Moe Vs Dinkins

Brief Fact Summary.
Plaintiffs were prevented from entering into marriage because
a New York law required minors to obtain parental consent prior to marriage.
Plaintiffs brought suit claiming the law violated the Due Process Clause of the United
States Constitution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Because of the unique position between minors and
marriage, the law is examined under a rational relationship test rather than strict
scrutiny.
Moe vs Dinkins
Facts. A New York Domestic Relations Law provided that all male marriage license
applicants between 16 and 18 and all female applicants between 14 and 18 must
obtain written consent from both parents (that are living). Section 15.3 of the law
requires women between the ages of 14 and 16 to obtain judicial approval of the
marriage in addition to parental consent.
Plaintiff Raoul Roe, 18, and Plaintiff Maria Moe, 15, had a one year old son, Plaintiff
Ricardo Roe. Plaintiffs live together as a family unit and desire to be married to
cement their family unit and remove the stigma of illegitimacy from their son. Maria
requested consent from her widowed mother to marry Raoul, but she refused,
allegedly because she wished to continue receiving welfare benefits for Maria.
Proposed plaintiff-intervenors Pedro Doe, 17, and Christina Coe, 15, reside in the
home of Pedros father and step-mother. Christina is eight months pregnant with
Pedros child. Christinas mother refused a Christinas request to marry Pedro, and
arranged for Christina to have an abortion. Christina refused to do so, and
consequently her mother told her she wished to have nothing more to do with her
and was leaving the country to return to the Dominican Republic.
Issue. Does the law requiring parental consent to marry deprive Plaintiffs of the
liberty guaranteed them by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the Federal Constitution?
Held. The law is constitutional because the State has a legitimate interest in
protecting minors from immature decision making.

Previous case law has recognized a constitutional liberty interest in marriage, but
has not addressed the marriages of minors. The constitutional rights of children
cannot be equated with adults for three reasons: a) the peculiar vulnerability of
children; (b) the inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature
matter; (c) the importance of the parental role in child-rearing.
This law should not be examined under a strict scrutiny standard, but rather it must
be determined if there is a rational relationship between the means chosen and the
legitimate state interests advanced. The parent consent requirement ensures that
at least one mature person will participate in the marriage decision. Because of this
and minors lack of experience, perspective, and judgment, the law is rationally
related to a legitimate state interest.
Plaintiffs also allege that the courts as a non-interested party would be in a better
position to judge than parents that are potentially biased. However, the law
assumes that parents will act in the best interests of their children. Plaintiffs also
claim that this law should be analogized with contraception and abortion laws, and
that the law denies them the means with which to legitimize their children.
However, this ignores the fact that the law is only a postponement to the right to
marry.
Discussion. The court applied a rational relationship test to the New York law rather
than strict scrutiny because the rights involved were those of minors.
Moe v. Dinkins
533 F.Supp. 623 (1981), 669 F.2d 67 (1982)
Raoul (who was 18) wanted to marry Maria (who was 15). They lived together and
had a child (Ricardo). However, in order to get a marriage license, they
needed parental consent, which Maria's mother would not give.
Maria's mother wanted to continue getting welfare benefits from her minor child,
and would lose the benefits if Maria married.
Raoul, Maria, and Ricardo sued (in Federal Court) to have the New York parental
consent requirement declared and unconstitutional violation of due process.
In New York, parental consent was required for those under 18.
Another underage couple (Pedro (17) and Cristina (15 and pregnant)) intervened to
turn this into a class action suit.
The Trial Court found for New York and dismissed the suit.
The Trial Court found that while minors do have constitutional rights, courts have
long recognized the government's power to make adjustments to the constitutional
rights of minors.
For example, children can't get driver's licenses or buy alcohol.
The Court found that the right of minors to marry is not a fundamental right, and
that the courts do not need to apply strict scrutiny. All that is required is that New
York have a rational basis for making the law.
The rational basis test only asks whether the governmental action at issue is a
rational means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by government.
The Court found that New York had a rational basis for the law.
The State has the paternalistic power to promote the welfare of children who lack
the capacity to act in their own best interest. The State interests in mature decisionmaking and in preventing unstable marriages are legitimate under its parents
patriae power.
In addition, the Court found that the State has a legitimate interest in supporting
the fundamental privacy right of a parent to act in what the parent perceives to be
the best interest of the child free from State court scrutiny.
Raoul et. al. argued that the courts were in a better position to determine maturity
on a case-by-case basis because they were disinterested parties. But the Court
found that in most cases, "the natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the
best interest of their children."
The Court found that they weren't denying Raoul and Maria's rights, they were
simply delaying those rights. As soon as they turned 18 they'd be allowed to marry
anyone they want.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
Maria did not argue equal protection, right to privacy, or right to free association. All
of those could theoretically been the basis for finding that she has a right to marry.
She could have also gone to another State where the age of consent was lower.
Under the historical common-law, the age of consent for marriage was 14 for males
and 12 for females. Children as young as 7 were presumed to have the capacity to
consent to a future marriage.

Moe Vs Dinkins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moe Vs Dinkins

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moe Vs Dinkins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiffs were prevented from entering into marriage because

protecting minors from immature decision making.

You might also like