LEVINSON at JURIS.LAW.NYU.EDU
Tue Jan 11 14:35:19 PST 2000
Re Michael's posting, as I said earlier today, I think that denouncing the Washington statute only for its "standardlessness" makes the case far less interesting. What if the statute restricted the list of possible claimants for visitation rights to:
1) any blood relative within the second degree (whatever this precisely means, though I think that state statutes often read this way; or, if the child is adopted
2) any blood relative of the adopting parent(s) within the second degree; or
3) with regard to any non-blood relative, anyone who can show, by substantial evidence, that he or she was a regular part of the child's life, outside of an institutional setting (i.e., no school teachers are eligible), for at least a year.
I don't really want to get into a debate about legislative drafting, and I'm sure this is a lousily drafted statute. But, presumably, it offers some standards. Would it pass Michael's muster, at least constitutionally.
More information about the Conlawprof