WPCb  HͤTi6jpGC8r75(1I(PHRCE,&=5,y+"b3@aͦ;|o V Y qA)iLէ@]7}@75 ʉa+?5 *qz1A,[#|ùλntB-—R,?TBnzYyDD4+C:vaL$9niIzECV(u  {b;UNI % 0U<Pw@4O AQF 0D 0D( U:G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G B  0Dd 0 0D D/ B D3/ HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman [E[UӀ*n~<$TS 3|x* E "$  XuXXX `   1    ݀Thetrialcourtvoicedthesameopinionbut,becausetheAttorneyGeneral  wasnotproperlybeforetheCourt,declinedtoruleontheconstitutionalityofthestatute. ! %C<< C(3$ !  ($$   1    !"  X^XXXwgXX^   Ad FILEDX^Xwg   November4,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.8XX^AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ((3R$ 7!  7|XXdd7  XDTXXX   `   0  (#$  0  ''' dxdP Pd'dxd 7!  7XXdXXd7  X XXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7*r (<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, r***@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE**@)ATJACKSON `  ______________________________________________*t (>.*jxL~` `@E@.` ttx$x4 R t* REGENIAELLISON,    ` PlaintiffAppellee, `     h      p ObionChanceryNo.20,453Vs. `     h      p C.A.No.02A019803CH00054    CHERRIELLISON,     ` DefendantAppellant.____________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHEOBIONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT@THEHONORABLEWILLIAMMICHAELMALOAN,CHANCELLOR@]]!LanceE.WebbofUnionCity@>>(ForAppellant@ JohnKnoxWalkup,AttorneyGeneralandReporter@& & RonaldW.McNutt,AssistantAttorneyGeneral@.@$ REVERSEDANDREMANDED '## @& Opinionfiled: )%%  `     h      p   bW.FR W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 1--  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEDAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE   :66  ;779 7XXdXXd7 ` Thisappealinvolvesapetitionforgrandparentvisitationfiledbyplaintiff,  ReginaEllison,paternalgrandmotherofGarrettEllisonandEthanWayneEllison,minorchildrenofdefendant,CherriEllison,andTerryEllison,deceased.Afteranevidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtgrantedvisitation.CherriEllison(Mother)hasappealedandpresentsthefollowingissuesforreviewasstatedinherbrief:8 ` 8 ` !` !1.WhetherTenn.CodeAnn.366306isunconstitutionalbecauseitauthorizescourtstoordergrandparentvisitationuponafindingthatsuchvisitationisinthe bestinterestofthechildwithoutfirstrequiringthefindingofadangerofsubstantialharmtothechild.    8 ` 8 ` !` !2.Whethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsawardofvisitationrightstotheappellee.     ` T.C.A.366306,passedbythelegislaturein1997,providesaspertinenttoourinquiry:8 ` 8 ` !` ! 366306.Visitationrightsofparentsofdeceasedor  divorcedparents. 󀄀(a)If:   8 ` 8 ` !` !(1)Eitherthefatherormotherofanunmarriedminorchildisdeceased;    8 ` 8 ` !` !(2)Thechildsfatherandmotheraredivorcedorlegallyseparated;    8 ` 8 ` !` !(3)Thechildsfatherormotherhasbeenmissingfornotlessthansix(6)months;or    8 ` 8 ` !` !(4)Thecourtofanotherstatehasorderedgrandparentvisitation;    8 ` 8 ` !` !then,theparentsofsuchdeceasedpersonortheparentsofeitherofsuchdivorcedorseparatedpersonsortheparentsofthemissingpersonmaybegrantedreasonablevisitationrightstothechildduringitsminoritybyacourtofcompetentjurisdictionuponafindingthatsuchvisitationrightsareinthebestinterestsoftheminorchild,basedonthefactorsin366307(d)(2).     `     h *    * p   * -)) T.C.A.366306(Supp.1998). ` ThefactorsreferredtoaboveinT.C.A.366307(d)(2)are:8 ` 8 ` !` !(2)Indeterminingthebestinterestofthechildunderthissection,thecourtshallconsideranumberoffactors,includingbutnotlimitedtothefollowing:    8 ` 8 ` !` !(A)Thelengthandqualityofthepriorrelationshipbetweenthegrandparentandthechild;    8 ` 8 ` !` !(B)Theexistingemotionaltiesofthechildtothegrandparent;955   8 ` 8 ` !` !(C)Thepreferenceofthechildifthechildisdeterminedtobeofsufficientmaturitytoexpressapreference;#;77   #8 ` 8 ` !` !(D)Theeffectofhostilitybetweenthegrandparentandtheparentonthechildmanifestedbeforethechild,andthewillingnessofthegrandparent,exceptincaseofabuse,toencourageacloserelationshipbetweenthechildandtheparent(s)orguardian(s)ofthechild;    8 ` 8 ` !` !(E)Thegoodfaithofthegrandparentinfilingthepetition;    8 ` 8 ` !` !(F)Iftheparentsaredivorcedorseparated,thetimesharingarrangementthatexistsbetweentheparentswithrespecttothechild;and    8 ` 8 ` !` !(G)Ifone(1)parentisdeceasedormissing,thefactthatthegrandparentsrequestingvistationvisitationaretheparentsofthedeceasedormissingperson.    T.C.A.366307(d)(2)(Supp.1998). ` In Hawkv.Hawk ,855S.W.2d573(Tenn.1993),ourSupremeCourt  consideredaconstitutionalchallengetoT.C.A.366101,apredecessortothepresentgrandparentvisitationstatute,thatprovidedfor reasonablevisitationwithgrandparentsifitis inthebestinterestoftheminorchild.Theissueinvolvedtheconstitutionalityofthestatuteasitappliestothedecisionofmarriedparentstodenypaternalgrandparentsvisitationwiththeirgrandchildren.TheCourtheldthat:8 ` 8 ` !` !ArticleI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitutionprotectstheprivacyinterestoftheseparentsintheirchildrearingdecisions,solongastheirdecisionsdonotsubstantiallyendangerthewelfareoftheirchildren.Absentsomeharmtothechild,wefindthatthestatelacksasufficientlycompellingjustificationforinterferingwiththisfundamentalright.Whenappliedtomarriedparentswhohavemaintainedcontinuouscustodyoftheirchildrenandhaveactedasfitparents,weconcludethatcourtinterferencepursuanttoT.C.A.366301constitutesanunconstitutionalinvasionofprivacyrightsundertheTennesseeConstitution.     Id. at582. -))  ` In Simmonsv.Simmons ,900S.W.2d682(Tenn.1995),theSupremeCourt /++ followeditsdecisionin Hawk andapplieditspreviousholdingtoacasewhere 1 -- paternalgrandparentswereseekingvisitationaftertheirsonsparentalrightshadbeenterminated.Thechildsmotherhadremarried,andhersecondhusbandhadadoptedthechild.TheCourtnotedthatin Hawk theneedtoprotectthechildfrom 733 asubstantialdangerorharmwasacompellingstateinterestsufficienttooverrule 955 parentsdecisions.TheCourtthendefinedtheissueas whetherthechildinthiscaseisexposedtoasubstantialdangerofharm,whichjustifiestheinterventionoftheCourtintotheparentschildrearingdecisions. Id. at68485.TheCourtheld:  8 ` 8 ` !` !Sincetherecordshowsthatthethresholdissuedangerofsubstantialharmhasnotbeenestablished,theappellantandtheadoptivefatherareentitledtoconstitutionalprotectionoftheirparentalrights.     Id. at685.    ` In Floydv.McNeely ,No.02A019408CH007,1995WL390954(Tenn.   МApp.W.S.,July5,1995),thisCourtconsideredagrandparentvisitationcasewithfactsquitesimilartothecaseatbar.TheprimaryissuebeforetheCourtwaswhetherT.C.A.366301wasunconstitutionalasapplicabletothefactsofthatcase.TheCourtruled:8 ` 8 ` !` !  Inkeepingwiththe Hawk and Simmons decisions,   thiscourtmayonlyintervenewithMcNeelysdecisiontopreventherchildrenfromreestablishingarelationshipwiththeirpaternalgrandmotheriftherecordbeforeusindicatesthatthechildrenarethreatenedwithasubstantialdangerofharm.Ourreviewofthisrecorddoesnotleadustothisconclusion.Thus,wefindthatitiswithinMcNeelysfundamentalrightasaparenttopreventcontactbetweenherchildrenandtheirgrandmother.     Id .at*4. & ""  ` In Hilliardv.Hilliard ,No.0922A019609CH00230,1997WLl61510(Tenn. ($$ App.W.S.,Feb.14,1997)thisCourtagainconsideredthequestionofgrandparentvisitationinasomewhatdifferentcircumstance.Atthetimethemotherandfatherweredivorced,temporarycustodyoftheminorchildwasawardedtothematernalgrandmother,withwhomthemotherwaslivingatthetime.Themotherlatermovedoutofthestatetolivewithherpresenthusband,andthefatherfiledapetitionformodificationofthedecreetoawardhimcustodyofthechild.Thefatherwasawardedcustodyofthechild,andthematernalgrandmotherwasgrantedvisitationwiththechildeveryotherweekend.Thefatherappealedfromthatpartoftheorder 844 allowingthegrandmothervisitation.TheCourt,followingthedecisionsin Hawk ,   Simmons ,and Floyd ,remandedthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsto  makeathresholddeterminationofwhethertherewassubstantialdangerofharmtothechildiftherewasacessationoftherelationshipbetweenthechildandthematernalgrandmother. Id. at*4. TheCourtnotedthattheunderlyingholdingin   allofthecasesrelieduponisthatparentspossessaconstitutionalrightofprivacyinparentingdecisionsnotsubjecttointerferencefromthestateabsentashowingofsubstantialharmforthechild. Id .at*3.     ` Thestatutesunderconsiderationinthepreviouscasesreferredto,andthestatuteunderconsiderationinthecaseatbar,areessentiallythesameinasmuchastheybothprovideforreasonablevisitationrightsuponafindingthatthevisitationrightsareinthebestinterestoftheminorchild.OurSupremeCourtin Hawk and  in Simmons determinedthattheremustbeaninitialshowingofharmtoachild  beforetheCourtmayintervenetodeterminethebestinterestofthechild.TheCourtin Hawk  specificallyheld:   8 ` 8 ` !` !Whenappliedtomarriedparentswhohavemaintainedcontinuouscustodyoftheirchildrenandhaveactedasfitparents,weconcludethatcourtinterferencepursuanttoT.C.A.366301constitutesanunconstitutionalinvasionofprivacyrightsundertheTennesseeConstitution.    855S.W.2dat582. ` Thecasessubsequentto Hawk indicatethatthereisnorealdifferencebetween +'' therightsofasingleparent,andbothparents,underthesecircumstances.Inviewofthealmostidenticallanguageofthepreviousstatuteandthepresentstatuteallowingvisitation,ifinthebestinterestoftheminorchild,wearecompelledtofollowtheholdingin Hawk .Therefore,weholdthatthelanguageofT.C.A.366 3 // 306,allowingreasonablevisitationrightsuponafindingofthebestinterestofthe minorchild, constitutesanunconstitutionalinvasionofprivacyrightsunderthe 7$33 TennesseeConstitution.  ##  1          ` Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainsttheappellee.Thesecondissueispretermitted. `     h      p _________________________________ `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,    `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.     CONCUR:     ____________________________________  ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE   ____________________________________ DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE