BOISE, Idaho (AP) – A legal loophole in Idaho that allows parents of teenagers to cancel child custody arrangements by arranging child marriages will remain in effect, according to a state Supreme Court court ruling on Tuesday.
In a divided decision, the High Court refused to decide whether Idaho’s child marriage law – which allows 16- and 17-year-olds to marry if one parent agrees to the union – is unconstitutional. Instead, the judges said that once a child is emancipated through marriage, the family court loses jurisdiction over custody.
The case arose out of a custody battle between a Boise woman and her ex-husband, who was planning to move to Florida and wanted to take her 16-year-old daughter with him. The ex-husband was accused of arranging a “fake marriage” between his daughter and another teenager to end the custody fight.
That’s not an unusual scenario – all but seven states allow minors under the age of 18 to get married, according to Unchained At Last, an organization that opposes early marriage. Nevada, Idaho, Arkansas, and Kentucky have the highest per capita child marriage rates, according to the organization. Although minors are generally considered to be 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 precautionary order.
Erin Carver and William Hornish divorced in 2012, and only their youngest was still living at home last year when the two sides started arguing over custody.
Carver said he learned that Hornish was planning a “fake wedding” for the teenager to end the custody battle and asked the family court magistrate to stop the marriage plans. A few days later, the investigating judge agreed, but it was too late. The teenager was already married.
The high court heard the arguments in March, and Carver’s attorney said the Child Marriage Act is unconstitutional because it allows one parent to end 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, most 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, he is emancipated and is no longer subject to child custody arrangements, the High Court said.
The judges also declined to assess whether the law is legal under the state constitution, arguing in part that neither party has provided sufficient legal arguments on the matter. The high court, however, concluded that the law was clearly not unconstitutional.
Judges Gregory Moeller and John Stegner disagreed with the majority opinion, saying the court could have done more to “deal with a father’s outrageous actions,” by making the original order retroactive. This would have allowed Carver to seek the annulment of the marriage as a custodial parent.
“The father not only made fun 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 dissent.
The Associated Press could not find Hornish’s contact information, and his attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither Carver nor her attorney immediately responded to a request for comment.
Other Idaho families have been following the case closely.
Ryan Small, a Boise man who was involved 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 her son last winter when he learned that the 16-year-old had been secretly married to another teenager with his mother’s permission.
Small hasn’t seen the teenager since November 15, 2021, and because the boy is considered self-employed, 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 question of the constitutionality of the law,” Small said Tuesday. “The role of a parent is to protect their child and the court that does not respect the constitutionality of the law will allow abusive parents to use their children as pawns to circumvent court protection.”
Rebecca Boone, Associated Press
