Time: Sun Dec 14 17:18:19 1997 To: From: EAGLEFLIGHT <eagleflt@eagleflt.com> (by way of Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]) Subject: SLS: Religious Freedom????? Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >>12/10/1997 18:06 EST >> >>Court Rules on Religious Rights >> >>By MARTIN FINUCANE >>Associated Press Writer >> >>BOSTON (AP) -- Massachusetts' highest court has laid down a commandment to >>divorced parents: Thou shalt not teach your children religious beliefs that >>could ruffle their relationship with your former spouse. >> >>The state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a divorced father who became a >>fundamentalist Christian cannot share his newfound beliefs with his >>children if it alienates them from their Orthodox Jewish mother. >> >>Jeffrey Kendall was ordered to not share his religious beliefs with his >>three children if doing so causes them significant emotional distress. >> >>He can have pictures of Jesus on the wall, but cannot take the children to >>church where they would be told that non-Christians are ``destined to burn >>in hell,'' the court ruled. >> >>The decision was denounced by Kendall's lawyer, who claimed it infringed on >>freedom of religion and essentially favored the mother's religion over the >>father's. >> >>``A court cannot -- shall not -- establish a religion for someone, and here >>the court effectively has established a religion for these three >>children,'' said attorney Michael Greco. >> >>``That's the court intruding where it shouldn't be intruding.'' >> >>The high court, however, said the children's well-being must take precedence. >> >>``Promoting the best interests of the children is an interest sufficiently >>compelling to impose a burden on the (father's) right to practice religion >>and his parental rights to determine the religious upbringing of his >>children,'' wrote Judge Neil Lynch in the unanimous opinion. >> >>The case began in 1994 when Barbara Zeitler and Kendall filed for divorce. >> >>The couple had been married six years; Zeitler was Jewish and Kendall was >>Roman Catholic, and they agreed to raise their children, now ages 4, 6 and >>9, in the Jewish faith. >> >>But by the time of the divorce, Kendall had become a member of the >>fundamentalist Boston Church of Christ and his wife had become an Orthodox >>Jew. >> >>During divorce proceedings Zeitler claimed the children were being >>frightened by her husband's religious teachings, prompting the judge to >>appoint a guardian to investigate. >> >>The guardian found that two of the children were under stress because of >>the conflict, so in August 1996 the judge ordered Kendall to stop talking >>about those aspects of religion that substantially harmed the children. >> >>Kendall appealed, arguing that children were not substantially harmed, >>which is the standard that must be met if a court is to intervene in a >>parent's religious teaching. The high court said the standard had been met. >> >>In backing up its ruling, the court referred to similar findings in other >>states. >> >>A 1979 Pennsylvania ruling prohibited a Jehovah's Witness father from >>taking his Catholic child proselytizing door-to-door. And a 1990 Nebraska >>ruling also banned exposing a child to a non-custodial parent's religion >>because it created stress. >> >>Sanford Katz, a professor at Boston College Law School, compared the case >>to rulings nationwide that bar Jehovah's Witnesses from withholding blood >>transfusions from their children because of their beliefs. >> >>``You can believe in what you want, but when the practice of an adult's >>religion conflicts with the overall best interests of the child,'' Katz >>said, ``... the child's interests should trump an individual parent's right >>to practice his or her own religion.'' >> >>Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. >>Content © 1997 Detroit Free Press. All rights reserved. >> >># # # > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail