Wilde v. Wilde

Tracy and Russell Wilde were married in 1992 and had two children. Russell committed suicide on September 18, 1999. Russell's father, Harry Wilde, is divorced from the children's grandmother and married to Joan, the children''s step-grandmother. Following his son's funeral, Harry claims, Tracy "became very distant towards [Harry and Joan] and made it difficult for them to have any grandparenting time with their grandchildren." On four occasions in November 1999, and without Tracy's approval, Harry visited the children at their school. Tracy permitted Harry and Joan to visit the day after Christmas, but failed to agree to their request for a visit on a specific date two weeks later.

On February 9, 2000, Harry and Joan filed suit seeking visitation under New Jersey's Grandparent Visitation Statute (GVS). In his certification, Harry accused Tracy of lying, bearing partial responsibility for his son's suicide, and 'destroying our grandchildren.' The trial court ordered an evaluation by a psychologist to be paid for by both parties and later ordered Tracy to undergo intensive therapy and therapeutic mediation. Tracy appealed these orders on the grounds that the GVS is unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey remanded the case to the trial court for a ruling on the constitutionality issue. When the trial court determined that the GVS is constitutional both facially and as applied, Tracy appealed again.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court reverses, finding that the GVS is unconstitutional as applied in this case because Harry and Joan's lawsuit violated Tracy's due process rights as a parent. Twice in its ruling, the court quotes Justice Anthony Kennedy in his opinion in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 147 L. Ed.2d 49 (2000) that 'a domestic relations proceeding in and of itself can constitute state intervention that is so disruptive of the parent-child relationship that the constitutional right of a custodial parent to make certain basic determinations for the child''s welfare becomes implicated.' The New Jersey court finds that 'a grandparent''s statutory right to hale a parent into court must be carefully circumscribed, particularly where, as here, the parent''s fitness is not disputed. . . Before engaging the courts, grandparents should be obliged to make substantial efforts at repairing the breach and, in addition, litigation ordinarily should not be threatened before visitation has been denied with finality. If litigation becomes necessary because the parent or parents have persistently resisted the grandparents'' respectful and patient overtures, it must be conducted with restraint. In other words, the grandparents must refrain from denouncing, demeaning, and impugning the parent''s character.' The court finds that Harry and Joan's lawsuit violated these principles.