JW DIVORCES - 1960s

SINCLAIR v SINCLAIR was a 1969 Kansas Supreme Court decision. Limited details only. Robert Sinclair and Hazel Sinclair had been married for approximately twenty years, when Robert Sinclair was granted a divorce in February 1968. Custody of their two children, Gary and David, ages 18 and 13, was granted to Robert Sinclair. The trial court granted the divorce to Robert Sinclair on the grounds of gross neglect of duty and extreme cruelty, resulting from Hazel Sinclair's recent obsession with her new Jehovah's Witnesses religion. WatchTower doctrines noted in the trial record included prohibition against blood transfsusions, and the belief that Armageddon would occur in 1975. Hazel Sinclair appealed.

The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed, holding:

"2. The religious zeal of a spouse may be carried to such lengths that domestic harmony is completely disrupted and the legitimate ends of matrimony destroyed, with the result that the life of the complaining spouse is rendered intolerable. Such conduct characterizes behavior amounting to extreme cruelty and also may constitute gross neglect of duty within the purview of our divorce statute ... .

...

"4. The paramount consideration of the court in custody cases between parents is the welfare and best interests of the children. In the absence of abuse of sound judicial discretion the trial court's determination of custody will be upheld on appeal.

"5. The record is examined in a divorce action where the wife became so obsessed with her religious beliefs and activities as a Jehovah's Witness that her conduct competely disrupted family life and she neglected her duties as a wife and mother, and it is held, the trial court did not err in (1) granting the husband a divorce on the grounds of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty; (2) the division of property and alimony award; and (3) awarding custody of the minor children to the husband."

WINKELMAN v. WINKELMAN was a 1969 Michigan Court of Appeals decision. Although this divorcing couple did not have children, the memorialization of events and attitudes found in this scenario are educational and informative for those not thoroughly familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Verner Winkelman and Helen Winkelman were married in January, 1948, and separated in January 1966, when Helen Winkelman moved to Florida, to live with her mother. Parties were 58 and 59 years of age, respectively, and there were no children of this marriage. In 1968, Verner Winkelman sued Helen Winkelman for absolute divorce. Divorce was granted, but Helen Winkelman appealed.

At trial, Verner Winkelman testified that after Helen Winkelman joined the Jehovah's Witnesses, she became unbearable to live with. There was excessive criticism and accusations. Helen called Verner dumb and lazy, and she repeatedly stated that she hated him - sometimes in front of other people. In Fall 1965, Helen threw a sugar bowl at Verner. Helen Winkelman's conduct and the false accusations brought on Verner's ulcers and ill health. In January 1966, she left the marital home in Michigan to live with her mother in Florida.

Interestingly, at trial, Helen Winkelman denied all the allegations, except for one occasion when she stated she hated Verner in front of a third party, who testified to such.

In granting Verner Winkelman's petition, the trial court stated: "After sizing up the parties, the plaintiff is a rather subdued quiet type, and the defendant a forceful aggressive personality; the court is inclined to hold that the situation exceeds that of normal marital bickering, and that the plaintiff had made out a case justifying a judgment for absolute divorce.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating: "We find nothing in the record which would allow us to discount the plaintiff's credibility or the trial court's reliance thereon."

MEREDITH v. MEREDITH was a 1967 Idaho Supreme Court decision. Full opinion is available, but even such contains only limited - but extremely revealing - details. In February 1962, Clair H. Meredith filed for divorce against his then wife, Marilyn D. Meredith. The wife countered with her own request for divorce. Both parties alleged extreme cruelty, and requested custody of the three minors produced by this marriage. Clair H. Meredith had children by a previous marriage. It is unclear whether Marilyn D. Meredith had been previously married.

The judgment was entered in August 1962. The trial court granted a joint divorce, in that both parties were guilty of extreme cruelty to the other. Custody of the three minors was awarded to Marilyn Meredith despite prior unfit conduct on her behalf. The trial court decided that her conduct was less unfit than the unfit conduct of Clair Meredith, and less likely to repeat itself. Part of the findings against Clair Meredith was this:

"[Clair Meredith] is teaching his boys in accordance with the tenets of his [Jehovah's Witnesses] religion not to salute the flag, and that it is better to go to jail than to serve the country or participate in elections and support the country's institutions."

Clair Meredith appealed the trial court decision. Amongst other issues, Clair Meredith thought that the above "finding" violated his constitutional rights. Clair Meredith should have left well enough alone, rather than risk having other trial court findings memorialized in a Supreme Court opinion. But, first things first.

Testimony at trial indicated that Clair Meredith had joined the Jehovah's Witnesses subsequent to his marriage to Marilyn Meredith, which was not dated, but was probably around 1953-4. The trial court found that Clair Meredith thereafter subordinated the interests of his family to his religious beliefs to the extent that family activities and outings nearly ceased altogether; that [Clair Meredith] spent nearly all his time in the study of religious books, tracts and pamphlets and in the missionary work of said religious sect, and his whole life was bound up in Jehovah's
Witnesses.

Testimony at trial indicated that Marilyn Meredith remonstrated with Clair Meredith about this to no avail and that subsequently she left the home at various times, stayed out late at night occasionally, and finally left appellant completely and went to live with another man from whom she had since separated.

On the basis of this mutual misconduct the trial court concluded that the conduct of Clair Meredith justified Marilyn Meredith in leaving him, but her subsequent actions in living with another man were not justified and that the parties should be divorced, the bonds of matrimony terminated by a divorce.

Clair Meredith appealed. He assigned nineteen separate assignments of error, but his principal contention was that the trial court erred in awarding custody of the minor children to Marilyn Meredith for the reason that he was not a fit and proper person for the custody of such children because he taught his boys in accordance with the tenets of his Jehovah's Witnesses religion, not to salute the flag and that it was better to go to jail than to serve the country or participate in elections and support the country's institutions. Clair Meredith urged that this constituted interference with, and an infringement upon, a parent's constitutional right to attempt religious training and indoctrination of his children.

The Supreme Court of Idaho agreed with Clair Meredith, in part, but affirmed the trial court decision, stating in part:

"If this were the only ground upon which the trial court had found and concluded appellant was an unfit party for the custody of his minor children, it appears the great weight of authority in other jurisdictions would require reversal of the trial court's decree and a new trial. ...

"However, there was competent evidence in the record before us that appellant was guilty of incestuous conduct with an older daughter from a prior marriage who had been living with appellant and the two boys of this marriage during the separation of the parties hereto. The record also contains competent evidence that appellant requested and desired having anal intercourse with respondent. Additionally the evidence discloses that this older daughter by the prior marriage who for years served as a baby sitter for appellant with the two boys, the custody of whom are involved here was married and had left the home some six months prior to the date of the trial. The record fails to disclose what care appellant would provide for the two minor boys when he absented himself from the home in his religious endeavors. It is true that the abnormal sexual habits of appellant were denied, but it has long been the rule of this court that where the findings of fact of the trial court are supported by substantial, competent, though conflicting, evidence such findings will not be disturbed on appeal. ...

... ...

"While respondent's conduct left much to be desired, still the trial court found, and the record amply supports the finding, that her misconduct was caused by appellant's complete devotion to his religion to the exclusion of his family and that at the time of the trial respondent had reformed. Also it is to be noted that the misconduct on the part of the respondent, relied upon by appellant, was from months to years prior to the date of the hearing; and there was no showing of her unfitness as a mother at the time of the trial.

"Thus there is no showing of an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in awarding custody of these minor children of tender years to respondent-mother.

... ...

"Next, appellant contends the court erred in permitting evidence concerning appellant's religion to be introduced on the questions (1) of determining his fitness for custody of the children, and (2) in considering respondent's grounds for divorce, claiming in each instance that appellant's constitutional rights were infringed under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article 1, section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Idaho. There was no reversible error committed by the admission of such evidence in determining appellant's fitness for custody of the children because, as previously pointed out in this opinion, the evidence supports the trial court's findings and conclusions in this respect on other grounds. There was no error in the admission of such evidence in support of respondent's grounds for divorce because, as she testified, and as the court found, it was appellant's total absorption with his religion that primarily caused the disruption of the parties' marriage."

**************

ROMANO v. ROMANO was a 1967 New York court decision. The names are ficticious. Husband and wife were Italian immigrants, who were baptized and reared in the Catholic Church. They had three children, who were all baptized and being reared in the Catholic Church. In 1964, the wife converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses. At some point, the husband divorced his wife, although they continued to live in the same house. The husband flipped out, and continuing physical violence had to be dealt with by the court. In 1966, the husband was ordered to move out of his house. He sold the house, and his former wife and children were forced to move.

Thereafter, the husband sought sole custody of the three children on the basis "that the wife has become a Jehovah's Witness and that she is trying to bring the children up as such, their right to be brought up as Catholics is being affected and that if the children remain with the mother, they cannot be reared or taught as Catholics, and that it is in the best interest of the children to be raised in the father's religious environment."

The wife countered that "the court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioner-mother's right to direct the children's religious education and training and that if an award of custody is made solely on religious grounds it would invade her constitutional rights contrary to the freedom of religion and separation of church and state clauses of the state and federal constitution".

The court reasoned and ruled as follows:

"The basic issue, in the view of this court, is whether the children are being so adversely affected by their continued education in a Catholic school while continuing to live with a mother, who is a Jehovah's Witness, that they should be removed from the custody and care of their mother. The facts are clear that the mother is a good mother, providing a good and clean home and that the father is a devoted father, equally concerned about the welfare of the children. Were there no difference in the religion of the parents, the likelihood of a fairly stable, normal family relationship might have been good.

"The difficulty seems to be compounded by the fact that the mother, aged 31, born in Italy and raised in the Catholic faith, who married her husband in the Catholic Church, has only within the last three years become a practicing Jehovah's Witness. The children had all been baptized in the Catholic Church and the older two children now attend a Catholic school, although the oldest child did attend a public school in the first grade and the second child attended kindergarten in a public school.

"The mother admits that she would prefer to bring her children up as Jehovah's Witnesses but did testify that she felt, as a Jehovah's Witness, that the father did have the right to decide what kind of education the children should have. Thus she agrees that, if the father wishes the children to attend a Catholic school and to attend Catholic Church, she will allow them to do so. She states that she tries to help her children with their lessons in all but their religious subjects. Yet she feels she has the right to express to the children her feelings, as a Jehovah's Witness, that the Catholic religion 'is not based on the Bible'. She admits taking the children at times to Kingdom Hall, the headquarters and meeting room of Jehovah's Witnesses, once in spite of the court's oral admonition not to do so.

"It is also true that when the court, in chambers, discussed the situation with the oldest child, aged 9, in the presence of counsel for both parties, he indicated he wishes to be brought up as a Catholic and that he was somewhat confused by the fact that his mother practiced another religion. I do not feel, however, that this is all-controlling in view of the age of the boy and in view of the boy's statement that he and his father had discussed the expected interview with me. (He did say he had been told to tell the truth). ...

"There is no question that the mother had the right to change her religion and to practice her religion. Nor is there any question that Jehovah's Witnesses have a moral and legal right to bear children and to raise them in the precepts of their religion. Those who are not Jehovah's Witnesses will, of course, not agree with their beliefs and practices. They may be appalled, as is the father in this case, by their attitudes toward such matters as refusing to salute the flag, to hold public office, to serve in the armed forces or even to permit blood transfusion. But no one would suggest that where the spouses are both Jehovah's Witnesses that they should be denied the right to bring up their children as Jehovah's Witnesses, even if their beliefs are distasteful to us. Thus, a mother's being a Jehovah's Witness is no bar, in and of itself, to having custody of her children. And in this case, there is no evidence to suggest her unfitness as a mother.

"The question does arise about the effect upon the children of the conflict presented by their continuing to attend Catholic school and being brought up as Catholics in spite of the mother's difference in religion. The general rule is that the parent having custody will, absent special circumstances, be allowed to raise the children in his or her own religion. In this case the mother has agreed that the children may continue to attend Catholic school and may go to Catholic Church. There are many instances of intermarriage in which the children are brought up in a faith other than that of one of the parents, in which the relationship remains a good, healthy one. This is dependent largely upon the willingness and understanding of each parent to respect the right of the other parent to be what he or she wishes to be. It is helpful if the child is taught to respect the religious difference of the other parent and to recognize that, regardless of differences, there may be good in the heart and soul and deeds of those who believe differently than we do. This is particularly so where it is one's mother or father whose faith is different, as is her or his right in our democratic way of life.

"This does not imply that we do not recognize the inherent difficulties in a situation such as this. It will not be easy for the children to reconcile the teachings of the Catholic Church with the attitude of their mother. The mother should try to understand that this is so and should attempt to treat with respect the religious differences of the father and her children, especially since she agrees that the father has the right to determine the nature of their schooling.

"Yet I feel that the choice must be in favor of allowing the children to remain with their mother. The alternative of having them live with their father's brother and sister-in-law, the very same people who initiated the eviction action against the mother, is not a good one. Nor is there any other better plan available. ...

"Custody is awarded to the mother under the following conditions, violation of any one of which may be a basis for reconsideration of this determination:

"(1) The father may visit with children on Sundays from 8:30 A.M. to 12 noon, for the purpose of taking them to Catholic Church.

"(2) The father may visit with the children, in or out of the mother's home, on Saturdays from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.

"(3) The father may take the children of school age to Catholic school every morning and he shall return them to the mother's home directly after school.

"(4) The mother shall not take the children to any headquarters or meeting hall of Jehovah's Witnesses nor shall she instruct them in any teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses.

"Mutual order of protection for one year to incorporate above conditions.

"Referred to Probation Department to discuss with the parents the possible referral for counselling around the above problems in relation to the attitudes of the parents and for any help which the children may need.

If this decision was not appealed, it likely was not due to any lack of effort on the part of the WatchTower Society's Legal Department.

HAGEN v. FLOYD was a 1966 New York court decision. Robert Hagen and Shirley Hagen Floyd (Mrs John H. Floyd) were a divorced couple who were the parents of Laurinda Hagen, who was born in 1958. Robert Hagen was a Methodist, and 8 year-old Laurinda Hagen wanted to spend Christmas Day with her father, since her mother, Shirley Floyd, who had primary custody, had converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses, and did not celebrate the holiday. Both parents had re-married, and Robert Hagen's visitation was on Saturdays only.

Shirley Floyd refused the requests of both Robert and Laurinda, because she said that celebrating Xmas was against her own WatchTower beliefs. Robert sought and received a court order which permitted Laurinda to spend only Xmas afternoon with Robert's family.

REAGAN v. REAGAN was a 1966 Georgia Supreme Court decision, which involved William Alfred Reagan and Esther Naoma Reagan, and their multi-years long divorce battle. This was the parties' third trip before the Georgia Supreme Court, and the court ruled in the JW wife's favor:

(1.) There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict and judgment granting the wife a divorce and alimony.

(2.) The trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of the wife that she intended to leave all her property to her children upon her death since it tended to refute certain testimony by the husband, appellant, and was relevant to the issues of the case., stating in part:

The appellant, William Alfred Reagan, filed a petition for divorce against his wife, Ester Naoma Reagan, in October, 1963, alleging as ground for divorce that she had wilfully deserted him in December, 1960, and has continued such desertion since that time. The defendant wife, appellee here, filed an answer and cross action which, as amended, denied the desertion of appellant by her and alleged wilful desertion of her on the part of appellant since January, 1961, and prayed for alimony and for a divorce. This action has been tried once before and this is the third appearance of this case before this court. On the first trial the jury returned a verdict granting both parties a divorce and awarding alimony to Mrs. Reagan. In Reagan v. Reagan [1] ... this court held that such verdict was inconsistent in view of the pleadings and evidence and ordered a retrial of the case. In Reagan v. Reagan [2] ... this court held that the new trial previously ordered by the court rendered defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict a nullity and ordered the court to dismiss the motion.

On the retrial of the case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee for divorce and awarded her alimony. The trial court entered judgment and decree on the verdict and also awarded appellee $750 as attorney's fees. The appeal is from that judgment on assignments of error stated hereafter.

... ...

We hold that there was evidence to support the verdict in favor of the wife on the question of desertion by her husband. It appears from the evidence that a controversy over religion between the parties had led to their separation. The wife had become a follower of a religious group known as the Jehovah's Witnesses. Her husband had long been a member of the Methodist Church in Rome, Ga. The wife testified as to the events immediately preceding the alleged abandonment and desertion of her by the appellant as follows: "Well, we had a wonderful dinner. He had gone to the Methodist Church, and our meetings are in the afternoon; and I had dinner ready for him when he came in, and we ate dinner. And I always study my Bible before I go to church, to the meetings. And he was playing solitaire in the living room, and I went in there and took my Bible down, and he began, 'Why are you reading that stuff,' and so on, and 'You are going crazy.' And finally he got so mad, he said if I ever went again that he would be gone when I got home. So I calmly said, 'Well I'm going this afternoon.' So when I got home he was gone, and has been gone ever since." She testified that he left on a Sunday late in January of 1961; that appellant moved back in to the upstairs apartment in their house after about three months; that during this time he did not communicate with her or make an attempt at reconciliation but that be came and got his clothes from her on two occasions. She further testified that she left the home of the parties on November 13, 1961 to take a job helping an elderly woman in her home with the intention of staying there only until Christmas, but that she has remained at this job ever since and appellant rented the apartment she had vacated after she left. She testified and appellant confirmed the fact that she had left a considerable amount of her clothes and personal items in the apartment which was rented to others by her husband with these clothes and items still there as she had left them.

The husband testified that he had left Mrs. Reagan and stayed in a hotel for about six to eight weeks "Because I was about to go crazy. She was running me crazy talking about that Jehovah thing to me all night long. I couldn't sleep--I couldn't sleep, and I had to get somewhere where I could rest a little, so I could work." He stated that he had never left her with the intention of staying away forever. It appeared that when he moved back home into the upstairs apartment, Mrs. Reagan had the key to the downstairs apartment where she was staying and kept it locked most of the time. There was further testimony by him to the effect that he tried to effect a reconciliation and get Mrs. Reagan to come back to him. This was contradicted by Mrs. Reagan and by testimony of a married daughter of the parties, Mrs. Buck Ransom. Another married daughter, Mrs. Tom Sumerour, testified that Mr. Reagan had never asked her for Mrs. Reagan's address and this directly refuted the testimony of the appellant.

In conclusion, there is evidence which, although in conflict in some particulars, is sufficient to support the verdict in favor of the wife. The jury was authorized under the evidence to find that appellant left Mrs. Reagan, that he intended to desert her, that he acted without justification and that cohabitation was not resumed and that the desertion continued for a period of at least one year. Furthermore, even if the jury believed that appellant had offered to resume marital relations and that appellee had refused to do so, the verdict would be proper under the ruling in Born v. Born, ... that "the questions of good faith on the part of the husband in making the offer and whether the refusal of the wife to resume marital relations was justified or not under the circumstances and the period of time when the desertion began, are all for the determination of the jury and cannot be resolved on demurrer."

2. The second assignment of error is upon the admission by the court, over the objection of the appellant, of the testimony of the wife that she had a will leaving all she had to her children, and that it was her intention on her death to leave what she had to her children. It appears that the court sustained appellant's objection to the wife's reference to her will on the ground that the will itself was the highest and best evidence of its contents, but permitted her to testify as to what her intention was with reference to disposing of her property upon her death. She then testified that she intended to leave it to her children. The husband had testified earlier to the effect that she had asked him and tried to persuade him to make a will leaving their house to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The court did not err in admitting the testimony of the appellee since it was relevant to the question as to what disposition appellee would want Mr. Reagan to make of his property at his death and would tend to rebut his testimony that she tried to influence him to give the home to the Jehovah's Witnesses. This question would bear not only upon the credibility of appellant but upon the broader issue of the degree of his wife's involvement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Such involvement, depending upon its degree, would bear upon the question whether the husband was justified in leaving her when he did and whether she would be justified in refusing to resume marital relations with him, if it is believed that he had tried to get them back together. Thus, its relevancy bears directly upon the main issues of the case and the testimony of appellee was properly admitted.

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON was a 1966 Washington D.C. divorce case. In August 1966, Helen Johnson filed for divorce from Carl Johnson. Helen Johnson alleged that, subsequent to the marriage, her husband joined the Jehovah's Witnesses, and thereafter unsuccessfully tried to convert her, her daughter and her two sons. Helen Johnson alleged that when she and her children refused to join her husband's WatchTower religion, that he then began to mistreat them. Helen Johnson thereafter sued for divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Carl Johnson denied and contested his wife's allegations. Outcome unknown.

HOPPES v. HOPPES was a 1965 Ohio appellate court decision. Famous WatchTower attorney Victor F. Schmidt represented the defendant Wendell N. Hoppes.

In 1963, Lola B. Hoppes filed a divorce action against her husband, Wendell N. Hoppes, alleging that his constant preaching and obsession with his new Jehovah's Witnesses religion constituted "extreme cruelty", and that such had resulted in the marital bonds being broken. After hearings in October and November 1963, the trial court granted the divorce on grounds of "extreme cruelty" in January 1964. Custody the the couple's four children was granted to Lola Hoppes, with Wendell Hoppes receiving rights of visitation. The trial court's decision was affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals in February 1965.

Wendell and Lola Hoppes lived on a 525 acre farm in Fayette County, Ohio. They had four children. The family had a good relationship with relatives on both sides of the family. However, at some point, Wendell Hoppes became interested in the Jehovah's Witnesses, and subsequently became an obsessed member of such. At trial, Wendell Hoppes not only was represented by one of the WatchTower Society's more prominent attorneys, Victor Schmidt, but Anthony Belegante, a Circuit Servant (District Sales Manager) of the WatchTower Society also testified in Hoppes behalf.

Interestingly, at trial, Wendell Hoppes own father, brother, and sister provided much of the testimony which substantiated Lola Hoppes allegations.

S.W. Hoppes, father of the defendant, testified that when his son and Lola Hoppes were separated, the son, for a short time, made his home with his father, but that the father ordered his son from his home, because Wendell talked constantly about Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs, and the father did not want his home to be "Jehovah's Witnesses Headquarters". The father also testified that Lola once came to his home crying, and stayed there all one day, because of the trouble in their home.

Wilbur Hoppes testified that his brother, Wendell, was engrossed in the Jehovah's Wtinesses to the extent that it was "number one before family or anything else". Wilbur stated that his brother offered WatchTower literature to him, but he refused to accept such. Wilbur also testified that Lola was "a little edgy" the last few months.

Mrs. Winifred Dellinger, Wendell's sister, testified that Wendell had talked to her three or four times about Jehovah's Witnesses in the past ten months or so, and that he would be reading WatchTower literature when she visited in his home. She testified that when she and her husband told Wendell that they would not accept his religion that Wendell had become aggravated about it a couple of times. She also testified that Lola was was unhappy, nervous, and upset.

Lola Hoppes' sister, Julia Wilson, testified that when she and her husband visited the Hoppes in their home, the defendant would lecture and read to them Jehovah's Witnesses materials. When Wendell and Lola came to visit them in their home at Columbus, that she told him to leave and not come back, "if that's all he could talk about", and that he left and had not come back since. Even on the telephone, long distance, Wendell started preaching to her. As a consequence, her sister was sad, upset and on occasion would cry because her husband would lecture to her all the time. On some of the Wednesday nights that Wendell would spend studying with a Jehovah's Witnesses preacher in their home, Lola would go to her sister's home in Columbus to get away from them.

Lola Hoppes testified that:

1. That the defendant tried to force his religion on plaintiff and the children. That the defendant spent "all his spare time" in the home reading Jehovah's Witnesses' literature and lecturing to the plaintiff and their children as to its merits. That even when she asked her husband to refrain from reading and lecturing to the plaintiff he would continue anyway.

2. That the children would have to go to their rooms because they couldn't concentrate upon their school studies while defendant would read and lecture to them and their mother. That the husband's teaching to the children Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs regarding not voting and not saluting the flag created dissention between him and his wife.

3. That defendant, many times, called plaintiff, and anyone not a member of his church, hypocrites. That the defendant would leave company who were visiting in the home to attend his church meetings. That his actions brought about by his beliefs affected their social life so that their friends and family didn't "come around very often."

4. That because of the persistence of the actions of her husband she became very nervous and upset and she maintained that
it "made her life unbearable" and that "he ceased to be a companion" to her.

5. That the defendant told the plaintiff if he could come back he would give her and the children one night a week or one Sunday a month, otherwise the rest of his spare time was to be used in the work of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Even Anthony Belegante, a witness for the defendant and a Special Representative of the Watchtower Society, Circuit Servant, when questioned as to how far a mate should go in trying to win his spouse to his belief in Jehovah's Witnesses, testified that by continually talking to people who were vehemently opposed to their beliefs, they eventually "wear them down to the point where they would appreciate the things that were being spoken of."

In granting Lola Hoppes petition for divorce, on the ground of "extreme cruelty", the court stated, in part:

"... the court thus finds sufficient evidence to substantiate plaintiff's grounds for extreme cruelty and hereby grants to the plaintiff a divorce.

"... it appears to this court from a careful analysis of the testimony elicited from the witnesses testifying in this case that even though the defendant's motives may have been good, nevertheless if his conduct destroys 'the legitimate ends and objects of matrimony', then his actions have constituted extreme cruelty.

...

"The court further finds, that because of the tender age of the children and because there is no testimony to controvert the fact that the plaintiff is a fit, proper and suitable person to have custody and control of the said children, that the plaintiff is therefore awarded exclusive custody and control of the children of said parties until further order of the court.

"The court also feels that there should be reasonable visitation rights on the part of the defendant to see his children at such times as are mutually agreed between the parties."

ESPOSITO v. ESPOSITO was a 1963 New Jersey Supreme Court decision. Limited details. Famous WatchTower attorney, and onetime WatchTower Vice President, Hayden C. Covington co-represented Mary Esposito.

Dominick Esposito and Mary Esposito were married in 1953. Dominick Esposito was a nominal Catholic, and Mary Esposito was an occasionally observant Protestant. In September 1960, Mary Esposito joined the Jehovah's Witnesses. Thereafter, serious marital discord arose turning mostly on Dominick Esposito's objections to his wife's new religious affiliation, and her training of their infant son as a Jehovah's Witness. The son was born in 1956, and had been baptized in the husband's Catholic Church. At some unidentified point in 1961, the couple divorced, although they both continued to live in the same apartment. In October 1961, Dominick Esposito petitioned for sole custody of the child. In October 1962, an order of joint custody was entered.

On November 16, 1962, Dominick Esposito filed an appeal. On November 20, 1962, a further order was entered which provided that the child was to spend each weekday evening with his father, and all day Saturday. It provided further that "on Sunday the child may attend church services with his father, if the child so desires."

Mary Esposito appealed the both orders, and particularly had a problem with the provision allowing the father to take the son to Catholic Church on Sunday. Covington evidently advised Mary Esposito to move out of the apartment she shared with her former husband, and to pursue sole custody, which would give her the authority to control the son's religious upbringing. The appellate decision essentially put things on hold pending future legalities.

Ham admitted at the trial that prior to being divorced by Karlita, he lived a wild and dissolute life, associating with gamblers and prostitutes, entertaining in night clubs and beer joints in many places, and working only periodically without any steady employment for any length of time, except for several years as an entertainer at the Imperial Club in Galveston. Appellant admitted that he had been arrested on certain charges involving morals but had not been prosecuted or convicted. He admitted other derelictions and improper conduct.

However, Ham asserted that a week before the trial he had been converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses. ham claimed that the Jehovah's Witnesses would not permit him to return to the entertainment field. Ham stated that although he had previously believed what the WatchTower Society taught, it was only a week before the trial that he had been baptized, and had changed his manner of life. He no longer gambled, smoked or drank.

In December 1958, the court awarded temporary custody of Ham's two children to Karlita's mother and step-father, Ernest E. Cavette and Elizabeth Cavette, who had had custody of the children since Karlita died, and who had cared for the children for much of the time prior to Karlita's death.

In December 1959, Claudie Ham again petitioned for custody, but in August 1961, judgment was entered giving custody of the children to the Cavettes. Claudie Ham appealed.

The December 1958 order permitted Ham to visit the children each Sunday afternoon. There was testimony to the effect that when the children returned from such visits with their father, they were highly nervous and upset, had nightmares and frequently vomited. The testimony also indicates that the children did not want to go with their father and perferred staying home with the Cavettes. Although both Cavettes were employed, they had a maid to look after the children when both were at work. The children had been baptized in the Catholic church in accordance with the desire of their mother expressed shortly before her death, and at the time of the trial Kathy was in the first grade and Claudie in kindergarten at Sacred Heart School. The Cavettes denied that they were doing anything to alienate the affections of the children for their father, although Mrs. Cavette admitted that at one time she had told the children that their mother's death was caused from the treatment their father gave her.

Two employees from the State Department of Public Welfare had testified in 1958 to the effect that the children were not ready for the gruesome WatchTower Society explanations of life apparently expounded by their father during the times that he had them with him. They recommended that the children be left with the Cavettes, with the right of reasonable and controlled visitation by the father in the Cavette's home, at least until the end of the school term and then that they by permitted to spend the summer with their father with the Cavette's having the right to see them.

There was much testimony to the effect that the Cavettes were suitable and proper persons to have custody of the children; that they were financially capable of taking care of them and rearing them in a proper manner, and that their home was a suitable one in which to rear such children. There was also much testimony to the effect that the visitations of the children with their father resulted in their becoming highly nervous and manifesting ill effects, and that the father possessed no financial security.

On appeal, it was Ham's contention that since the trial court did not expressly find that he was an unfit person to have the custody and control of said children, he was entitled to their custody as a matter of law since he was their father and natural guardian.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court decision that it was in the best interest of Ham's two children that their custody be continued andvested in the Cavettes, stating in part: "Since no express findings and conclusions of law were filed by the [trial] court, we are required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to appellees, the prevailing parties. ... In so doing we have concluded that there is in the record evidence sufficient to rebut such presumption and to support the court's findings expressed in his decree that it is in the best interest of said minors that their custody be continued and vested in appellees and not in appellant."

Betty Jean Smith appealed. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision. Apparently, John Paul Smith's case for change of custody was based on both his testimony, and Betty Jean Smith's acknowledgment, that Betty Jean Smith was rearing Mark in the Jehovah's Witnesses religion. In doing so, Mark was instructed not to salute or Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and not to participate in school activities that were patriotic or celebrated holidays.

The Arizona Supreme Court stated: "... the rule that as a condition to modification of custodial provisions there must be shown a change of circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child. ... In matters pertaining to custody the best interest of the child is the primary consideration of the court; so where a change of custody is sought, it must be shown that the welfare of the child will be advanced by the change. ... The trial court is in the best position to judge what will be in the best interest of the child but if the record shows an abuse of sound judicial discretion this Court will not hesitate to reverse or modify."

The Arizona Supreme Court went on to rule that the trial court had abused its judicial discretion, and that there was no showing of "circumstances materially affecting" the welfare of the child. Reversed.

FRANTZEN v. FRANTZEN was a 1961 Texas appellate court decision, which involved Reinhardt L. Frantzen and Betti Rose Frantzen. The Frantzens were married in 1953, and two sons were born in 1955 and 1957. Until "the development of the controversy culminating in this suit, they lived in harmony and worked enthusiastically in their determination to provide security for the family and most especially to give the boys such education and training advantages as were calculated to develop them as moral, substantial and patriotic citizens. Accordingly, both parties joined the same Church, the Junior Chamber of Commerce, participated in political affairs, [Betti Rose Frantzen] becoming the Woman Chairman of the Women's County Republican Organization, and [Reinhardt L. Frantzen ] -- especially with a view of impressing the sons with the importance of the organization -- became a Boy Scout Leader. Thus, by both precept and example, the parties were engaged in doing their utmost to encourage the children to become intelligent, patriotic citizens, taking part in the affairs of Government and ever ready to defend the Nation from attack by those who would destroy it from within or without. ..."

"The first challenge to the aspirations of the family presented itself to [Reinhardt L. Frantzen] on a night in April, 1958, when upon his return from a Scout Meeting, he found [Betti Rose Frantzen] in company with--apparently engaged in a conference, known as a 'Study Session' -- with three members of the local Jehovah Witness Organization. As soon as the parties to the cause were alone, [Reinhardt L. Frantzen] expressed his apprehension to [Betti Rose Frantzen] and requested her to desist in further studying with the group. [Betti Rose Frantzen] refused, claiming [Reinhardt L. Frantzen's] apprehension unfounded and insisted that [Reinhardt L. Frantzen] meet with [Betti Rose Frantzen] and the local Jehovah Witness leader -- 'Pioneer' --so as to become informed of the true purposes of the Jehovah Witnesses. ... In this meeting, the [Reinhardt L. Frantzen] was informed by the Pioneer, Jehovah Witnesses believe and advocate that: (a) 'All world governments are ruled by the devil', (b) for such reason Jehovah Witnesses refuse to take part in any governmental activities such as voting, offering for public office, service on juries, refuse to salute the Flag and to pledge allegiance to any Nation; ... ."

Reinhardt L. Frantzen filed for divorce and custody of his two boys in January 1959. His case was dismissed in January 1961. Outcome of appeal unknown.