“You don’t get to determine the best interest of the child. That’s the Court’s job” Judge Gregory Elvine-Kreis

 It is only a Family Law Court Judge that can make decisions infringing on one’s fundamental parenting rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, as defined in these three landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases: Stanley vs. Illinois and Santosky vs. Kramer...

 ....and in Troxel v. Granville, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision in favor of a grandparent visitation over a parent’s wishes, concluding:  

     "`[T]he custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.'" (Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65-66 [147 L.Ed.2d 49, 56-57, 120 S.Ct. 2054] (plur. opn.).) As we shall explain, "first" means first. A fit parent has a federal due process constitutional right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child. (530 U.S. at pp. 57, 58, 62.)    

 

The  United States Supreme Court precedent in the Troxel v. Granville case that a court should not overrule a fit parent's decision because it disagrees with what is in the child's "best interests."  That … so long as a parent adequately cares for his or her children (i.e., is fit), there will normally be no reason for the State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parent's children.