ÿWPCL  ÜñIîžì…êà»í#úç[êå ;صF|ß„§Î>Zr·ÚkjŠññw*êÝTŠÁ¶“qɸN`-¹Z˜)x3VJlRw´¸÷2ÇÞ6Ór(³QÜý•°ÜkÿýS-ôÑ,cîbãr¢×€qweç‡4“!/ý¯GaKht˖ݲ{v÷»^¦„A²õnèøL7N†hk†þøE ·ŒìkŠáäUuˆ. å5P–êÁÿz˜£ÎmgKˆ>¥ 7¬F¥¹Âé—¡Ycj.¹€|Ò¾-Õ©‹³_5f6f®åvÕ&ëO’œXxÞ#_ánÂïqÐÖ8F“£—Qó²~I±I èÅíž ÞrÝÔX,|¬cSg/7ÈûW  Ó£PÍ2´Ê#!dUF… %Ë 0(Ñw@ù49M\ m^±u 0 l& 0 D’ §Ö Æ}ŽC(ÑNù^ ûb)É88HIQQQBnnnnnnnnnnnnnn B°°°°°°°°°°°°°°Í"âF EJ ˜HP LaserJet 5MP,ð,,,,,ð0<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New RegularX($¡¡ ¶·¸¹ º£»D¼ ½D¾¿™«Mq)ŒÝ~t ¸~3|x¿ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ §›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝTamara's€half„sister,€Mary,€is€the€child€of€her€father,€Mr.Ð ° ÐR.€€€Mary€resides€with€Mr.€R.€and€her€mother,€wife€of€Mr.€R.,€whoÏwas€not€a€party€to€the€proceeding.€€Mr.€R.€had€sole€custody€ofÏTamaraððs€brother,€Jonathan.€€There€is€little€or€no€mention€in€theÏrecord€regarding€the€mother€of€Tamara€and€Jonathan,€who€is€not€aÏparty.€€Although€we€hold€that€Mrs.€R.,€as€the€custodial€parent€ofÏMary,€is€a€necessary€party€under€Rule€2„211(a),€òòsee€infra,€óówe€makeÐ ´  Ðno€ruling€regarding€whether€the€non„custodial€mother€of€Tamara€andÏJonathan€is€a€necessary€party.((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€section€provides€in€pertinent€part:Ð ° ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Ò(a)€òòChild€alleged€to€be€delinquent,€in€need€ofÐ \¬ Ðsupervision€or€assistance€or€with€citation€forÏviolation;€termination€of€parental€rights€andÏrelated€adoption€proceedingsóó.€„€The€court€hasÐ ð@ Ðexclusive€original€jurisdiction€over:ÌÑC ûaÑÑ C ÑÌà ¸ à(1)€A€child€alleged€to€be€delinquent,€inÏneed€of€supervision,€in€need€of€assistance€orÏwho€has€received€a€citation€for€a€violation;ÏandÌÌà ¸ à(2)€With€respect€to€any€child€who€isÏunder€the€jurisdiction€of€the€juvenile€courtÏand€previously€has€been€adjudicated€a€child€inÏneed€of€assistance,€all€termination€ofÏparental€rights€proceedings€and€relatedÏadoption€proceedings.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓCJ€ðð€3„804(a).€€ ¼›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝJustice€Kennedy€wrote€a€dissenting€opinion,€in€which€JusticesÐ ° ÐStevens€and€Scalia€joined. „›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòFairbanksóó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€a€mother€who€hadÐ ° Ðjoint€legal€custody€but€not€physical€custody€of€a€child€was€aÏnecessary€party€to€a€suit€by€her€parents,€grandparents€of€theÏchildren,€for€visitation€with€the€children.€€òòFairbanks,óó€330€Md.€atÐ 8ˆ Ð45. ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝSection€9„102€was€later€revised€to€delete€the€requirementÐ ° Ðthat€there€be€a€termination€of€a€marriage€before€grandparentÏvisitation€could€be€considered.€òò€Seeóó€1993€Md.€Laws,€Ch.€252.€Ry)‰- ù- ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòRobertsóó€did€not€directly€address€sibling€relationships,€butÐ ° Ðdiscussed€the€constitutional€right€of€association€with€familyÏmembers:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ àThe€personal€affiliations€that€exemplifyÐ 8ˆ A Ðthese€considerations,€and€that€thereforeÏsuggests€some€relevant€limitations€on€theÏrelationships€that€might€be€entitled€to€thisÏsort€of€constitutional€protection,€are€thoseÏthat€attend€the€creation€and€sustenance€of€aÏfamily€ð"ð€marriage,€the€raising€and€educationÏof€children,€and€cohabitation€with€oneððsÏrelatives.€Family€relationships,€by€theirÏnature,€involve€deep€attachments€andÏcommitments€to€the€necessarily€few€otherÏindividuals€with€whom€one€shares€not€only€aÏspecial€community€of€thoughts,€experiences,Ïand€beliefs€but€also€distinctively€personalÏaspects€of€oneððs€life.€€ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòRoberts,€óó468€U.S.€at€619„20,€104€S.€Ct.€at€3250€(citationsÐ :Š  Ðomitted). ¿›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€special€circumstances,€Maryland€courts€have€approved€theÐ ° Ðseparation€of€siblings.€òòSee,€e.g.,€Davis€v.€Davis,óó€280€Md.€119,€131òòÐ †Ö Ðcert.€deniedóó,€434€U.S.€939€(1977),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€434€U.S.€1025,€98Ð b² ÐS.€Ct.€754€(1978)(division€of€custody€appropriate€where€youngestÏchild€had€resided€for€two€years€with€the€mother€without€herÏsiblings);€òòBryce€v.€Bryceóó,€229€Md.€16,€26„27€(1962)(divisionÐ ê: Ðapproved€where€one€parent€suffering€from€mental€disease€that€mayÏhave€had€detrimental€effect€on€4€year€old,€but€not€on€olderÏchildren). >ØØÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ  ›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€court€must€also€consider€Mrs.€R.'s€wishes€regardingÐ ° ÐTamara's€request€for€visitation€with€Mary€and€apply€the€sameÏ¢rebuttable£€presumption€in€favor€of€Mrs.€R.'s€preference. 8›Ó  ÓÝ ƒ æ\ÿÝà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€òòAristotleóó€court€went€on€to€say€that€ð ð[t]he€plaintiffsððÐ ° Ðrelationships€with€their€siblings€are€even€more€important€becauseÏtheir€relationships€with€their€biological€parents€are€often€tenuousÏor€non„existent.ðð€òò€Aristotle€P.,€óó721€F.€Supp.€at€1006.€€ItÐ 8ˆ Ðconcluded€that€ð ð[t]he€defendantsðð€policies,€which€allegedlyÏinfringe€on€the€plaintiffsðð€constitutionally€protected€right€toÏassociate€with€their€siblings,€must€be€evaluated€under€a€heightenedÏlevel€of€scrutiny.ðð€€òòId.€€óóThe€court€distinguished€a€Seventh€CircuitÐ – æ Ðdecision,€òòBell€v.€Milwaukeeóó,€746€F.2d€1205€(7òòthóó€Cir.€1984),€whichÐ r  Ðheld€that€the€plaintiffs€could€not€bring€a€civil€rights€actionÏunder€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€for€damages€caused€by€the€loss€of€theirÏsiblingsðð€society€and€companionship€under€similar€circumstances,€onÏthe€grounds€that€the€òòBellóó€court€stated€that€the€FourteenthÐ Ð  ÐAmendment€could€be€used€to€strike€statutes€which€severÏrelationships€between€siblings,€and€that€òòBellóó€did€not€addressÐ ‚Ò  ÐòòRobertsóó,€which€was€decided€two€months€previously.€€òòAristotle€P.,óóÐ ^®  Ð721€F.€Supp.€at€1006.€ d Ñ  Ñ Ñ  ÑÑ  Ñ <ØØÑ#€â€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý›ñ¿ñÒÒ°Òñ¿ñÑ  ÑÑ€=ƒÑñºñÓ  ÓñºññºñÓ  Óñºññ¹ñà @ àò òSALLY€D.€Ô_ÔADKINSÐ ° ЀAssociate€JudgeÌCourt€of€Special€Appeals€of€MarylandÌP.O.€Box€1029ÌSalisbury,€Maryland€21803„1029Ì410„334„6367ÌÌÌÌó óDecember€11,€2000ò òÐ ´   ÐÌó óÌÌÓ  ÓHon.€Joseph€F.€Murphy,€Jr.,€Chief€Judgeà p àHon.€James€R.€EylerÐ j  ÐHon.€Charles€E.€Moylan,€Jr.à À àà  àà p àHon.€Andrew€L.€SonnerÐ ð@  ÐHon.€Arrie€W.€Davisà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àHon.€James€A.€Kenney,€IIIÐ Æ  ÐHon.€Ellen€L.€Hollanderà h àà À àà  àà p àHon.€Deborah€S.€EylerÐ œì  ÐHon.€James€P.€Salmonà h àà À àà  àà p àHon.€Peter€B.€KrauserÐ r Ðà  àÌà  àRe:à0 ` àNo.€0275,€September€Term,€2000òòÐn` (#` (# Ðà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€Re:€Tamara€R.óóÐôD` (#` (# Ðà  àà ` àArgued:€November€9,€2000ÌÌDear€Judges:ÌÌà  àAttached€please€find€my€proposed€opinion€for€reporting€in€theÏabove„captioned€appeal.€€Kindly€let€me€have€the€benefit€of€anyÏsuggestions€which€you€may€have€in€time€for€their€considerationÏbefore€the€Conference.ÌÌà  àThank€you.ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àVery€truly€yours,ÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àò òSALLYó óÐ ®!þ" ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSally€D.€Ô_ÔAdkinsÔ_ÔÌÌÔ_ÔSDA:dfrÔ_ÔÌAttachmentÌÌcc:€Honorable€Raymond€G.€Thieme,€Jr.ÌÌP.S.€€Judges€Hollander€and€Thieme:€Other€than€nit€type€changes€theÏopinion€is€essentially€the€same€as€the€draft€you€approved.€€€Ìñ¹ññ»ñÐ  ° Ðñ»ñò òÑ  Ññ¼ñ¢Headnote£ñ¼ñó óñ¼ñÐ ° ÐÌòòIn€Re:€Tamara€R.,€óóNo.€¢0275s00£,€Sept.€Term,€2000Ð jº ÐÌò òPARENT„CHILD€ð"ð€CINA€ð"ð€RIGHT€TO€SIBLING€VISITATION€ð"ð€JURISDICTION€OFÐ l ÐJUVENILE€COURT€ð"ð€CUSTODIAL€PARENTððS€CONSTITUTIONAL€RIGHT€TO€MAKEÏDECISIONS€REGARDING€NON„PARENTAL€VISITATIONÌó óÌà  àJuvenile€court€has€jurisdiction€under€Md.€Code€(1984,€1999ÏRepl.€Vol.),€ðð€5„525.5€of€the€Family€Law€Article€to€order€that€aÏchild€who€has€been€adjudicated€in€need€of€assistance€(ð ðCINAðð)€haveÏvisitation€with€siblings€who€are€not€CINA€and€who€remain€in€theÏcustody€of€a€parent€who€opposes€visitation.€€Siblings€who€areÏseparated€by€foster€care€or€adoptive€placement€may€petition€forÏvisitation€with€each€other,€regardless€of€whether€they€have€allÏbeen€adjudicated€CINA.€ÌÌà  àThe€U.S.€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€in€òò¢Troxel£€v.€Granville,óó€530Ð $t ÐU.S.€57,€120€S.€Ct.€2054€(2000),€requires€that€non„parentalÏvisitation€statutes€have€sufficient€standards€for€courts€to€applyÏin€evaluating€a€non„parentððs€claim€for€visitation,€and€that€thoseÏstandards€include€sufficient€deference€to€the€parentððsÏdetermination€of€whether€visitation€is€in€the€childððs€bestÏinterest.€€Applying€this€analytical€framework€in€the€context€ofÏsibling€visitation€in€a€CINA€proceeding,€courts€must€apply€aÏ¢rebuttable£€presumption€that€the€parentððs€decision€to€declineÏvisitation€is€in€the€childððs€best€interest.€€The€Stateððs€interestÏin€the€protection€of€a€minor€child€who€has€been€removed€from€herÏparentððs€care€is€sufficiently€compelling€to€justify€overriding€herÏparentððs€opposition€to€visitation€with€her€siblings,€if€there€isÏevidence€that€denial€of€sibling€visitation€would€harm€the€minorÏchild€who€is€separated€from€her€family;€it€is€not€necessary€thatÏdenial€of€visitation€also€would€harm€the€siblings€whom€theÏseparated€child€seeks€to€visit.€€ÌÌÌÌñ¼ññ½ñÐ  °D Ðñ½ññ¿ñÒì°Òñ¿ñÑ€:P¨Ññ½ñÑ  Ññ½ñÑ€;*"ÑÑ€<~ÑòòÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓREPORTEDóó€Ð \¬ ÐòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€SPECIAL€APPEALS€OFÐ Þ. ÐMARYLANDóóÐ ` ° ÐNo.€0275ÌSeptember€Term,€2000Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ æ6 ÐIN€RE:€TAMARA€R.Ìòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ê: ÐÓ  ÓÓÓHollander,ÌThieme,*ÌÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_ÔAdkins,Ô_ÔÌÓ  ÓÌà @D àà @œ àà @ô àà @L àà @¤ àà @ü! àJJ.ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ pÀ  ÐOpinion€by€Ô_ÔAdkinsÔ_Ô,€J.ÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ò!B# ÐÓ  Ó*Thieme,€J.,€participated€in€the€hearingÏand€conference€of€this€case€while€anÏactive€member€of€this€Court;€heÏparticipated€in€the€adoption€of€thisÏopinion€as€a€retired,€specially€assignedÏmember€of€this€Court.ÌÌßA€,=) °°xdÿEÒ¡(VAßÐ ¢(ò#+ ÐÌÓ  ÓFiled:ñ¾ñ€December€29,€2000ñ¾ñÌÐ  ]*­%.ç ÐÑ =ƒ:P¨Ñâ âØØÑ8€UXXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ€Ñâ :âÑ  Ñâ :âÑ  ÑÒ°ÒÒÓ  ÓÓÓà  àIn€this€appeal€we€are€asked€to€decide€the€jurisdiction€of€theÐ ° Ðjuvenile€court€to€grant€sibling€visitation€in€a€CINA€proceeding,Ïand€to€balance€the€siblingððs€need€for€visitation€against€theÏconstitutional€rights€of€a€parent€who€opposes€it.€€Tamara€R.Ï(ð ðTamaraðð),€appellant,€a€child€found€to€be€in€need€of€assistanceÏ(ð ðCINAðð),€petitioned€the€juvenile€court€for€visitation€with€herÏbrother€and€her€half„sister,€who€remained€in€the€care€and€custodyÏof€their€father€and€have€never€been€found€to€be€in€need€ofÏassistance.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€appeal,€appellant€contends€that€the€Circuit€CourtÐ `  Ðfor€Saint€Maryððs€County,€sitting€as€a€juvenile€court,€erred€inÏruling€that€(1)€it€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€entertain€herÏpetition€for€visitation;€and€(2)€a€grant€to€Tamara€of€the€right€toÏvisit€with€her€siblings€would€unduly€interfere€with€theÏconstitutional€right€of€her€father€to€raise€his€other€children€asÏhe€saw€fit.Ì€€€€€Ìò òÓ  ÓFACTS€AND€LEGAL€PROCEEDINGSó óÐ pÀ  ÐÓrÓà  àOn€August€11,€1999,€the€Saint€Maryððs€County€Department€ofÏSocial€Services€(ð ðDSSðð),€filed€a€petition€alleging€that€Tamara,€ageÏ14,€was€a€CINA.€€The€petition€was€based€on€Tamaraððs€allegations€ofÐ $à& ÐÑ<~Ñâ <âØØÑ8€UXXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ  Ñâ <âÑ  ÑÑ<~Ñâ <âØØÑ8€UXXdÖXXdÖ8ÑÑ  Ñâ <âÑ  Ñsexual€abuse€by€her€father.€€Before€the€September€22,€1999Ð ° Ðadjudication€hearing,€Tamara€recanted,€and€then€reasserted€herÏallegations€of€sexual€abuse.€€At€the€hearing€before€a€master,€theÏallegations€of€sexual€abuse€were€not€resolved€because€the€partiesÏagreed€that€appellant€was€a€CINA€due€to€ð ðthe€special€needs€of€theÏchild€and€parent/child€conflict.ððÌà  àA€disposition€hearing€was€held€on€November€17,€1999.€€At€theÏhearing,€the€master€recommended€that€DSS€be€given€care€and€custodyÏof€Tamara€and€that€DSS€should€facilitate€an€appropriate€scheduleÏfor€Tamara€to€visit€with€her€siblings.€€On€December€8,€1999,€theÏmaster€recommended€that€Tamara€ð ðhave€visitation€with€her€siblingsÏtwice€a€month€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tamaraððs€father€timely€noted€exceptions€toÏthis€recommendation.€€The€father€contended,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€theÐ À Ðjuvenile€court€lacked€jurisdiction€over€appellantððs€siblingsÏbecause€they€were€never€adjudicated€CINA,€and€that€a€grant€ofÏvisitation€would€interfere€with€his€constitutional€rights€to€raiseÏhis€own€children€as€he€saw€fit.Ìà  àOn€February€11,€2000,€a€hearing€was€held€on€the€fatherððsÏexceptions.€€During€the€hearing,€exhibits€were€introduced€intoÏevidence€that€indicated€that€it€would€be€beneficial€for€appellantÏto€have€visitation€with€her€siblings.€€Tamaraððs€therapist€reported:€ÌÒ` °ÒÒ °ÒÓÓGiven€[the]€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€and€theÏresulting€circumstances,€it€is€my€impressionÏthat€Tamara€is€experiencing€a€great€deal€ofÏanger,€sadness,€betrayal€and€confusion.€€SheÏhas€lost€daily€contact€with€her€nuclear€family,Ïand€she€especially€misses€interacting€with€herÐ ,V'/ Ðsiblings.€€Since€Tamara€has€not€been€able€toÏsee€her€brothers€and€sister€regularly,€sheÏmisses€them€very€much,€which€has€furtherÏcontributed€to€her€feelings€of€depression€andÏisolation.€€I€believe€it€would€be€to€TamaraððsÏtherapeutic€benefit€to€have€regular€visitationÏwith€her€siblings;€the€regular€contact€withÏthem€would€provide€her€with€some€of€the€familyÏinteraction€she€has€lost,€and€would€help€her€byÏsupporting€the€continuation€of€the€siblingÏrelationship.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ° ÒÓÓà  àThe€court,€however,€did€not€address€the€merits€of€TamaraððsÏpetition€for€visitation€because€it€ruled€that€(1)€it€did€not€haveÏjurisdiction€over€appellantððs€siblings;€and€(2)€an€order€forÏvisitation€would€interfere€with€the€constitutional€rights€of€Mr.€R.ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[¢T]here£€is€no€authority€to€exercise€and€extendÏthe€jurisdiction€[of€the€juvenile€court]€overÏsiblings€who€are€not€already€before€theÏJuvenile€Court€under€any€proceedings€.€.€.€theÏsiblings€being€the€ones€who€[appellant]€wishesÏto€visit€with.€€The€[c]ourt€further€finds€thatÏthe€extension€of€jurisdiction€to€allow€theÏ[c]ourt€to€order€visitation€.€.€.€wouldÏundermine€clearly€.€.€.€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€[appellant],€and€her€father€andÏthe€entire€family€unit€by€.€.€.€forcing€aÏparent€who€is€otherwise€raising€his€childrenÏas€he€sees€fit,€[and€to€order€visitation]Ïwould€indicate€that€this€is€not€in€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€whole€family€unit,€and€that€isÏwhat€this€is€all€about.€€And€the€[c]ourt,Ïtherefore,€cannot,€under€any€existing€law€orÏauthority€in€this€case,€I€think€there€areÏserious€constitutional€questions€as€to€[theÏfatherððs]€right€under€these€proceedings€and€inÏthis€particular€environment€.€.€.€.€€Yes,Ïthere€is€a€provision€in€the€law€that€allows€aÏpetition€by€any€sibling€to€have€visitationÏwith€another,€but€that€has€to€be€generated€byÏthe€siblings€[not€adjudicated€CINA].€.€.€.€InÏthis€case€it€is€not.€€And€it€flies€in€the€faceÏof€this€family€unit€and€trying€to€get€thisÏfamily€back€together.€.€.€.€In€this€[c]ourtððsÐ ú+J'/ Ðopinion€there€is€no€justification€legally€toÏcourt€order€and€force€the€visitation€of€minorÏchildren€who€are€in€the€custody€of€a€parentÏwho€is€presumed€to€be€raising€them€in€theÏmanner€in€which€he€sees€fit€.€.€.€.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓà  àAdditional€facts€will€be€added€as€necessary€to€our€discussion.ÌÌò òÓ  ÓDISCUSSIONÐ  \  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àTamara€contends€that€the€juvenile€court€erred€in€ruling€thatÐ Ô$  Ðit€did€not€have€jurisdiction,€and€that€granting€visitation€rightsÏwould€not€interfere€with€her€fatherððs€constitutional€rights€as€aÏparent.€€We€agree€that€the€juvenile€court€did€have€jurisdiction,Ïand€conclude€that€Mr.€R.ððs€constitutional€rights€as€a€parent€wouldÏnot€necessarily€have€been€interfered€with€by€a€grant€of€visitation.€ÏÌÓ  Óò òÓÓA.€Ð ˆØ ÐJurisdiction€Of€Juvenile€CourtÌÌÓ¨-ÓÓ  Óà  àó óTamara€relies€on€Md.€Code€(1984,€1999€Repl.€Vol.),€Section€5„Ð 4„ Ð525.2€of€the€Family€Law€Article€(ð ðFLðð),€which€provides:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ(a)€òòPetition€for€visitation€rightsóó.€„€AnyÐ Œ Ü! Ðsiblings€who€are€separated€due€to€a€fosterÏcare€or€adoptive€placement€may€petition€aÏcourt,€including€a€juvenile€court€withÏjurisdiction€over€one€or€more€of€the€siblings,Ïfor€reasonable€sibling€visitation€rights.€€€ÌÌ(b)€òòRole€of€courtóó.€„€If€a€petitioner€underÐ l&¼!( Ðthis€section€petitions€a€court€to€issue€aÏvisitation€decree€or€to€amend€an€order,€theÏcourt:ÌÌà ¸ à(1)€may€hold€a€hearing€to€determineÏwhether€visitation€is€in€the€best€interest€ofÏthe€children;Ð L,œ'/ Їà ¸ à(2)€shall€weigh€the€relative€interest€ofÏeach€child€and€base€its€decision€on€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€children€promoting€theÏgreatest€welfare€and€least€harm€to€theÏchildren;€andÌÌà ¸ à(3)€may€issue€an€appropriate€order€orÏdecree.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓTamara€contends€that€section€5„525.2€confers€jurisdiction€upon€theÏjuvenile€court€in€this€instance.€€Mr.€R.,€on€the€other€hand,Ïcontends€that€ð ða€much€sounder€interpretation€of€the€statute€wouldÏdeem€that€it€is€designed€to€'provide€a€mechanism€for€interestedÏnon„[party]€siblings€who€have€a€sibling€under€the€jurisdiction€ofÏthe€[j]uvenile€[c]ourt€.€.€.€to€file€in€that€childððs€CINA€case€andÏask€the€court€to€give€them€visitation.'ðð€€Ìà  àThe€cardinal€rule€in€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertainÏand€carry€out€the€true€intention€of€the€legislature.€€òòSee€Hyle€v.Ð –æ ÐMotor€Vehicle€Admin.óó,€348€Md.€143,€148€(1997).€€In€determiningÐ Nž Ðlegislative€intention,€we€look€to€the€general€purpose,€aim,€orÏpolicy€behind€the€statute.€€òòSee€Condonóó€òòv.€Univ.€of€Marylandóó,€332Ð ² ÐMd.€481,€491€(1993).€€Ordinarily,€we€look€to€the€words€of€theÏstatute€to€determine€its€intent.€€òòSee€Gordon€Family€¢P'ship£€v.€GarÐ "f# Ðon€Jeróó,€348€Md.€129,€137€(1997).€€ð ðOn€the€other€hand,€while€theÐ Î#% Ðlanguage€of€the€statute€is€the€primary€source€for€determining€theÏlegislative€intention,€the€plain€meaning€rule€of€construction€isÏnot€absolute;€rather,€the€statute€must€be€construed€reasonably€withÏreference€to€the€purpose,€aim,€or€policy€of€the€enacting€body.ðð€ÏòòTracey€v.€Traceyóó,€328€Md.€380,€387€(1992).€€Indeed,€a€statuteððsÐ 6,†'/ Ðpurpose€ð ðððis€a€more€important€aid€to€the€meaning€than€any€ruleÏwhich€grammar€or€formal€logic€may€lay€down.ðððð€€òòKaczorowski€v.€Ð \¬ ÐBaltimoreóó,€309€Md.€505,€514€(1987)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.Ð d ÐWhitridgeóó,€197€U.S.€135,€143,€25€S.€Ct.€406,€408€(1905)).€€We€willÐ Ì  Ðnot€interpret€a€statute€in€isolation;€but€rather,€we€will€look€toÏthe€statutory€scheme€as€a€whole€because€legislative€intention€ð ðisÏto€be€discerned€by€considering€[a€statute]€in€light€of€theÏstatutory€scheme.ðð€€òòGEICO€v.€Ins.€¢Commððr£óó,€332€Md.€124,€132€(1993).€Ð ˆØ  ÐIn€this€instance,€we€find€that€the€plain€language€and€the€statutoryÏpurpose€are€consistent,€and€that€both€support€Tamaraððs€positionÏthat€the€juvenile€court€has€jurisdiction€to€consider€her€petitionÏfor€visitation€with€her€siblings.€Ìà  àSection€5„525.2€gives€a€juvenile€court€jurisdiction€to€decideÏvisitation€rights€with€siblings€who€are€separated€if€it€hasÏjurisdiction€ð ðover€one€or€more€of€the€siblings.ðð€€Here,€theÏjuvenile€court€had€jurisdiction€over€Tamara.€€A€plain€reading€ofÏthe€statute€causes€us€to€reject€the€limitation€requested€byÏappellee€ð"ð€that€the€court€must€have€jurisdiction€over€the€siblingÏbeing€visited,€rather€than€the€sibling€petitioning€for€visitation.€ÏHad€the€legislature€intended€to€so€limit€jurisdiction,€it€wouldÏhave€placed€the€words€ð ðwith€the€sibling€or€siblings€adjudicatedÏCINAðð€at€the€end€of€subpart€(a)€of€section€5„525.2,€following€ð ðforÏreasonable€sibling€visitation€rights.ðð€€In€the€absence€of€suchÏlanguage,€the€plain€meaning€of€the€words€is€that€siblings€who€areÐ T+¤&. Ðseparated€by€foster€care€or€adoptive€placement€may€petition€forÏvisitation€with€each€other,€regardless€of€whether€they€have€allÏbeen€adjudicated€CINA.Ìà  àAppellee€argues€that€the€legislative€history€reported€in€theÐ ´  ÐòòSessionóó€òòReviewóó,€a€summary€of€the€legislative€session€prepared€byÐ ` ° Ðthe€Department€of€Legislative€Reference,€supports€its€view€that€inÏorder€for€the€juvenile€court€to€order€that€a€child€be€visitedÏwithout€the€child€requesting€it,€the€court€must€have€adjudicatedÏthe€child€a€CINA.€He€relies€on€the€italicized€language€in€theÏfollowing€excerpt€from€the€òòSessionóó€òòReviewóó:Ð È ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓà ¸ àUnder€current€law,€an€equity€court€hasÏbroad€authority€to€grant€visitation€rights€toÏany€person€in€an€appropriate€case.€€There€isÏapparently€some€confusion€as€to€whether€thisÏauthority€extends€to€[the]€juvenile€court.€ÏThis€bill€is€intended€to€clarify€that€òòwhen€aÐ ®þ Ðjuvenile€court€has€jurisdiction€over€childrenóó,Ð ŠÚ Ðthe€court€may€grant€reasonable€siblingÏvisitation€rights€if€it€is€in€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€children.ÌÌÒ°` /AÒÒ°` =AÒÓKAÓDepartment€of€Legislative€Reference,€òòLegislative€Session€Reviewóó,Ð ¾ Ð1994,€p.€211€(emphasis€added).€€We€do€not€read€the€òòSession€ReviewóóÐ v Æ! Ðin€the€same€manner€as€appellant.€€€The€òòSession€Reviewóó€simply€makesÐ ."~# Ða€general€statement€referring€to€ð ðchildrenðð€under€the€courtððsÏjurisdiction,€and€makes€no€particular€comment€on€whether€all€of€theÏchildren€must€be€adjudicated€CINA€before€the€court€can€entertain€aÏvisitation€order.€€We€do€not€see€the€language€in€the€òòSession€ReviewóóÐ ê(:$+ Ðas€inconsistent€with€the€clear€language€of€section€5„525.2,Ïallowing€such€visitation€when€there€is€jurisdiction€over€ð ðone€orÐ N,ž'/ Ðmore€of€the€siblings.ðð€Ìà  àMr.€R.€further€argues€that€interpreting€section€5„525.2€toÏconfer€jurisdiction€in€this€case€is€inconsistent€with€the€statuteÏconferring€general€jurisdiction€for€juvenile€courts.€€Relying€onÏMd.€Code€(1974,€1998€Repl.€Vol.),€section€3„804€of€the€Courts€&ÏJudicial€Proceedings€Article€("¢CJ£"),€he€contends€that€under€sectionÏ3„804,€the€only€way€a€juvenile€court€can€obtain€jurisdiction€is€byÏa€petition€asking€the€court€to€adjudicate€the€child€as€delinquent,Ïin€need€of€supervision,€or€in€need€of€assistance.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€thereÐ `  Ðhas€been€no€such€petition€with€respect€to€Mary€and€Jonathan,€heÏcontends,€the€juvenile€court€does€not€have€the€jurisdiction€to€Ïsubject€them€to€a€visitation€order.€€Ìà  àMr.€R.ððs€approach€takes€an€unduly€narrow€view€of€a€juvenileÐ À Ðcourtððs€role€with€respect€to€the€family€once€it€has€acquiredÏjurisdiction€over€a€CINA€child,€and€ignores€the€traditional€role€ofÏchildren€in€a€custody€or€visitation€proceeding.€€In€a€family€lawÏproceeding€that€does€not€involve€a€CINA,€the€children€are€notÏrequired€to€be€parties€when€custody€or€visitation€is€decided.€òò€SeeÐ ` ° ÐAuclair€v.€Auclairóó,€127€Md.€App.€1,€13€(1999).€€The€court€mustÐ  h  Ðfocus€on€the€best€interests€of€the€children.€€Unless€a€guardian€òòadÐ Ð  Ðlitemóó€is€appointed,€the€childrenððs€interests€are€presumed€to€beÐ ˆØ  Ðrepresented€by€their€respective€parents.€€òòSee€Smith€v.€Org.€ofÐ @  ÐFoster€Families€For€Equity€&€Reformóó,€431€U.S.€816,€841,€n.44,€97€S.Ð øH ÐCt.€2094,€2108€n.44€(1977)(ð ð[childrenððs]€interest€is€ordinarilyÏrepresented€in€litigation€by€parents€or€guardiansðð).€€TheÏchildrenððs€status€should€be€no€different€when€a€juvenile€court€isÏgiven€jurisdiction€to€decide€a€visitation€matter€concerning€a€childÏadjudicated€a€CINA.€€In€a€CINA€proceeding,€the€CINAððs€parent€is€aÏparty.€òò€Seeóó€CJ€ðð€3„801(r)€(the€definition€of€ð ðpartyðð€includes€theÐ  \ Ðchildððs€parent).€€As€the€parent€of€Jonathan€and€Mary,€Mr.€R.€was€inÏa€position€to€advance€any€arguments€that€the€visitation€with€TamaraÏwas€not€in€their€best€interests.€€There€is€no€requirement€in€theÏstatute€or€otherwise€in€law€that€Jonathan€and€Mary€be€adjudicatedÏCINA€before€the€juvenile€court€can€issue€an€order€directing€theirÏfather€to€allow€visitation€with€them.€Ìà  à€Mr.€R.€argues€that€because€his€wife€(ð ðMrs.€R.ðð),€TamaraððsÏstep„mother€and€the€mother€of€Mary,€is€not€permitted€to€be€a€partyÐ x+È&. Ðto€a€juvenile€court€proceeding,€the€question€of€visitation€shouldÏbe€decided€by€an€equity€court,€which€would€permit€her€intervention.€ÏThis€contention€misses€the€mark.€€šMrs.€R.,€as€Mary's€parent,€has€aÏconstitutionally€protected€interest€in€the€issue€of€whether€or€notÏvisitation€with€Mary€is€permitted,€and€on€what€terms.€òò€See€TroxelÐ ` ° Ðv.€Granville,óó€530€U.S.€57,€120€S.€Ct.€2054,€2062€(2000).€€Thus,€sheÐ  h  Ðhas€a€right€to€intervene€in€the€proceedings.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€reÐ Ð  ÐAdoption/Guardianship€No.€6Z970003óó,€127€Md.€App.€33,€50€(1999),Ð ˆØ  Ðòòoverruled€inóó€òòpart€on€other€groundsóó,€òòIn€re€Adoption/Guardianship€No.Ð @  ТT97036005£,€óó358€Md.€1€(2000)€(child€has€right€to€due€process€hearingÐ øH Ðin€proceeding€to€terminate€his€parentððs€rights€because€he€hasÏconstitutional€liberty€interest€in€relationship€with€parent);€Md.ÏRule€2„214(a)(intervention€of€right).€€In€fact,€Mrs.€R.€is€aÏnecessary€party€with€respect€to€any€order€addressing€visitationÏwith€Mary.€€òòSee€Fairbanks€v.€McCarteróó,€330€Md.€39,€45€(1993)׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×;€Md.Ð `° ÐRule€2„211(a)€(required€joinder€of€parties).Ìà  àThe€authority€of€the€juvenile€court€to€issue€an€orderÏð ðdirecting,€restraining,€or€otherwise€controlling€the€conduct€of€aÏperson€who€is€properly€before€the€courtðð€is€set€forth€in€¢CJ£€Ïsection€3„827.€€The€juvenile€court€has€such€authority€if€it€finds,Ð È$ & Ðòòinter€aliaóó,€that€the€order€ð ðwill€assist€in€the€rehabilitation€of€orÐ t&Ä!( Ðis€necessary€for€the€welfare€of€the€child.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€ðð€3„Ð ° Ð827(1)(iii).€€We€reject€Mr.€R.ððs€argument€that€Mrs.€R.€could€not€beÏa€person€ð ðproperly€before€the€court,ðð€because€we€think€that€FamilyÏLaw€section€2„525.2,€and€her€interest€in€the€subject€matter€ofÏvisitation€with€her€daughter€qualify€her€for€that€status,€providedÏthat€she€is€properly€served€or€she€voluntarily€appears€in€the€case.€Ì€à  àThe€limitation€urged€by€Mr.€R.€on€the€jurisdiction€of€theÐ Ä  Ðjuvenile€court€in€matters€of€sibling€visitation€would€diminish€theÏability€of€the€juvenile€court€to€grant€full€protection€and€servicesÏto€a€CINA€child,€and€is€not€justified€by€any€provision€in€theÏJuvenile€Causes€subtitle.€€òòSeeóó€¢CJ£€ðð€3„801,€òòet€seq.óó€€The€JuvenileÐ tÄ ÐCauses€subtitle,€by€its€terms,€€ð ðshall€be€liberally€construed€toÏeffectuate€[its]€purposes.ðð€€CJ€ðð€3„802(b).š€€Under€section€3„¼820(c)(1),€ð ðin€making€a€disposition€on€a€petition,€the€[juvenileÏcourt]€may€.€.€.€order€the€child,€parents,€guardian€or€custodian€ofÏthe€child€to€participate€in€rehabilitative€services€that€are€in€theÏbest€interest€of€the€child€and€the€family."€€Clearly,€the€juvenileÏcourt€is€directed€to€consider€the€best€interests€of€both€the€childÏadjudicated€a€CINA,€as€well€as€the€other€children€in€the€family.€ÏThe€specific€delineation€of€authority€for€the€juvenile€court€toÏaward€visitation€with€siblings€added€by€the€1994€enactment€ofÏsection€5„525.2€of€the€Family€Law€Article€is€consistent€withÏsection€3„820(c)(1)€of€the€Courts€and€Judicial€Proceedings€ArticlešÏgoverning€remedial€services€in€the€best€interest€of€the€entireÐ <+Œ&. Ðfamily.€€It€is€also€consistent€with€section€5„313(c)(2)(iii)€of€theÏFamily€Law€Article,€which€provides€that€in€terminating€parentalÏrights,€the€court€must€make€findings€on€several€enumerated€factors,Ïincluding€ð ðthe€childððs€feelings€toward€and€emotional€ties€with€.€.Ï.€the€childððs€siblings.ðð€Ìà  àFor€the€above€reasons,€we€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏholding€that€it€did€not,€sitting€as€a€juvenile€court,€haveÏjurisdiction€to€consider€Tamaraððs€petition€to€visit€with€herÏsiblings€who€remained€within€the€custody€and€control€of€her€father,ÏMr.€R.ÌÓ  Óò òÓÓB.ó óÐ h¸ Ѐò òMr.€R.ððs€Constitutional€Rights€As€A€Parentó óÐ Lœ ÐÌÓS`ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€trial€court€also€concluded€that,€even€if€it€hadÏjurisdiction,€it€would€be€improper€to€exercise€it€because€ð ðthere€isÏno€justification€legally€to€court€order€and€force€the€visitation€ofÏminor€children€who€are€in€the€custody€of€a€parent€who€is€presumedÏto€be€raising€them€in€the€manner€in€which€he€sees€fit.ðð€€WeÏinterpret€the€courtððs€ruling€to€be€addressing€Mr.€R.ððsÏconstitutional€rights€as€a€parent,€and€Mr.€R.,€who€agrees€with€thisÏinterpretation,€urges€that€we€affirm€the€trial€court€on€thisÏalternative€ground.€€Ìà  àWe€cannot€evaluate€this€issue€without€examining€the€SupremeÏCourtððs€recent€decision€in€òòTroxel€v.€Granvilleóó,€530€U.S.€57,€120€S.Ð ¾($+ ÐCt.€2054€(2000).€€òòTroxelóó€involved€the€constitutionality€of€court„Ð v*Æ%- Ðordered€grandparent€visitation€with€grandchildren,€and€heldÐ .,~'/ Ðunconstitutional€a€ð ðbreathtakingly€broadðð€Washington€statute€whichÏallowed€ð ðany€person€[to]€petition€the€court€for€visitation€rightsÏat€any€time,ðð€and€premised€resolution€of€such€petitions€upon€ð ðtheÏbest€interest€of€the€child.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€2061.€€The€courtððs€rationaleÐ ´  Ðin€that€decision,€enunciated€by€a€plurality€opinion€written€byÏJustice€OððConnor,€raises,€but€does€not€resolve,€questions€aboutÏcourt„ordered€visitation€with€a€minor€child€by€a€sibling.€ÏAlthough,€as€we€discuss€òòinfraóó,€sibling€visitation€raises€someÐ pÀ  Ðdifferent€concerns€from€grandparent€visitation,€the€concernsÏregarding€a€parentððs€constitutional€rights€to€make€decisionsÏregarding€his€or€her€children€are€common€to€both.Ìà  àThe€òòTroxelóó€Court€reviewed€extensive€precedent€regardingÐ ,| Ðparental€rights€and€concluded€that€ð ðthe€Due€Process€Clause€of€theÏFourteenth€Amendment€protects€the€fundamental€right€of€parents€toÏmake€decisions€concerning€the€care,€custody,€and€control€of€theirÏchildren.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€2060.€€Resting€on€this€principle,€the€CourtÐ è8 Ðfound€the€Washington€statute€unconstitutional,€assigning€severalÏreasons.€€First,€it€held€that€in€the€absence€of€an€allegation€thatÏGranville€was€an€unfit€parent,€the€presumption€that€fit€parents€actÏin€the€best€interests€of€their€children€must€be€applied.€òò€See€idóó.Ð ¤$ô& Ðat€2061.€€The€Court€further€explained€that€ð ð[t]he€problem€here€isÏnot€that€the€Washington€Superior€Court€intervened,€but€that€when€itÏdid€so,€it€gave€no€special€weight€at€all€to€GranvilleððsÏdetermination€of€her€daughtersðð€best€interests.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€2062.€Ð `+°&. ÐIndeed,€the€trial€court€ð ðapplied€exactly€the€opposite€presumption,ððÏòòid.óó,€placing€the€burden€on€the€parent€to€show€that€visitation€wouldÐ \¬ Ðhave€an€adverse€impact€on€the€children.€€Regarding€the€importanceÏof€the€parentððs€decision,€the€Court€said:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓIn€an€ideal€world,€parents€might€always€seekÏto€cultivate€the€bonds€between€grandparentsÏand€their€grandchildren.€€Needless€to€say,Ïhowever,€our€world€is€far€from€perfect,€and€inÏit€the€decision€whether€such€anÏintergenerational€relationship€would€beÏbeneficial€in€any€specific€case€is€for€theÏparent€to€make€in€the€first€instance.€€And,€ifÏa€fit€parentððs€decision€of€the€kind€at€issueÏhere€becomes€subject€to€judicial€review,€theÏcourt€must€accord€at€least€some€special€weightÏto€the€parentððs€own€determination.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€€Ð Jš Ðà  àThe€Supreme€Court€also€found€significant€that€there€was€noÏallegation€that€Granville€ever€sought€to€cut€off€visitationÏentirely.€€Rather,€Granville€only€sought€to€restrict€grandparentÏvisitation€to€one€short€visit€per€month€and€special€holidays.€ÏExamining€the€facts€of€the€case,€the€Court€found€that€the€trialÏcourtððs€order€ð ðwas€not€founded€on€any€special€factors€that€mightÏjustify€the€Stateððs€interference€with€Granvilleððs€fundamental€rightÏto€make€decisions€concerning€the€rearing€of€her€two€daughters.ðð€òòÐ ¶#% ÐIdóó.€at€2061.€€It€observed€that€the€trial€courtÐ b%² ' ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓmade€only€two€formal€findings€in€support€ofÏits€visitation€order.€€First,€the€Troxels€ððareÏpart€of€a€large,€central,€loving€family,€allÏlocated€in€this€area,€and€the€[Troxels]€canÏprovide€opportunities€for€the€children€in€theÏareas€of€cousins€and€music.ðð€Second,€ððtheÏchildren€would€be€benefitted€from€spendingÐ ,n'/ Ðquality€time€with€the€[Troxels],€provided€thatÏtime€is€balanced€with€time€with€the€childrensððÏ[sic]€nuclear€family.ðð€These€slender€findings,Ïin€combination€with€the€courtððs€announcedÏpresumption€in€favor€of€grandparent€visitationÏand€its€failure€to€accord€significant€weightÏto€Granvilleððs€already€having€offeredÏmeaningful€visitation€to€the€¢Troxels£,€showÏthat€this€case€involves€nothing€more€than€aÏsimple€disagreement€between€the€[trial€court]Ïand€Granville€concerning€her€childrenððs€bestÏinterests.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€at€2063.€Ð ŽÞ  Ðà  àThe€Supreme€Court€signaled€that€its€decision€might€have€beenÏdifferent€had€either€the€statute€or€decisional€law€requiredÏsomething€more€than€a€mere€disagreement€between€the€parent€and€theÏcourt€about€what€was€better€for€the€child:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ[T]he€Due€Process€Clause€does€not€permit€aÏState€to€infringe€on€the€fundamental€right€ofÏparents€to€make€childrearing€decisions€simplyÏbecause€a€state€judge€believes€a€ððbetterððÏdecision€could€be€made.€€Neither€theÏWashington€nonparental€visitation€statuteÏgenerally€ð"ð€which€places€no€limits€on€eitherÏthe€persons€who€may€petition€for€visitation€orÏthe€circumstances€in€which€such€a€petition€mayÏbe€granted€ð"ð€nor€the€[trial€court]€in€thisÏspecific€case€required€anything€more.ÏAccordingly,€we€hold€[the€Washington€statute],Ïas€applied€in€this€case,€is€unconstitutional.€ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€2063„64.€€It€also€did€not,€and€considered€that€it€ð ðneed€not,Ð ª#ú% Ðdefine€.€.€.€the€precise€scope€of€the€parental€due€process€right€inÏthe€visitation€context.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€2064.Ð '^") Ðà  àSignificantly€for€our€decision€in€this€case,€the€Supreme€CourtÏdeclined€to€decide€that€all€non„parental€visitation€statutes€areÏunconstitutional€on€their€face.€€Instead,€the€plurality€opinionÐ ,n'/ Ðcautiously€stated:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓWe€agree€with€Justice€Kennedy[׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×]€that€theÐ \¬ Ðconstitutionality€of€any€standard€for€awardingÏvisitation€turns€on€the€specific€manner€inÏwhich€that€standard€is€applied€.€.€.€.€BecauseÏmuch€state„court€adjudication€in€this€contextÏoccurs€on€a€case„by„case€basis,€we€would€beÏhesitant€to€hold€that€specific€nonparentalÏvisitation€statutes€violate€the€Due€ProcessÏClause€as€a€òòper€seóó€matter.€€òòSee,óó€òòe.g.,óóÐ  \  ÐòòFairbanks€v.€McCarteróó,€330€Md.€39,€49„50Ð è 8  Ð(1993).ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€2064.€€We€read€the€opinion€to€say€that€if€there€areÐ pÀ  Ðsufficient€standards€for€courts€to€apply€in€evaluating€a€non„¼parentððs€claim€for€visitation,€and€if€those€standards€includeÏsufficient€deference€to€the€parentððs€determination,€non„parentalÏvisitation€statutes€may€be€constitutional.€€The€standards€set€byÏour€Court€of€Appeals€for€non„parental€visitation€are€found€inÏòòFairbanksóó,€cited€in€òòTroxel.€€óóWe€turn€next€to€examine€the€òòFairbanksóóÐ „Ô Ðstandards€in€light€of€òòTroxelóó.Ð <Œ Ðà  àòòFairbanksóó,€like€òòTroxelóó,€involved€grandparent€visitation.€Ð ôD ÐUnder€Marylandððs€original€grandparent€visitation€statute€that€theÐ ¬ü  ÐòòFairbanksóó€Court€construed,€Maryland€Code€(1984,€1991€Repl.€Vol.),Ð X!¨" Ðsection€9„102€of€the€Family€Law€Article,€a€Maryland€court€couldÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓ(1)€consider€a€petition€for€reasonableÏvisitation€by€a€grandparent€of€a€natural€orÏadopted€child€of€the€parties€whose€marriageÏhas€been€terminated;€and€ÌÌ(2)€if€the€court€finds€it€to€be€in€the€bestÐ ê(:$+ Ðinterests€of€the€child,€grant€visitationÏrights€to€the€grandparent.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð †Ö ÐÌÓ÷€ÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒThe€Court€of€Appeals€enumerated€factors€that€a€trial€court€should€Ïconsider€in€deciding€what€constitutes€the€best€interests€of€theÏchild:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓAs€a€general€proposition,€visitation€awardedÏto€adults€is€not€for€their€gratification€orÏenjoyment,€but€to€fulfill€the€needs€of€theÏchild.€€The€trial€court€must€concern€itselfÏsolely€with€the€welfare€and€prospects€of€theÏchild.€€In€so€doing,€the€court€should€assessÏin€their€totality€all€relevant€factors€andÏcircumstances€pertaining€to€the€grandchildððsÏbest€interests.€€These€would€include,€but€notÏbe€limited€to:€the€nature€and€stability€of€theÏchildððs€relationships€with€its€parents;€theÏnature€and€substantiality€of€the€relationshipÏbetween€the€child€and€the€grandparent,€takingÏinto€account€frequency€of€contact,€regularityÏof€contact,€and€amount€of€time€spent€together,Ïthe€potential€benefits€and€detriments€to€theÏchild€in€granting€the€visitation€order;€theÏeffect,€if€any,€¢grandparental£€visitation€wouldÏhave€on€the€childððs€attachment€to€its€nuclearÏfamily;€the€physical€and€emotional€health€ofÏthe€adults€involved;€and€the€stability€of€theÏchildððs€living€and€schooling€arrangement.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòId.óó€at€49„50€(citations€omitted).Ð pÀ  Ðà  àThe€Supreme€Courtððs€citation€of€òòFairbanksóó€as€an€example€ofÐ (!x" Ðð ðstate„court€adjudication€[occurring]€on€a€case„by„case€basisðð€thatÏmight€be€acceptable,€suggests€to€us€that€the€above€factors€might€beÏsufficient€to€remove€òòFairbanksóó€from€the€category€of€cases€whoseÐ 8&ˆ!( Ðdisposition€rests€on€ð ða€simple€disagreement€between€the€[trialÐ ð'@#* Ðcourt]€and€[the€parent]€concerning€[the€childððs]€best€interests.ððÐ ° ÐòòTroxelóó,€120€S.€Ct.€at€2063.€€òòTroxelóó€does€seem€to€require,€however,Ð \¬ Ðthat€we€superimpose€upon€these€factors€some€deference€to€theÏparentððs€determination€of€what€is€in€the€childððs€best€interest.€ÏThe€best€way€to€do€this,€we€believe,€is€to€apply€a€presumption€thatÏthe€parentððs€decision€to€decline€visitation€is€in€the€best€interestÏof€the€child€over€whom€the€parent€has€custody,€and€to€place€theÏburden€on€the€non„parent€seeking€visitation€to€rebut€thatÏpresumption.€€This€presumption€would€be€similar€to€the€one€weÏapplied€in€determining€a€visitation€schedule.€€In€òòWolinski€v.Ð È ÐBrowneller,óó€115€Md.€App.€285€(1997),€Judge€Davis,€writing€for€thisÐ €Ð ÐCourt,€held€that€aÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓparentððs€proposed€schedule€of€visitation€isÏentitled€to€a€presumption€that€it€is€in€theÏbest€interests€of€the€child.€.€.€.€[P]roperÏregard€for€a€parentððs€constitutional€rightsÏrequires€that€the€burden€to€produce€testimonyÏor€other€evidence€discrediting€a€parentððsÏproposed€visitation€schedule€be€placed€uponÏthe€grandparents€who€petition€for€vestedÏvisitation€rights.€€Simply€to€ignore€aÏparentððs€wishes€regarding€the€time€his€or€herÏchild€should€spend€outside€the€family€home,Ïand€outside€of€his€or€her€immediate€care€andÏcustody,€is€to€trample€improperly€on€theÏparentððs€liberty€interest€in€directing€theÏupbringing€of€his€or€her€child.€€Nevertheless,Ïin€light€of€the€Stateððs€compelling€interest€inÏprotecting€the€childððs€welfare€and€the€Ïminimal€severity€of€the€intrusion€uponÏparental€rights,€the€presumption€in€favor€ofÏappellantððs€schedule€may€be€rebutted€byÏaffirmative€evidence€that€the€schedule€wouldÏbe€detrimental€to€the€childððs€best€interests.€Ì€ÌÓ׌ÓÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòId.óó€at€319.Ð ,n'/ Ðà  àIn€òòWolinskióó,€the€parent€conceded€that€the€decision€whether€toÐ ° Ðvisit€did€not€require€a€presumption€in€favor€of€the€parent,€butÏinstead€sought€only€a€presumption€in€favor€of€the€parentððs€proposedÏschedule€of€visitation.€€òòId.óó€at€317„18.€€In€the€instant€case,€noÐ À  Ðsimilar€concession€has€been€made,€and€thus€we€are€faced€with€theÏissue€of€whether€Mr.€R.ððs€opposition€to€visitation€is€entitled€toÏa€presumption€that€denial€of€visitation€is€in€the€best€interests€ofÏthe€childrenñ¯ñ€over€whom€he€ñ¯ññ°ññ¯ñañ¯ññ°ññ±ñhas€custodyñ±ñ.€€We€think€òòTroxelóó€compels€theÐ |Ì  Ðcourt€to€apply€a€¢rebuttable£€presumption€in€favor€of€parents€whoÏoppose€a€non„parentððs€petition€for€visitation€with€theirñ²ñ€custodialñ²ñÏchildren.€€òòSee€¢Troxel£,€óó120€S.€Ct.€at€2063„64.€€By€deciding€that€Mr.Ð ŒÜ ÐR.ððs€constitutional€rights€were€violated€without€considering€theÏevidence€other€than€Mr.€R.ððs€opposition€to€visitation,€the€trialÏcourt€effectively€created€an€irrebuttable€presumption€thatÏvisitation€was€not€in€the€best€interests€of€the€children.€€In€doingÏso,€it€erred.€€If€there€was€sufficient€evidence€to€rebut€theÏpresumption€that€visitation€was€in€the€childrenððs€best€interests,Ïthen€we€must€reverse€and€remand€for€the€court€to€consider€thatÏevidence€in€making€its€determination.€Ìà  àBefore€we€review€the€evidenceñ³ñ€in€our€caseñ³ñ,€we€must€return€to€òòTroxelóó,€toÐ ¤$ô& Ðconsider€an€issue€raised,€but€not€answered,€by€the€Supreme€Court.€ÏThere,€the€Washington€Supreme€Court€held€the€Washington€grandparentÏvisitation€statute€unconstitutional,€òòinter€aliaóó,€because€theÐ ´)%, Ðð ðConstitution€permits€a€State€to€interfere€with€the€right€ofÐ l+¼&. Ðparents€to€rear€their€children€only€to€prevent€harm€or€potentialÏharm€to€a€child.ðð€€òòTroxel,€óó120€S.€Ct.€at€2058.€€The€Supreme€Court,Ð \¬ Ðhowever,€explicitly€refused€to€consider€the€question€of€ð ðwhetherÏthe€Due€Process€Clause€requires€all€¢nonparental£€visitation€statutesÏto€include€a€showing€of€harm€or€potential€harm€to€the€child€as€aÏcondition€precedent€to€granting€visitation.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€2064.€€TheÐ  h  ÐòòTroxelóó€Court€was€referring€to€harm€to€the€child€being€visited,€whoÐ Ð  Ðwas€a€child€in€the€custody€and€care€of€the€parent€who€opposedÏvisitation€by€the€non„parent.€€Our€picture€is€more€complex,€forÏhere€we€are€addressing€harm€and€benefit€to€two€categories€ofÏchildren€ð"ð€the€child€seeking€visitation,€and€the€children€she€wouldÏlike€to€visit.€€We€do€not€need€to€address€the€exact€question€leftÏunanswered€by€the€Supreme€Court,€because,€as€we€shall€explain,€Ïthere€is€sufficient€evidence€of€harm€to€Tamara€from€the€denial€ofÏvisitation.€€We€do,€however,€face€the€question€of€whether€potentialÏharm€must€be€shown€to€both€children€in€order€to€override€a€parentalÏopposition€to€sibling€visitation.€€We€conclude€that€the€StateððsÏinterest€in€the€protection€of€a€minor€child€who€has€been€removedÏfrom€her€parentððs€care€is€sufficiently€compelling€to€justify€over„¼riding€her€parentððs€opposition€to€visitation€with€her€sibling,€ifÏthere€is€evidence€that€denial€of€sibling€visitation€would€harm€theÏminor€child€who€is€separated€from€her€family;€it€is€not€necessaryÏthat€denial€of€visitation€also€would€harm€the€siblings€whom€the€ñ´ñsñ´ññµñÏñµññ¶ñsñ¶ññ·ñeñ·ññµñ¢ñµññ¶ñeñ¶ñparatedñµñ£ñµñ€child€seeks€to€visit.€€òòCompareóó€òòIn€ReÐ H+˜&. ÐAdoption/Guardianship€No.€93321055/CADóó,€344€Md.€458,€492„493,€495Ð ° Ð(1997)€(state€has€compelling€interest€in€securing€physical€andÏemotional€sustenance€for€children€who€are€in€state€custody€becauseÏof€parentððs€ñ¸ñor€parents'€ñ¸ñinability€or€unwillingness€to€care€forÏthem),€òòwith€óó€òòBrice€v.€Briceóó,€133€Md.€App.€302,€309„10Ð l ¼ Ð(2000)(denying€court„ordered€grandparent€visitation€based€on€òòTroxelóóÐ $ t  Ðwhen€custodial€mother€approved€schedule€of€visitation€without€courtÏorder€and€no€harm€to€child€shown).€Ìà  àTo€evaluate€the€nature€of€the€injury€to€Tamara€from€denial€ofÏvisitation€with€her€siblings,€we€first€consider€the€importance€ofÏthe€sibling€relationship€and€sibling€visitation.€€Maryland€courtsÏhave€not€specifically€addressed€the€issue€of€sibling€visitation.€ÏCourts€in€other€jurisdictions,€however,€have€recognized€thatÏsibling€visitation€may€be€beneficial€and€in€the€best€interest€of€aÏchild.€€In€òòL.€v.€G.óó,€497€A.2d€215€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€Ch.€Div.€1985),Ð <Œ Ðemancipated€siblings€of€two€minors€petitioned€the€court€forÏvisitation.€€At€the€time€they€filed€suit,€the€adult€siblings€wereÏonly€permitted€to€visit€the€minors€in€the€home€of€their€father€andÏstepmother.€€Although,€based€on€the€facts€of€the€case,€the€courtÏrefused€to€award€visitation€that€occurred€outside€of€the€fatherððsÏand€stepmotherððs€home,€it€did€recognize€the€strong€and€singularÏvalue€of€the€sibling€relationship.€€It€explained:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓSurely,€nothing€can€equal€or€replace€eitherÏthe€emotional€and€biological€bonds€which€existÏbetween€siblings,€or€the€memories€of€trialsÏand€tribulations€endured€together,€brotherlyÐ *,z'/ Ðor€sisterly€quarrels€and€reconciliations,€andÏthe€sharing€of€secrets,€fears€and€dreams.€€ToÐ *,z'/ Ðbe€able€to€establish€and€nurture€such€aÏrelationship€is,€without€question,€a€naturalÏand€inalienable€right€which€is€bestowed€uponÏone€merely€by€virtue€of€birth€into€the€sameÏfamily.ÌÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒòòId.óó€at€218.€€The€New€Jersey€court€went€on€to€conclude:Ð ´  ÐÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÌThe€relationship€between€a€child€and€his/herÏsiblings€is€a€significant€and€unique€one,€fromÏwhich€a€myriad€of€benefits€and€experiences€mayÏbe€derived.€€The€bonds€which€develop€betweenÏbrothers€and€sisters€are€strong€ones,€and€are,Ïin€most€cases,€irreplaceable.€.€.€.€Therefore,Ïthis€[c]ourt€finds€that€siblings€possess€theÏnatural,€inherent€and€inalienable€right€toÏvisit€with€each€other.Ì€ÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€at€222.Ð Â Ðà  àThe€benefits€from€a€continued€sibling€relationship€were€alsoÏrecognized€by€the€Supreme€Court€of€West€Virginia€in€òòHonaker€v.Ð &v ÐBurnsideóó,€388€S.E.2d€322€(¢W.Va£.€1989).€€In€òòHonakeróó,€a€childððsÐ Þ. Ðnatural€parents€had€divorced,€with€her€mother€having€custody€andÏthe€father€afforded€reasonable€visitation.€€The€mother€subsequentlyÏremarried€and€had€another€child€with€her€new€husband.€€After€theÏmother€was€killed€in€an€automobile€accident,€the€childððs€naturalÏfather€and€stepfather€each€sought€custody.€€The€court€ultimatelyÏawarded€custody€to€the€natural€father.€€Nevertheless,€the€courtÏheld€that€the€child€should€have€continued€visitation€with€her€half„¼brother.€€In€doing€so,€the€court€ruled€that€sibling€visitationÏwould€be€in€the€childððs€best€interest€because€taking€away€herÏcontact€with€her€half„brother€ð ðwould€be€detrimental€to€herÏstability€and€well„being,€as€well€as€to€[her€half„brotherððs].ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð N+ž&. Ðat€326.€òò€See€alsoóó€òòIn€the€Matter€of€Astonn€Hóó.,€635€¢N.Y.S.2d£€418,€424€Ð ° Ð(N.Y.€Fam.€Ct.€1995)(visitation€with€half„sibling€ordered).Ìà  àAlthough,€as€we€indicated,€Maryland€courts€have€not€yetÏaddressed€the€issue€of€sibling€visitation,€they€have€frequentlyÏexpressed€the€view€that€ð ð[o]rdinarily,€the€best€interests€andÏwelfare€of€the€children€of€the€same€parents€are€best€served€byÏkeeping€them€together€to€grow€up€as€brothers€and€sisters€under€theÏsame€roof.ðð€òò€¢Hild£€v.€Hildóó.€221€Md.€349,€359€(1960).€€òòSee€alsoóóÐ pÀ  ÐòòMelton€v.€Connolly,€óó219€Md.€184,€190€(1959);€òòRoussey€v.€Rousseyóó,Ð (x  Ð210€Md.€261,€264€(1956);€òòHadick€v.€Hadickóó,€90€Md.€App.€740,€748,Ð à0 Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€327€Md.€626€(1992).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€In€òòObey€v.€Deglingóó,€337€¢N.E.2d£Ð ˜è Ð601€(N.Y.€1975),€the€New€York€Court€of€Appeals€expressed€a€similarÏview€regarding€division€of€siblings:ÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °ÒÓÓYoung€brothers€and€sisters€need€each€otherððsÏstrengths€and€association€in€their€everydayÏand€often€common€experiences,€and€to€separateÏthem,€unnecessarily,€is€likely€to€be€traumaticÏand€harmful.€€The€importance€of€rearingÏbrothers€and€sisters€together,€and€therebyÏnourishing€their€familial€bonds,€is€alsoÏstrengthened€by€the€likelihood€that€theÏparents€will€pass€away€before€their€children.ÌÒ°` ͰÒÒ°` Û°ÒÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€771.€€òòSee€alsoóó€Note,€ð ðDo€Siblings€Possess€ConstitutionalÐ #T$ ÐRights?,ðð€78€Cornell€L.€Rev.€1187€(1993).Ìà  àSome€courts€have€considered€the€sibling€relationship€soÏimportant€that€they€have€held€the€right€to€associate€with€oneððsÏsibling€to€be€a€constitutional€right.€€In€òòRivera€v.€Marcusóó,€696€F.Ð ´  Ð2d€1016€(2d€Cir.€1982),€the€Second€Circuit€considered€Mrs.€RiveraððsÏclaim€that€her€due€process€rights€were€violated€when€the€stateÏremoved€her€half„brother€and€sister€from€her€custodial€care€as€aÏfoster€parent.€€Ruling€for€Mrs.€Rivera,€the€court€recognized€that,Ïalthough€foster€parents€usually€do€not€have€the€right€to€dueÏprocess€protection,€Mrs.€Riveraððs€status€as€the€half„sister€of€theÏminor€children,€along€with€her€history€of€caring€for€them€as€aÏsurrogate€mother€for€several€years,€accorded€her€ð ðan€importantÏliberty€interest€in€preserving€the€integrity€and€stability€of€herÏfamily.€.€.€.€Custodial€relatives€like€Mrs.€Rivera€are€entitled€toÏdue€process€protections€when€the€state€decides€to€remove€aÏdependent€relative€from€the€family€environment.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1024„25.Ð Ð  ÐThe€Second€Circuit€also€recognized€ð ðimportant€interests€that€[theÏchildren]€maintain€in€preserving€the€integrity€and€stability€ofÏtheir€extended€family.€€The€.€.€.€children€surely€possess€a€libertyÏinterest€in€maintaining,€free€from€arbitrary€state€interference,Ïthe€family€environment€that€they€have€known€since€birth.ðð€€òòId.óó€atÐ 8&ˆ!( Ð1026.Ìà  àIn€òòAristotle€P.€v.€Johnsonóó,€721€F.€Supp.€1002€(N.D.€Ill.€1989)Ð œ)ì$, Ðthe€plaintiffs€were€children€who€had€been€removed€from€their€homesÐ T+¤&. Ðand€were€under€the€guardianship€of€the€Illinois€Department€ofÏChildren€and€Family€Services€(ð ð¢DCFS£ðð),€whose€director€was€theÏdefendant.€€The€plaintiffs€challenged€the€defendantððs€ð ðpractices€ofÏplacing€siblings€in€separate€foster€homes€or€residential€facilitiesÏand€denying€the€plaintiffs€the€opportunity€to€visit€their€sistersÏand€brothers€who€are€placed€elsewhere.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1004.€€In€rulingÐ  \  Ðfor€the€plaintiffs,€the€court€found€ð ðthat€the€childrenððsÏrelationships€with€their€siblings€are€the€sort€of€ððintimate€humanÏrelationshipsðð€that€are€afforded€ðða€substantial€measure€ofÏsanctuary€from€unjustified€interference€by€the€State.ðððð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óó€atÐ È Ð1005€(quoting€òòRoberts€v.€United€States€Jayceesóó,€468€U.S.€609,€618,Ð €Ð Ð104€S.€Ct.€3244€(1984)).׃ð×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Other€decisions,€some€decided€beforeÐ 8ˆ ÐòòRobertsóó,€have€declined€to€hold€that€there€are€constitutionalÐ ° Ðgrounds€for€protecting€the€sibling€relationship.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòKen€R.Ð h¸ Ðv.€Arthur€Z.€and€Mary€Jane€Zóó.,€682€A.2d€1267,€1271€(Pa.€1996)Ð  p Ð(holding€that€under€Pennsylvania€statute,€sibling€had€no€standingÏto€sue€for€visitation€with€siblings,€and€rejecting€claim€thatÏsibling€relationship€was€constitutionally€protected,€butÏrecognizing€importance€of€relationship);€òò¢B.H.£€v.€Johnsonóó,€715€F.Ð Ü,  ÐSupp.€1387,€1397€(N.D.€Ill.€1989)(children€in€custody€of€socialÏservices€department€were€not€constitutionally€entitled€to€requireÏdepartment€to€make€efforts€to€ensure€sibling€visitation).€€à Ð àÐ ì< Ðà  àIt€is€not€necessary€for€us€to€decide,€however,€whether€to€takeÏthe€step€that€the€òòAristotleóó€òòP.óó€and€òòRivera€óócourts€did€in€finding€theÐ D” Ðsibling€relationship€deserving€of€constitutional€protection,€or€ifÏso,€to€what€extent.€€It€is€enough€for€our€purposes€that€weÐ ¨ø Ðrecognize€that€the€sibling€relationship€has€been€widely€recognizedÏas€an€important€one,€which€will€be€given€significant€considerationÏand€protection€by€courts€in€cases€involving€the€family.€ÏRecognizing€the€value€in€sibling€relationships€puts€in€perspectiveÏthe€importance€of€the€evidence€that€Tamara€would€be€harmed€by€theÏdenial€of€sibling€visitation.€€Ìà  àThe€evidence€reveals€that€Tamara€is€in€a€highly€vulnerable€andÏunfortunate€situation,€having€been€removed€from€her€family€becauseÏof€her€allegations€that€her€father€sexually€abused€her.€€RegardlessÏof€whether€the€alleged€sexual€abuse€occurred,€Tamaraððs€relationshipÏwith€her€father€is€so€full€of€conflict€as€to€require€theirÏseparation.€€Nor€does€she€have€a€relationship€with€her€mother,€whoÏapparently€has€been€absent€from€her€life€for€some€time.€€She€doesÏnot€have€a€positive€relationship€with€her€step„mother.€€HerÏrelationship€with€her€siblings€appears€to€be€the€only€stableÏfamilial€relationship€that€she€has.€€Reports€introduced€intoÏevidence€stated€that€Tamara€was€experiencing€ð ða€great€deal€ofÏanger,€sadness,€betrayal€and€confusion.ðð€€Her€absence€from€herÏbrothers€and€sister€ð ðfurther€contributed€to€her€feelings€ofÏdepression€and€isolation.ðð€€Her€therapist€recommended€that€ð ðitÏwould€be€to€Tamaraððs€therapeutic€benefit€to€have€regular€visitationÏwith€her€siblings;€the€regular€contact€with€them€would€provide€herÏwith€some€of€the€family€interaction€she€has€lost.€.€.€.ðð€€€Ìà  àGiven€the€importance€the€law€attaches€to€the€siblingÐ $+t&. Ðrelationship,€we€think€that€the€evidence€regarding€the€potentialÏfor€harm€to€Tamara€if€she€is€cut€off€from€visitation€with€herÏsiblings€could€be€sufficient€to€overcome€the€presumption€favoring€ÏMr.€R.ððs€determination€that€visitation€should€not€occur.€€TheÏjuvenile€court€did€not€reach€the€question€of€harm€to€Tamara,€andÏinstead,€held€that€it€had€no€jurisdiction€and€that€Mr.€R.ððsÏconstitutional€rights€precluded€Tamaraððs€claim.€€We€reverse€theÏjuvenile€court,€and€will€remand€the€case€for€a€determination€of€Ïthe€potential€for€harm€to€Tamara€if€the€sibling€relationship€is€notÏcontinued.€€Ìà  àTamaraððs€well„being€is€not€the€only€consideration.€€TheÏgeneral€impact€of€visitation€on€Jonathan€and€Mary€must€beÏconsidered,€including,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€impact€that€visitation€isÐ À Ðlikely€to€have€on€their€relationship€with€Mr.€R.€€The€impact€ofÏvisitation€on€Maryððs€relationship€with€her€mother€should€also€beÏconsidered.€€Mrs.€R.€should€be€a€party€to€these€proceedings€inÏorder€to€protect€her€parenting€interests.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€makingÐ |Ì  Ðappropriate€factual€findings,€the€trial€court€should€decide€whetherÏthe€evidence€of€potential€for€harm€to€Tamara€from€the€loss€of€aÏrelationship€with€her€siblings€is€sufficiently€strong€to€outweighÏthe€constitutionally€protected€interest€of€Mr.€R.€to€make€theÏdecision€against€such€visitation€with€his€other€children.€€Thus,Ð Ø'(#* Ðthe€court€ultimately€must€determine€whether€the€potential€harm€toÏTamara€overcomes€the€presumption€arising€from€Mr.€R.'sÏdetermination€that€visitation€is€not€in€the€best€interests€ofÏJonathan€and€Mary.€€In€order€to€do€so,€the€court€should€considerÏthe€nature€and€severity€of€the€harm€to€Tamara€if€visitation€isÏdenied,€as€well€as€Mr.€R.'s€reasons€for€denying€visitation.ÌÒÀ°ÒÓÓò òJUDGMENT€REVERSED€AND€CASE€REMANDEDÐ ¸  ÐFOR€FURTHER€PROCEEDINGS€CONSISTENTÏWITH€THIS€OPINION.ó ó€€ò òCOSTS€TO€BE€PAIDÐ €Ð  ÐBYó ó€ò òAPPELLEE.ó óÐ d´  ÐÒ°ÀÒÌÌ