The facts. A father allegedly consented to a sham marriage for his minor daughter to evade the magistrate court’s jurisdiction over a custody dispute with his ex-wife. The mother requested expedited relief to stop the sham marriage, but the magistrate court did not enter an order stopping the father from consenting to the marriage until after the marriage had occurred. The mother asked the magistrate court to apply its order retroactively and nullify the marriage, but the magistrate court declined to do so, finding that the marriage would be voidable—not void ab initio. The mother appealed.
The issues. Two issues were on appeal: (1) whether the doctrine of nunc pro tunc allowed the magistrate court to apply retroactively an order granting an emergency motion that it did not see until eight days after the motion was filed, and (2) whether an Idaho law allowing only one parent to consent to the marriage of a minor child is constitutional.
The result. In a 3-2 decision, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. The Court declined to address the merits of the nunc pro tunc issue because even if the order applied retroactively, the marriage would be voidable—not void ab initio. Thus, the magistrate court would still lack jurisdiction overt the custody proceedings. The Court also declined to decide whether an Idaho law permitting only one parent to consent to a minor child’s marriage is unconstitutional because the mother presented a “cursory” argument in her opening brief and her attorney “did not provide any substantive response to the Court’s questions on the issue during oral arguments.”
Practice Pointers.
|