WPC 2# UN %% 0(+w@S4 0l 0D"fU@f 0J 0T 0^D 0h 0D  0rN 0|< 0 0 AQ 0Di 1u 0d" U> 0@ B) D3- DC` D/ AM B B< U*Y e  av~|vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ RSTUVWXYZӀ[zz!43|x[((3$ !      0  (#$  0   `(ZapfCalligr BTTT2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  (3$ !  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  ԃLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  $(C<< C($$   1   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman("$    % Line 7 d++++'dxd%%%%7Border 1dd**' dxd$'C << GP Pd d<  9p`(Arial  !#  "  #  , eee FILED,X ,"US ,  - !  ,X CecilCrowson,Jr.     , eee AppellateCourtClerk     X  !#   $       ThepetitionwasfiledinaccordancewithT.C.A.366301whichstates:8 Grandparentsvisitationrights .(a)Thenaturalorlegalgrandparentsofanunmarriedminorchildmaybegrantedreasonablevisitationrightstothechildduringsuchchildsminoritybyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionuponafindingthatsuchvisitationrightswouldbeinthebestinterestsoftheminorchild.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . #  \RA'\` ` pX\RA'\ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE,WESTERNSECTION@ ATJACKSON@ _______________________________________________________  ) LOISSMITHandCECILSMITH,  ) HendersonCountyChanceryCourt ) No.7166̀Appellants, ) )VS. ) C.A.NO.02A019608CH00193R).'A1-j|  `@R ) BETHELMARIE(SMITH)  ) SCHNEIDER,  ) )̀Appellee, ) )VS. ) ) ROGERALLENSMITH,  ) )̀Appellee. )______________________________________________________________________________FromtheChanceryCourtofHendersonCountyatLexington. HonorableJoeC.Morris,Chancellor LloydR.Tatum ,TATUM&TATUM,Henderson,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellants.OPINIONFILED: AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED FARMER,J.CRAWFORD,P.J.,W.S :(Concurs) LILLARD,J. :(Concurs)  ` ` X LoisSmithandCecilSmithappealfromthetrialcourtsdenialoftheirpetitionseekingvisitationrightswiththeirgrandson,JonathonAllenSmith,pursuanttoT.C.A.366301. /   ׀TheappellantsaretheparentsofRogerAllenSmithwhosemarriagetoBethelMarieSmith(nowSchneider)endedindivorceinApril1990.JonathonAllenSmithwasborntothatmarriageandwasage7atthetimeofthehearingwhichisthesubjectofthisappeal.CustodyofJonathonwasawardedtohismother. Accordingtothestatementoftheevidence,LoisSmithtestifiedthatshevisitedweeklywithJonathonuntilthesummerof1994whenJonathonsmother justsaidIcouldntseehimwithnoexplanationgiven.ShefurthertestifiedthatCecilSmithisthechildsonlylivinggrandfatherandheandJonathonhaveagoodrelationship.Theyliveabout20milesfromJonathonandhismotherandJonathonenjoysfishinginthepondontheirpropertyandvisitingwithanothergrandson,age12. Appellantscontendthatthetrialcourterredinrelyinguponoursupremecourtsrulingsin Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993)and Simmonsv.Simmons ,900S.W.2d682(Tenn.1995).Theycontendthatin Hawk thecourtmerelyheldthattheapplicationofthestatutewasunconstitutionalwheremarriedparents,whosefitnessasparentsisunchallenged,objecttothegrandparentvisitation.Itistheircontentionthatthetesttobeappliedinthiscaseshouldbewhatisinthebestinterestofthechild.Wedisagree. Hawk concludedthat TennesseeshistoricallystrongprotectionofparentalrightsandthereasoningoffederalconstitutionalcasesconvinceusthatparentalrightsconstituteafundamentallibertyinterestunderArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution. Hawk heldT.C.A.366301tobeanunconstitutionalinvasionofparentsprivacyrightsasaffordedundertheTennesseeConstitutionwhenappliedtothefactspresented.Thatcaseinvolvedapetitionforgrandparentalvisitationfiledbythepaternalgrandparentsagainstmarriedparentswhohadmaintainedcontinuouscustodyoftheirchildrenandwhosefitnessasparentswentunchallenged. Hawk ,855S.W.2dat577,582. Hawk determinedthattheparentspossessedaconstitutionalrightofprivacyinparentingdecisionsnotsubjecttointerferencefromthestateabsentashowingof substantialharmtoachildswelfare. Id. at577. Hawk reasonedthattherewasnocompellingstateinterestjustifyinginterferencewithsuchrightofparentsabsentthisshowing. Id .at582. Hawk statedthatwithoutashowingofsubstantialharmtothechild, acourtmaynotconstitutionallyimposeitsownsubjectivenotionsofthebestinterestofthechildwhenanintact,nuclearfamilywithfit,marriedparentsisinvolved. Id .at579.Tothisend, Hawk declinedtoproceedwitha bestinterestsofthechildanalysisuntilandaftertherequiredshowingofharmwhichthecourtviewedasthe soleprotectionthatparentshaveagainstpervasivestateinterferenceintheparentingprocess. Id .at58081.Moreover, Hawk refusedtoassumethatthegrandparentgrandchildrelationshipalwaysprovesbeneficialtothechildassuchassumption, overlooksthenecessityofathresholdfindingofharm before thestatecaninterveneintheparentchildrelationship. Id .at581.  Simmonsv.Simmons involvedamotherandadoptivefatherofaminorchildwhosoughttoterminatethecourtorderedvisitationprivilegesofthechildspaternalgrandparents. Simmons concludedthattherecordbeforeitcontainednoevidencethatasubstantialdangerofharmthreatenedthechildand,thus,foundnocompellingstateinterestjustifyingcourtintrusionuponthenaturalmothersandadoptivefathersrightsasparentstoprecludearelationshipbetweentheirchildandthepaternalgrandparents. Simmons ,900S.W.2dat685. Thiscourtrecentlyaddressedgrandparentvisitationin Floydv.McNeeley ,No.02A019408CH00187(Tenn.App.July5,1995),whereinthenaturalfatherofthechildrendiedandthepaternalgrandmothersoughtvisitation.Westated:8 Inviewofthereasoningsextendedbyoursupremecourtin Simmons and Hawk ,weareconvincedthat[themothers]righttoparentherchildrenassheseesfit,includingadecisionregardingarelationshipbetweenthemandtheirgrandmother,isnolessgreaterthantherightaffordedtothemarriednaturalparentsunder Hawk .Weconcludethattherightsaffordedtotheparentsin Hawk extendequallyto[themother]despitethedeathofherchildrensfatherandhersubsequentremarriage.Tothisend,wedonotviewthebreakupofthenuclearfamily,inandofitself,toconstituteasubstantialharmtoachildsufficienttojustifystateinterferencewithafitparentsdecisiontoprecludearelationshipbetweenthatchildandhis/hergrandparents. Floyd ,slipop.at5. In Nalev.Robertson ,871S.W.2d674(Tenn.1994),thecourtstated the[plaintiffs]positionthatthiscourtin Hawk limitedtheprotectionofparentalrightstoanintact,nuclearfamilywithfitparentsisuntenable. Nale ,871S.W.2dat680. Wefindnoevidenceintherecordbeforeusofsubstantialharmtothechild.Therefore,thereisnocompellingstateinterestsufficienttojustifystateinterferencewiththerightofthechildsmotherasaparenttopreventcontactbetweenherchildandthepaternalgrandparents. Whilethiscourtcanfullyappreciatethewantsanddesiresofthepetitionersinthiscausetocontinuetheirrelationshipwiththeirgrandson,wearegovernedbythelaw.Wewould,however,encouragethemotheronherowninitiativetoendorsearelationshipbetweenhersonandhisgrandparentsifshedeterminesthatitwouldbestservethechild. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmedandthecostsofthiscausearetaxedtotheappellants,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.` ` X _______________________________ FARMER,J.______________________________CRAWFORD,P.J.(Concurs)______________________________LILLARD,J.(Concurs)