Jones v. Jones
1996 S.D. LEXIS 6, 542 N.W.2d 119, 1996 SD 2 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a child custody determination, a court may consider a parent's ability to foster a child's connection to their ethnic and cultural heritage as a factor within the 'best interests of the child' analysis, provided the decision is made on a racially neutral basis and does not give effect to societal prejudice.
Facts:
- Dawn R. Jones (Caucasian) and Kevin Mark Jones (an enrolled member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Nation) were married in 1989.
- The couple has three minor children, all of whom have Native American heritage.
- During the marriage, the family resided on a farm owned and operated by Kevin's large and close-knit extended family.
- Kevin is a recovering alcoholic with a history of domestic violence towards Dawn when he was drinking, but he has been sober since December 1992 and is active in Alcoholics Anonymous.
- Dawn suffers from depression and low self-esteem for which she is receiving counseling, and she is enrolled in a nursing program.
- The marriage deteriorated due to Kevin's past alcoholism, Dawn's depression, financial problems, and lack of communication.
Procedural Posture:
- Dawn Jones and Kevin Jones each filed for divorce in a South Dakota trial court.
- The trial court granted both parties a divorce on grounds of mental cruelty.
- After a hearing, the trial court granted the parties joint legal custody but awarded primary physical custody of the three minor children to the father, Kevin Jones.
- The trial court also awarded the mother, Dawn Jones, rehabilitative alimony.
- Dawn Jones (appellant) appealed the trial court's custody and alimony decisions to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
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 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by considering a parent's ability to connect a child with their racial and cultural heritage as one factor in a 'best interests of the child' custody determination?
Opinions:
Majority - Johns, Circuit Judge
No. A trial court does not violate the Equal Protection Clause by considering a parent's ability to expose a child to their ethnic heritage, so long as the custody determination is made on a racially neutral basis. The court distinguished this case from Palmore v. Sidoti, which held that custody cannot be denied based on the potential for societal racial prejudice. Here, the trial court was not giving effect to private biases but was permissibly considering which parent was better suited to educate the children about their cultural background as part of their identity formation. The court affirmed the custody award to Kevin, emphasizing the stability provided by his family's farm and support system, and viewing him as the preferable parent for the children's long-term welfare.
Dissenting - Sabers, Justice
The trial court abused its discretion by awarding custody to the father. The dissent argues that Kevin is not ready for the responsibility of raising three young children, as he is in the early stages of recovery from alcoholism and has concerning psychological traits noted by an expert. The trial court improperly prioritized Kevin's future 'potential' as a parent over the children's immediate needs and wrongly discounted the expert psychologist's recommendation that Dawn was the more suitable custodian at the present time. Furthermore, the court placed too much emphasis on the stability of the family farm, as the extended family's support would be available to the children regardless of which parent had custody.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of Palmore v. Sidoti by distinguishing between impermissibly basing custody on societal prejudice and permissibly considering race as a positive factor related to a child's cultural identity. It establishes that a parent's ability to foster a child's connection to their ethnic heritage can be a valid component of the 'best interests of the child' analysis. This precedent allows courts to weigh cultural factors in custody disputes involving biracial children, so long as the consideration is positive, identity-focused, and part of a broader, racially neutral assessment of the child's welfare.
Unlock the full brief for Jones v. Jones