In re the Marriage of: Rachelle K. Black and Charles W. Black

392 P.3d 1041 (2017)

From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re the Marriage of: Rachelle K. Black and Charles W. Black

Washington Supreme Court
392 P.3d 1041 (2017)

  • Written by Haley Gintis, JD

Facts

Rachelle K. Black (plaintiff) and Charles W. Black (defendant) married and had three sons together. Rachelle served as the primary caregiver, and Charles worked outside the home. The family attended a Christian church, and the children attended a Christian school. The children were indoctrinated to believe that homosexuality was a sin. In 2011, after the Blacks had been married for almost 20 years, Rachelle disclosed that she believed she was gay. Rachelle stopped attending the church, entered a new relationship, and began spending time away from the family. Charles became the children’s primary caregiver while still remaining employed. The Blacks filed for divorce, and the court held a custody hearing. At the hearing, the children’s therapist and their guardian ad litem testified. The therapist testified that she believed that Charles was a more stable parent. The guardian ad litem testified that she believed Charles should be awarded custody. The guardian ad litem explained that Rachelle’s lifestyle choice conflicted with the children’s religious beliefs and that the children might be bullied because of Rachelle’s same-sex relationship. The guardian ad litem further recommended granting Charles control over whether Rachelle’s partner could have contact with the children and recommended that Rachelle be prohibited from discussing her alternative lifestyle with the children. The trial court awarded Charles primary custody on the ground that Rachelle’s sexual orientation conflicted with the children’s religious upbringing and prohibited Rachelle from discussing her alternative lifestyle with the children. Rachelle appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed most of the trial court’s decision. Rachelle appealed to the Washington Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Fairhurst, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 783,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 783,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership