BOISE, Idaho (AP) — A legal loophole in Idaho that allows parents of teenagers to void child custody agreements by arranging child weddings will remain in effect, under a court ruling. State Supreme Court on Tuesday.
In a split decision, the High Court declined to decide whether Idaho’s child marriage law – which allows 16- and 17-year-olds to marry if either parent agrees to the union – is unconstitutional . Instead, the judges said that once a child is emancipated through marriage, the family court loses custody jurisdiction.
The case arose out of a custody battle between a Boise woman and her estranged husband, who was planning to move to Florida and wanted to bring their 16-year-old daughter along. The ex-husband has been accused of arranging a “fictitious marriage” between his daughter and another teenager in order to end the custody fight.
It’s not an uncommon scenario — all but seven states allow minors under the age of 18 to marry, according to Unchained At Last, an organization that opposes child marriage. Nevada, Idaho, Arkansas and Kentucky have the highest rates of child marriage per capita, according to the organization. Although minors are generally considered legally emancipated once married, they generally still have limited legal rights and therefore may not be able to file for divorce or apply for a protective order.
Erin Carver and William Hornish divorced in 2012, and only their youngest was still living at home last year when the two parties began to dispute custody arrangements.
Carver said she learned Hornish was planning a “sham wedding” for the teenager to end the custody battle, and asked the family court magistrate to halt the wedding plans. A few days later, the investigating judge agreed, but it was too late. The teenager was already married.
The high court heard arguments in March and Carver’s lawyer argued that the Child Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it allows a parent to terminate another parent’s rights without due process. Hornish’s attorney, Geoffrey Goss, countered that his client acted legally and followed state law.
In Tuesday’s ruling, the majority of Supreme Court justices said that because the marriage took place before an initial decision was made, the family court lost jurisdiction. Once a child is married, they are emancipated and no longer subject to child custody agreements, the High Court has said.
The judges also declined to assess whether the law is legal under the state constitution, saying in part that neither side has provided sufficient legal argument on the issue. The high court, however, concluded that the law was not clearly unconstitutional.
Justices Gregory Moeller and John Stegner disagreed with the majority opinion, saying the trial court might have done more to “deal with the outrageous actions of a father”, by making the initial order retroactive. This would have allowed Carver to seek annulment of the marriage as custodial parent.
“The father not only made a mockery of our marriage laws, he also exposed his 16-year-old daughter to the potential consequences of an ill-conceived and hasty marriage of convenience,” Moeller wrote in the dissent.
The Associated Press might not find Hornish’s contact information, and his attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither Carver nor his attorney immediately responded to a request for comment.
Other Idaho families have been following the case closely.
Ryan Small, a Boise man who was embroiled in a similar custody battle, said he was disappointed with the decision. Small was trying to stop his ex-wife from leaving the state with their son last winter when he learned the 16-year-old had been secretly married to another teenager with his mother’s permission.
Small has not seen the teenager since Nov. 15, 2021, and because the boy is considered self-empowered, Small has little ability to track him down or bring him back to Idaho.
“I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has decided to dismiss the issue of the constitutionality of the law,” Small said Tuesday. “A parent’s role is to protect their child, and the court failing to uphold the constitutionality of the law will allow abusive parents to use their children as pawns to circumvent the court’s protection.”
Rebecca Boone, Associated Press
