Sarah Yencha v. New Hampshire

The Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children. This Court has long recognized that the State may not interfere with that liberty interest without adequate procedural protections and evidence demonstrating that the parent is unfit or that the child faces a risk of harm. In this case, a state family court issued temporary and ex parte custody orders removing a minor child from the Petitioner’s care. The court expressly found that the Petitioner was not mentally ill, not unfit, and not a danger to the child, yet continued to restrict the Petitioner’s parental rights “out of an abundance of caution” without evidence-based findings of harm. The state’s highest court denied discretionary review. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a state family court violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when it continues ex-parte and temporary custody orders restricting a parent’s fundamental custodial rights without issuing evidence-based findings of fact or rulings of law, even after expressly finding the parent is not mentally ill, not unfit, and poses no danger to the child.

2. Whether a state family court violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by restricting a parent’s custodial rights based on protected religious speech, including communications intended to comfort the child, absent any evidence that the speech causes harm.