WPC# 9# .U N9 % 0w@4 { 0H 0D) {m 0Lq  D/ 0  U@ Le 0J AQ] 0D 0T 0^F 0h 0r  0|~ 0 B 0 0@- 1um D3 0d 0Ny BU>B)"DCK AMU*jov~8vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Q$TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXXUUXX eUfDgVhDiUjvklmӀnzz!3|xn($  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX((3$ Q!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TX5XXXUUHUXX5      0  (#$  0  (r$  TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX22XX> $Small Circle0 **' dxd(3|$ Q!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TX5XXXUUHUXX5  `(ZapfCalligr BTTTLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 0Indent123  $C<< C($$   1  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23   d2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ("$     !# ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)""""'dxdP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X>$"Small Circle"0  P Pd<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd$2C << G<  9p`(Arial ` !  0    \RA'\  "  0  4 eee FILED4X 4"US ,   !  4X CecilCrowson,Jr.   4 eee AppellateCourtClerk   X  !#d#0    \RA'\   $       ӀTheGrandparentsVisitationActwasformerlycodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.366301butwastransferredto366302bythelegislaturein1995.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . 0    \RA'\  T     R352A1-j| `@Rߛ@   INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE @ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON   򀀀JERRELLMcVAYand   )CYNTHIAMARIEMcVAY,  )      )  Petitioners/Appellees,   ) ShelbyJuvenileNo.119707      )STATEOFTENNESSEE,    )  AppealNo.02A019508JV00183      )  Intervenor,    )       )vs.      )       )SHARONBLEN,Custodialparentof )LAURENNICOLEMcVAY,aminor)       )   Respondent/Appellant.  )  @ APPEALFROMTHEJUVENILECOURTOFMEMPHISANDSHELBYCOUNTY@ ATMEMPHIS,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEKENNETHA.TURNER,JUDGEForthePetitioners/Appellees:  FortheDefendant/Appellant:RobertY.Jarvis   StevanL.BlackBartlett,Tennessee    KimberlyHarrisJordaǹ     Memphis,TennesseeFortheIntervenor:CharlesW.BursonJamesH.Tucker,Jr.Nashville,Tennessee @ REVERSED      HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,J.HEWITTP.TOMLIN,JR.,SR.J.  75XXdUUd7  @ OPINION  ThiscasearisesundertheGrandparentsVisitationAct.ThePetitioners/Appellees,JerrellMcVayandCynthiaMarieMcVay( Grandparents),filedapetitionwiththejuvenilecourtforcourtorderedvisitationwiththeirpaternalgrandchild,LaurenNicoleMcVay.TheJuvenileCourtawardedvisitationtotheGrandparents,pursuanttotheGrandparentsVisitationAct.Thechildsmother,Respondent/AppellantSharonBlen( Mother),appealsthetrialcourtsdecision.Wereverse. MothermetLaurensfather,JeffreyMcVay( Father)whiletheywerestudentsincollege.Asaresultoftheirrelationship,Mothergavebirthtotheirchild,Lauren.MotherandFathernevermarried;however,Laurenwaslegitimated.AfterawardingMothercustody,thejuvenilecourtorderedFathertopaychildsupportandgrantedhimvisitationrights.Fatherexercisedhisvisitationrightsonlysporadically,andtherecordreflectsthathehadnotseenthechildinwelloverayearatthetimeoftrialinthiscause. DespitetheirsonslackofinvolvementwithLauren,Grandparentswantedtodeveloparelationshipwithher.Motherinitiallyencouragedsucharelationship,andGrandparentssawLaurenregularlyuntilshewasapproximatelysixyearsold.MothertestifiedthatsheandGrandparentsthenbegantodisagreeaboutissuesrelatedtoLaurensupbringing,suchasmedicaltreatment,religioustraining,anddiscipline.Finally,becauseofthesedisagreements,MotherdeterminedthatLaurenshouldnolongervisitGrandparents.Grandparentsthenpetitionedthejuvenilecourtforcourtorderedvisitation.Afterahearing,thejuvenilecourtrefereefoundthatvisitationwithGrandparentswouldbeinthebestinterestofthechild.ThisfindingwasconfirmedbythejuvenilecourtjudgeandGrandparentswereawardedvisitation.Fromthisorder,Mothernowappeals. Onappeal,MotherarguesthattheGrandparentsVisitationActisunconstitutionalasappliedtothefactsofthiscase,becauseitviolatesherrighttoprivacytoraiseherchildwithoutunwarrantedStateintervention.Inthealternative,MothercontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatgrandparentvisitationwouldbeinthechildsbestinterestandinawardingGrandparentsvisitationduringShabbiathservicesonFridayeveningsandduringtheChristmasholiday. Ourreviewofthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactis denovo upontherecordandisaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessofthefactualfindings unlessthepreponderanceoftheevidenceisotherwise.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).Onquestionsoflaw,ofcourse,ourreviewis denovo withnopresumptionofcorrectness. SeeCarvellv.Bottoms ,900S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).̛ TheGrandparentsVisitationActprovidesasfollows:       (a)Thenaturalorlegalgrandparentsofanunmarriedminorchildmaybegrantedreasonablevisitationrightstothechildduringsuchchildsminoritybyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionuponafindingthatsuchvisitationrightswouldbeinthebestinterestsoftheminorchild.Theprovisionsofthissubsectionshallnotapplyinthecaseofanychildwhohasbeenadoptedbyanypersonotherthanarelativeofthechildorastepparentofthechild.       Tenn.CodeAnn.366302(1996). 6   ׀TheconstitutionalityoftheActwasaddressedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtin Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993).In Hawk ,thetrialcourthaddeniedthepaternalgrandparentspetitionforcourtorderedvisitationwiththeirgrandchildren. Id. at575.ThiswasaffirmedbytheCourtofAppeals. Id. 󀛀TheTennesseeSupremeCourtexaminedTennesseecaselawregardingtherighttoprivacyguaranteedunderArticle1,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitutionanddeterminedthat therightofparentstocarefortheirchildrenwithoutunwarrantedstateinterventionisencompassedwithintherighttoprivacy. Id. at579.Inlightofthis,theCourtheldthattheStatecannotinterferewiththeparentchildrelationshipinan intact,nuclearfamilywithfit,marriedparentsanddeterminewhatisinthebestinterestofthechildunlessthecourtfirstmakesathresholdfindingthatthereisasubstantialdangerofharmtothechild. Id. 󀀜 Applyingtheseprinciples,theCourtin Hawk notedthatthetrialcourtdidnotfindthattheparentswereunfitorthattherewasasubstantialdangerofharmtothechild. Id. at576,582.Withoutsuchathresholdfinding,theCourtreasonedthat thestatelack[ed]asufficientlycompellingjustificationforinterferingwith[theparents]fundamentalright. Id. at582.ItconcludedthattheGrandparentsVisitationActwasunconstitutionalasappliedtothefactsinthatcaseandreversedthedecisiongrantingthegrandparentspetitionforvisitation. Id. Thus,under Hawk ,thetrialcourtmustfirstascertainwhethertheparentsareunfitorwhetherthecircumstancesdemonstrateasubstantialdangerofharmtothechild.Onlyafterthisinitialfindingmaythetrialcourtgoontodeterminewhethergrandparentvisitationisinthebestinterestofthechild. Subsequentcaseshaveappliedtheseprinciplestodifferentfactualcircumstances.In Simmonsv.Simmons ,900S.W.2d682(Tenn.1995),thetrialcourtawardedthenaturalmotheradivorcefromthefatherandcustodyoftheirchild. Id. 󛀀Theorderofdivorcealsoincludedvisitationtothepaternalgrandparents. Id. Themotherlaterremarried,andhernewhusbandadoptedthechild. Id. Afterthemotherdeniedvisitationtothegrandparents,theymovedthatshebeheldincontemptforviolatingthecourtorderedvisitation. Id. at68283.Themothercounteredbypetitioningtoterminatethegrandparentsvisitationprivileges. Id. at683.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotherspetition,andtheCourtofAppealsaffirmed. Id. at68283.ThemotherthenappealedtotheTennesseeSupremeCourt. Id.  Thegrandparentsin Simmons arguedthat Hawk appliedonlytoanintactfamilywithmarried,naturalparentswhosefitnesswasunchallenged. Id. at684.Theyinsistedthat thedivorceofthechildsnaturalparentsjustifie[d]thestatesinterferencewiththeparentingdecisionsbythemotherandadoptivefather. Id. TheCourtrecognizedthat Hawk wasdistinguishableincertainrespects,butreasonedthat [t]herelationshipbetweenanadoptiveparentandchildisnolesssacredthantherelationshipbetweenanaturalparentandchildandisthereforedeservingofthe samelegalprotection. Id. 󀀀Intheabsenceofathresholdfindingthattherewasasubstantialdangerofharmtothechild,theCourtheldthatthetrialcourterredinfailingtogranttheparentspetitiontoterminatethegrandparentsvisitationprivileges. Id. at685. In Floydv.McNeely ,No.02A019408CH00187,1995WL390954(Tenn.App.July5,1995),thisCourtfollowedtheprinciplesutilizedin Hawk and Simmons . Id. In Floyd ,themotherandfatherofthechildrenweredivorced. Id. at*1.Thefatherdiedshortlyafterthedivorce,andthemotherremarried. Id. Hernewhusbanddidnotadoptherchildren. Id. at*4.Thechildrenspaternalgrandmotherfiledapetitionseekingvisitationwiththetwochildrenofherdeceasedson. Id. at*1.Thetrialcourtdeniedthegrandmotherspetition,andsheappealed. Id. Onappeal,theCourtfocusedonthemothersfundamentalrighttoprivacyinraisingherchildrenandfoundthatherhusbandsfailuretotakestepstoadoptthechilddidnotdiminishthemothersfundamentalprivacyinterest. Id. at*4.TheCourtstatedthat thebreakupofthenuclearfamily,inandofitself,[doesnot]constituteasubstantialharmtoachildsufficienttojustifystateinterferencewithafitparentsdecisiontoprecludearelationshipbetweenthatchildandhis/hergrandparents. Id. Citing Hawk and Simmons ,theCourtreasonedthattherewasnojustificationforstateinterferencebecausetherewasnoevidenceofasubstantialdangerofharmtothechildren. Id. Accordingly,theCourtaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourtdismissingthegrandmotherspetitionforvisitation. Id. at*5. Thefactsofthiscasearedistinguishablefrom Floyd inthatMotherisnotmarriedandhasneverbeenmarriedtoLaurensfather.However,theTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthataparentsfundamentallibertyinterestinraisinghisorherchildrenisthesamewhetherthechildwasbornoutofwedlockorinsidetheboundsofmarriage. Nalev.Robertson ,871S.W.2d674,678(Tenn.1994); seealsoRustv.Rust ,864S.W.2d52,56(Tenn.App.1993)(holdingthatacustodyawardtooneparentcreates singleparentfamilyentitledtosameconstitutionalprotectionagainstunwarrantedstateinterferenceasan intact,twoparentfamily).In Floyd ,thisCourtemphasizedthemothersfundamentalrighttoprivacyinraisingherchildren.Inthiscase,MothersunmarriedstatusdoesnotdiminishherfundamentalprivacyinterestinraisingLauren.Therefore,under Hawk ,thetrialcourtcouldnotordervisitationwithGrandparentsintheabsenceofathresholdfindingthatMotherwasunfitorthatthecircumstancespresentedasubstantialdangerofharm. Inthiscase,Mothersfitnessasaparentisnotchallenged,andthereisnoallegationofsubstantialdangerofharmtothechild.Underthesecircumstances,thetrialcourterredingrantingvisitationtoGrandparentsundertheGrandparentsVisitationAct. TheGrandparentshaveemphasizedthattheydonotwishtointerferewithMothersparentingdecisionsandseekonlytocontinuethelovingrelationshiptheyhadestablishedwithLauren.TheirintentionsandloveforLaurenhavenotbeenquestioned.However,unlessthetrialcourtdeterminesthatMotherisanunfitparentorthatthereisasubstantialdangerofharmtoLauren,thecourtcannotsubstituteitsjudgmentforMothersbyorderingvisitationwithGrandparents.̛ Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversed,andtheMcVayspetitionforcourtorderedvisitationisdenied.CostsonappealaretaxedtoAppellees,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.̛̜      򀀀      HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.CONCUR:򀀀ALANE.HIGHERS,J. 򀀀HEWITTP.TOMLIN,JR.,SR.J.