WPCZ # VUNa % 0(w@4 1 UP@ 0l 0D @ 0JH 0T B 0^ 0ha 0r 0|; 0 0= 1u U,B 0dn D3U, 0@1U>qU6B)DC AMQU*#yv~dv AO 0D D/ B=HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ [DDӀU!3|x&@FZ 8CaslonOpnface BT Regular((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23   d2, 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  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ! ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X'dxd<  9p`(Monaco("$    <  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd-1C << G<  9p`(Arial  !#d##.  33   YYY FILED3X August27,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.3AppellateCourtClerk  o !#d##.  $       ./ChelseasnaturalfatherispresentlyincarceratedinaFloridapenitentiaryandisnotinvolvedinthisaction...XPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . #&,,Xd&#,,Xd#.  ݛ P \RA'\  /\RA'\7uXXdd7  ќINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜L241;+'h|U`  `Lߛ  EARNESTNEWMANandLINDANEWMAN,)C/ANO.03A019602CV00056̛      )  PetitionersAppellees)      )     )      )v.      )      )HONORABLEJOHNB.HAGLER,      )JUDGE      )      )      )JULIEPHILLIPS,   )      )  RespondentAppellant.)McMINNCOUNTYCIRCUITCOURT̛ForAppellant:ForAppellee:    Ԁ  //XCARROLLL.ROSSWILLIAMW.REEDYAthens,TennesseeAthens,Tennessee  /  O ԀPINION /  /XREVERSEDCOMPLAINTDISMISSEDREMANDED    Susano,J.  Thisisagrandparentsvisitationcase.EarnestandLindaNewman,thematernalgrandparentsofChelseaN.Sneed,aminor,filedapetitionseekingvisitationwithher.TheNewmansdaughter,JuliePhillips,whoisthechildsmotherandcustodian,Ϝopposedthepetition.Ms.PhillipshadbeenawardedfullcustodyinherdivorcesuitagainstChelseasfather. 5   כShesubsequentlymarriedJamesPhillipsJr.,whoisnotapartytothisaction.ThepetitiondoesnotallegethatMs.PhillipsisanunfitparentϜorthatshehasengagedinanyparentalmisconduct.Thetrialcourt,afteranonjuryhearing,foundvisitationtobeinthechildsbestinterests,and,actingpursuanttotheGrandparentsVisitationAct,T.C.A.366302,awardedvisitation.Ms.Phillipsappeals,raisingtheissueofwhetherthegrantofvisitationrightstoherparents,madeoverherobjectionandwithnoshowingofinjurytothechildorparentalunfitness,violatesherrighttoprivacyundertheTennesseeConstitution.WefindϜthatitdoesandconsequentlyreversethetrialcourtsjudgment.  I    Therearenodisputedmaterialfacts.ChelseawasbornapproximatelytwomonthsafterMs.Phillipsseparatedfromthechildsnaturalfather.Ms.Phillipssubsequentlyobtainedadivorceandfullcustodyofherdaughter.TheevidencereflectsthatearlyinChelseaslife,therelationshipbetweenMs.Phillipsandherparentswasfairlycloseandcordial.However,relationsbecamestrained,apparentlyafteranunfortunateincidentinApril,1994,whenMr.NewmanattemptedtodisciplineChelsea,thenabout2yearsold,bywhippingherwithabelt.Afterthatincident,thepartiesengagedinanumberofdiscordantandheatedexchangeswhichultimatelyresultedinMs.Phillipsdecisiontodiscontinuecontactwithherparents.  OnJune26,1994,Ms.PhillipsmarriedJamesPhillips,Jr.Mr.PhillipshasnottakenlegalactiontoadoptChelsea,andisnotapartytothiscase.  TheNewmansfiledtheirpetitionforchildvisitationonJanuary31,1995.Asnotedabove,thepetitiondoesnotallegeparentalmisconductorthatChelseaissubjecttoanyharmbyremaininginMs.Phillipscustodyandcare.Thetrialcourtconcludedthatitcouldconstitutionallyordergrandparentsvisitationunderthesecircumstances;insodoing,itdistinguishedtheSupremeCourtcaseof Hawkv.Hawk, 855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993),theseminalcaseinthisareaofconstitutionalanddomesticlaw.Wefindthat Hawk anditsprogenymandatereversalofthetrialcourtsjudgment.Insofinding,wejointheMiddleandWesternSectionsofthiscourt,bothofwhichhaverecentlyaddressedafunctionallyidenticalissueandresolveditinfavorofaparentsrighttoprivacyinraisinghisorherchild.  II    Inawardingvisitation,thetrialcourtactedpursuanttotheGrandparentsVisitationAct(GVA),whichprovidesinrelevantpartasfollows:8 8 Thenaturalorlegalgrandparentsofanunmarriedminorchildmaybegrantedreasonablevisitationrightstothechildduringsuchchildsminoritybyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionuponafindingthatsuchvisitationrightswouldbeinthebestinterestsoftheminorchild.T.C.A.366302(a).Asnotedabove,thetrialcourtfoundtheseminal Hawk casefactuallydistinguishable.  In Hawk, theSupremeCourtdealtwiththeissueofwhethertheGVAcouldconstitutionallybeappliedsoastoallowacourttoordergrandparentsvisitationovertheobjectionofthemarried,naturalparentsofthechildren. Hawk, 855S.W.2dat575.TheSupremeCourtnotedthatinTennessee,theparentalrighttoraiseoneschild haslongbeenprotectedfromstateinterference,exceptwherethechildswelfareismateriallyϜjeopardized,id.at578,andreachedthefollowingconclusion:8 8 TennesseeshistoricallystrongprotectionofparentalrightsandthereasoningoffederalconstitutionalcasesconvinceusthatparentalrightsconstituteafundamentallibertyinterestunderArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution.Id.at579.TheCourtfoundthattheliterallanguageoftheGVA,Ϝasappliedundercertaincircumstances,violatedtheparentalrighttoprivacy:8 8 Inlightofthisrighttoprivacy,webelievethatwhennosubstantialharmthreatensachildswelfare,thestatelacksasufficientlycompellingjustificationfortheinfringementonthefundamentalrightofparentstoraisetheirchildrenastheyseefit.Thus,wefindthestatutetobeunconstitutional...asappliedtothismarriedcouple,whosefitnessasparentsisunchallenged.Id.at577.AsthetrialcourtintheinstantcasecorrectlyϜpointedout,theSupremeCourtin Hawk didnotreachthequestionoftheconstitutionalityoftheGVA asitappliestosituationsinvolvingunmarriedparents,Id.at580,n.10.  Ayearafter Hawk, theSupremeCourtwaspresentedwithanissueregardingtheparentalrightsofafatherinattemptingtolegitimatehischild. Nalev.Robertson, 871S.W.2d674(Tenn.1994).The Nale Courtrejectedanargumentthat Hawk waslimitedtoitsownfactualpattern:8 8 Parents,includingparentsofchildrenbornoutofwedlock,haveafundamentallibertyinterestinthecareandcustodyoftheirchildrenunderboththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutions.   *  *  *  *8 8 TheNalespositionthatthisCourtin Hawk limitedtheprotectionofparentalrightsto anintact,nuclearfamilywithfitparentsisuntenable. Nale, 871S.W.2dat678,680.  In Simmonsv.Simmons, theSupremeCourtwasfacedwithasituationidenticalto Hawk exceptthattherewasanewfamilyunitcomposedofthenaturalmotherandanadoptivestepfather,ratherthantwonaturalparents,whoopposedgrandparentsvisitation.Thegrandparentsattemptedtodistinguish Hawk asfollows:8 8 They[thegrandparents]insistthatthedecisionin Hawk doesnotprecludeabestinterestofthechildanalysisbecausethedivorceofthechildsnaturalparentsjustifiesthestatesinterferencewithparentingdecisionsbythemotherandadoptivefather.Theyinsistthattheconstitutionalprotectionislimitedtomarried,naturalparentswhohavemaintainedcontinuouscustodyoftheirchildrenandwhosefitnessasparentshasnotbeenchallenged. Simmonsv.Simmons, 900S.W.2d682,684(Tenn.1995).TheSupremeCourtin Simmons summarilyrejectedthiscontention,stating,8 8 [T]helegalprinciplesuponwhich Hawk isbasedareapplicabletothiscasealso 8 ....Adoptiveparentsareentitledtothesameconstitutionalprotectionofparentingdecisionsasnaturalparents.Id.at684.Becausetherewasnothresholdshowingofsubstantialdangerofharmtothechild,theSupremeCourtreversedavisitationawardonthesameconstitutionalgroundasin Hawk .  Therecentunreportedcaseof Floydv.McNeely, C/ANo.02A019408CH00187,1995WL390954(Tenn.App.,W.S.,filedJuly5,1995,Farmer,J.),presentedanothervisitationbattlebetweenagrandparentandaparent.In Floyd, thechildsmotherhadremarriedafterthenaturalfathersdeath,buthernewhusbandhadnotadoptedthechildren.Thepaternalgrandmotherwasseekingvisitation.Id.Thegrandmothersoughttodistinguish Hawk and Simmons ,andthecourtstatedthefollowinginresponse:8 8 TherecordindicatesthatMcNeely[thenaturalmother]hadremarriedatthetimeoftrial.Thereisnoindicationthathercurrenthusbandhastakenstepstoadoptthechildren.Thus,thiscaseisdistinguishablefrom Simmons inthisrespect.We,however,donotviewthehusbandsfailuretoadoptthechildrenasameanstolessenthefundamentalprivacyinterestaffordedMcNeelyinparentingherchildren.Inviewofthereasoningsextendedbyoursupremecourtin Simmons and Hawk, weareconvincedthatMcNeelysrighttoparentherchildrenassheseesfit,includingadecisionregardingarelationshipbetweenthemandtheirgrandmother,isnolessgreaterthantherightaffordedtothemarriednaturalparentsunder Hawk. Weconcludethattherightsaffordedtotheparentsin Hawk extendequallytoMcNeelydespitethedeathofherchildrensfatherandhersubsequentremarriage.Tothisend,wedonotviewthebreakupofthenuclearfamily,inandofitself,toconstituteasubstantialharmtoachildsufficienttojustifystateinterferencewithafitparentsdecisiontoprecludearelationshipbetweenthatchildandhis/hergrandparents.Id.at*4.(Emphasisadded).  In Smithv.Smith, C/ANo.01A019508CH00354,1996WL17188(Tenn.App.,M.S.,filedJan.19,1996,Todd,P.J.(M.S.)),theMiddleSectionaddressedasimilarfactualpattern.Thenaturalmotherhadremarriedandhernewhusbandhadadoptedthechildren.Itissignificanttonotethatthecourtin Smith stressedthattheadoptivefather isnotapartytothisproceeding.Id.at*1.The Smith courtmadethefollowingappositestatement:8 8 NoreasonoccurstothisCourtwhytherightsofthesurvivingparentshouldnotbeenforcedwithoutthejoinderoftheadoptivefather.Custodyandcontrolofchildrenbyasurvivingparentshouldneverbedeniedorinterferedwithexceptforthemostcogentreasons.Id.at*5.We,likethe Smith and Floyd courts,seenoreasonwhytheexistenceorexerciseofaparentsconstitutionalrighttoprivacyinmakingchildrearingdecisions,absenta substantialharmfinding,shoulddependuponwhethertheparentsnewspousehasdecidedtoadoptthechildren,or,ifanadoptionhasoccurred,whethertheadoptiveparentisapartytotheproceeding.  The Floyd caseison allfourswiththefactsofthepresentcase.Inaddition,weagreewiththereasoningofthe Floyd and Smith cases,andjointheMiddleandWesternSectionsofthiscourtinholdingthatabsentafindingofsubstantialharmtothechild,thestatemaynotconstitutionallyinterferewithaparentsrighttomakechildrearingdecisionsbyorderinggrandparentsvisitationagainsttheparentswishes.Noallegationsofharmtothechildweremadeinthepresentcase,andthusthecourterredinorderinggrandparentsvisitationovertheobjectionofMs.Phillips.  NoappellatecourtinTennesseehasdeclaredtheGVAunconstitutionalonitsface;nordowe.Itisclear,however,thatbeforeacourtcanapplythatstatuteitmustmakeathresholdfindingof substantialdangerofharmtothe[minor]child. Hawk ,855S.W.2dat579.  Fortheaforementionedreasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andtheoriginalcomplaintisdismissedwithcostsbelowbeingassessedtotheappellees.Costsonappealarealsotaxedandassessedtotheappellees.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforthecollectionofcostsbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.       _____________________________       CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________HerschelP.Franks,J.