Opinion ID: 172351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Free-Exercise Claim

Text: The Starkeys also contend that Defendants violated their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion means, first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one desires. Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the government may not impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views. Id. The Starkeys allege that Defendants conspired to deprive Mr. and Mrs. Starkey of custody and contact with the children because of their disapproval of [the Starkeys'] Pentecostal or `fundamentalist' religious beliefs. Aplt. Br. 11. The Starkeys, however, point to very little record support for their contention that Defendants' conduct was motivated by religious bias. The only evidence they cite in their briefs on appeal is the notation in A.B.'s discharge report from Ft. Logan, which states: At the time of admission, the patient's social worker expressed deep concern that during the patient's stay at her father's, that she had been `brain washed' religiously by her father who apparently started his own church a number of years ago and is very heavily into religion. Aplt.App. Vol. I at 46. [3] Perhaps in isolation this statement might suggest Defendants' bias. But here the statement was made as A.B. was being hospitalized in an emotionally devastated state after suffering from what she described as a five-day anxiety attack, id. Vol. III at 312, and being subjected to what her pastor described as a spiritual cleansing, id. at 352. Moreover, Kintzing had been told by two of A.B.'s caretakersMs. Kozlowski and the West Pines counselorthat Mr. Starkey had a church in his home, [A.B.] was prayed over for 2-3 hours on the 7th of September, A.B. may have had a brainwashing dynamic goin[g] on, and Mr. Starkey had `religiously brain abus[ed] the children in the past. Id. Vol. I at 83. In addition, Kintzing had learned from the Starkey family therapist that Mr. Starkey had described A.B. as going through a conversion ritual reaction. Id. at 80. In this context, particularly when the discharge report made no comment about the nature of the Starkeys' religious beliefs, an inference of religious bias is a stretch. In any event, the Starkeys cannot support a claim that any adverse consequences resulted from this alleged bias. Their sole claim of injury from the religious bias is the deprivation of Mr. and Mrs. Starkey's custody of and contact with the children. But, as we have already explained in rejecting the Starkeys' family-integrity claim, they have pointed to no evidence that Defendants caused these deprivations. Rather, the state court ordered the deprivations based on the testimony of independent professionals who had treated the children and concluded that restrictions on custody and contact would be in the children's best interests. As a result, the Starkeys' claim must fail, and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the individual Defendants in their personal capacities.