Find Legal Information

FOURTH DIVISION
June 24, 2004

No. 1-03-2385

Lana J. Kuba appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County vacating aprevious order providing her with visitation rights pursuant to section 607(b) of the IllinoisMarriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act), commonly called the grandparent visitationstatute (750 ILCS 5/607(b) (West 1998)). We affirm.

The procedural background of this case is as follows. On June 11, 1998, Kuba filed apetition seeking overnight visitation with her grandson pursuant to the grandparent visitationstatute (750 ILCS 5/607(b) (West 1998). On July 29, 1998, the court granted Kuba's petition,ordering that she have certain periods of visitation, both overnight and during summer vacation. On June 14, 2002, the child's mother, Holly Seidel, filed a motion seeking to vacate the 1998order arguing that the order was void because the grandparent visitation statute had recently beendeclared facially unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in Wickham v. Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d309 (2002). The trial court granted Seidel's petition and vacated the previous visitation order. This appeal ensued.

We begin by noting that the parties do not dispute the unconstitutionality of thegrandparent visitation statute but, rather, the effect of such upon their existing visitationarrangement. Seidel argues, and the trial court found that, as a result of the Wickham decision,the grandparent visitation statute is void ab initio and that the previous visitation order is a nullity. Kuba argues that even though the grandparent visitation statute has been declaredunconstitutional, she nevertheless retains a common law right to seek visitation. As such, Kubarequests that we reverse the trial court's order vacating the previous visitation order and remandthis case for a hearing on whether "special circumstances" warrant an order granting visitationunder the common law. Kuba cites In re Marriage of Sullivan, 342 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2003), insupport of her argument. In Sullivan, the Second District found that a divorced father retained acommon law right to petition the court to allow his family to visit with his son while he wasserving active military duty despite the unconstitutionality of the grandparent visitation statute. Sullivan, 342 Ill. App. 3d 560. In so ruling, the Sullivan court distinguished the facts before itfrom those in Wickham on the basis that the Sullivan petitioner was the child's father, rather thana grandparent. Sullivan, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 565. The court explained:

"As such, unlike Wickham, this case does not involve a judge deciding what is inthe best interest of a child between a fit parent and a nonparent. [Citation.] Instead, this case involves the trial court's weighing of the wishes of two fit parentsto determine what is in the child's best interests." Sullivan, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 565.

The court noted that it had authority to make that determination pursuant to section 607(c) of theAct (750 ILCS 5/607(c) (West 2002)). Sullivan, 342 Ill. App. 3d at 565. We find that Sullivanlends little support to Kuba's argument because the court considered significantly different facts,and Sullivan was decided upon a section of the Act that is different from that considered in thisappeal.

We further note that Sullivan failed to acknowledge the Third District's previous rejectionof the argument that a grandparent retained a common law right to visitation in Langman v.Langman, 325 Ill. App. 3d 101 (2001), appeal allowed, 196 Ill. 2d 544 (2001), aff'd, Wickham v.Byrne, 199 Ill. 2d 309 (2002). In Langman, the mother appealed from an order granting visitationto the parents of her deceased husband, arguing that the grandparent visitation statute wasunconstitutional as applied under the circumstances. Langman, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 104-05. Thegrandparents argued, inter alia, that even if the statute was unconstitutional, the visitation orderwas authorized under Illinois common law. Langman, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 107. The appellatecourt held that the statute was unconstitutional as applied; and, further, that recognition of acommon law right of a grandparent to seek visitation over the wish of a fit parent was in directconflict with a fit parent's constitutionally protected right to make decisions regarding the bestinterest of his or her child, as discussed in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68, 147 L.Ed. 2d 49,58, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2061 (2000). See Langman, 325 Ill. App. 3d at 108. Accordingly, theLangman court reversed the trial court's order granting grandparent visitation rights.

We recognize that the Third District has recently found that a common law right topetition for grandparent visitation exists. In re M.M.D., 344 Ill. App. 3d 345 (2003), appealallowed, 207 Ill. 2d 604 (2004). We, however, are not persuaded by the majority's reasoning inthat decision and, thus, decline to follow it. In M.M.D., the majority upheld the trial court's denialof a parent's petition to terminate a previous order granting grandparent visitation on the basisthat "the unconstitutionality of subsections 607(b)(1) and (b)(3) does not void the [grandparents']visitation rights as a matter of law." M.M.D., 344 Ill. App. 3d at 349. We note that while theM.M.D. court recognized that the Third District had explicitly determined that an existingvisitation order would not be authorized, by default, under common law principles in Langman, itnevertheless failed to reconcile its holding with its previous decision. See M.M.D., 344 Ill. App.3d at 347. We are compelled by Justice Slater's dissent, in which he aptly summarizes the fatalflaw in the majority's reasoning:

"Surely, the majority is not suggesting that the courts may, under the guise ofcommon law, do what has been explicitly disallowed by Wickham? The visitationagreement in this case was entered into based on a void statute and is thereforealso void. It infringes on [the parent's] fundamental right to raise his child andcannot be retroactively legitimized by reliance on resurrected common lawprinciples." M.M.D., 344 Ill. App. 3d at 349 (Slater, J., dissenting).

We find that the parties' visitation order is invalid as it is based on an unconstitutionalstatute. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's order.

Affirmed.

QUINN, P.J., and HARTMAN, J., concur.