Opinion ID: 2462046
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Propriety of Consideration of Mother's Religious Beliefs and Practices

Text: Again, failure to apply the correct legal standard is an abuse of discretion. See Gonzalez, 290 Kan. at 755-56, 234 P.3d 1. Also, we have plenary review to determine whether a legal standard was correct. See In re M.F., 290 Kan. at 150, 225 P.3d 1177; Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand, 283 Kan. 911, 916, 157 P.3d 1109 (2007). Adiel argues that [t]he trial court erred in refusing to consider all the evidence related to the negative impact upon [J.D.H.] that was caused by Monica Harrison's religious beliefs and practices. Although [b]y itself, the mother's religion and her beliefs are beyond the scope of the trial court's inquiry, he asserts that it is proper for a district court to consider evidence of the negative impact upon the child and the negative impact to the relationship with the parent ... even if it is caused by religious beliefs and practices. Adiel further argues that Monica's medical philosophy [opposing blood transfusions] towards [J.D.H.] is not in his best interests. Adiel's position is that [t]rial courts are not prohibited under the best interest analysis from considering the medical philosophies of a parent as it bears upon future medical treatment. According to Adiel, the majority of the Court of Appeals improperly concluded that there must be a requisite showing of `actual harm' before religious beliefs and practices can be considered in determining the best interests of the child. Monica responds that the district court correctly noted that Kansas case law prohibited the Court from considering these [religious] factor[s] in determining custody and that [t]he Court of Appeals correctly restated and applied the legal standard for use of religious testimony in a `best interests' hearing. Best interests of the child analysis is complicated when a parent's rights may conflict. See, e.g., In re Cooper, 230 Kan. 57, 62-63, 631 P.2d 632 (1981), superseded by statute on other grounds, as recognized by In re J.A.H., 285 Kan. 375, 172 P.3d 1 (2007); In re Armentrout, 207 Kan. 366, 370, 485 P.2d 183 (1971). Further, one parent's rights may conflict with the rights of the other parent. Although the best interests of the child are always to remain the paramount consideration of the court in making a custody determination, we have explained that [t]he parents' rights cannot be disregarded,... and the child's best interests may be considered in conjunction with the parents' rights. In re Cooper, 230 Kan. 57, 62, 631 P.2d 632 (1981) (citing In re Armentrout, 207 Kan. 366, 370, 485 P.2d 183 [1971]; Lennon v. State, 193 Kan. 685, 691, 396 P.2d 290 [1964]). A parent's right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of his or her child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155, 166, 159 P.3d 974 (2007) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 [2000]; Sheppard v. Sheppard, 230 Kan. 146, 152, 630 P.2d 1121 [1981], cert. denied 455 U.S. 919, 102 S.Ct. 1274, 71 L.Ed.2d 459 [1982]). Further, all individuals in Kansas have the right to religious freedom, protected by both the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States and the Kansas Bill of Rights. Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 7; Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 876, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (citing Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 [1940]). Custody cases implicating questions of religious belief and practice require a delicate balancing of the rights of each parent and the welfare of the child whose custody is in question. Prior cases from this court, Beebe v. Chavez, 226 Kan. 591, 602 P.2d 1279 (1979), Sinclair v. Sinclair, 204 Kan. 240, 461 P.2d 750 (1969), Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705 (1957), and have provided some guidance to the lower courts on this subject, yet additional clarification is needed to enable review of the district judge's performance here. In Jackson, the father moved for a change in custody, which was granted by the district court. Mother appealed, arguing that `the real, underlying reason for depriving her of custody was her membership in Jehovah's Witnesses and training the children in that faith' and that the `emotional instability argument against her ... was a mere subterfuge.' Jackson, 181 Kan. at 4, 309 P.2d 705. This court concluded that the question of religion ... permeates the record. Jackson, 181 Kan. at 5, 309 P.2d 705. We noted that [t]he evidence in trial was replete with testimony and exhibits as to the tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses and the possible effect of such beliefs upon the children. Jackson, 181 Kan. at 5, 309 P.2d 705. Thus the only question upon this appeal is whether or not the court abused its discretion by allowing the matter of religion to become an integral part of its determination of this custody matter. Jackson, 181 Kan. at 8, 309 P.2d 705 Jackson held that the court abused its discretion in allowing the matter of religion to become an integral part of its decision to change custody, that the question of religion cannot be regarded by the court in determining the care, custody and control of minor children ... and in a dispute relating to custody, religious views afford no ground for depriving a parent of custody who is otherwise qualified, and that [r]eligious freedom, as guaranteed by our Constitution, should be faithfully upheld, and religious teachings to the children ... regardless of how obnoxious the same might be to the Court ... should not and must not be considered as basis of making child custody orders. (Emphases added.) Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, Syl. ¶¶ 1, 5, 6, 309 P.2d 705.