S.Ct. 2054), the Troxel plurality explained that “the decision whether [a grandparental] relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make in the first instance.” 530 U.S. at 70. “It is not within the province of the state to make [a different decision] concerning the custody of children merely because it could make a ‘better’ decision.” Troxel, 530 U.S. at 78, 120 S.Ct. 2054 (Souter, J., concurring; quoting In re Smith, 137 Wash.2d at 20, 969 P.2d at 31). In J.S., this court concluded: “ ‘The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child- rearing deci .2d 1225, 1228 (Ala.1990) (upholding mother’s decision regarding medical care in the absence of neglect or abuse); Ex parte Terry, 494 So.2d at 632 (<HOLDING>). That is not the case before us, however. As
holding that a parent has a right of custody by reason of that parents ne exeat right the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party recognizing strong presumption in favor of parents right to custody absent misconduct or neglect which renders the parent unfit recognizing rule 403s strong presumption in favor of admissibility recognizing a strong policy preference in favor of arbitration