Thoughts On The 1987 Utah Supreme Court Decision Regarding Polygamy And Custodial Rights: Should Polygamy Alone Be Enough To Be Stripped Of Custody?

Sanderson v. Tryon was a 1987 Utah Supreme Court case that considered the effect that polygamy should have on the rights of parents in a dispute over custody of the children. In the case, a former polygamist husband Robert Tryon who had abandoned his belief in plural marriage wanted his former wife, Jennifer Sanderson who was at the time in a polygamous marriage, to be stripped of custodial rights over their child.

The trial court in its findings of fact stated that “except for Sanderson's practice of polygamy, there were no findings to support the conclusion that Tryon's custody would best serve the child's interests." The Utah Supreme Court then ruled that “we similarly hold that the trial court's finding that a parent practices polygamy is alone insufficient to support a custody award or to permit meaningful review on appeal.” The Supreme Court of Utah upheld the ruling. If this were the totality of what the court held, it would be quite obvious why they refused to strip Sanderson of her custodial rights. The best interests of the child would have been considered by the Court and Tryon's argument simply rejected on that basis.

Yet what is bothersome about the case is that at the same time the trial court stated as another of its findings of fact that a polygamous home is "an immoral environment for the rearing of the Sanderson/Tryon children by reason of its practice of polygamy in violation of Utah state law, and its tolerance and approbation of violation of state law regarding polygamy." It seems odd to say that on the one hand it is immoral and illegal, but on the other that it is insufficient to alone take into account as regards to the upbringing of children. It seriously casts doubt on how immoral polygamy should actually be viewed as to begin with. Once it is illegal, and specifically illegal because the Court and the State believes it is an “immoral environment,” I find it odd to say it is insufficient in a custody case. Would this logic be extended to other illegal immoral acts, and if so how far is this really to be taken in terms of other possible illegal immoral acts? If it is not enough of an “immoral environment” that it actually affects the family environment in practice, then why is polygamy outlawed in the first place? If the Court truly believed it was an "immoral environment," how can it then not be in the best interest of a child to not have the child reared in an environment of immorality?

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled that a parent raising a child in a polygamous home is not enough to have that parent stripped of custodial rights. The Supreme Court noted that "we have previously held that a parent's extra-marital sexual relationship alone is insufficient to justify a change in custody." The Court reasoned that there should therefore be no difference when the case is polygamy. But I would question this precedent as well. Why is it so clear that an extra-marital affair should not be taken into account in custody decisions? Under certain circumstances, doesn’t the cheating spouse display an abandonment of his or her family by committing adultery that might be worthy of taking into account? Furthermore, is an extra-marital affair still an immoral "violation of Utah state law" with a parent having committed adultery raising a child being a case of "tolerance and approbation of [a] violation of state law regarding" adultery? Because if it is not, then the comparison to polygamy does not seem to make sense. The two would not be seen as analogous in the eyes of the law anyway.

These are just some of my basic questions about what is the otherwise uncommon legal issue of raising children in a polygamous home and the interplay that has with a custody battle.
Tweet