Mathew Seeburger

Mathew discusses ways to improve the legal framework for making custody decisions involving religious considerations in his essay. He argues that adopting a stricter test could enhance consistency in evaluations, ensuring fair outcomes for both parents and children while safeguarding their well-being. Congratulations, Mathew, and we appreciate your insights!

Read Mathew’s Essay:

Family law plays a vital role in establishing and upholding the rights of parents and children alike. However, the application of family law in the United States sometimes reveals serious injustices. One major issue arises in custody disputes, where courts face challenges in balancing a parent's constitutional right to practice their religion with their child’s welfare. This often leads to inconsistent legal standards and potential violations of the First Amendment. In addition, divorce significantly affects children's emotional and psychological health, impacting their behavior, relationships, and self-esteem. This essay presents a solution for courts to better balance the competing rights of parents and children in custody disputes, as well as strategies to reduce the negative effects of divorce on children. By tackling these issues, it underscores the importance of a fair family law system that safeguards the rights and welfare of both parents and children.

The initial thrust of this essay is to say that courts must avoid infringing on a parent’s right to religion. The First Amendment clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." However, when religious beliefs clearly threaten a child’s well-being, courts may need to consider these beliefs in custody decisions. Yet courts sometimes go too far when they scrutinize and restrict religious practices; creating serious conflicts between a parent's constitutional right to practice their faith and the child's best interests. In resolving this conflict, it is crucial for courts to ensure their decisions are neutral regarding religious beliefs.

Currently, there is no uniform standard for courts to evaluate a parent's religion, resulting in inconsistent decisions and potential constitutional violations. Instead, a trio of cases, including Osier, Ledoux, and Zummo, established a two-step test to balance the rights of parents with the best interests of children in custody decisions. First, there must be evidence of potential harm caused by the parent's religion. If potential harm is identified, the court must implement the least restrictive measures necessary to protect the child's welfare while still respecting the parent's right to practice their religion. This framework seeks to balance child welfare with the right to religion in custody disputes.

However, the problem with this framework is that it can be too subjective. To better understand this injustice, it is essential to look at how different courts balance parental rights with child welfare. Some courts apply a strict standard, requiring actual or substantial harm to the child before limiting a parent’s religious rights. For example, in Pater v. Pater, the court ruled that restrictive religious customs were not enough to limit custodial access without proof of actual harm to the child's mental or physical health. In contrast, in Kendall v. Kendall, the court restricted certain religious expressions due to evidence that the children were experiencing mental or emotional harm. Meanwhile, in Munoz v. Munoz, the court concluded that children exposed to multiple religious beliefs do not necessarily experience harm, even if they feel confused by conflicting practices.

On the other hand, some courts use a looser standard based on the risk of harm. A key example is Petersen v. Rogers, where the appellate court overturned a trial court's decision that improperly questioned a couple about their religious beliefs. The appellate court ruled that showing a mere risk of harm from a religious practice allows for some inquiry into religious issues. Because of this lack of a uniform standard, there are opportunities for state interference in parental religious practices, which can lead to inconsistent court decisions and possible violations of the First Amendment.

Also, while courts should use the least restrictive measures to address any identified harm, some courts may impose overly broad restrictions on religious practices. For instance, some courts might prohibit a parent from discussing their religion with their child or limit certain controversial religious practices. While a complete ban on religious discussions between a parent and child is rare, such restrictions raise significant concerns about balancing rights.

To effectively address these injustices, the two-step test should be applied with a clear standard of actual or substantial harm. A strict test would help courts make more consistent decisions, ensuring that choices about religious practices are based on evidence of actual or substantial harm rather than mere speculation of some risk of harm. A strict approach would also reduce the threat of courts misusing their power in violation of the constitution and ensure that custody decisions respect the rights and welfare of parents and children alike. By adopting this approach across the country, American family law can better balance the needs of children with parents' rights to religious freedom.

Another significant issue in family law is how divorce affects children. Unfortunately, divorce is a common occurrence in the United States that impacts many families each year. It has a serious effect on children's emotional health, behavior, relationships, and self-esteem. For example, many children may feel guilty, thinking they caused the divorce. Research shows that high-conflict divorces are linked to worse outcomes for children. They may experience anxiety, depression, and struggle to adapt to new family situations. Younger children are especially vulnerable to mental health challenges after a divorce. However, children react to divorce in different ways, depending on their coping skills and the level of conflict between their parents. Understanding the various emotions children experience is essential for providing them with the support they need.

In addition to emotional responses, divorce also changes family dynamics and can greatly impact children's relationships. For instance, children living with a stepfather often report having more strained relationships with both biological parents compared to those living in single-mother households. Sibling relationships may also change, but research on this topic shows mixed results. Some studies suggest that siblings may argue more, while others suggest that siblings may become closer as they share their experiences. Furthermore, friendships play a crucial role in helping children cope with divorce, offering support and validation. While some children may feel isolated and fear rejection from their peers, friendships with other children who have experienced divorce generally help them process their feelings. Overall, maintaining stable relationships with parents and friends is crucial for helping children adjust to new family structures after a divorce.

It is also important to examine the factors that influence positive outcomes following a divorce. There are three significant factors: the quality of parenting, the nature of parent-child interactions, and the level of conflict between parents. Addressing these factors can greatly improve children's ability to cope and recover. The quality of parent-child relationships is a vital factor that predicts the long-term effects of separation and divorce on children. Supportive relationships, with good communication and low conflict, are linked to fewer negative mental health outcomes. To strengthen these relationships, parents should practice active listening, while establishing normal routines and spending quality time with their children.

Moreover, ongoing conflict between parents is one of the most damaging aspects of divorce. Children who witness frequent arguments, whether verbal or physical, face greater risks. Parents can learn to manage conflict better by building respectful relationships, setting boundaries, and focusing on what is best for their children. Also, mediation can be an effective way to resolve disputes, often leading to better outcomes for children. Preventive interventions, such as group support and educational programs for parents, can also help promote problem-solving and reinforce good parenting practices.

Ultimately, custody cases involving religious practices threaten to infringe on parental rights to religious freedom. The current two-step legal test used in many custody decisions is flawed, allowing excessive judicial discretion and inconsistency. A strict test that requires proof of actual harm would provide courts with a better standard, ensuring fairer outcomes for parents while still protecting children. Moreover, divorce has a significant impact on children, shaping their understanding of relationships and affecting their overall health and well-being. Thankfully, proven strategies and practices can help children navigate and recover from divorce. As American family law continues to evolve, prioritizing children's well-being without infringing on parents' rights is essential. By doing so, the legal system can better support families through the challenging issues of custody and divorce.