In a unanimous opinion, the high court said the law does not infringe on the liberty interests of Darryl Thurgood, who has battled his former in-laws over their requests to see the girl since his ex-wife died in 2000. The decision enables Darlene and Robert Uzelac to resume regular contact with their granddaughter, now 10, for the first time in six years.

Attorney J. Bruce Reading, who represents the Uzelacs, called the ruling a "real vote for grandparents' rights."

"We are absolutely thrilled," Reading said.

The decision upholds the statute allowing grandparents to see their grandchildren - even if a parent objects - if they can prove the visits are in the child's best interest. It also requires Thurgood to allow visitation at least one weekend a month, half the time afforded to a divorced parent.

Thurgood's lawyer, Jerrald Conder, said he could not comment because he had not read the opinion yet.

Under Utah law, if a child's immediate family is intact, grandparents are required to overcome a presumption that the parents' decisions about visitation are reasonable. But no such presumption was spelled out when the state's grandparent visitation law, in effect since 1977, was amended to allow grandparents to seek reasonable visitation if their son or daughter has died or divorced.

On Friday, the Utah Supreme Court noted that parents have a constitutional right over the custody and control of their children but said families are not immune from regulation, pointing to laws mandating school attendance and protecting minors from neglect.

That power extends to divorce proceedings and custody determinations, the court said. And, it said, the grandparent visitation statute recognizes that when a family has been touched by a turn of fate - death, divorce, loss of custody, a missing person - a child's interests might differ from those of the parent.

"This is particularly true where the direct family line between grandparents and grandchildren has been severed, leaving the 'in-law' relationship as the only remaining adult connection," Chief Justice Christine Durham wrote for the court, adding that the law provides an avenue for grandparents and grandchildren to maintain their connection.

Although declaring the law constitutional, Durham also wrote that the statute can be confusing and provides little guidance to a judge trying to settle a dispute. She encouraged the Legislature to clarify certain points.

The ruling had its roots in the 1991 marriage of Shauna Lynn Uzelac and Darryl Clifford Thurgood, who later divorced. In December 1995, Shauna gave birth to a daughter and a few months later moved in with her parents.

In the next three years, the girl spent a substantial amount of time with her grandparents. The Uzelacs cared for Samantha during the week, took her camping on weekends and vacationed with her.

In early 1999, Shauna moved into her own home, but the grandmother continued to baby-sit several times a week. Then, on April 28, 2000, Shauna died unexpectedly at age 32 after a short illness and her mother moved into the home to care for Samantha.

Darlene Uzelac petitioned for custody of her granddaughter, but 3rd District Judge Joseph Fratto Jr. gave custody to the girl's father. Although the judge urged Thurgood to allow Samantha to visit the Uzelacs, the sides were unable to agree on a schedule.

The grandmother then petitioned for visitation and was granted time with the girl one weekend a month. When Thurgood allowed only two visits in six months, Fratto upped the visitation to twice a month. That schedule continued until December 2003, when the Utah Court of Appeals said Fratto had ordered too much make-up visitation.

Thurgood moved to Florida in January 2004, and although the court ordered telephonic visitation, the last call on record was February 2004. The father challenged the constitutionality of the grandparent visitation, leading Fratto to order an evaluation of what was in the best interests of Samantha.

An evaluator concluded that Samantha had a strong emotional attachment to the Uzelacs and recommended "frequent and on-going" visitation. Thurgood countered with the testimony of a licensed clinical social worker who said visitation would not be appropriate because of the animosity between the father and grandparents.

Fratto, however, decided visitation would be in the child's best interest. That decision led to the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Reading said the decision, which provides grandparents a constitutional link between them and future generations, could have had profound effects had the court ruled against the Uzelacs.

"Any grandparent who had an order of visitation with their grandchild, would have been immediately put at risk."

pmanson@sltrib.com

jstettler@sltrib.com