Why Jilted Grannies Got No Help From the Courts

From now on, if you want to see your grandkids in Seattle, ask their parents, not the courts. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court settled a question of what rights grandparents have in true conservative fashion Monday by ruling that, in short, they don't have any — unless the parents say so. In a decision that was applauded by such strange bedfellows as Christian conservatives and gay-rights groups, six of the nine Supremos struck down a Washington law that went far beyond other states in granting grandparents, or anyone else, the legal right to ask the courts to mandate visitation of the kiddies in question. No dice, says TIME legal writer Adam Cohen. "The Justices were reluctant to have the courts impose limitations on how parents raise their children." The court's three dissenters, all grandparents themselves, countered, essentially, with "What could it hurt to ask?" But the majority was firm in drawing a line in the sand of parental autonomy: Unless parents are abusing the child, they have the final say.

Religious righties call that preservation of the American family; gay and lesbian groups figure the ruling cuts the opportunity for outside meddling in less traditional family units. The AARP had fought for the Washington law on the grounds that in an age of broken homes and increasingly twisted family trees, grandparents can be stabilizing forces in a child's life — even if it means suing the tyke's mom (or dad) to get in the door. All hope is not lost for the gray brigade, however: The Washington law allowed "any person" to sue for visitation, and was rejected by the Court in part because it was "breathtakingly broad." The seniors will now certainly turn their attention to getting some grandparent-specific legislation moving through the pipeline, and perhaps back to the high court, before little Nicky gets too big to spoil. Until then, free advice for grandmas and grandpas: Be nice to your son- or daughter-in-law, because there's still a few matters the long arm of the law would rather not have a hand in.