Palmore v. Sidoti

• Decision Date: 25 April 1984
• Docket Number: No. 82-1734,82-1734
• Citation: Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 104 S.Ct. 1879, 80 L.Ed.2d 421 (1984)
• Parties: Linda Sidoti PALMORE, Petitioner v. Anthony J. SIDOTI
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

466 U.S. 429

104 S.Ct. 1879

80 L.Ed.2d 421

Linda Sidoti PALMORE, Petitioner

v Anthony J. SIDOTI.

No. 82-1734.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Feb. 22, 1984.

Decided April 25, 1984.

Syllabus

When petitioner and respondent, both Caucasians, were divorced in Florida, petitioner, the mother, was awarded custody of their 3-year-old daughter.The following year respondent sought custody of the child by filing a petition to modify the prior judgment because of changed conditions, namely, that petitioner was then cohabiting with a Negro, whom she later married.The Florida trial court awarded custody to respondent, concluding that the child's best interests would be served thereby.Without focusing directly on the parental qualifications of petitioner, her present husband, or respondent, the court reasoned that although respondent's resentment at petitioner's choice of a black partner was insufficient to deprive petitioner of custody, there would be a damaging impact on the child if she remained in a racially mixed household.The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed.

Held: The effects of racial prejudice, however real, cannot justify a racial classification removing an infant child from the custody of its natural mother.The Constitution cannot control such prejudice, but neither can it tolerate it.Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.Pp. 431-434.

426 So.2d 34(Fla. 2 DCA1982), reversed.

Robert J. Shapiro, Tampa, Fla., for petitioner.

John E. Hawtrey, Bryan, Tex., for respondent.

Chief Justice BURGERdelivered the opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to review a judgment of a state court divesting a natural mother of the custody of her infant child because of her remarriage to a person of a different race.

I

When petitionerLinda Sidoti Palmore and respondentAnthony J. Sidoti, both Caucasians, were divorced in May 1980 in Florida, the mother was awarded custody of their 3-year-old daughter.

In September 1981the father sought custody of the child by filing a petition to modify the prior judgment because of changed conditions.The change was that the child's mother was then cohabiting with a Negro, Clarence Palmore, Jr., whom she married two months later.Additionally, the father made several allegations of instances in which the mother had not properly cared for the child.

After hearing testimony from both parties and considering a court counselor's investigative report, the court noted that the father had made allegations about the child's care, but the court made no findings with respect to these allegations.On the contrary, the court made a finding that "there is no issue as to either party's devotion to the child, adequacy of housing facilities, or respectability of the new spouse of either parent."App. to Pet. forCert. 24.

The court then addressed the recommendations of the court counselor, who had made an earlier report "in [another] case coming out of this circuit also involving the social consequences of an interracial marriage.Niles v. Niles, 299 So.2d 162."Id., at 25.From this vague reference to that earlier case, the court turned to the present case and noted the counselor's recommendation for a change in custody because "[t]he wife [petitioner] has chosen for herself and for her child, a life-style unacceptable to the father and to society. . . .The child . . . is, or at school age will be, subject to environmental pressures not of choice."Record 84 (emphasis added).

The court then concluded that the best interests of the child would be served by awarding custody to the father.The court's rationale is contained in the following:

The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed without opinion, 426 So.2d 34(1982), thus denying the Florida Supreme Court jurisdiction to review the case.SeeFla. Const., Art. V, § 3(b)(3);Jenkins v. State, 385 So.2d 1356(Fla.1980).We granted certiorari, 464 U.S. 913, 104 S.Ct. 271, 78 L.Ed.2d 253(1983), and we reverse.

II

The judgment of a state court determining or reviewing a child custody decision is not ordinarily a likely candidate for review by this Court.However, the court's opinion, after stating that the "father's evident resentment of the mother's choice of a black partner is not sufficient" to deprive her of custody, then turns to what it regarded as the damaging im- pact on the child from remaining in a racially mixed household.App. to Pet. for Cert. 26.This raises important federal concerns arising from the Constitution's commitment to eradicating discrimination based on race.

The Florida court did not focus directly on the parental qualifications of the natural mother or her present husband, or indeed on the father's qualifications to have custody of the child.The court found that "there is no issue as to either party's devotion to the child, adequacy of housing facilities, or respectability of the new spouse of either parent."Id., at 24.This, taken with the absence of any negative finding as to the quality of the care provided by the mother, constitutes a rejection of any claim of petitioner's unfitness to continue the custody of her child.

The court correctly stated that the child's welfare was the controlling factor.But that court was entirely candid and made no effort to place its holding on any ground other than race.Taking the court's findings and rationale at face value, it is clear that the outcome would have been different had petitioner married a Caucasian male of similar respectability.

A core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed ¹ discrimination based on race.SeeStrauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 307-308, 310, 25 L.Ed. 664(1880).Classifying persons according to their race is more likely to reflect racial prejudice than legitimate public concerns; the race, not the person, dictates the category.SeePersonnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 272, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2292, 60 L.Ed.2d 870(1979).Such classifications are subject to the most exacting scrutiny; to pass constitutional muster, they must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be "necessary . . . to the accomplishment" of their legitimate purpose, McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 196, 85 S.Ct. 283, 290, 13 L.Ed.2d 222(1964).SeeLoving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 11, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 1823, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010(1967).

The State, of course, has a duty of the highest order to protect the interests of minor children, particularly those of tender years.In common with most states, Florida law mandates that custody determinations be made in the best interests of the children involved.Fla.Stat. § 61.13(2)(b)(1)(1983).The goal of granting custody based on the best interests of the child is indisputably a substantial governmental interest for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.

It would ignore reality to suggest that racial and ethnic prejudices do not exist or that all manifestations of those prejudices have been eliminated.There is a risk that a child living with a stepparent of a different race may be subject to a variety of pressures and...