## Facts

- Bruce Kirkpatrick and Karen Karay divorced in 1990 and were awarded joint legal and physical custody of their daughter, SierraDawn.
- Karay later moved with SierraDawn to New Mexico.
- At age 15, SierraDawn sought to marry her 48-year-old guitar teacher, Sauren Crow; New Mexico law would not permit the marriage.
- Karay, SierraDawn, and Crow traveled to Nevada, where NRS 122.025 allowed a minor under 16 to marry with one parent’s consent and district court authorization.
- Karay petitioned a Nevada district court for authorization and filed an affidavit consenting to the marriage.
- The district court authorized the marriage, and SierraDawn and Crow married in Nevada.
- Kirkpatrick, not informed of the Nevada proceeding, obtained an ex parte custody order in New Mexico; it was rescinded after the New Mexico court determined the Nevada marriage was valid and emancipated SierraDawn.
- Kirkpatrick moved in Nevada to vacate the authorization and annul the marriage; the district court denied relief, concluding the marriage complied with Nevada law and that Kirkpatrick lacked standing.
- Kirkpatrick sought extraordinary relief in the Nevada Supreme Court, arguing NRS 122.025 was unconstitutional and requesting an order directing the district court to vacate its authorization and annul the marriage.
- On rehearing, the Nevada Supreme Court withdrew its earlier opinion granting relief and issued a new decision.

## Issues

1. Whether NRS 122.025, permitting a minor under 16 to marry with the consent of one parent and district court authorization, violates the substantive due process rights of a non-consenting parent.
2. Whether authorizing such a marriage without notice and an opportunity to be heard for the other parent violates procedural due process.
3. Whether extraordinary writ relief was warranted to compel the district court to vacate the authorization and annul the marriage.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held NRS 122.025 constitutional on its face and as applied.
- The court concluded the statute did not give the non-consenting parent a constitutional right to veto the minor’s marriage.
- The court held that procedural due process was satisfied by the statutory requirement of one parent’s consent plus judicial findings of extraordinary circumstances and the minor’s best interest.
- The court reached the merits despite a potential mootness concern suggested by evidence of a later marriage.

## Legal Principles

- A minor marriage may be subject to reasonable statutory regulation that balances the minor’s welfare, parental interests, and the state’s protective role.
- Parental liberty interests in the care, custody, and control of a child are fundamental but not absolute and may be limited by reasonable regulation serving legitimate state interests.
- Due process is context-dependent; a statutory scheme requiring one parent’s consent and judicial authorization based on specified findings may provide sufficient process without mandatory notice to the other parent.
- Extraordinary writ relief is unavailable where the challenged statute is constitutional and the district court acted within its statutory authority.

## Conclusion

Nevada’s highest court upheld a statutory scheme allowing under-16 marriage with the consent of one parent and court approval, rejecting claims that the non-consenting parent had a constitutional right to notice, participation, or a veto, and therefore declined to compel annulment through mandamus.


Kirkpatrick v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 66, 64 P.3d 1056 (Nev. 2003)