Blixt v. Blixt
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
774 N.E.2d 1052 (2002)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Kristin Blixt (defendant) had a son out of wedlock. A court adjudicated Paul Sousa (defendant) to be the child’s father. Kristen and Sousa did not live together but shared legal custody. Kristen’s father, John Blixt (plaintiff), sued Kristen and Sousa, seeking court-ordered visitation with the child. He relied on Massachusetts’s grandparent-visitation statute, which allowed a court to award reasonable visitation to a grandparent if (1) visitation was in the child’s best interests; (2) the child’s parents did not live together; and (3) the child’s parents were divorced, were married but living apart, or were never married and there was a jointly executed voluntary acknowledgment of parentage or a court adjudication determining parentage. Kristin moved to dismiss the action, arguing that the grandparent-visitation statute was unconstitutional on its face because it violated parents’ substantive-due-process right to the care, custody, and control of their children. She also argued that the statute violated equal protection because it burdened parents in nontraditional families and not parents in traditional families. The trial court concluded that the statute was unconstitutional on due-process grounds and dismissed John’s complaint. John appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greaney, J.)
Dissent (Sosman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
