ÿWPC¦ 1#†¾UND %’ 0(˜bÀ4ÈÜ Bë 0J 0TR 0^¦ 0hwl 0r‚ 0Dô 0|8 0†´Æ: 0 1u AO 0DT U,˜ 0dÄ U,( 0@T U>” D3Ò B) D/. DC] B  AM½ U* e4  5 v~UvÓÓ˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0®ØP ?5 ;¶g BP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-1# ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ3|x‡ d2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)$(Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d**'÷ÿ dxd''''7Border 1ddüÿP Pd$)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  Ýò òÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ€,ÔÔ eee ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔó óÌò òÔ€,¼ÔÔ"USú ú, úÔÔ ƒ- ÔÔ!  Ôó óÔ€,XÔÌÌò òCecil€Crowson,€Jr.Ô€%Ôó óÔ  ÔÌÔ€%ÂÔÔ€,ÔÔ eee Ôò òAppellate€Court€Clerkó óÔ  ÔÔ€%ÔÔ€%XÔPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€F0XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÙ€ÙßL€+.);+'h|â `€€LßBENNY€SMITH,€ET€UX,€GERALDINEà à)ÌSMITH,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioners/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àOverton€Chanceryà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€02„192ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9508„CH„00354ÌBOBBIE€JO€SMITH€(McCLINTOCK),à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€OVERTON€COUNTYÌÌà@ àAT€LIVINGSTON,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àHONORABLE€VERNON€NEAL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌBRIEFS€ON€BEHALF€OF€THE€APPELLEESÌWERE€NOT€FILED.ÌÌÌMichael€J.€LoveÌZELLAR,€CARTWRIGHT€&€LOVEÌ139€South€Third€StreetÌClarksville,€Tennessee€€37040ÌATTORNEY€FOR€RESPONDENT/APPELLANTÌÌÌREVERSED,€VACATED,€DISMISSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÇBENNY€SMITH,€ET€UX,€GERALDINEà à)ÌSMITH,à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioners/Appellees,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àOverton€Chanceryà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€€02„192RÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9508„CH„00354ÌBOBBIE€JO€SMITH€(McCLINTOCK),à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€captioned€respondent€has€appealed€from€an€order€entered€by€the€Trial€CourtÏregulating€visitation€of€the€two€children€of€respondent€with€the€captioned€petitioners,€parents€ofÏrespondent's€deceased€husband.€€Respondent„mother€has€remarried,€and€her€husband,€DavidÏMcClintock,€has€adopted€the€children.€€However,€he€is€not€a€party€to€this€proceeding.ÌÌà àThe€respondent„appellant€filed€a€brief€in€this€Court€requesting€oral€argument.€€TheÏpetitioners„appellees€filed€no€brief€within€the€permissible€time€for€doing€so.ÌÌà àOn€December€14,€1995,€the€following€order€was€entered€and€served€on€all€parties:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€On€November€28,€1995,€this€court€ordered€the€appellees€toÏshow€cause€within€ten€days€why€this€appeal€should€not€beÏsubmitted€for€a€decision€on€the€record€and€appellant's€briefÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€29(c).€€The€appellees€have€failedÏto€respond.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€It€is,€therefore,€ordered€that€this€appeal€be€submitted€for€aÏdecision€on€the€record€and€appellant's€brief€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€29(c).ÌÌÌÓÓBy€failure€to€object€to€said€order,€the€respondent„appellant€is€presumed€to€have€waived€herÏrequest€for€oral€argument.ÌÌà àOn€January€8,€1992,€petitioners€filed€a€"Petition€for€Visitation"€pursuant€to€T.C.A.Ïðð36„6„301.€€On€April€24,€1992,€an€"Agreed€Order€of€Visitation"€was€entered,€allowingÏvisitation€as€set€out€therein.ÌÌà àOn€March€25,€1994,€respondent€filed€a€"Motion€to€Modify€Visitation"€asserting€that€theÏpetitioner,€Geraldine€Smith,€had€assaulted€respondent€and€improperly€disciplined€the€children.ÌÌà àOn€September€14,€1994,€petitioners€filed€against€respondent€a€petition€for€contempt€forÏrefusing€to€allow€petitioners€to€visit.ÌÌà àOn€November€29,€1994,€respondent€filed€a€"Motion€for€Continuance€andÏConsolidation,"€stating€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€2.€€As€grounds€for€the€Motion€to€Consolidate,€RespondentÏwould€show€to€this€Court€that€each€of€the€actions€involve€theÏfollowing€common,€actual€and€legal€issues:Ìà8 àà8 àà àa.€€The€visitation€of€the€two€minor€children€namely,€CaraÏBeth€McClintock€and€Charlie€Renea€McClintock,€date€of€birthÏMay€30,€1990.Ìà8 àà8 àà àb.€€The€manner€that€the€Petitioners€have€conducted€suchÏvisitation€in€the€past.Ìà8 àà8 àà àc.€€The€need€to€modify€visitation€by€the€Petitioners.Ìà8 àà8 àà àd.€€That€the€Petitioners€have€not€exercised€visitation€as€itÏwas€set€out€in€this€Court's€original€order€entered€upon€agreementÏof€the€parties€on€the€20th€day€of€April,€1992.Ìà8 àà8 àà àe.€€That€the€legal€basis€of€the€Agreed€Order€for€visitationÏof€the€minor€children€by€the€grandparents€of€the€deceased€fatherÏviolates€the€constitutional€rights€to€privacy€in€parentingÏdecisions,€under€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€December€2,€1994,€the€Trial€Court€entered€the€following€order:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àòòAgreed€Order€for€Christmas€VisitationóóÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Comes€now€the€parties€and€would€agree€as€follows€with€regardÏto€plaintiff's€motion€for€holiday€visitation:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€1.€€The€plaintiffs€will€have€visitation€with€the€children€inÏMontgomery€County€from€10:00€a.m.€until€4:00€p.m.€onÏDecember€23rd,€1994€and€from€8:00€a.m.€until€2:00€p.m.€onÏDecember€24th,€1994;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€2.€€Plaintiff,€Benny€Smith,€will€meet€the€defendant€at€theÏMcDonald's€located€on€Highway€41A€(next€to€Super€WalMart)Ïin€Clarksville€for€the€pick€up€and€delivery€of€the€children,€andÏplaintiff,€Geraldine€Smith,€will€not€be€present€for€same;ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€3.€€Plaintiffs'€notice€for€temporary€holiday€visitation€will€beÏdismissed,€and€plaintiffs'€petition€for€contempt€and€defendant'sÏmotion€to€modify€visitation€are€presently€set€for€trial€on€JanuaryÏ17th,€1995;€.€.€.€€.ÌÌ€ÌÓÓà àOn€February€28,€1995,€the€Trial€Court€entered€the€following€order:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€This€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€on€the€17th€day€of€JanuaryÏ1995,€before€the€Honorable€Vernon€Neal,€Chancellor,€upon€theÏtestimony€of€the€parties€and€witnesses,€argument€of€counselsÏand€the€entire€record€herein;€from€all€of€which€the€court€findsÏthat€David€and€Bobbie€Jo€McClintock,€who€are€respectively€theÏadoptive€and€natural€parents€of€the€minor€children,€Cara€BethÏMcClintock€and€Charlie€Renea€McClintock,€date€of€birth€MayÏ30,€1990,€are€loving€and€proper€parents,€however,€the€courtÏfinds€it€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€minor€children€to€have€aÏrelationship€with€their€paternal€grandparents,€Benny€andÏGeraldine€Smith,€and,€therefore,€this€court's€Order€of€April€20,Ï1992,€which€grants€certain€visitation€rights€to€the€paternalÏgrandparents€shall€be€maintained€albeit€modified.€€Therefore,€theÏrespondent's€Motion€to€Modify€Visitation€is€granted€and€costsÏshall€be€shared€equally€by€the€parties.€€The€petition€for€contemptÏfiled€by€the€grandparents€is€dismissed€with€costs€assessed€to€theÏpetitioners,€Benny€and€Geraldine€Smith.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€It€Is,€Therefore,€Further€Ordered€and€Adjudged€as€Follows:ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€1.€€That€weather€and€health€of€the€children€permitting,€theÏgrandparents€shall€have€visitation€with€the€minor€children€once€aÍmonth€of€the€fourth€weekend€of€each€month€beginning€JanuaryÏ27,€1995.€€Said€period€of€visitation€shall€be€from€Friday€at€5:00Ïp.m.€to€Sunday€at€5:00€p.m.€€The€parties€shall€make€alternativeÏarrangements€for€visitation€should€inclement€weather€or€illnessÏof€the€children€prevent€visitation€with€the€children€on€a€givenÏweekend.€€Only€Benny€Smith€shall€be€present€for€the€pick„up€orÏdrop„off€of€the€children€and€the€transfer€shall€be€made€in€a€publicÏplace€as€agreed€to€by€the€parties.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€2.€€That€upon€Mr.€McClintock's€career€related€transfer€out€ofÏstate,€all€grandparent€visitation€with€the€children€shall€be€in€theÏvicinity€of€the€McClintock's€new€residence€with€the€same€hoursÏand€days€per€month.€€The€grandparents€may€visit€with€theÏchildren€in€a€hotel,€motel€or€by€other€arrangements€in€the€vicinityÏof€the€McClintock's€new€residence,€but€the€grandparents€shallÏnot€be€so€restricted€in€visitation€if€the€transfer€of€Mr.€McClintockÏis€within€THREE€(3)€hours€driving€time€of€the€Smith'sÏresidence.€€If€the€McClintocks€move€in€excess€of€the€hours€ofÏdriving€time€herefore€set€out,€the€Smiths€shall€be€able€to€see€theÏchildren€when€the€McClintocks€visit€in€the€Overton€County€area.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€3.€€That€the€respondent€shall€keep€the€petitioners€informed€ofÏtheir€permanent€address€and€telephone€number,€however,€thereÏshall€be€no€more€unnecessary€phone€calls€to€the€respondent€byÏthe€petitioners.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€4.€€That€the€grandparents€shall€not€discipline€the€children€byÏmeans€of€corporal€punishment.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€5.€€That€the€grandparents€shall€make€no€derogatory€remarksÏabout€the€parents€in€the€presence€of€the€children.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€6.€€The€children€shall€be€properly€restrained€either€by€a€seat€beltÏor€car€seat€as€required€by€law€when€transported€by€theÏgrandparents.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€7.€€That€the€April€20,€1992,€Order€of€the€Court€shall€beÏmaintained€in€all€other€aspects€not€herein€modified.ÌÓÓÌà àOn€appeal€from€the€last€quoted€order,€the€respondent€presents€the€following€issue€forÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€That€the€Chancery€Court's€order€requiring€the€parents€of€theÏminor€children€to€submit€to€paternal€grandparent€visitationÏviolates€the€parents'€rights€under€Article€1,€Section€8€of€theÍTennessee€Constitution€and€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution.ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€the€date€of€the€entry€of€the€judgment€under€review€the€pertinent€statute€was€T.C.A.Ïðð€36„6„301,€subsection€(a)€of€which€read€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò òGrandparents'€visitation€rights.€„€ó ó(a)€€The€natural€or€legalÏgrandparents€of€an€unmarried€minor€child€may€be€grantedÏreasonable€visitation€rights€to€the€child€during€such€child'sÏminority€by€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€upon€a€finding€thatÏsuch€visitation€rights€would€be€in€the€best€interests€of€the€minorÏchild.€€The€provisions€of€this€subsection€shall€not€apply€in€theÏcase€of€any€child€who€has€been€adopted€by€any€person€otherÏthan€a€relative€of€the€child€or€a€stepparent€of€the€child.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€quoted€statute€was€re„designated€ðð€36„6„302€by€1995€Public€Acts€Chapter€428,€effectiveÏJune€12,€1995.ÌÌà àòòSimmons€v.€Simmons,€óóTenn.€1995,€900€S.W.2d€682,€involved€visitation€with€a€fiveÏyear€old€child€by€its€paternal€grandparents€under€the€following€circumstances:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€The€natural€father€abandoned€the€child's€mother,€the€appellant,Ïprior€to€the€child's€birth€on€February€28,€1990.€€Soon€after€theÏchild's€birth,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€mother€a€divorce€andÏcustody€of€the€child.€€The€father's€right€to€visitation€wasÏconditioned€upon€his€having€one€of€his€parents,€the€respondentsÏin€this€case,€transport€the€child€between€the€mother€and€theÏfather.€€Subsequently,€upon€respondents'€petition,€they€wereÏgranted€visitation€privileges€pursuant€to€Tenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„301€(1991),€and,€in€the€same€proceeding,€upon€the€appellant'sÏpetition,€the€court€terminated€the€natural€father's€parental€rightsÏon€the€ground€of€abandonment.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€On€September€18,€1992,€the€mother€married€Loyall€F.€Jones,Ïwho,€in€a€separate€proceeding,€adopted€the€child.€€The€finalÏorder€of€adoption€was€entered€on€February€23,€1993.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€appellant€responded€to€the€respondents'€motion€that€she€beÏheld€in€contempt€for€refusing€to€allow€visitation€as€provided€inÏthe€court€order,€with€a€petition€that€the€respondents'€€visitationÏprivileges€be€terminated.€€.€.€.ÌòòÌSimmons,€óó900€S.W.2d€at€682„83.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€Trial€Court€entered€judgment€for€the€grandparents,€and€this€Court€affirmed.€€The€SupremeÏCourt€reversed€and€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€Resolution€of€the€issue€presented€begins€with€a€review€of€theÏdecision€in€òòHawk€v.€Hawk,€óó€855€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.1993),€inÏwhich€the€Court€held:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àArticle€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprotects€the€privacy€interest€of€these€parents€inÏtheir€child„rearing€decisions,€so€long€as€theirÏdecisions€do€not€substantially€endanger€theÏwelfare€of€their€children.€€Absent€some€harm€toÏthe€child,€we€find€that€the€state€lacks€aÏsufficiently€compelling€justification€forÏinterfering€with€this€fundamental€right.€€WhenÏapplied€to€married€parents€who€have€maintainedÏcontinuous€custody€of€their€children€and€haveÏacted€as€fit€parents,€we€conclude€that€courtÏinterference€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„301Ïconstitutes€an€unconstitutional€invasion€ofÏprivacy€rights€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòId.€at€582.óóÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€After€an€extensive€review€of€prior€decisions€of€this€Court€andÏcases€from€other€jurisdictions,€the€Court€in€òòHawk€v.€Hawk€óóÏexpressly€rejected€the€proposition€that€the€courts€may€engage€inÏbest€interest€analysis€without€first€determining€the€thresholdÏissue€„€substantial€danger€of€harm€to€the€child.€€The€court€stated:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àIn€light€of€[the€constitutional€right€of€privacyÏacknowledged€in€òòDavis€v.€Davis,€óó842€S.W.2dÏ588€(Tenn.€1992)],€we€believe€that€when€noÏsubstantial€harm€threatens€a€child's€welfare,€theÏstate€lacks€a€sufficiently€compelling€justificationÏfor€the€infringement€on€the€fundamental€right€ofÏparents€to€raise€their€children€as€they€see€fit.€ÏThus,€we€find€the€statute€to€be€unconstitutionalÏunder€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution,€as€applied€to€this€married€couple,Ïwhose€fitness€as€parents€is€unchallenged.ÌÌà8 àà8 à855€S.W.2d€at€577.ÌÌà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€The€trial€court€did€not€find€that€the€child€was€in€danger€ofÏsubstantial€harm.€€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€Since€the€record€shows€that€the€threshold€issue€„€danger€ofÏsubstantial€harm€„€has€not€been€established,€the€appellant€and€theÏadoptive€father€are€entitled€to€constitutional€protection€of€theirÏparental€rights.ÌÌòòSimmons,€óóat€683„85.ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€only€discernable€difference€between€the€facts€of€this€case€and€those€of€òòSimmonsóó€isÏthat,€in€òòSimmons,€óóthe€parental€rights€of€the€natural€father€had€been€judicially€terminated€and,€inÏthe€present€case,€the€natural€father€had€died.€€This€is€not€deemed€to€be€a€distinguishingÏdifference.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòHawk€v.€Hawkóó,€Tenn.€1993,€855€S.W.2d€573,€the€two€children€wereÏinitially€permitted€to€visit€in€the€home€of€their€paternal€grandparents.€€When€visitation€wasÏterminated€by€the€joint€decision€of€the€parents,€the€grandparents€sued€to€enforce€the€visitationÏprovided€by€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„301.€€The€parents€resisted€the€suit€asserting€that€to€enforceÏvisitation€over€their€objection€would€violate€their€parental€rights€and€the€Fourteenth€AmendmentÏof€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.€€The€Trial€Court€granted€visitation,€and€this€CourtÏaffirmed.€€The€Supreme€Court€reversed€and€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€.€.€.€This€Court€€has€asked€that€the€parties€also€address€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€statute€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution,Ïwith€particular€reference€to€òòDavis€v.€Davis,€óó842€S.W.2d€588Ï(Tenn.1992),€the€case€which€acknowledged€a€right€to€privacyÏunder€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€In€light€of€this€right€toÏprivacy,€we€believe€that€when€no€substantial€harm€threatens€aÏchild's€welfare,€the€state€lacks€a€sufficiently€compellingÏjustification€for€the€infringement€on€the€fundamental€right€ofÍparents€to€raise€their€children€as€they€see€fit.€€Thus,€we€find€theÏstatute€to€be€unconstitutional€under€Article€I,€Section€8€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€as€applied€to€this€married€couple,Ïwhose€fitness€as€parents€is€unchallenged.€€This€result€relieves€usÏof€the€necessity€of€addressing€the€constitutionality€of€the€statuteÏunder€the€federal€constitution€and,€accordingly,€we€pretermit€thisÏissue.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€.€.€.€€Tennessee€law€has€long€held€thatÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à.€.€.€a€parent€is€entitled€to€the€custody,Ïcompanionship,,€and€care€of€the€child,€andÏshould€not€be€deprived€thereof€except€by€dueÏprocess€of€law.€€It€is€a€natural€right,€but€not€anÏinalienable€one.€€The€parents€are€trusted€with€theÏcustody€of€the€child€upon€the€idea€that€under€theÏinstincts€of€parental€devotion€it€is€best€for€theÏchild.ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòState€ex€re.€Bethell€v.€Kilvington,€óó100€Tenn.€227,€236,€45€S.W.Ï433,€435€(1898).€€This€Court€has€further€held€thatÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 à€[t]he€relations€which€exist€between€parent€andÏchild€are€sacred€ones€.€.€.€.€€The€right€to€theÏsociety€of€the€child€exists€in€its€parents;€the€rightÏto€rear€it,€to€its€custody,€to€its€tutorage,€theÏshaping€of€its€destiny,€and€all€of€theÏconsequences€that€naturally€follow€from€theÏrelationship€are€inherently€in€the€natural€parents,Ïand€they€cannot€be€deprived€of€these€rightsÏwithout€notice,€and€upon€some€ground€whichÏaffects€materially€the€future€of€the€child.ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòIn€re€Knott,€óó138€Tenn.€349,€355,€197€S.W.€1097,€1098€(1917).€ÏòòKnott€óóthus€upheld€the€custodial€rights€of€a€natural€father€whoÏhad€not€been€proven€unfit€against€prospective€adoptive€parents€inÏfar€"better€financial€condition."€€.€.€.Ìà8 àà8 à.€.€.€.Ìà8 àà8 à€€We€hold€that€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprotects€the€privacy€interest€of€these€parents€in€their€child„rearingÏdecisions,€so€long€as€their€decisions€do€not€substantiallyÏendanger€the€welfare€of€their€children.€€Absent€some€harm€to€theÏchild,€we€find€that€the€state€lacks€a€sufficiently€compellingÏjustification€for€interfering€with€this€fundamental€right.€€WhenÏapplied€to€married€parents€who€have€maintained€continuousÏcustody€of€their€children€and€have€acted€as€fit€parents,€weÏconclude€that€court€interference€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€36„6„301Ïconstitutes€an€unconstitutional€invasion€of€privacy€rights€underÍthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€We€therefore€reverse€both€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court€and€that€of€the€Court€of€AppealsÏgranting€visitation€in€this€case.ÌòòÌHawk,€óó855€S.W.2d€at€577„78,€582.ÌÌÌÓÓà àòòIn€Re:€€Knott,€óócited€above,€involved€an€adoption€with€the€consent€of€the€mother,€butÏover€the€objections€of€the€father€who€was€separated€from€the€mother.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏdenied€the€adoption€and€granted€custody€to€the€father.ÌÌà àIn€òòHawk€v.€Hawk,€óóboth€natural€parents€were€alive,€but€only€one€parent€survives€in€theÏpresent€case.€€It€is€fundamental€that€upon€the€death€of€one€parent,€the€surviving€parent€succeedsÏto€sole€control€of€the€children€of€the€parents.€€67A€C.J.S.€Parent€and€Child,€ðð€16,€p.202€n.50Ïand€authorities€there€cited.ÌÌà àIn€òòSimmons€v.€Simmons,€óóthe€mother€had€remarried€and€the€new€husband€had€adoptedÏthe€child.€€In€the€present€case,€the€mother€of€the€child€has€remarried€and€the€new€husband€hasÏadopted€the€children,€but€is€not€participating€in€the€present€case.€€No€reason€occurs€to€thisÏCourt€why€the€rights€of€the€surviving€parent€should€not€be€enforced€without€the€joinder€of€theÏadoptive€father.€€Custody€and€control€of€children€by€a€surviving€parent€should€never€be€deniedÏor€interfered€with€except€for€the€most€cogent€reasons.€€67A€C.J.S.€„€Parent€and€Child€ðð€16Ïp.203€n.51€and€authorities€there€cited.ÌÌà àIt€may€be€argued€that€the€consent€of€the€mother€to€the€"agreed€order"€allowing€visitationÏby€petitioners€was€a€waiver€of€her€right€and€power€to€control€visitation,€but€this€Court€does€notÏfind€that€such€agreement€waived€the€constitutional€power€of€the€mother€to€control€theÏassociations€of€her€children€as€circumstances€from€time€to€time€influence€her€decisions.€€ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated,€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€reversed€and€vacated€and€theÏsuit€of€the€grandparents€is€dismissed.€€All€costs€including€costs€of€this€appeal,€are€adjudgedÏagainst€the€petitioners.€€The€cause€is€remanded€for€entry€and€enforcement€of€a€judgment€inÏconformity€with€this€opinion.ÌÌÌà àReversed,€vacated,€dismissed€and€remanded.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHENRY€F.€TODDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€MIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ_____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌ