Religious Upbringing
In Indiana, unless the parents of a child have “joint legal custody,” the parent awarded custody of the child has the right to determine the religious upbringing of the child. This provision of law does not generally generate much controversy, but it is easy to imagine situations where it would. The Indiana Court of Appeals was recently asked to look over just such a sticky situation. The mother has custody, the father visitation rights. The mother is a Jehovah’s Witness, while the father is not, and the mother has chosen to bring the child up as a Jehovah’s Witness. Mother asked the court to impose limits on father’s activities with the child when the child was in his care, such as not celebrating Halloween, not engaging in giving or receiving gifts, and not having access with the child on Christmas eve or day. The trial court agreed and imposed the restrictions. The appellate court noted:
A non-custodial parent may not impose that parent’s own religious views on the child, and the custodial parent’s right to choose religious training is paramount so long as the training does not unreasonably interfere with the non-custodial parent’s right to parenting time. For instance, as long as the interference is reasonable, the non-custodial parent can be required to transport the child to religious events. However, when such interferences are unreasonable or when the custodial parent is using religion to interfere with the noncustodial parent’s parenting time, the court will not alter the parenting time schedule. We have explained that the custodial parent’s right to determine the child’s religious training can be limited only upon motion of the non-custodial parent demonstrating that the child’s physical health or emotional development would be significantly impaired unless the custodial parent’s rights were limited. [citations omitted]
This conflict arose out of a out-of-wedlock birth. In my experience, paternity cases are much more likely to generate these types of conflicts than marriages, people these days having different standards for marriage vs. “hooking up.” The court did not have a real issue because it came down on the side of the custodial parent, but there is a real issue with the process the court is following here. The Court sniffed over the limits emanating from the mother’s Jehovah’s Witness faith and determined them “reasonable.” Does the court really want to apply this reasonableness test to other faiths?
