The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in M.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, (Docket No. 23-450, certiorari denied, 3/18/2024) (Order List). In the case, an Indiana state appellate court upheld the removal to state custody of a 16-year-old transgender child who was suffering from anorexia. The teen's parents, because of their Christian religious beliefs, refused to accept their child's transgender identity. The appellate court also upheld an order barring the parents from discussing the child's transgender identity during visitation. (See prior posting.) USA Today reports on the Supreme Court's action.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Monday, March 18, 2024
Friday, March 15, 2024
Custody Order Barring Father from Taking Child to His Church Upheld
In Bardonner v. Bardonner, (IN App., March 12, 2024), the Indiana Court of Appeals held that a father's free exercise rights were not infringed in any way by a provision in a custody order that gives his former wife custody of their child and the sole right to determine the child's religious training. At issue is a trial court order that provides in part:
Father shall NOT permit the child to attend any All Saints Orthodox Church service, Sunday school, social event, any event located at the church, any event sponsored in whole or in part by All Saints Orthodox Church; nor any private events hosted by a member of All Saints Orthodox Church....
The court said in part:
The bottom line is that Mother has the exclusive authority to dictate Child’s religious training, and she has decided that Child shall not participate in Father’s church. Mother does not need to explain her reasons or justify her decision in any way.
Finally, we note that it was Father’s own violations of previous court orders, which were less restrictive on this issue, that led the trial court to impose the current prohibition against taking Child to even private functions hosted by members of Father’s church. Given the trial court’s broad discretion in family matters, we decline Father’s invitation to find an abuse of that discretion here.
In sum, the trial court’s order does not violate Father’s First Amendment rights; nor is it erroneous for other reasons.
Saturday, May 27, 2023
New Florida Law Allows Courts to Take Jurisdiction Over Minors Undergoing Gender Transition Treatment
On May 17, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 254 (full text) which prohibits sex reassignment prescriptions or procedures for individuals under 18 years of age. It also allows Florida courts to take jurisdiction over a child who is present in the state when the child "has been subjected to or is threatened with being subjected to sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures," and allows a parent to seek emergency custody of a child that is being subjected to sex reassignment prescriptions or surgery. The new law also imposes informed consent procedures for sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures for adults. Politifact discusses the reach of the new law. (Update: It is part of a 5-bill package (see prior posting.)
Tuesday, December 27, 2022
Utah Supreme Court Says Order in Divorce Proceeding on Children's Religious Teaching Is Too Broad
Kingston v. Kingston, (UT Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2022), is a challenge by Ryan Kingston to a trial court's order in a divorce proceeding that barred him from encouraging his children to adopt the teachings of any religion without the consent of his former wife, Jessica. According to the Court:
At the time of their marriage, Ryan and Jessica were both members of the Order, also known as the Kingston Group, a polygamous religious community. Ryan remains a member of the Order today, but Jessica left the Order before the divorce.
During the divorce proceedings, the teachings and practices of the Order became a key issue as both Ryan and Jessica sought custody of their four children.
In a 3-2 decision, the Court remanded the case to the trial court for it to "craft a more narrowly tailored remedy." The majority said in part:
[W]e agree with Jessica that the State has a compelling interest in shielding the children from psychological harm. The district court found that "[t]he Order's religious teachings jeopardize the health or safety of the children, and will cause harm to the children's welfare." Specifically, the court identified two potentially substantial harms to the children associated with Ryan's religious beliefs: (1) grooming of the children for early marriage; and (2) exposure to Order teachings that ostracize outsiders and demonize those who have left the group, including Jessica. Protecting the children from these harms is a compelling state interest....
The district court's prohibition is broader than necessary to prevent the identified potential harms to the children. The court prohibited Ryan from "encourag[ing] [the children] to adopt the teachings of any religion" without Jessica's consent. This prohibition applies broadly to "the teachings of any religion," but the court only identified specific harms associated with the Order. As written, the prohibition would prevent Ryan from teaching the children the Lord's Prayer or encouraging them to adopt the teachings of Islam. Based on a plain language reading of the prohibition, Ryan would have to seek Jessica's consent before engaging in either of these activities. The prohibition cannot be described as "narrowly tailored" when it reaches far beyond the compelling interest it is meant to address....
Associate Chief Justice Pearce filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Peterson. They said in part:
[S]trict scrutiny is the wrong test to apply.... I would follow the Utah Code and analyze whether the district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, real or substantiated potential harm to the child if the parent is allowed to participate in the child's religious upbringing.....
There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Ryan's objection to the district court's order is fueled by a desire to read the Quran to his children or to lead them in the Lord's Prayer....
... I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court's order.
Monday, October 24, 2022
State's Removal of 16-Year-Old Transgender Child from Parents' Home Did Not Violate Their Free Exercise Rights
In In re A.C. (Minor Child), (IN App., Oct. 21, 2022), an Indiana state appeals court upheld a trial court's order removing from the home a 16-year old transgender child who suffered from an untreated eating disorder and who was emotionally abused because of their parent's unwillingness to accept their transgender identity. The parents testified that they could not affirm their child's transgender identity or use the child's preferred pronouns because of their religious beliefs. In rejecting the parents' Free Exercise claims, the court said in part:
[T]he Dispositional Order was based on Child’s medical and psychological needs and not on the Parents’ disagreement with Child’s transgender identity....
Even if the Parents were able to demonstrate that the Dispositional Order imposes a substantial burden on their religious freedom, their claim that Child’s continued removal from the home violates the Free Exercise Clause would fail.... [P]rotecting a child’s health and welfare is well recognized as a compelling interest justifying state action that is contrary to a parent’s religious beliefs.
The court also held that the trial court's order requiring the parents to refrain from discussing Child’s transgender identity during visitation does not violate the parents' free speech rights.
Thursday, March 10, 2022
Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award Of Vaccination Decision-Making To Father Over Mother's Religious Objections
In Lady Donna Dutchess v. Dutch, (AK, March 9, 2022), the Alaska Supreme Court upheld a trial court's decision awarding sole authority to make decisions regarding vaccinations to a divorced father. The mother objected to all vaccinations for the children on religious grounds. The mother contended that this violated her free exercise rights under the state and federal constitutions. Rejecting that argument, the Alaska Supreme Court said in part:
We are not convinced that heightened scrutiny necessarily applies to child custody determinations allocating decision-making authority between parents, nor did the parties brief this issue. We note that several other state courts have concluded that strict scrutiny does not apply to a custody determination between parents with divergent religious convictions.... [A] court’s application of custody statutes in a manner exhibiting “a preference for the religious over the less religious” would essentially place “government on the side of organized religion, a non-secular result that the establishment clause is designed to prevent.” ...[T]he superior court here properly considered how the mother’s desire not to vaccinate the children was contrary to the recommendation of the children’s pediatrician and counter to their best interests.
Even if we were to apply heightened scrutiny ... , the superior court’s ruling would withstand review. The Statehas “an undeniably compelling interest in protecting the health of minors.”
Friday, April 16, 2021
Michigan Statute Protecting Parents' Faith Healing Includes Subjective Religious Interpretations
Michigan's Child Protection Law (MCL 722.634) provides:
A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian.
In In re Piland, (MI App., April 15, 2021), a Michigan state appellate court held that the trial court erred in refusing to give a jury instruction based on this statute in a case in which parental rights for three children were being revoked. The parents had allowed a newborn infant who developed jaundice to die rather than call for medical help. The trial court had refused the instruction because it interpreted the statute to relate only to the practice of beliefs of a religious organization, and not to individualized beliefs. The appellate court disagreed, saying in part:
The trial court’s interpretation of the word “legitimately,” as used in MCL 722.634, is that the religious beliefs being practiced must be legitimate. And, that, in order to be legitimate, those beliefs had to be part of the doctrine or tenants of a religion as opposed to a parent or guardian’s subjective interpretation of scriptures. The trial court’s interpretation, however, renders the statute unconstitutional. It is well-established that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground” for a person’s actions “is legitimate or illegitimate.”
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Claim of Religious Targeting Against Child Welfare Worker Dismissed
Thursday, April 26, 2018
Parents File State Court Suit Alleging Baptism of Their Son Without Their Consent
Sunday, March 25, 2018
European Court Upholds Germany's Removal of Children From Religious Sect Parents
The cases concerned the partial withdrawal of parental authority and the taking into care of children belonging to the Twelve Tribes Church (Zwölf Stämme), living in two communities in Bavaria (Germany). In 2012 the press reported that church members punished their children by caning. The reports were subsequently corroborated by video footage of caning filmed with a hidden camera in one of the communities. Based on these press reports, as well as statements by former members of the church, the children living in the communities were taken into care in September 2013 by court order. The proceedings before the European Court have been brought by four families who are members of the Twelve Tribes Church. They complain about the German courts’ partial withdrawal of their parental authority and the splitting up of their families.
The Court agreed with the German courts that the risk of systematic and regular caning of children justified withdrawing parts of the parents’ authority and taking the children into care. Their decisions had been based on a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, which is prohibited in absolute terms under the European Convention.Chamber judgments may be appealed to the Grand Chamber.
Sunday, February 18, 2018
Mother Held In Contempt For Ignoring Custody Order Giving Father Control of Religious Decisions
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
Court May Not Automatically Defer To Religious Objections Of One Parent In Deciding Child's Best Interest
When a district court decides a child's best interest, "[t]he First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." ... The district court violates this principle of neutrality when it treats one parent's religious objection as dispositive when deciding between a religious school and a nonreligious school....
In sum, a district court does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments by ordering a child to attend a religious school over a parent's religious objection. Indeed, the district court must order a child to attend the religious school if attendance at that school accords with the child's best interests.Las Vegas Review Journal reports on the decision.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Court Dismisses Parents' Complaint of Coerced Baptism of Son
Wednesday, August 02, 2017
Appeals Court Refuses To Order Recusal of Fundamentalist Christian Judge
Judge Bell's expressed belief that homosexual relationships and marriage are contrary to God's law, ... that God's law takes precedence over man-made law, and his placing paramount importance on the moral environment in which a child will live ... would tend to indicate to a reasonable person that a reasonable basis for questioning Judge Bell's impartiality in the divorce action exists; however, the standard is not whether there are some facts that would tend to indicate ... a reasonable basis.... Rather, the issue is "whether a reasonable person knowing everything that [Judge Bell] knows would have a "reasonable basis for questioning [Judge Bell's] impartiality."... Judge Bell, in his pendente lite custody order ... granted the mother and the father joint physical custody of the child, with custody alternating weekly, and ... [he] has granted two other lesbian mothers and the fathers of their children joint physical custody.... [A] reasonable person who knows everything that Judge Bell knows would not have a reasonable basis for questioning Judge Bell's impartiality....Christian Post reports on the decision.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge To State Custody Order
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Divorce Decree Restrictions Violate Mother's Free Exercise Rights
While the best interests of the children is a trial court’s paramount concern ..., here there is no indication that Rachelle’s prior speech related to her sexual orientation or her religious views ... would cause harm to the children if such speech or conduct occurred in the future. Therefore, we hold that the restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on her freedom of speech and her free exercise of religion.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
Mother's Move To Eskimo Village Does Not Justify Reduction In Her Child Support Obligations
On appeal, the mother also argued that the child support order burdens her free exercise of religion as protected by the Alaska Constitution. She contended that the order in effect requires her to give up her Native religious and cultural heritage to maintain a stressful job in Anchorage. The majority rejected her claim because it had not been raised at trial.
Justice Winfree dissenting argued in part:
Today’s decision has enormous negative implications. It trivializes and devalues Alaska Natives’ cultural, spiritual, and religious connections to their villages and their subsistence lifestyle. It requires a non-custodial Native parent in rural Alaska to pay child support based on what the parent could earn in urban Alaska regardless of the legitimacy of choosing to live in rural Alaska.... [I]t infringes on constitutionally protected religious and privacy rights.
Friday, June 12, 2015
International Travel Limits In Custody Order Did Not Violate Rastafarian Parent's Rights
Schworck’s argument that the circuit court should have granted him a hearing and that it was required to apply strict scrutiny in crafting the travel restriction is premised on his assertion that the travel restriction infringes on his right to provide religious instruction to Y.S. We see no such infringement because the travel restriction does not prohibit Schworck from raising Y.S. in the Rastafarian faith....
Assuming, without deciding, that travel to Kenya and Ethiopia would be beneficial to raising Y.S. in the Rastafarian faith, we reject the proposition that the circuit court was required to hold a hearing to determine whether the travel restriction infringed on Schworck’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion. Both the United States Supreme Court and our supreme court ... have recognized that the First Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to act in conformity with his or her religion in all circumstances.