City of Ladue v. Horn – Legal Definition of "Family"
City of Ladue v. Horn, 720 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. Ap. 1986).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case involved a dispute over a zoning ordinance law that defined family as ‘blood, marriage, or adoption.’
FACTS: Certain zones in the city of Ladue (P) were designated as one family residential in an ordinance for which the stated purpose was the health, safety, morals and general welfare. The Horns (D) purchased a home located in the single family residential zone of Ladue. They were not married and between them had three children, two of whom attended universities and were not home most of the time. Ladue demanded that the Horns vacate the household because they were not a family as the term applies under the ordinance. The Horns refused to vacate and Ladue sued for injunctive relief. The trial court entered a permanent injunction in favor of Ladue and the Horns appealed contending that the ordinance violated the right to freedom of association and privacy.
ISSUE: Do a man and a woman living together and sharing certain pleasures and responsibilities per se constitute a family?
RULE OF LAW: No. A man and a woman living together and sharing certain pleasures and responsibilities does not per se constitute a family.
HOLDING AND DECISION: To have a family relationship there must be a commitment to a permanent relationship and a perceived reciprocal obligation to support and care for each other. The Horns and their children do not even constitute a nontraditional family. The ordinance deals with economic and social legislation and not with a fundamental interest or a suspect classification.
The test is whether the ordinance is reasonable and not arbitrary and bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective. The Horn’s arguments for expanding the definition of family as set forth in the ordinance are unpersuasive. Ladue has defined a family in precise language as those people related by blood, marriage, or adoption.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
Ladue v. Horn, Missouri, law, family law, case briefs, freedom of association, right to privacy, permissible state objective, non-marital relationships