"Whether the subject matter is religion, health care, or education, absent an agreement, the court will not interfere with the custodial parent's decisions regarding the children's upbringing. ...  Only when moral, mental, and physical conditions are so bad that they seriously affect the health or morals of the children should the court be called upon to act with respect to a disagreement between the parents over the internal arrangements of family life. ...  Upon searching the record, we find no evidence that the children are being harmed by their moral, mental, or physical conditions.

"Finally, we note that the scheduled unsupervised visitation by the father poses no risk to the children and is not against their best interests. Moreover, the father should be permitted to expose the children to his [Catholic] religious beliefs and practices during his visitation periods.

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

"... The real issue in deciding what is in the best interest of a child or children is whether the religious beliefs, teachings, and practices of the parents constitutes relevant evidence and if so, how should the jury be instructed to consider that evidence without doing violence to a party's rights under the constitutional guarantees of religious freedom. The answer becomes more difficult if one recognizes that the particular beliefs, teachings, and practices are not part of the "main stream" religious practices where the case is tried. Certainly, the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses could not be classified as the beliefs of "main stream" religious denominations in El Paso County or even anywhere in the United States.

 

"The belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses that one should not salute the flag was an issue as to a father's custody of his daughter in Reynolds v. Rayborn, ...  Chief Justice Jackson wrote:

'The flag is emblematic of the justice, greatness, and power of the United States--these, together, guarantee the political liberty of the citizen, but the flag is no less symbolic of the justice, greatness, and power of our country when they guarantee to the citizen freedom of conscience in religion-- the right to worship his God according to the dictates of his conscience. Beyond my comprehension are the vagaries of people who claim and accept the protection of their government in order to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, but refuse to salute their country's flag in recognization of such protection. Yet, however, reprehensible to us such conduct may be, their constitutional right must be held sacred; when this ceases, religious freedom ceases.'

In Salvaggio v. Barnett, ... the father was considered to be a fit and proper person to have the custody of his daughter, except that he proposed, based on his religious beliefs, to teach her that it is wrong to salute the American Flag, and that it is wrong to celebrate and exchange gifts at Christmas, and that it is wrong to kill in defense of one's country. The Court said:

'Under the American principle of separation of Church and State, the secular power is so shackled and restrained by our fundamental law that it is beyond the power of a court, in awarding the custody of the child, to prefer, as tending to promote the interest of the child or surround it with a more normal atmosphere, the religious views or teachings of either parent.'

"In citing those and other opinions by courts of this state, in Frantzen v. Frantzen, ... Justice Barrow said that one's religious beliefs, teachings, and practices are not grounds for depriving a parent of his or her children, so long as such teachings and practices are neither immoral nor illegal. That standard was reiterated in Matter of Marriage of Knighton, ... . In that case, Justice Boyd wrote:

'Thus, it is beyond the power of a court, in awarding the custody of a child or children to prefer the religious views or teachings of either parent, even though the beliefs and practices of one parent might be more 'normal' or more in accord with majority religious views or practices.'

"Accepting the principles set forth in the cited cases and recognizing that a parent's religious beliefs, teachings, and practices are not grounds for depriving a parent of custody of his or her children if those beliefs, teachings, and practices are not immoral or illegal, did the court's instruction in this case instruct the jury on that fundamental constitutional right to religious worship and practices which some jurors might consider unusual or abnormal? We conclude the answer is "NO."

"... The instruction should have dealt with the rights of the parties before the jury based upon the evidence which had been admitted. There was evidence about the religious beliefs of the mother, but no standard was given to the jury on how to consider those beliefs when considering what was in the best interest of the children. The requested instruction was substantially correct. [Irene Alaniz's attorney requested the following instruction: "A parent's religious beliefs, teaching, and practice are not grounds for depriving a parent of managing conservatorship unless the teaching or practice of the beliefs are illegal, immoral, or demonstrate to be harmful to the child or children."]  A parent's religious beliefs, teaching, and practice are not grounds for depriving a parent of managing conservatorship unless the teaching or practice of the beliefs are illegal, immoral, or demonstrate to be harmful to the child or children.The jury should have known that the beliefs which the jury might have considered unusual were not grounds for depriving her from being named managing conservator unless they concluded that her beliefs, teachings, or practices were illegal, immoral, or would be harmful to the children. If they concluded those beliefs, teachings, or practices were either illegal, immoral, or harmful rather than just unusual or abnormal, they would be considered, otherwise they would not. The holding in Frantzen v. Frantzen, ... which affirmed a judgment based upon special exceptions to the pleading, is that the religious beliefs, practices, and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are not immoral or illegal. We conclude that what is immoral or harmful should be left to the jury to apply community standards. What one jury might consider immoral, i.e. gambling, playing a lottery, drinking to excess, homosexual conduct, or abortion,--another jury might not.

...

 

"Upon retrial of the case, the trial court should give a substantially correct instruction to the jury concerning the manner in which they should consider any evidence of the party's religious beliefs, teachings, and practices. In order for a party to be able to appeal any adverse finding and have the appellate court evaluate the jury's findings, it seems advisable to submit a question which inquires if the jury recommendation as to who should be appointed as managing conservator is based in part upon the religious beliefs, teachings, and practices of the party not so recommend. And if so, a checklist inquiring as to whether the jury concluded that such the beliefs, teachings, or practices of the adversely affected party was either illegal, immoral, or harmful to the child. ...

 

...

 

"... Upon retrial, the court will be governed by the Family Code as amended by the last legislature. The new provisions in Section 14.02(b)(1)(A) provide that a parent appointed as a conservator of a child retains the rights, privileges, duties, and powers of a parent including the right "to direct the moral and religious training of the child". ...

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

ASHLEY v. WOODARD was a 1993 Georgia custody case. Limited details. Sometime prior to November 1993, a Jehovah's Witness, named Willie Ashley and his ex-wife Mary [Ashley] Woodard had divorced. Mary Ashley had received physical custody of their son (born circa 1978), and Willie Ashley had received visitation rights. Apparently, Willie Ashley filed for additional custody rights, and his WatchTower religion became an issue, with Woodard claiming that the JW religion was "detrimental" to her son. Ashley withdrew his motion in November 1993. No further info.

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

IN RE FITZPINA was an early 1990s Florida custody case, in which the limited details hint at what may have been a very interesting case. Sometime prior to 1993, the legal custody of the teenaged daughter of Lino Fitzpina, 38, and Socerro Fitzpina, was taken by the state of Florida and placed with a Jehovah's Witness couple, who were probably relatives of either the husband or wife. In January 1993, Lino Fitzpina abducted at gunpoint his then 17 year-old daughter as she and her two foster parents exited services at a Fort Pierce area Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. The couple were eventually arrested and given an unknown sentence after pleading no-contest to charges of interfering with child custody.

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

HETRICK v. LANEY was a 1990-2 Pennsylvania divorce/custody court case, in which WatchTower Society attorney Carolyn Wah represented the Jehovah's Witness Mother, named Joyce Laney. A February 1992 court hearing apparently related to the attempt of the father, Kurth Hetrick, 26, to prevent his ex-wife from rearing their 3 year-old son, Tyler Hetrick as a JW.

The issue of JWs forbidding children to be administered blood transfusions was a heated issue in which Carolyn Wah received disgusted media attention by her lame attempts to equate the administering of a blood transfusion to a child with a "rape" of the child.

Kurth Hetrick failed in his efforts to prevent his ex-wife from rearing his son as a JW, but the court did give Kurth Hetrick oversight of Tyler Hetrick's medical care. Hetrick had been reared as a Methodist. It is unclear whether Joyce Laney had been reared as a JW, or had converted after the marriage.

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

"Today we reaffirm that a domestic relations court may consider the religious practices of the parents in order to protect the best interests of a child. ... However, the United States Constitution flatly prohibits a trial court from ever evaluating the merits of religious doctrine or defining the contents of that doctrine. ... Furthermore, custody may not be denied to a parent solely because she will not encourage her child to salute the flag, celebrate holidays, or participate in extracurricular activities. We reverse the trial court's custody and visitation orders because these decisions were improperly based on Jennifer Pater's religious beliefs.

"...  'The discretion which a trial court enjoys in custody matters should be accorded the utmost respect, given the nature of the proceeding and the impact the court's determination will have on the lives of the parties concerned. The knowledge a trial court gains through observing the witnesses and the parties in a custody proceeding cannot be conveyed to a reviewing court by a printed record.'  ... A reviewing court will not overturn a custody determination unless the trial court has acted in a manner that is arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. 

"It is against this standard of broad discretion that we must review the scope of a trial court's inquiry into the parents' religious practices. The other starting point for our analysis is that a court may well violate the parent's constitutional rights if its decision is improperly based on religious bias. ... The United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution forbid state action which interferes with the religious freedom of its citizens or prefers one religion over another.  To the extent that a court refuses to award custody to a parent because of her religious beliefs, the court burdens her choice of a religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause ...

 

"In addition to their free exercise rights, parents have a fundamental right to educate their children, including the right to communicate their moral and religious values. ... In a custody dispute, the parents' rights must be balanced against the state's need to determine the best interests of the child. ... This balancing requires more than a rote recitation that a domestic relations judge may consider any factor relevant to the best interests of a child, especially if the best-interests test is read broadly to encompass all aspects of childrearing. ...
 

"Courts have repeatedly held that custody cannot be awarded solely on the basis of the parents' religious affiliations and that to do so violates the First Amendment ...

 

"On the other hand, a parent's actions are not insulated from the domestic relations court's inquiry just because they are based on religious beliefs, especially actions that will harm the child's mental or physical health. ...

"... Robert and Jennifer Pater are both loving parents, and no testimony seriously disputed either parent's ability to nurture [child]. This case requires us to decide whether courts may deny a parent custody based on beliefs that do not pose a direct threat to the child's mental or physical welfare. Given the undisputed fact that both parents would meet Bobby's basic needs, the question is whether the intrusion into Jennifer's rights was justified by appellee's claims that if awarded custody, Jennifer would not allow Bobby to participate in certain extracurricular activities, celebrate holidays, or salute the flag.

 "[Robert Pater] claims that Jennifer will not allow their son to celebrate birthdays and holidays, sing the national anthem, salute the flag, participate in extracurricular activities, socialize with non-[Jehovah's]Witnesses, or attend college.  [Robert Pater] is concerned that the child will be socially ostracized and not adequately exposed to ideas other than those endorsed by the Jehovah's Witnesses. We can sympathize with his parental concern for his child, but are concerned that the state not exceed its proper role in resolving what is essentially a dispute between the parents' religious beliefs. Although the listed activities are those that most people may consider important to the socialization of children, we need to separate the value judgments implicit in the so-called norm from any actual harm caused by these practices. ...
 

"Even if we accept the premise that Jennifer will actively forbid Bobby to celebrate holidays, (SEE FOOTNOTE #4) be involved in extracurricular activities, or salute the flag, these practices do not appear to directly endanger the child's physical or mental health. A showing that a child's mental health will be adversely affected requires more than proof that a child will not share all of the beliefs or social activities of the majority of his or her peers. A child's social adjustment is very difficult to measure, and the relative importance of various social activities is an extremely subjective matter. (SEE FOOTNOTE #5) ... For these reasons, a court must base its decision that a particular religious practice will harm the mental health of a child on more than the fact that the child will not participate in certain social activities.  A parent may not be denied custody on the basis of his or her religious practices unless there is probative evidence that those practices will adversely affect the mental or physical health of the child.  Evidence that the child will not be permitted to participate in certain social or patriotic activities is not sufficient to prove possible harm.

"The evidence offered by "[Robert Pater] to prove that these practices would harm Bobby consisted of two expert witnesses. Dr. Bergman testified, on the basis of a dissertation he had written, that mental illness was more common among Jehovah's Witnesses than among the general population. This testimony was a blatant attempt to stereotype an entire religion. Regardless of the rate of mental illness among an entire group, that evidence does not prove that the religion in question will negatively affect a particular individual. Furthermore, this one piece of statistical evidence is meaningless. To follow this evidence to its "logical" conclusion, a court would need to compare this rate to the same rate for all faiths and for people who are not associated with any particular religion. If the latter group has the lowest incidence of mental illness, then under this reasoning we would have to forbid all parents from exposing their children to their religious beliefs.

"Dr. Denber testified that generally extracurricular activities are beneficial to a child's socialization. Neither Dr. Denber nor Dr. Bergman had interviewed Bobby. No proof was offered that this particular child was suffering or would suffer any ill effects from being exposed to his mother's religious practices. In the absence of any probative evidence that a child will be harmed by a parent's religious practices regarding social activities, the court may not use those beliefs to disqualify the parent as the custodial parent.

"We feel it is appropriate to question a parent about her general philosophy of childrearing. However, the scope of this inquiry into the religious beliefs and practices, not just of the mother, but of an entire religion was improper and an abuse of discretion. The isolated statements of the trial judge that he would not decide custody on the basis of the mother's religious beliefs will not insulate the court's decision from review.

"The trial court appears to have awarded custody to Robert because of Jennifer's religious affiliation. There is no dispute that both parents are excellent parents and we must begin from the assumption that both are equally competent to care for this child. However, at the time of the hearing, Jennifer had been Bobby's primary caretaker for the first three years of his life. She also testified that she would have more time during the week to devote to the child because she worked on only one or two weekdays. Jennifer deserves a custody hearing free from religious bias.

"The visitation order in this case also indicates that the court's decision was based on Jennifer's religion. The order demands that Jennifer 'shall not teach or expose the child to the Jehovah[']s Witnesses' beliefs in any form." This order is so broad that it could be construed as forbidding any discussion of the Bible. It is equally unclear whether Jennifer is permitted to discuss moral values because these values are influenced by religious beliefs.

 

"[T]he rule appears to be well established that the courts should maintain an attitude of strict impartiality between religions and should not disqualify any applicant for custody or restrain any person having custody or visitation rights from taking the children to a particular church, except where there is a clear and affirmative showing that the conflicting religious beliefs affect the general welfare of the child."  ... This rule has been adopted to protect both parents' right to expose their children to their religious beliefs, a right that does not automatically end when they are divorced. The courts should not interfere with this relationship between parent and child unless a child is exhibiting genuine symptoms of distress that are caused by the differences in the parents' religious beliefs. Today, we adopt the majority rule that a court may not restrict a non-custodial parent's right to expose his or her child to religious beliefs, unless the conflict between the parents' religious beliefs is affecting the child's general welfare. Because a divorce is a stressful event for a child, a court must carefully separate the distress caused by that event from any distress allegedly caused by religious conflict."

"FOOTNOTE#4:  This very well may be an assumption that we [MORONS] are not entitled to make. Jennifer testified that she was willing to allow Bobby to choose his own religion when he reached a suitable age. She also testified that she would not encourage him to celebrate holidays or salute the flag, and wished to explain to him why she did not do these things. She further testified that Bobby would be allowed to form friendships with other children so long as they were not a bad influence on him and that he could participate in suitable extracurricular activities. The evidence that she would do otherwise is based on the testimony of other Jehovah's Witnesses and religious publications. ...

 

"FOOTNOTE#5:  (DID THESE MORONS STOP TO CONSIDER THAT THEY ARE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT A CHILD'S LIFE?) Not only is an evaluation of the merits of different social activities subjective, but it is also of limited relevance to the best interests of a child. This can be easily demonstrated by considering plaintiff's claims that the child will be harmed if he does not participate in particular activities. For example, we first consider plaintiff's allegation that the child will suffer socially if he is not permitted to display patriotism, by saluting the flag or singing the national anthem. As important as these activities are personally to those of us who honor our country in these ways, these activities are just that, personal expressions, which a court should not force upon parents or their children. It seems obvious that this sort of personal decision that affects only the expression of political or religious beliefs should not be the basis for a custody decision. ... The plaintiff is particularly concerned that Jennifer will not permit the child to join various social organizations and invokes the image of a child without friends or social contacts. Despite this painful image, the parties actually are disagreeing not about whether a child should have social interactions, but about what type of social activities are appropriate for the child.  Whatever their position may be regarding contact with people who are not members of the religion, Jehovah's Witnesses have an active social life among themselves. Even if a Witness did not allow her child to participate in extracurricular activities or maintain close friendships with persons outside the religion, the child would still participate in social activities and have friends. (WHAT A BUNCH OF IGNORAMUSES)

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

"In considering religion and religious practices in child custody cases, the state and federal right to the free exercise of religion may be implicated; therefore, in balancing the relevant interests, the supreme court must minimize the degree of interference with religious liberty and use the least restrictive means to accomplish the legitimate objectives that warrant the interference. ...

...

 

"In order for a religious practice to be considered in determining child custody, the practice must have a direct and immediate negative impact on the physical or mental health of the child. ...

 

"On appeal by [Christine Carol Varnum], a strict Jehovah's Witness, from award to [Larry James Varnum] of custody of children in divorce action on basis that the trial court's consideration of her religious practices violated her right to the free exercise of religion, no miscarriage of justice requiring reversal was found where physical discipline and other practices of [Christine Carol Varnum], which may have been religiously motivated, rose to the level of "abuse" or were practices which would otherwise directly and immediately negatively impact on the mental and physical well-being of the children and where many of the factors supporting the trial court's decision were wholly unrelated to [Christine Carol Varnum's] religious beliefs.

... ...

 

"The court made extensive findings relating to the ability of each parent to raise the children and serve as primary custodian. It found that both parties had secure jobs and sufficient income to raise the children. It found that [Larry James Varnum] had on one occasion slapped [Christine Carol Varnum] on the face but had otherwise not been physically or sexually abusive toward her. It rejected as not credible [Christine Carol Varnum's] other allegations that [Larry James Varnum] sexually and physically abused her.

"Each party alleged that the other physically abused the children. The court found that [Larry James Varnum] had used a belt to administer discipline to [Christine Carol Varnum's] daughter [by a previous marriage], and on one occasion used the belt on his son. It found, however, that such discipline was not occurring at the time of the hearing and that [Larry James Varnum] did not use physical discipline on a regular basis. It found that [Christine Carol Varnum] physically abused the two children and that she believes:

'... strict discipline is essential to install a conditioned response in the children to certain demands imposed upon them by her. When the children fail to respond to her, she believes that it is appropriate and she does administer physical punishment to the children and has done so with various implements which includes a spoon, a ladle and a paddle.

'[Christine Carol Varnum] has punished the children by striking them about the face and body using both her hands and other implements with sufficient force to leave red marks on the children's skin. The court finds that that physical discipline does amount to physical abuse.'

 

"[Christine Carol Varnum's] [older] daughter [by a previous marriage] alleged that [Larry James Varnum] had sexually abused her when she was living with the parties in Vermont. The court found this accusation not credible.

"Both parties have abused alcohol, and [Christine Carol Varnum] twice attempted suicide while under the influence of alcohol. Although [Christine Carol Varnum] has been told she should not consume alcohol, she continues to be a moderate drinker.

"Both parties spend a great deal of their free time with the children. The findings detail activities in which each party participates with the children to show, with respect to each parent, a supportive relationship. Each parent has a residence and can provide safe and suitable care for the children. If she obtained custody, [Christine Carol Varnum] intended to return to California with the children.

"The trial court made a number of findings that relate to [Christine Carol Varnum's] religious beliefs.  [Christine Carol Varnum] is a Jehovah's Witness and is a strict disciple of her faith. Her belief in physical punishment to discipline the children was apparently related to her religion. Because of her religious belief, she forbade the children to have close relationships with children who were not members of her faith, and would not allow the children to celebrate birthdays or holidays although the children traditionally celebrated holidays and found it enjoyable. [Christine Carol Varnum] would not permit blood transfusions even if told by a doctor that the children needed the procedure. There was, however, no evidence of health problems in the children that would create the need for a transfusion. [Christine Carol Varnum] deferred to church elders for help in making decisions. The court found that allowing others to assist in decision making hampered her ability to determine the best interests of the children.

"The court ordered a psychological evaluation of the parties and the children. The psychologist's evaluation recommended that custody be awarded to [Larry James Varnum]. Although the psychologist's conclusions were based on numerous factors, the most important were that: (1) if [Christine Carol Varnum] obtained custody, she intended to severely limit [Larry James Varnum's] access to the children and move from the state as soon as possible; (2) plaintiff had "a better attitude and concept of what children need to be raised in a normal fashion"; and (3) [Christine Carol Varnum] admitted "to hitting the children and leaving marks on their body, a sign of physical abuse." Based on the evaluation, which the court found was fair to both parties, and the extensive evidence, the court concluded that it would be in the best interests of the children to award parental rights and responsibilities primarily to [Larry James Varnum].

... ...

 

"[Christine Carol Varnum] ... argues that because the court made findings of fact that touched upon her religious beliefs and because the
issue of religion permeated the trial [SEE PATER (1992) and MENDEZ(1987)], the court violated the free exercise clauses of the Vermont and United States Constitutions.

 

"... Although there was extensive evidence about the religion and religious practices of each party, with an emphasis on the religious practices of [Christine Carol Varnum], neither party objected to the introduction of the evidence or its use in arriving at a custody determination. Both parties submitted evidence pertaining to religion.

 

... ...

"Consideration of religion and religious practices in custody determinations may implicate the right to free exercise of religion ...  It is often said, as a result, that the courts must be neutral in matters of religion. ... While neutrality is a worthy goal, it is rarely achievable in a contested custody matter where the actions of the parents bearing directly on the best interest of the children are attributed to religious beliefs. More often, the courts must engage in a form of balancing of the relevant interests, ...  In such a balance, we must be careful to minimize the degree of interference with religious liberty and use the "least restrictive means" to accomplish the legitimate objectives that warrant the interference. ...

"There is no question that the societal interest in protecting and nurturing children is great. ... Thus, in appropriate cases, this interest must override the freedom of the parent to engage in religious practices. ... The challenge for the courts is to accommodate the differing interests where possible and protect the best interest of children while minimizing the interference with religious liberty. ... To do so, the courts have developed tests that require a religious practice to have a direct and immediate negative impact on the physical or mental health of the child before the practice can be considered in determining the custody of the child. ...

"In applying these principles to this case, we are mindful that defendant's religion, and numerous practices dictated or motivated by her religion, permeated the trial. We are also mindful that defendant's beliefs may appear peculiar and foreign to many. Indeed, many of the cases involving the impact of religion of a parent on the custody determination of a child have involved Jehovah's Witnesses and the courts, and the larger society, have found it difficult to accept, or ignore, their religious practices even when the impact on the children is speculative or insufficient to allow an impairment of religious freedom. ...

 

 

"Finally, we must accept that the trial court made findings and considered aspects of defendant's religious practices even though it did not find the required impact on the well-being of the children. On this record, we place in that category findings with respect to restrictions defendant imposed on the ability of the children to associate with peers who are not Jehovah's Witnesses and her prohibition on the celebration of holidays and
birthdays. We are also concerned about the use of the finding that defendant would not allow her children to have blood transfusions even if medically necessary, in the absence of any evidence that such an eventuality is likely and cannot be resolved in ways other than depriving defendant of custody. ...

 

"It is not surprising that the trial court's findings and conclusions do not show a careful consideration of the constitutional standard and the arguments defendant makes in this Court, since the issue was never presented to the trial court. Also, with respect to some facts, the deficiency may have been in failing to make complete enough findings, although such findings would have been supported by the evidence. For example, the evidence may have allowed the trial court to find that the prohibition on the celebration of birthdays or holidays has a direct and immediate negative effect on the emotional health of the children, but the court was not requested to make a finding on this issue.

"Nevertheless, we cannot find that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the custody award to plaintiff. In reaching this decision, we are motivated by the following considerations.

"First, the primary reason for the psychologist's custody recommendation was the physical discipline imposed regularly by the mother. This also appears to be the primary reason for the trial court's custody determination. While defendant's practices may have had some religious motivation, the evidence clearly supported the conclusion that the physical discipline had a direct and immediate negative impact on the physical and mental well-being of the children. We do not mean to suggest that all physical discipline by parents is prohibited or that, when religiously motivated, it has no First Amendment protection. However, the discipline here was sufficiently severe for the court to characterize it as "physical abuse." The trial court could heavily weigh the use of this physical discipline against defendant.

"Second, there was extensive analysis, both by the expert and in the evidence, of all aspects of the strengths and weaknesses of the parties as prospective custodial parents. In fact, many of the factors that supported the court's decision were wholly unrelated to the religious beliefs of defendant. ... Thus, the expert found that plaintiff had a better attitude and concept of the needs of the children. An important part of the psychologist's recommendation was based on observations of the interaction between the children and each parent, and the court made findings about these interactions.

"Third, although the trial court made no findings in this area, the evidence showed also that defendant intended to minimize plaintiff's access to the children. The psychologist recounted defendant's statements that plaintiff had little to offer the children in large part because he was not a Jehovah's Witness and thus did not possess the "truth" about life. The psychologist found that defendant's "attitude of indifference to the children's right to appreciate both parent's views will cause the children emotional harm." Even though the trial court made no findings on this subject, we believe it bears on whether there was a miscarriage of justice in this case.

"Finally, the failure of defendant to make a proper record in the trial court causes her difficulty in making out a free exercise claim for a first time in this Court. While there is a general sense that many of the defendant's practices are tied in some general way to her religion, there is no specificity on the exact nature of her religious belief and the extent to which it commands the practices. Thus, we can only evaluate in a rough way the extent to which forgoing some of the practices would burden defendant's religious expression, an essential aspect of the balancing equation for First Amendment purposes. ... Two examples will suffice. Although there was a general assertion that physical discipline is associated with the child-rearing practices of a Jehovah's Witness, there was no specific testimony that defendant's religious beliefs required defendant to hit the children with instruments like the butter paddle and spoon. Similarly, the court pointed to the fact that defendant appeared to routinely turn important decisions in her life over to church elders and concluded that her ability to determine "the best interests of the children is hampered by her need to have other people make her decisions." The evidence does not show whether the involvement of the elders in parental decision-making is required by defendant's religious beliefs.

"In conclusion, we are satisfied that the trial court's custody award was justified, even though the court did not examine specifically the aspects of defendant's religious beliefs and practices that do not directly and immediately impact on the mental and physical well-being of the children. The consideration of defendant's religion did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and we decline to reverse on that basis.

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

"At trial, the principal contested issue dealt with visitation rights and specific restrictions Diane LeDoux wished to permanently impose upon [Edward LeDoux] with regard to his religious activities with the minor children. Evidence was adduced concerning [Edward LeDoux's] religious beliefs and their effect on the minor children. Diane LeDoux testified to various incidents in the family home brought on by the beliefs of [Edward LeDoux]. Prior to the parties' separation, Edward LeDoux asked Andrew to say grace. The boy started to recite the 'Hail Mary', a Catholic prayer.  [Diane LeDoux] testified, 'Ed got so mad and told him, `How dare you, how dare you say that.' He got up and he dumped his chair over, and he went into the living room and . . . stared into space for 45 minutes.'  On Valentine's Day of 1986, Edward LeDoux refused to do anything with his family, and on Christmas of 1986, [Edward LeDoux] 'said he was going to rip up all the Christmas stuff and . . . throw it out.'   [Diane LeDoux] further recounted an incident on Easter of 1987, when 'Ed wanted to come into the house and take the kids to a [WatchTower] memorial service.  He came into the house and went up to Andy's room and grabbed him by the arm and wouldn't let him go.  We had an argument.  I finally had to call the police, and they came and talked him home.'

"Scott S. McQuin, an elder in the Jehovah's Witnesses church, agreed that there were differences between the Jehovah's Witnesses faith and other religions. McQuin stated the following differences: Jehovah's Witnesses go door to door carrying on religious conversations with people to encourage interest in the Bible. Members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religion are counseled strongly against allowing their children to participate in sports activities with people outside the congregation, and the children are discouraged from participation in organizations such as Cub Scouts or Boy Scouts. Parents would be strongly counseled about the dangers involved in being in those kinds of organizations. Jehovah's Witnesses encourage higher education for vocational purposes only, not to advance philosophical teachings. In addition, McQuin stated that Jehovah's Witnesses observe only one holiday, that being the memorial of the death of Jesus Christ, and they believe that patriotism is divisive.

"Dr. Joseph L. Rizzo, a certified clinical psychologist who had counseled [older son], was called to testify by the appellee. He indicated that conflicts in the Catholic and Jehovah's Witnesses religions were an obvious contributing factor to the stress felt and manifested by [older son]. Dr. Rizzo testified that [older son] was quite uncomfortable and fearful about visits with his father.  '[older son] spoke very strongly about the father trying to get him - trying to read him religious stories and trying to get him to pray, and things of this nature.'

"Dr. Rizzo said he became concerned when he learned that [older son] had voluntarily skipped visits with the appellant. 'Andy was angry, and Andy stated that he basically didn't want to be with Dad . . . .'   Dr. Rizzo said that [older son's] specific concerns with regard to his father would come and go throughout the period of several months, 'the concerns of whether or not the father would play with [older son], whether or not the father would pray, would do religious things that [older son] felt he was not supposed to do."

... ...

"The trial court found that there were numerous beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses which were in contravention of those of the Catholic religion. In addition, the trial court noted that Edward LeDoux wants to take his children with him when he goes door to door to have Bible discussions with other people. Edward LeDoux stated that he wants his children to believe the way that he does. The trial court did not pass judgment on these or any other beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but did not ignore that these beliefs were still contrary to the way that Diane LeDoux, the custodial parent, wants to raise the children. Taking note of the stress that [older son] was already experiencing, the trial court concluded that exposing the minor children to more than one religious practice would have a deleterious effect upon the minor children. The court found that exposing the children to two religions would not only affect the relationship between Edward LeDoux and the minor children, but also would affect the well-being of the minor children themselves.

 

... ...

 

"A de novo review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. There is ample evidence to conclude that the stress [older son] was experiencing posed an immediate and substantial threat to his well-being. The stress that [older son] was experiencing was neither hypothetical nor tenuous. In Dr. Rizzo's words, [older son's] stress is serious. The fact that the involuntary exposure to disparate religions was but one factor in the source of [older son's ]stress does not detract from the trial court's conclusion that these religious differences have and will continue to have a deleterious effect on [older son] and, likewise, the other minor child, ... .

"The order of the trial court is narrowly tailored in that it imposes the least possible intrusion upon Edward LeDoux's right of free exercise of religion and the custodial mother's right to control the religious training of a child. The custodial parent normally has the right to control the religious training of the child. ... The dissolution decree merely forecloses the exposure of the LeDoux children to those practices and teachings which are inconsistent with the Catholic religion. The appellant is free to discuss beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses with his children so long as they are consistent with the Catholic religion. Because appellant has had previous exposure to the Catholic religion, he should not have difficulty in recognizing those beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholic religions which are conflicting."

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

RECOMMENDED READING:

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Illness

The Theocratic War Doctrine: Why Jehovah's Witnesses Lie In Court

Blood Transfusions: A History and Evaluation of the Religious, Biblical, and Medical Objections (Jehovah's Witnesses perspective)

Blood, Medicine, and the Jehovah's Witnesses: The Hidden History of the Watchtower's Position on the Blood Issue

FREE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES CHILD CUSTODY DVD -- BATTLING OVER THE CHILDREN

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

JW DIVORCES - 1990-1994