Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Utah

Constitutional question of child custody

What possibility do I have to get Utah's laws regarding child custody in divorce determined unconstitutional, and keep joint physical custody of my child?

The question arises when the fundamental right companionship of ones children is diminished for one fit parent while simultaneously enlarging the other fit parent's rights.

Due to the fact that no compelling interest seems to exist in the law since a judge can arbitrarily decide any case as he sees fit. Although there are a couple guidelines such as the vague ''best interests of the child'' standard, and the few things that a judge shall ''consider'', there is nothing that guides judges as to what consideration takes precedence or prevents a judges personal beliefs and prejudices from deciding in any manner he wishes who will get custody. This doesn't stand up to 14th amendment protections.

In short, the law in no way passes the ''strict scrutiny'' test, but what arguments could be used to prove that it shouldn't be subject to strict scrutiny?

The second question is, if I bring up a constitutional question in the district court, does it prevent any apeals or further action, possibly federally, I may have in the future?


Asked on 10/28/03, 7:24 am

1 Answer from Attorneys

Alvin Lundgren Alvin R. Lundgren, L.C.

Re: Constitutional question of child custody

You need to raise the constitutional question in the district court along with each of your other arguments which are critical to your case. You will lose in district court, and even if you should win, the other attorney would appeal. The law does not change unless a higher court rules against it.

Your rights of custody/visitation are subject to the best interests of the child, as it should be. You will want to appoint a guardian ad litem for your children who agrees with your position. Your attorney argues for your rights; the guardian ad litem argues for the rights of the children.

Up to now courts believe that a child is better off living in a stable environment, with school, friends, church etc primarily from one house. Shuttling the child between two residences is considered detrimental to the child. If you propose a plan where your residence is in the same neighborhood as the child (or where the child stays in the house and the parents shuttle) your chances will increase. The only way you will win is to get a ruling based on a factual basis that shows that all of the best interests of the child are met.

The basic problem arises that rarely are both parents equally competent and interested in the best interests of the child. As a rule, but not always, mother is more motivated to sacrifice for the child. Fathers are usually more committed to career and have less time for the child. Your challenge will be to come up with a legal theory that considers your constitutional issues and also creates a legal solution that retains the best interests of the child. Not impossible, but may be a challenge.

I am frankly sympathetic to your position. (I am also a guardian ad litem.) However the cost to bring this through the courts is tremendous. Generally one parent or the other gives in because of the cost to maintain attorneys on all 3 sides through court and appeals processes.

To do the job right in the courts would be very expensive. You other option is to change the guidelines in the law. Either way it will be time consuming and difficult.

Read more
Answered on 10/28/03, 9:00 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Constitutional Law questions and answers in Utah