In re Marriage of Black
Not Reported (Slip Opinion) (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion when, in fashioning a parenting plan, it considers a parent's sexual orientation or implicitly favors one parent's religious beliefs over another's without an express showing of direct harm to the children.
Facts:
- Rachelle and Charles Black were married in July 1994, had three sons, and Rachelle was the primary caretaker while Charles was the primary wage earner.
- The family attended a conservative Christian church and sent their children to private, Christian schools that taught homosexuality as a sin.
- In December 2011, Rachelle told Charles that she believed she might be 'gay,' and Charles encouraged her to explore it.
- After Rachelle's disclosure, Charles told friends, family, and church members about her sexual orientation without her permission; Rachelle stopped attending the family church and began a romantic relationship with a woman, spending more time away from home.
- Charles adjusted his work schedule and took on more parenting responsibilities, which Rachelle believed was an effort to undermine her relationship with the children.
- Rachelle filed for dissolution in May 2013, and at trial, the children's therapist (Knight) and guardian ad litem (Leblanc) were main witnesses; Knight was the first person to disclose Rachelle's sexual orientation to the children.
Procedural Posture:
- Rachelle K. Black (Petitioner) filed for dissolution of marriage from Charles W. Black (Respondent) in a state trial court in May 2013.
- The trial court, in its dissolution decree and final parenting plan, designated Charles as the primary residential parent, awarded him sole decision-making authority regarding the children's religion, education, and day care, and denied Rachelle's request for spousal maintenance.
- Rachelle appealed the trial court's decision to the Washington Court of Appeals, Division Two.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed most of the trial court's provisions, including the residential designation, but reversed the rulings that granted Charles sole decision-making authority regarding religion and limited Rachelle's conduct and speech regarding religion and sexual orientation.
- Rachelle filed a petition for review with the Washington Supreme Court, which was accepted.
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 a trial court abuse its discretion when, in fashioning a parenting plan, it considers a parent's sexual orientation or implicitly favors one parent's religious beliefs without an express showing of direct harm to the children?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairhurst, C.J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by considering Rachelle's sexual orientation and implicitly favoring Charles's religious beliefs without an express showing of direct harm to the children. The court reaffirmed the principle from In re Marriage of Cabalquinto that custody decisions must be determined by the needs of the child, not the sexual preferences of the parent, absent a showing of direct harm. It clarified that courts must maintain strict neutrality regarding a parent's sexual orientation and religious beliefs, especially given evolving understandings of LGBT rights and vulnerabilities. The trial court's written ruling indicated a belief that Charles was more stable due to his ability to maintain the children's religious upbringing, which struggled to reconcile with homosexuality, effectively punishing Rachelle for her sexual orientation. Furthermore, the court found that the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Leblanc, exhibited impermissible bias, evidenced by her referring to Rachelle's sexual orientation as a 'lifestyle choice,' suggesting harm from potential bullying, recommending unconstitutional restrictions on Rachelle's speech not imposed on Charles, and penalizing Rachelle for causing the marital dissolution. Given the GAL's quasi-judicial status and the trial court's heavy reliance on her opinions, this bias permeated the entire proceedings, casting doubt on the fairness of the parenting plan's residential designation, education provision, and spousal maintenance denial. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, ordering reassignment to a different judge to ensure an impartial proceeding.
Concurring - Wiggins, J.
Yes, the case should be remanded and reassigned to a different judge. Justice Wiggins concurred with the majority's decision to reassign the case, but expressed disagreement with the majority's primary reason for doing so. While acknowledging the biased statements made by the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Justice Wiggins stated that the trial judge himself had made it clear that Rachelle Black's sexual orientation was irrelevant to his decision and did not share the majority's confidence that the judge would be biased or unfair on remand. However, Justice Wiggins agreed with the reassignment based on the importance of preserving the 'appearance of fairness,' noting that for such a 'particularly charged issue,' a reasonably prudent and disinterested observer might conclude that neutrality on remand would be unlikely.
Analysis:
This case significantly strengthens protections for LGBTQ+ parents in Washington child custody disputes by unequivocally prohibiting consideration of sexual orientation unless direct harm to the child is proven. It also reinforces the principle of judicial neutrality regarding religious beliefs in parenting plans, preventing courts from implicitly favoring one parent's religious framework. By reversing the entire parenting plan due to pervasive bias and requiring reassignment to a new judge, the court sends a strong message that even indirect or subtle bias, particularly from court-appointed experts like a GAL, will not be tolerated. This decision extends Cabalquinto and Munoz by explicitly addressing the intersection of sexual orientation, religious beliefs, and implicit bias, setting a higher bar for judicial impartiality in family law cases.
