Religious Freedom v. Parental Responsibility Determinations

As more couples with different religious beliefs get divorced, the issue of how to raise their children in terms of religion becomes more common. Should the parents’ religious beliefs be considered when deciding who the children live with most of the time? What happens if the parents disagree on how to raise the kids religiously? Can the court get involved in these decisions? The U.S. Constitution and Florida’s state constitution protect people’s right to practice their religion, but courts can sometimes intervene in religious practices. The line between a “legitimate governmental interest concerning children” and an interference with religious practice and belief is a complicated issue. In Florida, the law does not specifically include religion in its factors for determining parental responsibility and primary residence. Other states do consider religion in their laws, but Florida does not. This means that religion is not a specific factor for determining parental responsibility in Florida. In 1986, a court case called Rogers v. Rogers established that a parent’s religious beliefs can be considered when deciding custody of their children. This came up because a mother was involved in a religious group that was taking up too much of her time and neglecting her kids. The court said that a parent’s religious beliefs can be a factor in custody, but it should not be used to compare or choose between different religions. Since then, there have been few cases in Florida that directly deal with conflicting religious beliefs between parents, and the courts usually try to avoid getting involved. In the case of Mesa v. Mesa, the court ruled that a parent cannot be prohibited from exposing their child to their religious beliefs during visitation. The court also said that a parent’s religious beliefs can be considered when deciding where a child will live. In the case of Abbo v. Briskin, the court said that a custodial parent cannot be forced to raise their child in the other parent’s religion, even if they had an agreement to do so before they got divorced. The court also recognized that a parent has the right to change religions, and that unwritten agreements about a child’s religious upbringing may not be enforceable by law. In the case of Abbo v. Briskin, the court said that there is nothing in the law specifically about considering a child’s religious training. In another case, Stotnick v. Stotnick, the court said that if parents disagree about their child’s religious upbringing, they can ask the court to decide. In Ayyash v. Ayyash, the court said it would be wrong for a judge to favor one religion over another. The state passed a law to protect people’s freedom to practice their religion without government interference. This means that the government must have a really good reason to interfere with someone’s religious practices, and it can only do so if there’s no other less restrictive way to achieve that good reason. The law also says that if someone goes to court to defend their religious freedom and wins, the government has to pay for their lawyer. This law makes it so that courts will likely be very cautious about getting involved in disagreements about how to raise a child religiously, unless there’s clear proof that a child is being harmed by their parent’s religious practices. In the past, courts would consider a parent’s religious practices as a factor in deciding custody, but now they may not do that as much because it could be seen as showing a preference for one religion over another. In custody or visitation disputes, courts generally require clear evidence that a parent’s religious beliefs are harmful to the child before interfering with those beliefs. The decision must intrude as little as possible on the parent’s rights while also considering the child’s well-being. Florida law and the constitutions support this approach. In a case, the court upheld a parent’s right to choose the child’s religion, even if the parents disagree. Another case involved a mother being deprived of primary custody due to her religious practices. This issue has been discussed in many other cases. The author suggests notifying the state attorney when religion is being considered in custody or visitation proceedings. An example of a harmful religious practice could be refusing a necessary blood transfusion for religious reasons. Deborah Marks is a lawyer in Aventura who specializes in appeals. She is very experienced and has held leadership positions in the legal community. This article is written on behalf of the Family Law Section. The section aims to promote the principles of serving the public, improving the justice system, and advancing the study of law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/religious-freedom-v-parental-responsibility-determinations/