Moore v City of East Cleveland Case - Essay Example

Family Law Background of the Moore Case The appellant in the case Moore v. of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494 (1977) was a grandmother living in her Cleveland home with her two grandsons. This was against an East Cleveland law ordinance that had limited the housing unit to a single family only (Areen, 227). The logic behind this ordinance was that there were many children who were moving to East Cleveland to seek for better schools, thus overwhelming the available capacity and overburdening the schools financially. Thus, the grandmother was convicted for the violation of this ordinance, since she lived with two grandsons who were first cousins, thus did not constitute members of a nuclear family. The City of Cleveland argued that the ordinance was constitutional, since it upheld the ruling made under Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, which had limited the number of people who could occupy a single dwelling (Casner, 189). Court holding The Supreme Court held that the ordinance created by the City of Cleveland was unconstitutional, since it violated the due process clause as provided under the Fourth Amendment Schedule of the United States Constitution (Areen, 227). The Supreme Court held that the material facts of the case were distinguishable from the nature of the facts provided under Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, which offered a provision for restriction of individuals who were unrelated from one another (Areen, 227). Thus, the limitation and definition of family as a nuclear family was a completely new conception, which violates both the tradition and cultural conception of a family as involving the extended family. Further, the court held that when the conception of the family unit is challenged through the government intrusion of the choices that concern the living arrangements of family, then the interest advanced by the government in this case must be carefully examined (Casner, 189). The court also held that the ordinance established by the East Cleveland City had a weak relationship with its intended objective such as reducing overcrowding and the heavy financial burden on the schools, since a larger nuclear family could have a more overcrowding and financial burden on the city than a small extended family. Finally, the court held that the basic values underlying a society, as well as the teaching of history must be recognized and respected, at the expense of laws that seek to draw superficial and arbitrary boundaries like confining the family unit to a couple and their dependants (Areen, 228). Thus, the court held that the history and tradition of the United States as a nation compel for the conception and recognition of a larger family. Implications of the Ruling The implication of the ruling is that it established the due process of law as relevant and applicable in family laws, to deal with matters of the traditions of family conception, vis-à-vis the changes in the subsequent conceptions that conflict with the traditions (Casner, 189). Additionally, the implication of the ruling under this case is that it upheld the provision of the due process of the law as provided for in the USA constitution, providing that no one “shall be deprived of life, liberty or property”, without the due application of the law (Areen, 227). John and Jane Doe have a merit in the claim that the city has violated the provisions of the law as made under the case of Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494 (1977), most especially as related to the violation of the due process and also the respect for the traditions and the teachings of history. According to the ruling under this case, the court had that the determination of a family as comprising a nuclear family is in itself a violation of the traditions and teachings of history of the Nation of the United States (Casner, 190). Similarly, the traditions and the teachings of the nation of the United States have held that children can live with their foster parents. Therefore, the fact that the ordinance has been established such that it does not recognize the right of the foster parents to have children that are not related to them by adoption, consanguinity or affinity, is a violation of the traditions and teachings of the history of the nation. Therefore, such an ordinance is unconstitutional in the face of the provisions of the ruling under the Moore v. City of East Cleveland case. John and Jane Doe have a merit in their claim; owing to the fact that the provisions of the ruling under the case Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494 (1977) provided that the due process of law has prohibited any law that deprives individuals off their liberty, property or life (Areen, 227). In this case, John and Jane Doe are facing a situation that is threatening to deprive them of their rights for liberty to be foster parents. Further, the ordinance is also threatening to deprive them of the right to property, by denying them to benefit economically from the contract signed with city’s department of social services to have them act as foster parents for adolescent children, in return for a monthly fee. Therefore, to the extent that the ordinance has violated the provisions of the due process of law as provided under the Fourth Amendment of the United States constitution, then the law is inconsequential (Casner, 189). The ruling under the case Moore v. City of East Cleveland also offered that the courts must investigate closely the interest of the government in controlling the arrangement of family, to establish whether there is a strong relationship between ordinance established to the control of family arrangement and the intended objective (Areen, 227). In this respect, the investigation of the relationship between the ordinance and the objective will show that the relationship is weak, since the ordinance seeks to hinder racial integration in the city, by providing a family arrangement that is based on consanguinity, affinity or adoption. Such a law would hinder chances of the racial integration involving a different race taking care of a child from another race in the foster parent’s arrangement. In addition, the ordinance established by the city would also be inconsiderate of the economic factor situation of the current USA society, where unemployment is a hindering factor for achieving a decent living, thus giving the department of social services the right to benefit the foster parents economically, in return for them doing something beneficial, as opposed to simply enrolling them to a helping program. John and Jane Doe have also a right to challenge the arbitrary of the ordinance established by the city, since the ruling under the case Moore v. City of East Cleveland also held that arbitrarily formulated laws should not hold at the expense of the established traditions and teachings of history of the nation (Areen, 227). Therefore, since both the traditions and the teaching of history of the USA nation have shown that the foster parenting arrangement is acceptable and considered as part of the larger family system, the ordinance prohibiting it must be beyond any arbitrary or superficial reasons. Thus, John and Jane Doe have a merit in presenting the case to the court to have the court investigate and challenge the arbitrary rules of the ordinance to make the rights determination. It is only after the courts have made the right determination to the effect that the ordinance established by the city is not arbitrary or superficial, that the John and Jane Doe can then become culpable for the violation of the ordinance. Part II BIffy has a ground for argument in law, since he can argue that the provision for prenuptial agreements is offered under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) [1983], which offers that parties can enter into a prenuptial agreement that is legally binding and enforceable (Goldberg, 27). In addition, Biffy can argue that the law has provided for the inclusion of property rights and alimony conditions in the prenuptial agreement, for as long as the spouse support terms provided for in the prenuptial agreement are not unconscionable (Goldberg, 28). In this respect, Biff would argue that the prenuptial agreement that Buffy signed are legally binding to the parties. On the other hand, Buffy can argue on the grounds of the illegality of the prenuptial agreement she signed, on the basis that she signed it under duress. The law guiding the signing of prenuptial agreements has provided that the parties to the agreement must sign the agreement voluntarily (Goldberg, 28). However, Buffy was forced into signing the agreement, when Biffy threatened to cancel the marriage just five days to the wedding. Additionally, Buffy can argue on the illegality of the signed agreement on the basis of failing to meet the independent counsel requirement. The law providing for prenuptial agreements requires that an independent counsel must be present during the signing (Goldberg, 27). However, in the case of Biffy and Buffy, the attorney involved was not independent, since he was recommended to Buffy by Biffy. Further, the law also provides that in case of a spousal support agreement being contained in the prenuptial agreement, that agreement can be revisited, even if an independent counsel was present during the signing (Goldberg, 28). Thus, Buffy can argue for the re-examination of the agreement. Works Cited Areen, Judith. Casenote Legal Briefs: Keyed to Courses Using Areen and Regans Family Law, Fifth Edition. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2007. 227-230. Print. Casner, James A. Casenote Legal Briefs: Keyed to Casner, Leach, French, Korngold, and Vanderveldes Cases and Text on Property, Fifth Edition. New York: Aspen Pub, 2004. 189-190. Print. Goldberg, Charlotte K. California Community Property. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2008. 27-28. Print. Read More