Kirkpatrick v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark
64 P.3d 1056, 119 Nev. Adv. Rep. 8, 119 Nev. 66 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute permitting a minor under the age of 16 to marry with the consent of only one parent and judicial authorization is constitutional and does not violate the substantive or procedural due process rights of the non-consenting parent.
Facts:
- Bruce Kirkpatrick and Karen Karay divorced in California and were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their daughter, SierraDawn Kirkpatrick Crow.
- In 1992, Karay and SierraDawn moved to New Mexico.
- In December 2000, 15-year-old SierraDawn informed her mother, Karay, that she wished to marry her 48-year-old guitar teacher, Sauren Crow.
- Karay consented to the marriage.
- Because New Mexico law would not permit the marriage, Karay, SierraDawn, and Crow traveled to Las Vegas, Nevada, to get married.
- The marriage was authorized and performed on January 3, 2001, without the knowledge or consent of SierraDawn's father, Bruce Kirkpatrick.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen Karay filed a petition in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County, Nevada (a state trial court) to obtain judicial authorization for her daughter's marriage.
- The district court found good cause and issued an order authorizing the marriage license.
- After the marriage, Bruce Kirkpatrick sought and was granted an ex parte temporary restraining order in a New Mexico district court, which was later rescinded after the court found the Nevada marriage valid.
- Kirkpatrick filed a motion in the Clark County district court to vacate its prior order and annul the marriage.
- The Clark County district court denied Kirkpatrick's motion, finding that the marriage complied with Nevada law and that Kirkpatrick lacked standing.
- Kirkpatrick filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Supreme Court of Nevada, the state's highest court, to compel the district court to vacate its order and annul the marriage.
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 Nevada statute NRS 122.025, which allows a minor under 16 to marry with the consent of only one parent and judicial authorization, violate the non-consenting parent's fundamental due process rights to the care, custody, and control of their child by not requiring their consent or providing them with notice and an opportunity to be heard?
Opinions:
Majority - Shearing, J.
No, the Nevada statute does not violate the non-consenting parent's due process rights. The statute strikes a constitutional balance between the parent's fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child and the child's own fundamental right to marry. The Supreme Court has established that parental rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and can be limited by the state, especially when competing rights of the child are implicated. Citing Hodgson v. Minnesota, the court reasoned that the consent of both parents is not a constitutional requirement for major decisions in a minor's life. The statutory requirements of one parent's consent plus a judicial determination that the marriage is in the minor's best interest provide a sufficient safeguard against an erroneous decision, thus satisfying procedural due process by protecting against an arbitrary deprivation of the parent's interest. The only right the father loses is legal control during his daughter's minority, not the enduring social and emotional bonds of parenthood.
Dissenting - Agosti, C.J.
Yes, the Nevada statute as applied in this case violates the non-consenting parent's due process rights. The majority mischaracterizes and fails to properly balance the competing interests; a parent's fundamental liberty interest in raising their child far outweighs a 15-year-old's limited, non-fundamental interest in marriage. The statute is unconstitutional as applied because it deprived an interested and involved parent of his fundamental rights without any procedural safeguards like notice and an opportunity to be heard. A proper application of the Mathews v. Eldridge test shows a clear due process violation, as Kirkpatrick's interest is significant, the risk of an erroneous deprivation is high without his input, and the government's burden to provide notice is minimal. The district court's review was a mere rubber stamp, failing to conduct a meaningful inquiry into whether 'extraordinary circumstances' truly existed, thereby offering no real protection for the minor's best interests.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a parent's fundamental right to control their child's upbringing is not absolute and can be limited when it conflicts with the child's own rights, such as the right to marry. The court's holding establishes that a procedural safeguard requiring only one parent's consent combined with judicial oversight is constitutionally sufficient, even without notice to the other parent. This precedent is significant in family law, particularly in cases involving divorced parents, as it validates state statutes that allow one parent to authorize a life-altering decision for a minor. The ruling highlights the judicial trend of balancing competing intra-family rights rather than viewing parental authority as a monolithic power over a minor.
Unlock the full brief for Kirkpatrick v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark