Facts
- A Florida court awarded custody of a three-year-old child to her mother after the parents’ divorce.
- The father later sought to modify custody based on “changed conditions.”
- The asserted change was the mother’s cohabitation with, and later marriage to, a Black man.
- The trial court found no dispute about either parent’s devotion, housing, or the respectability of either parent’s new spouse.
- Despite no finding of parental unfitness, the trial court transferred custody to the father, reasoning the child would likely face social stigma and harm from living in an interracial household.
- Florida’s intermediate appellate court affirmed.
Issues
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause permits a state court to change child custody based on a parent’s interracial relationship and anticipated social prejudice toward the child.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that anticipated effects of private racial prejudice cannot justify a custody decision resting on racial considerations.
- The Court rejected the custody change where the decision was not based on parenting deficiencies but on predicted societal bias toward an interracial family.
Legal Principles
- Government action may not rest on racial classifications absent a constitutionally sufficient justification; racial considerations in judicial custody determinations trigger strict equal protection constraints.
- Although child welfare is a substantial governmental interest, it cannot be pursued by giving legal effect to private racial biases.
- Private prejudice may exist beyond direct legal control, but the state may not directly or indirectly validate such prejudice through custody decrees.
- Family law judgments, including “best interests of the child” determinations, remain subject to the Equal Protection Clause.
Conclusion
The Court ruled that a state may not remove a child from a parent’s custody because of the parent’s interracial marriage or because the child might encounter private racial bias, since the law cannot give effect to such prejudice under the Equal Protection Clause.