Sibling Association as a Constitutional Right

Sibling visitation is not an issue that has troubled too many legislatures lately. Neither has the issue much bothered the courts. Yet the issue is no stranger to those who practice in juvenile court and there are those who whould urge upon the reader the importance of recognizing simbling visitation as a value if not as a right. The unfortunate fact is that sibling groups frequently get caught in the fray of a juvenile petition and very often, it is the bond between siblings that is the only thing that is stable in each child's life. Given such considerations, should the law be so quick to subordinate a child's ability to associate with a sibling to the desires of the parents, or if the parents are unfit, the guardian or legal custodian? This is currently the law under Peterson v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397, 445 S.E.2d 901 (1994) and its progeny.

Admittedly, one is always asking for trouble when one interjects another party's interests (i.e. the child's) into the fray between parents and the State. Yet this is already being done in North Carolina with the statutory requirements that are already in place. These requirements protect a child's interests by requiring that the child's best interests be taken into consideration by and be the pole star by which all decisions are made by every juvenile court judge. To ensure that theses interests are being looked after, the law requires that every child in juvenile court be represented by a GAL and that the GAL be afforded counsel.Thus,  if one would argue against recognition of sibling visitation issues on grounds of widening the ground war, the argument fails as the war is already widened (or at least so long as the N.C. Legislature provides the funding and statutory basis for the GAL Program).

But granted that the child's interests are being represeted through existing structures, does this mean that the collective child group's interests are being considered? Is there a fundamental interest here that transcends the individual child that is of such interest and of such imporance that it should be protected? The answer to this question, admittedly, does not readily avail itself simply. And even if such an interest is not being recognized, except perhaps derivatively, there is likewise no clear answer as to what, if anything, is an appropriate remedy. Another GAL for the collective siblings? Legislation that requires keeping sibling group visitation absent extraordinary circumstances (i.e. separate adoptions)?

For one person who advocates for greater recognition of sibling rights to association, see Christopher D. Vanderbeek, Oh Brother! A California Appeals Court Reaffirms the Denial of Necessary Access for Separated Children to Build and Maintain Sibling Relationships , 350 UC Davis J. of Juv. Law & Policy 349-381 (2009) at the following web address: http://jjlp.law.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-13-no-2/Vanderbeek.pdf