By Allison Kruk Ormond, Esq
A recent case presented to the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) raises important questions about parental rights and when those rights can be limited because of harm to a child who identifies as LGBTQ.
The case highlights constitutional considerations in child custody cases and when those constitutional interests must yield to the best interests of the child. Specifically, it underscores how the Fourteenth Amendment’s fundamental due process protections and the First Amendment’s free exercise clause can arise in family law matters.
If you or someone you know is navigating a child custody dispute and have questions about your family’s rights, contact a child custody attorney near you today for a free consultation.
In the Matter of A.C.
On March 18, 2024, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) declined to hear an appeal filed by Indiana parents who lost custody of their transgender teenager.
The parents, Mary and Jeremy Cox, identified themselves as devout Christians and stated that for religious reasons, they would not accept their child’s transgender identity.
Eventually, the child developed a severe eating disorder; thoughts of self-harm; and suicidal ideation. However, the parents discontinued therapy for the child and refused to sign consent forms confirming that the child was receiving medical treatment for the eating disorder.
As a result, Indiana child protective services intervened and removed the child from the Coxes’ care.
The Coxes’ appealed the decision in state Court. However, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to place the child outside of the Coxes’ home and remove her from their custody. The appellate Court ruled that the decision did not infringe on the parents’ fundamental due process right to the care and custody of their child nor the parents’ right to freely practice their religion.
Following the state court’s determination, the Coxes filed a writ of certiori, asking the United States Supreme Court to intervene and take up the case. However, SCOTUS declined to do so.
Why SCOTUS May Have Denied the Writ of Certiori in A.C.
First, SCOTUS receives almost 7,000 cases each year. Of those, the Supreme Court hears only about 100 to 150 cases – or about 1.5% to 2%. Usually, SCOTUS will only take up cases when they would harmonize conflicting rulings in the lower courts; when they resolve undecided questions of constitutional law; or when they would otherwise have precedential value or national significance.
Here, the child was an adult by the time the petition for certiorari reached the Supreme Court. This means that the legal issue of custody was somewhat moot in that the child had passed the age of emancipation and was no longer subject to her parents’ custody as an adult.
Moreover, the legal question involved in A.C. appears similar to a question already answered by the Court back in 1944 in the seminal case of Prince v. Massachusetts.
In that case, a child’s guardian gave the child religious literature to distribute on a public street in violation of a state law. The guardian claimed that this was a denial of her and the child’s rights to freely practice their religion. She also argued that the statute violated her right to the child’s care and custody – specifically, her right to raise the child in the way that she chooses and in accordance with her faith.
The Court rejected these arguments, asserting that the state may act to guard its general “interest in the youth’s wellbeing”. The Court also ruled that the rights to religious liberty and the right to raise a child are “not beyond regulation in the public interest.” In other words, the state can impinge on a parent’s religious freedom where necessary to protect a child from some “clear and present danger.”
In the A.C. case, the “clear and present danger” was the child’s apparently untreated eating disorder and suicidal ideation.
In this way, the State of Indiana acted to remove the child from the Coxes’ home not because of their religious beliefs but because of the risk of harm presented to the child by the parents’ position regarding her mental health concerns. As in Prince, the Coxes’ parental rights are not unlimited and due process does not permit harm to a child to continue unchecked.
What Are The Constitutional Considerations in Custody and Parenting Time Disputes Between Co-Parents?
The constitutional considerations that arose in A.C. and in Prince can come up in child custody cases involving divorcing or separating parents.
As stated above, both parents in a custody dispute have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children. This liberty interest is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Furthermore, the State can only infringe on that liberty interest to protect the welfare of the minor children. This is sometimes called the State fulfilling its “parens patriae” responsibility.
Therefore, if the State limits a parent’s custodial rights, it must do so to protect the children from some sort of identifiable harm. Moreover, the limits on parental rights arguably should be closely tailored to address the identified harm to the child.
For instance, in domestic violence cases, a Final Restraining Order (FRO) may limit the abusive parent’s custodial rights to the child. However, given the fundamental liberty interest involved in being a biological parent, a Court Order restricting an abusive parent’s rights generally must be tailored to address any harm or danger to the child.
This means that FROs may include provisions for the Defendant to have supervised parenting time with the child or for the Defendant to re-petition for custody once they complete a mental health or psychological evaluation. Depending on the circumstances, the Court Order may also include provisions for joint legal custody but limit the Defendant’s visitation or contact with the child.
Again, the reason for provisions like these in a custody order is because of the fundamental liberty interest involved in being a child’s parent.
Schedule a Free Consultation on Parental Rights with A Child Custody Lawyer Near You
Numerous considerations (sometimes of a constitutional dimension) come into play when there is a Court Order for child custody. A family law attorney can help you navigate child custody laws and can offer invaluable strategic guidance in coming to a custody agreement or asking the Court to determine child custody.
Schedule a free consultation with Ormond Law’s child custody attorney and let our law firm offer you the dedicated legal representation you and your family need in your child custody case.