In Re Marriage Of Black

392 P.3d 1041 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

H and W married when W and H were 19 and 21 years old, respectively. When they had their first child, they agreed W would stop working and be a stay-at-home parent. They have three sons ages 17, 14, and 9. W, H, and the children attended a “conservative Christian” church. W's parents are elders at the church, and w had been attending the church for most of her life. The “family attends a church where the teachings are that homosexuality is a sin.” All the decisions made by W and H revolved around their faith-based beliefs. This included the education of their sons. In December 2011, W told H that she believed she might be gay. W began sleeping in a basement room after H allegedly sexually assaulted her, which he denies, and after he told friends, family, and church members about her sexual orientation without her permission. W stopped attending the family church and W began a romantic relationship with a woman and began spending more time away from home. In May 2013, W filed for dissolution. The trial occurred in August 2014. The main witnesses at trial were Knight (the children's therapist) and Leblanc (the GAL). Knight was the first person to tell the children that their mother is gay. The children did not understand the concept of divorce. Knight recommended W's partner have no contact with the children for the time being. Knight noted that W was unemployed, and relied on her partner for support. Leblanc testified that several “collateral sources” indicated W had been “absent from the home for long periods of time on a fairly frequent basis for the last two to … three years. This was the main reason Leblanc recommended that the trial court designate H as the residential parent. Leblanc wrote in a report that W's “lifestyle choice” might cause controversy given the children's background. Leblanc's final report notes that H believed W “is now on a campaign to re-indoctrinate the children” and that “concepts and ideals the children have been taught throughout their lives are being eviscerated.” Leblanc's final report demonstrates a belief that the children's religious upbringing would hinder their acceptance of W's new life. Leblanc recommended that H serve as the primary residential parent. She also recommended that Knight have the discretion to determine when the children may have contact with w's partner. Leblanc further recommended broad prohibitions on W's ability to discuss religion and sexual orientation with her children. Some of these restrictions were recommended in response to W's parental efforts to explain the circumstances to her children. W showed her oldest son a video documentary addressing different Christian attitudes toward same-sex relationships after he asked a question about the issue. On another occasion, the second oldest son asked if he could wear a rainbow bracelet W had with the words “love and pride.” The trial court designated H as the primary residential parent with sole decision-making authority regarding the children's religion, education, and daycare. The court ordered W to pay the statutory minimum amount of child support. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred when it granted H sole decision-making authority regarding religion and when it limited W's conduct and speech regarding religion and sexual orientation. W appealed.