primary residential parent

In 1892 a national magazine proposed that schoolchildren recite a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Congress first codified rules for the Pledge in a 1942 joint resolution and amended the text twelve years later to add the words "under God." California law requires every public elementary school to begin each day with appropriate patriotic exercises. The Elk Grove Unified School District satisfies the requirement by directing that each elementary class recite the Pledge once daily, while permitting students who object on religious grounds to abstain. Michael A. Newdow, an atheist whose daughter was then enrolled in kindergarten in the district, filed suit in March 2000 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against Congress, the President, the State of California, the School District, and its superintendent. The complaint sought a declaration that the 1954 amendment adding "under God" violated the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and an injunction against the district's daily recitation policy. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the complaint on July 21, 2000. A divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed, holding that Newdow had standing as a parent and that both the 1954 Act and the district policy violated the Establishment Clause. After that decision, Sandra Banning, the mother of Newdow's daughter, moved to intervene or dismiss, stating that she held sole legal custody and that the child was a Christian who had no objection to reciting or hearing the Pledge. On September 25, 2002, a California Superior Court enjoined Newdow from including his daughter as a party or suing as her next friend. The Ninth Circuit subsequently held that Newdow retained Article III standing as a noncustodial parent under California law. In February 2003 the court amended its opinion to omit any determination of standing to challenge the 1954 Act itself. At a September 2003 hearing the Superior Court announced that the parents now share joint legal custody but that Banning makes the final decisions if they disagree. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider both Newdow's standing and the First Amendment question.

In June 2003 a South Carolina family court entered an order requiring petitioner Michael Turner to pay respondent Rebecca Rogers $51.73 per week to help support their child. Rogers' father Larry Price currently has custody of the child and is also a respondent before this Court. Over the next three years Turner repeatedly failed to pay the amount due and was held in contempt on five occasions. The first four times he was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment but ultimately paid what he owed. He paid twice without being jailed and twice after spending a few days in custody. The fifth time he did not pay but completed a six-month sentence. After his release Turner remained in arrears. On March 27, 2006 the family court clerk issued a new show cause order because Turner was $5,728.76 behind. Following an initial postponement due to Turner's failure to appear, his civil contempt hearing took place on January 3, 2008. Turner and Rogers were both present without representation by counsel. The court clerk stated the arrearage amount. The judge asked Turner if there was anything he wanted to say. Turner described getting back on drugs after release, breaking his back in September, filing for disability and SSI benefits, and hoping for another chance. The judge then asked Rogers if she had anything to say. The judge found Turner in willful contempt and sentenced him to twelve months in the Oconee County Detention Center. Turner could purge the contempt by reaching a zero balance. The judge completed a prewritten Order for Contempt of Court form but left blank the statement indicating whether Turner was gainfully employed and had the ability to make support payments when due. Turner served the full sentence. While serving the sentence Turner appealed with pro bono counsel claiming a federal constitutional right to counsel at the contempt hearing. The South Carolina Supreme Court rejected the claim after Turner completed his sentence. Turner sought certiorari, and the United States Supreme Court granted review. Within months of his release from the twelve-month imprisonment Turner was again the subject of civil contempt proceedings. He had arrears of $13,814.72 as of December 2010. Another hearing was scheduled for May 2011.

Timothy Abbott, a British citizen, and Jacquelyn Abbott, a United States citizen, married in England in 1992. Their son A. J. A. was born in Hawaii in 1995 after the couple moved there for Mr. Abbott’s astronomy work. The family relocated to La Serena, Chile, in 2002, where marital discord led to separation in March 2003. Chilean courts granted the mother daily care and control of A. J. A. while awarding the father direct and regular visitation rights, including every other weekend and the full month of February each year. Under Minors Law 16,618, article 49, Chilean law conferred a ne exeat right on the father requiring his authorization before the child could leave the country. The mother obtained a ne exeat order from the Chilean family court prohibiting removal of the boy. In August 2005, while proceedings remained pending before the Chilean court, the mother removed A. J. A. from Chile to Texas without permission from the father or the court. A private investigator later located the mother and child in Texas. The mother filed for divorce in Texas state court in February 2006, seeking modification of the father’s rights including sole authority over the child’s residence. Mr. Abbott filed an action in Texas state court requesting visitation and an order to show cause why the child should not return to Chile. The state court denied return but granted liberal visitation periods in Texas during February 2006. In May 2006, Mr. Abbott filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas under the Hague Convention and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act seeking the child’s return to Chile. After a bench trial at which only Mr. Abbott testified, the District Court denied relief in July 2007. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on the same rationale. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits on the status of ne exeat rights.

Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel never married but had two daughters, Isabelle and Natalie. Jenifer and Gary Troxel are Brad's parents and the paternal grandparents of the children. After Granville and Brad separated in 1991, Brad lived with his parents and regularly brought Isabelle and Natalie to their home for weekend visitation. Brad Troxel committed suicide in May 1993. The Troxels continued to see the children on a regular basis after his death. In October 1993 Granville informed the Troxels that she wished to limit their visitation to one short visit per month. In December 1993 the Troxels filed a petition in Washington Superior Court for Skagit County under Rev. Code Wash. § 26.10.160(3) seeking visitation rights. The statute provides that any person may petition the court for visitation rights at any time. The court may order visitation when it may serve the best interest of the child whether or not there has been any change of circumstances. The Troxels requested two weekends of overnight visitation per month and two weeks each summer. Granville proposed one day of visitation per month with no overnight stay. In 1995 the Superior Court ordered visitation one weekend per month, one week during the summer, and four hours on both grandparents' birthdays. Granville appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that nonparents lack standing to seek visitation under the statute unless a custody action is pending. The Washington Supreme Court granted review, held that the Troxels had standing, but affirmed on the ground that the statute unconstitutionally infringes on the fundamental right of parents to rear their children. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment.