## Facts

- Rachelle K. Black and Charles W. Black were married nearly 20 years and had three sons.
- The family belonged to a conservative Christian church; the children attended private Christian schools and were taught that homosexuality was sinful.
- During most of the marriage, Rachelle was the primary caregiver while Charles worked outside the home.
- In 2011, Rachelle told Charles she was a lesbian; she stopped attending the church, entered a same-sex relationship, and spent substantial time away from the family.
- Charles assumed primary caregiving responsibilities while continuing to work.
- In the dissolution proceedings, the children’s therapist testified that Charles was the more stable parent, and the guardian ad litem (GAL) recommended Charles be the primary residential parent.
- The GAL cited conflict between Rachelle’s sexual orientation and the children’s religious beliefs and concerns about peer bullying, and recommended limiting the children’s exposure to Rachelle’s partner and restricting Rachelle from discussing her same-sex relationship with the children.
- The trial court adopted a parenting plan naming Charles the primary residential parent, granting him sole decision-making over education and religious upbringing, and imposing restrictions on Rachelle’s speech and her partner’s contact with the children.
- The Court of Appeals largely affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly considered the mother’s sexual orientation when determining the parenting plan and residential placement.
2. Whether restrictions limiting the mother’s speech about her same-sex relationship and limiting her partner’s contact with the children were justified by evidence of actual or likely harm, rather than moral or religious disapproval.
3. Whether bias related to sexual orientation undermined confidence in the parenting plan such that reversal and remand were required.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the parenting-plan order and remanded.
- The court held the record showed that the trial court considered Rachelle’s sexual orientation as a factor and that improper bias influenced the proceedings.
- The court concluded it was not confident the trial court maintained the constitutionally required neutrality toward sexual orientation.
- Because the bias cast doubt on the entire parenting determination, the appropriate remedy was reversal and remand for a new, bias-free proceeding.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts must maintain neutrality toward a parent’s sexual orientation in custody and parenting-plan determinations.
- A parent’s sexual orientation may not be treated as a negative factor absent specific evidence that the orientation or related conduct has caused, or is likely to cause, actual harm to the child.
- Moral or religious disapproval by a parent, children, or third parties cannot substitute for an evidence-based showing of detriment.
- Restrictions on a parent’s speech or association in a parenting plan require justification tied to demonstrated harm, not bias.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded after concluding that anti-lesbian bias affected the custody and parenting-plan proceedings; absent evidence of actual or likely harm, sexual orientation cannot be used to restrict parenting rights or to justify speech and association limits in a parenting plan.


In re Marriage of Black, 392 P.3d 1041 (Wash. 2017)