Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Stanton v. Stanton

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionSex DiscriminationChild SupportFourteenth AmendmentEqual Protection Clausesex classificationsage of majority

Facts

A Utah divorce decree required the father to pay monthly child support for the parties' two children. When the daughter turned 18, the father stopped making support payments for her, relying on Utah Code Ann. § 15-2-1, which provided that minority extended to age 21 for males and 18 for females, though all minors obtained majority by marriage. The mother sought judgment for unpaid support, including support for the daughter between ages 18 and 21, but the Utah courts held that the father had no support obligation for the daughter after age 18 while support for the son continued during his minority. The mother argued that the sex-based age distinction violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Issue

Whether Utah's statute fixing the age of majority at 21 for males and 18 for females, when used to determine a divorced parent's child-support obligation, denies equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. A threshold question was also whether the controversy was moot or whether the mother had standing to raise the claim.

Rule

A state may not, consistent with equal protection, impose different treatment based on sex by using criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute. In the child-support context, a sex-based age-of-majority distinction that ends support for daughters earlier than for sons is invalid because no valid distinction between male and female children justifies that difference.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, a statute provides that divorced parents must support sons until age 21 but daughters only until age 18. After a divorce in Cleveland, Daniel Kerr stopped paying support for his daughter, Maya, when she turned 18, while continuing support for his 19-year-old son. Maya's mother seeks arrears for the daughter for the period after age 18.

What is the strongest constitutional argument against applying the Ohio statute to Daniel's support obligation?

Explanation. The majority held that, in the child-support context, a State may not draw different support obligations for sons and daughters based on sex when the distinction is wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute. Assumptions about different roles or needs of boys and girls do not justify ending support for daughters earlier than for sons.