, documented mental illness, etc., be required to bear the burden to prove their fitness…demonstrating to the court with clear and convincing evidence that they are now “fit” when deciding to return to “claim” the child years later???  We ask our legislators who vote “NO” to explain exactly why they believe these safeguards, indoctrinated in the statutes of currently twenty-eights states are “UNCONSITUTIONAL”?  Should the physical, emotional, and psychological welfare of a Wyoming child be ignored because of “Troxel”?  Is that the intent of our Supreme Court?  We don’t think so. We look to a judicial framework that recognizes and enforces the constitutional and other rights of all the parties involved.

Wyoming Ann. Stat. § 14-3-201 The purpose of §§ 14-3-201 through 14-3-216 is to delineate the responsibilities of the State agency, other governmental agencies or officials, professionals, and citizens to intervene on behalf of a child suspected of being abused or neglected, to protect the best interests of the child, to further offer protective services when necessary in order to prevent any harm to the child or any other children living in the home, to protect children from abuse or neglect that jeopardize their health or welfare, to stabilize the home environment, to preserve family life whenever possible, and to provide permanency for the child in appropriate circumstances. The child’s health, safety, and welfare shall be of paramount concern in implementing and enforcing this article

TO WHICH CHILDREN DOES THIS EXISTING STATUTE APPLY?