Jarrett v. Jarrett

• Decision Date: 20 October 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-1735,79-1735
• Citation: 449 U.S. 927,66 L.Ed.2d 155,101 S.Ct. 329
• Parties: Jacqueline JARRETT v. Walter JARRETT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

449 U.S. 927

101 S.Ct. 329

66 L.Ed.2d 155

Jacqueline JARRETT

v Walter JARRETT

No. 79-1735

Supreme Court of the United States

October 20, 1980

Rehearing Denied Dec. 15, 1980.

See 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 797.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSHALL joins, dissenting.

This petition raises the significant question whether the State may deprive a divorced mother of the custody of her children through operation of a conclusive presumption that her cohabitation with an unmarried adult male constitutes custody not in the best interests of the children, however strong the contrary evidence. Because the decision below ¹ conflicts with the import of relevant precedent of this Court, I dissent from the denial of a writ of certiorari.

In December 1976, petitioner Jacqueline was given custody of their three daughters, then aged 12, 10, and 7. Jacqueline was also awarded use of the family home and child support; Walter had visitation rights, and the children regularly spent their weekends with him. In April 1977, Jacqueline told Walter that her friend, Wayne Hammon, was going to move into the family home. Walter objected and one week later filed a custody modification petition, seeking custody of his children on the grounds that he objected to his ex-wife's nonmarital relationship and did not wish his daughters to be raised in what he regarded to be an immoral atmosphere.

Following a hearing at which Jacqueline, Walter, and Hammon testified, the Circuit Court modified its original decree and granted custody of the children to Walter, finding the custody change necessary for the "moral and spiritual well-being and development" of the children. 78 Ill.2d 337, 342, 36 Ill.Dec. 1, 2, 400 N.E.2d 421, 422 (1979). The Appellate Court reversed, reasoning that the Circuit Court made no finding and identified no evidence that Jacqueline was unfit to retain custody and, further, that there was no evidence that the change in custody was necessary to serve the best interests of the children.

A divided Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court and reinstated the Circuit Court's modified custody decree. Applying the Illinois rule that a change in custody will be ordered only if necessary to serve the best interests of the child, the State Supreme Court found that Jacqueline's ostensible violation of the Illinois fornication statute ² evinced a "disregard for existing standards of conduct [that] instructs her children, by example, that they too, may ignore them, and could well encourage the children to engage in similar activity in the future." Id., at 346-347, 36 Ill.Dec., at 4, 400 N.E.2d, at 424 (citations omitted). The court, therefore, concluded that retention of custody by Jacqueline adversely affected the best interests of the children since there was a possibility of harm to them, even though it might become manifest only in the future, there being no showing of current actual harm.³ Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), was distinguished on the ground that Stanley invalidated a conclusive presumption that an unwed father is unfit to exercise custody over his children, whereas the conclusion in the instant case rested not on a conclusive presumption, but on a finding reached after Jacqueline was afforded a full hearing on the question whether she was an inadequate parent.

The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court that, in effect, a divorced woman's ostensible violation of the Illinois fornication statute presumptively harmed the best interests of the children and that this was conclusive for purposes of custody presents a serious question under the Fourteenth Amendment. Giving conclusive effect to such a violation would appear to contravene the teaching of Stanley v. Illinois :

"It may be, as the State insists, that most unmarried fathers are unsuitable and neglectful parents. It may also be that Stanley is such a parent and that his children should be placed in other hands. But all unmarried fathers are not in this category; some are wholly suited to have custody of their children. . . . Given the opportunity to make his case, Stanley may have been seen to be deserving of custody of his offspring." Id., at 654-655, 92 S.Ct., at 1214 (footnotes omitted).

I had supposed that Stanley established the proposition that "the interest of a parent in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children," id., at 651, 92 S.Ct., at 1212, cannot be determined by the evidentiary shortcut of a conclusive presumption. Thus, for purposes of this case, Stanley would seem to foreclose custody modification on the basis of a similar conclusive presumption of serious adverse effect...