Ex Parte Devine
398 So. 2d 686 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'tender years presumption,' which favors the mother in child custody disputes involving young children when both parents are otherwise equally fit, is an unconstitutional gender-based classification that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- Christopher P. Devine and Alice Beth Clark Devine were married on December 17, 1966, and separated on March 29, 1979.
- They had two sons, Matthew (born 1972) and Timothy (born 1975), who were considered to be of 'tender years' at the time of the legal dispute.
- Alice Devine held a B.S. degree in Business Administration and was employed as an Educational Specialist with the U.S. Army, earning over $20,000 annually.
- Christopher Devine was a faculty member and head of the Guidance and Counseling Department at Jacksonville State University.
- At the time of the dispute, the older son attended the elementary school and the younger son was enrolled in the nursery school at the university where Christopher Devine worked.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher P. Devine and Alice Beth Clark Devine were parties in a divorce proceeding in an Alabama trial court.
- The trial court awarded custody of the parties' two minor sons to the mother, Alice Devine.
- In its order, the trial court found both parents to be fit but stated that because there was no clear preponderance of evidence favoring either party, it applied the 'tender years presumption' in favor of the mother.
- The father, Christopher Devine, appealed the custody award to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The father then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'tender years presumption,' as applied in child custody proceedings to give preference to a mother over a father, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Maddox, Justice
Yes, the 'tender years presumption' violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The presumption is an unconstitutional gender-based classification that discriminates between parents solely on the basis of sex. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedents like Reed v. Reed, Orr v. Orr, and Caban v. Mohammed, the court reasoned that such classifications, based on archaic and overbroad generalizations about the roles of mothers and fathers, are inherently suspect. The presumption substitutes a gender-based stereotype for an individualized determination of the best interests of the child, which requires a factual inquiry into the relative capabilities of both parents. By placing a heavier evidentiary burden on fathers to prove the mother's unfitness, the rule reinforces outdated stereotypes and is not substantially related to the state's interest in protecting the welfare of children.
Dissenting - Torbert, Chief Justice
No, the 'tender years presumption' does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The paramount consideration in custody cases is the child's well-being, not the constitutional rights of the parents. Therefore, Equal Protection cases like Orr v. Orr are irrelevant. Gender should be a valid factor to consider when determining the primary custody of a very young child. The doctrine has evolved from a compelling presumption into one factor among many, and it should be retained in this limited capacity to aid courts in determining the best interest of the child.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in family law by abolishing the long-standing 'tender years presumption' in Alabama. It aligns the state's common law with modern Equal Protection jurisprudence, mandating a gender-neutral approach to child custody. The ruling requires trial courts to conduct a comprehensive, individualized analysis of each parent's fitness and the child's specific needs, rather than relying on a gender-based shortcut. This precedent places fathers and mothers on equal footing at the outset of custody disputes and requires courts to base decisions on evidence, not on archaic stereotypes about parental roles.
