Raising children in a mixed faith environment, or where one parent practices a religion and the other does not, can be a challenge at the best of times. It’s something that requires mutual respect, and a willingness to both communicate and compromise. It’s to be hoped that it is something that would be discussed prior to marriage and family. Nevertheless, sometimes people change their minds about religion, move from an orthodox to heterodox position (or vice versa), lose faith, or become a convert, and these things require negotiation.
I recently stumbled upon this blog post, looking at family law in religious conflicts between separated/divorced parents and the consequences for the child involved. Whilst the religion in question in this particular case is Jehovah’s Witness, observations included in the interim court decision could also apply LDS faith.
Briefly, there is dispute between the parents regarding the religious upbringing of the child, with the father being concerned that the mother is indoctrinating the child into the Jehovah’s Witness faith. This dispute is having a detrimental affect on the well-being of the child, and as a result an application to place the child in foster care is going through the courts, because (see point 8):
“There was ample evidence upon which the judge was entitled to conclude that the child was suffering harm as a result of the ongoing hostility between the parents and because his mother had immersed him in her religious beliefs and practices.
….
“The evidence in the case supported a finding that it was emotionally harmful for this 7 year old child to be immersed in the mother’s religious beliefs to the extent that the evidence plainly established was the case.”
The mother, with whom the child resided for part of the time, had previously been required to make the following undertakings to the court (see point 13):
“(i) Not to take N to the Kingdom Hall or any other religious meeting of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
(ii) Not to talk to N about religion or about the Jehovah’s Witness organisation or about her faith.
(iii) Not to allow N to go on the jw.org website or to provide him with any religious DVDs.
(iv) If N tries to discuss religious matters with her, to tell him that the court has indicated that it would prefer she did not discuss such matters with N for the time being.”
The court had held that amongst other things (see 14):
“N has suffered emotional harm due to his immersion by his mother in her religious beliefs and practices, with the intention of alienating him from his father.”
A point the mother did not accept (see 15):
“[It] is not accepted that N has been harmed by immersion in the religion of the Respondent Mother. She does not accept that she has introduced N to her religion with the intention of alienating N from his father. Notwithstanding His Honour [the judge] found that to be the case, but the Mother does not accept that.”
The professionals involved were unable to agree on a course of action. In a recent assessment (see 32):
“[The psychologist] remains concerned about the adverse impact upon N of the mother’s religious views. He remains of the opinion that N is too young to be capable of rational philosophical argument concerning faith issues. Rather, it is the case that N has taken on board what he has been told. If it were the case that N had simply been involved in the mother’s religious practices then that may not have been a problem. However, the problem is that N has been told that what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe ‘is the only way’. In his opinion it is likely that N is still being positively instructed in his mother’s religious beliefs.”
Not a view shared by the social worker (see 43):
“The social worker considers that the mother’s undertakings to the court are themselves having an adverse impact on N. Not being allowed to pray with his mother is a difficulty because he has done it in the past and ‘it is part of his identity, part of who he is’. N thinks that Jehovah ‘will be mad’ with him for not praying. She said that the Jehovah’s Witness beliefs are ‘intrinsically part of who he is’. In her opinion ‘we need to give certain things a go’, by which I took her to mean that there ought to be some relaxation in the scope of the mother’s undertakings.”
The judge seems to have sided with the psychologist, but recognised that without the backing of the local authority, represented primarily by the social worker, he can make an interim care order (and did so), recognised that in practice he would be unable to enforce the interim order before the final hearing later in the year (see 95-100).
I would recommend reading the full document.
Clearly it would be better if theses disputes can be resolved without recourse to the courts.
In the LDS church I know of one part-member family where the mother was able to argue that only by attending church and learning about the religion would the child be able to make an informed choice as an adult. And of a case following divorce where, this time, the it was the mother who took exception to the father’s religious belief and practices during court hearings about access to a child residing with the mother.
- How might these cases be best resolved?
- Do you think the father’s fears of indoctrination are justified?
- Do you think it fair to ask the mother not to discuss her religious practices with her child?
- What do you make of the difference of opinion between the psychologist and the social worker?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
As much as I don’t care for the JWs, I find the notion that in a family law matter one or both of the parents can be legally constrained from sharing their faith and what it lawfully entails with their children. IMO, religion is the ‘excuse’, the real failure, which is likely why a divorce has happened in the first place, is that one or both of the parents have acted selfishly and/or immaturely. The important thing is to work in the best interests of the child. Understandably, d-i-v-o-r-c-e makes that tough.
I can only speak for California, which I have some (bitter) experience in matters of family law. In general, when there’s a issue of religion vis-a-vis the children, the courts stay out of it. In most cases, the courts will refer the parties to a mediator, which for most, due to limited funds, means Family Court Services. Imagine submitting your child’s spiritual welfare to those bozos. Better, as Hedgehog puts it, to resolve it out of court.
The issue of mixed-faith marriages are too complex to give easy answers in this blog.
I think each parent has an inherent right to indoctrinate their child into their religious practice and worldview. It trumps the wellbeing of the child even when disputed amongst parents.
The fathers fears are justified and the mother still has a right to indoctrinate her kid.
The father should simply state he doesn’t believe the same. The kid can make their own choice from there.
Even if the mom is a real jerk about it-telling the kid that the dad is going to hell, the dad should present another view and remind the kid that no one truly can prove that, it is a belief she has and that it’s ok for people to believe different things and to define God differently.
Still, a whitty situation.
1)I definitely think best case scenario is to work it out without a judge. Maybe some sort of conflict resolution would be helpful? In the end though, it seems the only real ‘ideal’ is compromise, which admittedly I would not be happy with were I one of the parties.
2) Yes I do think it’s justified. Religion inherently indoctrinates people to a certain belief system – especially children.
3)I don’t think it’s fair to ask a parent not to discuss their religious practices with their own child. Now, grandparents are a different story… However, I just wonder where that line is. There are all kinds of religions and I have to think for certain religions and/or religious practices, the court might find it would be in the best interest of a child not to be around certain things.
4) They are looking at it from 2 differing views. Psychologically and socially/culturally. Psychologically it’s obviously indoctrination. ‘It’s the only right way’. Socially and cuturally, it is likely seen that the child has assimilated to these concepts, is comfortable with them, and believes them – as do many people around the world, but nobody forces an adult to ‘stop believing’.
This is an unfortunate situation. Although I recognize that there are probably some ‘rights’ for parents to choosing a religion for their child (as it happens all the time), I also don’t think it’s really fair to present only the JW or nothing. I think a fair compromise in this situation would be an introduction to and education in world religions. OR nobody talking about any religion at all (including not discussing whether one parent thinks a particular religion is wrong).
Parents have a First Amendment right to raise their children in the religion of their choosing. But like all rights, it is not without limits. Courts are, as they should be, very reluctant to be in the business of judging what religious beliefs and practices are beneficial or harmful. I think they basically have to be blind to the religious concerns of the parents (i.e., my child will risk eternal damnation if not brought up in my faith), but instead consider potential tangible harms, such as mental and emotional trauma.
Where parents cannot agree on one religious upbringing, I think they should generally be allowed to expose the children to both. Of course, this approach is more difficult when you have a more fundamentalist, orthodox, all-or-nothing religion, because that is going to increase the level of conflict, cognitive dissonance, and demands on the child.
Those seem to be the cases where the courts insist on both parents supporting the child’s upbringing in one religion (usually the custodial parent’s). But even then, I would probably argue that both parents should be allowed to share their religious views with their children.
I think everyone needs to get better at mixed-faith families. The thing is there’s a conflict between what’s good for the family and what’s good for the religion. Becuase in a mixed-faith family, there has to be a lot of compromise and understanding. But what gets compromised is often time, money, and service to the respective religions. I think that’s why the LDS Church chooses to focus on converting the non-member or non-believing parent and advocating increased commitment from the believing parent, rather than to advocate or model the compromise, respect, and understanding to make healthy mixed-faith family relationships. THe Church’s temple wedding policy is emblematic of this approach.
Personally, I don’t see how we can restrict a parent from raising a child in their chosen religion, even in cases of divorce.
I think a thornier issue is foster kids. When LDS families foster children that they will not be adopting for whatever reason, it seems like pressure for foster teens to get baptized is unfair and unethical.
I was about to say that foster children cannot be baptized, but I read the handbook and it says minors can be baptized when “Consent has been given by the custodial parent(s) or legal guardian(s)” Hmm…
I think parents have the right to indoctrinate their children while caring for them. However, it’s possible that the stress created by the conflict between parents is very damaging to the child. In such a case, I think the judge should remove the child from the situation, not try to dictate that a parent can’t teach her child her faith. Hopefully, with the child removed, both parents will cool down and come to some accommodation in order for the child to come back. This is a really scary power for the state to have, but it’s just as scary for the state not to have it.
As for social workers, judges, and psychiatrists, they’re all influenced by their personal biases, and if they think your religion is nuts, you’re in a lot of trouble. I’m an active, believing Mormon, but I’m not particularly political or conservative, and I don’t aggressively proselytize, and I’d guess half my co-workers still think my faith is nuts. I wouldn’t want them to have any decision-making power over me in such a situation.
Former foster parent here: in WA (&probably in all states) the state is the legal guardian, NOT the foster parent. I couldn’t even bring a 11 year old to church if he didn’t want to go, let alone get baptized. Perhaps some state foster care employees overlook that for foster parents but mine didn’t.
I have a friend whose initial response to all his kids’ questions about religion and god and ethics is, “well, what do you think?” He goes from there trying not to answer or even lean one way of another, but instead, encourages his children to think for themselves and instills in them confidence by truly showing them that their thoughts matter. I think it’s beautiful and I wish all parents were more like this.
But, obviously, this isn’t how it works in most homes. This case is so sad. I would hope both parents would quickly make figuring out a compromise the number one priority now that the possibility of the child living without either parent is on the table. But for it to get this far, I’m sure one or both of the parents is unwilling to compromise. I feel for the child and for the judge in this instance, and for the parent who is willing to compromise, if there is one.
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Douglas, I’m sure the courts would much prefer to stay out of it. It wasn’t clear from the background in the judgement who had involved them in the first pace, but they did seem to have been trying to get the parents to resolve the problem – both parents had been required to undergo cognitive behaviour therapy with the aim of getting them to see just what their dispute was doing to the child, with minimal success, it would seem.
Jenonator, the courts seem to be trying to put the well-being of the child first and foremost, parental rights notwithstanding.
kt, you raise an interesting point regarding grandparents. Also good points on the difference between the psychologist and social worker. I had also wondered whether social workers get more training with respect to cultural sensitivity, and also respecting the world views of those they have to work with.
Joel, yes. It was the perceived emotional harm to the child that appeared to be the focus of the court. But some disagreement as to what was contributing to that harm – psychologist v. social worker.
I agree that exposure to both views is better in the long run, but yes – much harder with fundamentalist beliefs of the only way.
hawkgrrrl, certainly difficult to restrict, particularly if faced with a child asking questions and expecting answers, I’d have thought. I’ve certainly felt uncomfortable about the baptisms of some foster children I’ve observed.
Martin, good point about personal bias. It must be hard to lay that aside completely when working in a professional capacity.
Jenonator, thanks for that background on foster care. it must be tricky as a family attending church when there are children living with you that you aren’t able to bring to church with you as a matter of course.
Dexter, that sounds like a good approach. I don’t think it works with all children all the time though. Sometimes children need certainty about some things as well. That was the case with my son who when younger would worry about all sorts of practically impossible scenarios. And yes, a sad case. Poor kid.