Case Summary: Troxel V. Granville

The state should interfere in family matters in other to protect every citizen own safety. In Meyer v Nebraska, the interdiction of teaching any foreign language bellow eighth grade meanly intend to make sure that any child feel completely part of this country legacy and ensure that English become the mother tongue language of every children raised in this state. The goal behind this prohibition is to promote civic development for all citizens. By not permitting another language to be teach before eighth grade, the state is giving the opportunity to foreigners’ children who had emigrated here, to fully blend with this country culture and prevent from seeing themselves as foreigners. It’s important for the state that all its citizen feel at
Even though the law required parents to send their children to school until the age of sixteen. The state’s interest in universal education against the parents’ fundamental right to freely exercise religion. However, it was determined in this case that the right of free exercise outweighed the interests of the state. Therefore, Court concluded that the parents had demonstrated the sincerity of their religious beliefs and that complying with the law would interfere with their ability to live that life and religion as
Granville and how does this decision compare to Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl?

In Troxel, The Washington Statute violated the right of parents to make decisions related to the care, control and custody of their children. In this case, according to the Washington Supreme Court, the Constitution permit the Sate to interfere with the right of parents when it comes to rear their children against harm. However, the since the inherent harm couldn’t be demonstrated in this case, the girl mother has the full right to limit and regulate visitation of their children by third persons.
In Adoptive however, the court has justified the State interference with parent’s right when it comes to the custody of children. A biological father who has no relationship whatsoever with her daughter invoked the ICWA to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by the non-Indian mother. Here the Court held that the ICWA was designed to stop the practice of unwarranted removal of Indian children from Indian families and protect children “breakup “and prevent “discontinuance relationship”. However, since the father has no relationship with his daughter, there was no