Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Tuesday, June 6, 2000Child’s best interest
needs court protectionPARENTAL rights and a child's best interest are not necessarily compatible, and grandparents have been known to provide an alternative for child-rearing. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck a blow to that option and, with it, created a possible detriment to children caught up in family disputes. Further litigation may be needed to clarify grandparents' rights in securing a child's best interest.The issue: The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Washington law that allowed grandparents visitation rights with their grandchildren.
The issue arose in Washington state, which has one of the nation's most expansive grandparent-visitation laws. The father of two girls, ages 8 and 10, committed suicide in 1993. Before his death, their mother, who had not married the father, had allowed the girls to visit regularly at his parents' home, where he was living.
The grandparents continued seeing the girls after their son's death until the girls' mother limited their visits. The grandparents went to court to obtain more frequent visitation rights. Meanwhile, the mother married a man who adopted the girls. The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the mother had the right to limit the grandparents' visits.
If the Washington family's situation had been extremely rare, the case would have drawn little interest. However, a decline in nuclear families and a rise in the number of nontraditional families have given the case a level of importance that would not have existed years ago.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that, in 1998, 4 million minors -- about 5.6 percent of all children under age 18 -- lived in the same house as their grandparents. A recent survey by the American Association of Retired Persons found that one in nine American grandparents above the age of 50 cares for at least one grandchild. Eight percent provide day care regularly, and 3 percent function as parents for their grandchildren.
Washington's law allowed "any person" -- even non-relatives -- to see a child when such visitation was found to be in the child's best interest. While not ruling on what O'Connor called its "sweeping breadth," the court ruled that the girls' mother acted within her rights. O'Connor noted that the mother had not tried to cut off visits entirely, and no court had ever found, nor had the grandparents alleged, that she was an unfit parent.
ALTHOUGH the high court's decision was carefully limited, its underlying principle that a state cannot interfere with a parent's right to rear his or her children assures further court action. The primary interest should be that of the children, a principle that future court decisions hopefully will make clear.
Clinton-Putin summit
PRESIDENT Clinton was not expected to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin at their Moscow summit to embrace the U.S. administration's proposal of an expanded missile defense system, and no such agreement was reached. However, the lack of such an accord is less important than during the Soviet period of superpower summits. Russia is in no position to create a rift with the United States over the issue so its permission is not essential.
Clinton did not leave Moscow empty-handed. The two countries agreed to dispose of 68 tons of plutonium, enough to build tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. How to finance such an undertaking -- it would cost in the billions of dollars -- remains to be decided, but Western Europe will be asked to help.
In addition, Clinton and Putin agreed to establish the first permanent American-Russian military operation -- a center in Moscow to detect missiles flying toward either nation.
Putin was not as willing to sign onto the Clinton administration's proposal to amend the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to permit deployment of a limited system to guard against attacks by rogue nations such as North Korea. Putin had indicated before meeting with Clinton a willingness to discuss allowing such a system. Russia has opposed a limited missile system as undermining the treaty and unleashing a new arms race it cannot possibly afford.
After the meeting, Putin acknowledged "a commonality" in dealing with such threats but added, "We're against having a cure which is worse than the disease." The joint statement from the summit called on experts from both sides to prepare a report on how to deal with threats.
Putin may be looking past Clinton to the next U.S. president in considering any amendment to the ABM treaty. "We know that today, in the United States, there is a campaign going," Putin said. "No matter who gets to be president, we're willing to go forward."
Putin may be grasping at any reason to delay the decision, over which Russia has little if any negotiating authority; the 1972 treaty was with the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. Meanwhile, Russia is trying to cope with a wretched economy that will make it dependent on the West for the foreseeable future.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
