Select Page

Family Law
Temple University School of Law
Glennon, Theresa

Family Law Spring 2018 Review

Clear and convincing is go to standard in pa but if not specified then its preponderance of evidence ?

What is a family?

US Dept. Agriculture v. Moreno

Food stamp Act eligibility based on household, Plaintiff 56 year old lives with family that takes care of her and are unrelated
Claim is that the classification of related violates equal protection component of due process clause of fifth amendment

Court subjects to rational relation test and determines government does not have a legitimate reason to suspect related households are less likely to abuse the system

Family can include unrelated individuals living and cooking together as a single house (Belle Terre)

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Cleveland housing ordinance says family is only a few categories of individuals and only families can live in dwelling units
Argument: Grandmother with two unrelated grandsons being charged argues this is a violation of 14th amendment due process
Court says the regulation doesn’t serve the legitimate goals as intended and that history includes extended family under the definition of family

Braschi v. Stahl Associate (NY)

Braschi being evicted after his partner died, family can’t be evicted after a death of the tenant so argues he is family. Court agrees he is and outlines factors for determining who is family

Exclusivity and Longevity of Relationship
Emotional and Financial Commitment
Manner they conducted their lives and held themselves out to be
Reliance placed on one another for daily services

Presence or absence of any don’t make the decision the decision should be based on dedication, caring and self-sacrifice of the parties

North Dakota Fair Housing Council v. Peterson (SD)

Man and woman wanted to live together while not being married, they were denied. Court held this is okay by determining the statutes prohibited denying housing based on status of marriage but also said they can deny housing to couples who aren’t married holding themselves out as husband and wife

Privacy for Intimate Relationships under the U.S constitution

Griswold v. Connecticut

Contraception not allowed to be used. Court holds that this is a violation of the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the 14th amendment

Eisenstadt v. Baird

Rational relation with teeth- The rational relation analysis here was more in depth, the court analyzed the effects of the law in a much deeper way and found that despite a rational government interest legitimately pursued it had other effects and was held invalid
Denying contraception to unmarried individuals held to be not okay after rational relation with teeth, Mass didn’t want to punish non married couples with babies…
Married vs Unmarried Is treated with rational relation scrutiny under equal protection but here it was the rational relation with teeth
Child bearing as a fundamental interest now protected under due process clause

Lawrence v. Texas

Texas statute making it illegal for two persons of the same sex to engage in intercourse
Private Conduct in the exercise of the liberty granted in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment
Court held that the statute furthers no government interest and the privacy right for individuals in their own homes to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be denied. Bowers overturned

The rules of Engagement Balm to Soothe the Broken Heart?

Maynard v. Hill

Marriage is more than mere contract and is not subject to change once created. There are certain guarantees of marriage that may not be modified or restricted.

Rivkin v. Postal

Tennesee wife has burden of proof to show a promise to marry. Must show some form of written proof. Here she used a deed conveyance but that wasn’t enough. Her other avenue was two disinterested witnesses but the two she used were her parents so she lost burden on party claiming promise

Campbell v Robinson

Ring case: Ring given as token in consideration of marriage. The gift is conditionally on getting married if never married the ring belongs to the person who originally gifted it burden on wife to show it was just a gift not for engagement

23 PA. CSA 1901-1905 (Ferraro, Lindh)

1901- actions for alienation of affections abolished
1902: actions for breach of promise to marry abolished

Ferraro v. Singh (PA)* Husband lives in India During Engagement

1902 actions for breach of promise to marry abolished. Woman tried to get expenses for wedding refunded but loses because of the clear language

Lindh v. Surman (PA) *

Husband breaks off marr

r all federal laws so Windsor denied exception from federal estate tax
Windsor argued DOMA violated due process of 5th amendment because it deprives these couples of their right to equal protection because it imposes a disadvantage, separate status and a stigma
Right to relationships

Obergefell v. Hodges

Marriage is a fundamental right under due process, same sex couples have same right as opposite sex couples to enjoy intimate association, children of same sex marriages will be protected if their marriages, the symbolic importance of marriage cannot be denied to people of the same sex
Not only is it a due process right but it is also a violation of equal protection
Marriage is approved in all states
Fundamental Rights and Liberties are extremely close to each other and often intertwined in cases

1704 ( unenforceable but not repealed)

Barriers to Marriage continued

Blair v. Blair

Man and woman have child but she is married to someone else, she says that the child is his they then have another child and get married, he claims she fraudently represented it was child and that’s why he got married but court says there was other factors
Fraud Factors

A representation by wife
Its falsity
Its materiality
Wife’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth
Intent that representation be acted upon
Husbands ignorance of falsity
Husbands Reliance on truth of representation
Husbands right to rely on representation
Husband sustained consequent proximate injury

Carabatta v. Carabatta

Couple exchanged vows never got the marriage license, no common law marriage in CT which are designed to replace marriages lacking 1 element that were made in good faith
In this case court ignores the missing decides to not void a 20 year marriage for not having a marriage license