Weighing the conditions and the extent to which the defendant and the plaintiff is vital to the children, in addition to the visitation rights each of them has rights over children, I reasonably stand with Justice Steven’s dissenting opinion. It is infringement of the parental right to give someone forceful visitation right to one’s own children. This does not appeal to reason because it is detrimental to the parent on the grounds that, the parent will fill that he or she is undermined. Granville in this case will fill being undermined by the Troxels because the ruling treated them to be having equal visitation right. In addition to this, Granville right of rearing her children are undermined because it the ruling placed her and
Troxels to appear to have the same rights over the children.
The general application of the legal jurisdiction that Troxels applies in this case undermines the fundamental parental rights that Granville has over her children. Based on her request to reduce the visits the ruling is made in search a way that the Graville placed the request in bad faith or she requested for termination of the visits.
Since the constitution system gives a general right to parents to take duty to prepare children for additional obligation because children are mere creatures of the state. It follows that; Granville might not be in a position to dedicate her efforts to these children because she might consider the ruling decision detrimental as it implies that Troxels has equal rights over the children and this might give her psychological torture. The appeal thus was justified because it had severe impact to the biological parent of Natalie and Isabella.
In most cases in the courts of law everybody is entitled to his or her rights that is freedom to do what he or she wish to do but such rights can be curtailed when it is found that it infringes other people’s rights or freedoms. Everybody including children is entitled to the freedom of expressing their opinions and doing what he or she wish to do. Such freedoms can be denied to a person depending on priorities and their importance or vulnerability at that time.
A person who is less than 18 years of age is considered a minor and minors still require assistants from their parents. Parents are thus required to assist their children in financial education. When a parent wish to pursue education or change his or her career, the court makes decision basing on the most agent priority at that time either to cut the child’s support or pursue the education. If the child who depends on that parent can source other assistance from other sources, the parent can be allowed to change the career or pursue the additional education.
This decision is based on the assumption that the child will continue getting the assistance he used to get from his or her parent. The parent is allowed to pursue additional education or career only when the second parent to the child agrees to take all the responsibility which was taken by the other parent on the child.
However if the court sees that the child will suffer if the parent is given the opportunity to pursue the additional education or change the career, such right to the parent will be denied at the expense of the child’s right. In this circumstance the child’s right supersedes those of the parent and thus given first priority.
References
Doyle, R. E. (2012). Grandparent Visitation Legislation: The Controversy Didn't Begin or End With Troxel v. Granville.
Hudson, D. L. (2010). The handy law answer book. Detroit, MI: Visible Ink Press.
