Jarrett v. Jarrett
Headline: Court declines to review an Illinois custody decision that removed a divorced mother for cohabiting with an unmarried man, leaving the state court’s presumption and custody change in place and affecting similar families.
Holding:
- Leaves the state court’s custody transfer in place, keeping the children with their father.
- Does not settle whether cohabitation alone justifies taking custody from a divorced parent.
- Dissenters warned many households could be affected by such presumptions.
Summary
Background
A divorced mother, Jacqueline, had custody of three daughters after a 1976 divorce and lived in the family home. When she told her ex-husband Walter that a male friend would move in, Walter sought custody, calling the living arrangement immoral. A trial court gave the father custody for the children’s “moral and spiritual well-being.” An Illinois appellate court reversed, but the Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the custody change, citing the State’s fornication law and a possibility of future harm despite no present proof of actual harm.
Reasoning
The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state may treat a divorced mother’s cohabitation with an unmarried man as presumptively harmful and therefore justify taking custody away. The Court declined to review the case, issuing no opinion, and left the Illinois decision in place. Because the high Court did not grant review, it did not resolve the constitutional question raised about whether such a presumption is allowed under the federal Constitution.
Real world impact
The denial leaves the Illinois custody ruling effective in this case, so the children remain with their father. The broader constitutional issue about whether cohabitation alone can justify custody changes is not settled by this decision and could be raised again in later cases. The dispute may affect divorced parents and many households where unmarried couples live with children.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented from the refusal to hear the case, arguing the presumption lacks a rational basis, conflicted with prior precedent, and deserved full review given its wide social implications.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?