Court Opinion

ID: 9743674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:40:09.757436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:42.746283
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Justice,
concurring in result.
While I concur with Judge Miller's digspo-sition of this appeal, I believe he may have gone too far in his criticism of the trial judge.
*115As recognized by Judge Miller, Middy failed to meet her burden of showing prima facie evidence that a substantial and continuing change necessitated a change of custody, and thus she is not entitled to reversal or a new trial. Additionally, she did not object to the trial court's questioning of her and her husband, and improperly raises the issue for the first time on appeal. As Judge Miller further notes, Middy waived any error concerning the consideration of the religious training of the child by inviting the error.
Turning to the matter at hand, Judge Miller, Judge Chezem, and I all agree that there are no state guidelines for religious upbringing, and that such guidelines would be inappropriate and unconstitutional. My disagreement with Judge Miller lies in his assertion the trial judge was, in essence, laying out such guidelines in his inquiries into Jason's religious upbringing.
In addition to a change of custody, Middy alternatively sought an expansion of visitation rights. She was aware of, and assented to, Stephen's earlier request that Jason attend church on the week-ends he was with her, and this was not an improper request on the part of the custodial parent. See Overman v. Overman (1986), Ind.App., 497 N.E.2d 618, trans. denied. The trial judge was simply questioning Middy about her past compliance with this request, and attempting to gauge the likelihood of future compliance in light of her desire to have increased visitation with Jason. Under Overman and its interpretation of IND.CODE $3$1-1-11.5-21(b), this line of questioning was proper in the context of a request for expanded visitation.
The trial judge's comments in this case were not expressions of displeasure over Middy's religious upbringing of the child, and were not suggestions that Middy and her husband were not good Catholies or did not have sincere religious beliefs. The trial judge stated Jason should be raised in his religion if he was used to being raised in his religion. The judge responded to an attorney's comment that the judge found church attendance important by stating he did not want to give the impression that he thought it was important, but rather, that it appeared to be important to Stephen, the custodial parent. The trial judge simply was inquiring as to whether Middy and her husband would really take Jason to church, as the custodial parent wanted and as they said they would do, when in the past they had not done so. This was in the context of Middy's request for increased visitation, not a discussion on the appropriateness of her religious beliefs.
Judge Miller recognizes trial judges have a most difficult task in these cases, and I hesitate to criticize the comments made by the trial judge here when the comments are viewed in their totality.
I concur in the result.
APPENDIX
Middy acknowledged that, in a modification hearing in 1984, Stephen had requested that she take Jason to church when she had visitations. She admitted that she had not done so. Then the following exchange took place between Middy and the judge:
THE COURT: Have you ever taken him to church?
A. Yes, I have.
THE COURT: How many Sundays?
A. I don't know.
THE COURT: Why would you think then that I would-if you haven't taken him to church and I requested that you continue with this religious education when he was with you by taking him to church and you haven't-what makes you-you've only maybe done it once or twice-what makes you believe that I could believe that you would take him to church when you're not going now and you never have been going? Why, why do you think that I would believe that you would take him to church? Why haven't you been doing that? And what assurance can you give me that you are going to change like Saul did to Paul overnight from a bolt of lightring? All at once you're going to be a churchgoer when you haven't been a church goer before?
A. Yes, I have been a churchgoer but
[[Image here]]
*116THE COURT: When was the last-what religion do you belong to now?
A. When I go to church I go to a Catholic church.
THE COURT: When did you last go to a Catholic church?
A. I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
(R. 78-80).
Later during the re-direct examination of Middy, the court again became involved in questioning Middy:
THE COURT: Let me ask you this question. I get the general impression from the questions asked that at least to the father in the father's estimation the raising of the boy in whatever religion that he was being raised in-and in this particular instance it appears to be the Catholic religion-is important. You've had the child for three weeks this summer, is that correct? Three weeks or four weeks this summer?
A. Four weeks this summer.
THE COURT: Four weeks this summer. And what, during what months did you have him?
A. It was in the month of June.
THE COURT: All the month of June. How many times did you take him to Catholic church?
A. During this three weeks?
THE COURT: Uh huh.
A. None
THE COURT: You didn't, did you. Now, you gave the impression today in the questioning when your attorney asked the questions, the reason you didn't take him to church was because you were pressed for time when you came up here, but the fact is you don't take him to church when he's down there with you, do you?
A. No, not very often.
THE COURT: Is your husband a practicing Catholic? A practicing Catholic. Not just a Catholic by birth-a practicing Catholic?
A. By the definition of a practicing Catholiec-
THE COURT: Does he go to church on Sunday?
A. Every Sunday, no.
THE COURT: How often does he go to church?
A. No more regularly than I do. THE COURT: Like Christmas and Easter?
A. Christmas, Easter, the holidays of course. I mean there's other times in between but ..
THE COURT: No further questions.
(R. 102-104).
During the direct examination of Middy's husband, Vance, Middy's counsel asked him:
Q. Now in regard to-there's some question about you being Catholic? Are you Catholic?
A. Yes, I am Catholic. I am not perfect. I've got a lot of flaws and I wish I could backtrack and change a few of them, but I can say this without a doubt that if [the Court] blesses us with Jason back, that, yes, we will go to church and every, we'll make every effort possible to get to church and to do anything possible to see that Jason not only ..
THE COURT: I'll ask you the same question I asked her: You know how important this is undoubtedly to the father of the child. You've had the child three, four weeks this summer, six weeks last summer, your wife can't remember when she was in a Catholic church. She says you and she don't go only maybe on Easter and Christmas. If you felt this strongly about this boy, why didn't you help him along even though his custody was with the father in his religious training? Why didn't you do it?
A. As I said, sir, I owe not only my wife an apology for this, or not only you or Steve or Jason, but I do owe apology for not doing it in the past. Why I didn't-there's a lot of things that go into a person's life and the religious background. I was born, raised a Catholic. I went to Catholic church when I was in college. I continued to go to church when I was in college. I came home. I *117went for a while when I came home from college. Why I discontinued, there are things that, and I don't know.
THE COURT: Well, it doesn't make any difference to me if this boy was a Methodist or a Presbyterian or a Jewish boy. He should be raised in his religion, if he is used to being raised in his religion, and you're telling me that all of a sudden you're going to change all of this, but you haven't done it in the past. What makes you believe that I believe you? That's what I'm trying to ask you. What makes you think I believe you?
A. Well, sir, I believe in certain things. I believe that not only, and I'm sure you believe the same way, that not only is religion gotten from going to church, but you also have to practice what you learn at church.
THE COURT: Well, I get the impression that you don't think it's necessary that you formalize your religion, is that correct?
A. No, I think it is important. Why haven't I done it? There's no exeuse for it. There's no exceuse-I can't go back and I can't change the past now. But I, I can sure change the future.
THE COURT: When did you file, this Petition to Modify was filed when?
A. I don't know what the date is.
THE COURT: Was sometime in June. Yes, sometime in June. And you've known since June that we were going to have this hearing. Why didn't you-
A. I, may I speak?
THE COURT: Yes.
A. I want to say this. Jason's morals, Jason's standards, the qualities, the important things in life are not only taught in the church on Sundays. I firmly believe that. I know without a doubt being in the type work that I'm in, I know and believe without a doubt that there is a superior being, a God that has, has to coordinate all of these things. Because I haven't gone to church in the past doesn't mean I'm not going to go to church in the future.
THE COURT: It gives a good indication though doesn't it?
A. Well, sir, it indicates that I haven't in the past. Does it indicate that I won't in the future, no sir, I have to disagree there.
Mr. Garry (the Trues' attorney) Let me ask you a question.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Garry: Quite frankly, we didn't talk much about the religious aspect of it, but if I, if you had known that the Judge was going to take an interest in this, and rightfully so, and that this case may turn on whether or not you took Jason to church on Sunday, would you have taken him to church on Sunday all of the times that you were with him?
A. Yes.
Garry: And now that you know this Judge is interested in that, and he thinks that's important, does that add to your determination to abide by this Judge's wishes because he thinks it's important?
A. Yes sir, I have already said and I'll say again: Jason will be in church.
Garry: We may have perhaps, as your attorney, and I, we may have perhaps underestimated the importance of this, but now that we know how important it is and the desire that you and Middy have for having Jason live with you, there is no chance is there that you will not see that this young man gets to church every Sunday and gets to religious schooling?
THE COURT: Let me say this. I don't think it is that important. I don't want to give you the impression I think it's that important. But I do think it's important with this father. I got the general impression with him that he wishes the religious education of the child to continue and if is an element to consider. I don't think that the child has any, there's any duty to raising him Catholic or Protestant or Jewish or Moslem or whatever they wish to raise him, and I think they have an equal right to raise him if they have the custody however they want to, but I do think it's a consideration on a continuity basis as to wheth*118er he shall, it's an element to be considered, and I think that they knew this and I in questioning them, I think they should have known it because his father is at least through the questioning has indicated to her that he wants him to go to church, but she has not and neither has this gentleman seen that he went to church.
Garry: I guess, Judge, I've been a little remiss in that from the initial interview on I've mentioned this but I didn't give it maybe the proper, in my discussions with them maybe I didn't give it the proper emphasis that I should have given.
THE COURT: Well, I don't think it's a determining factor by any means, but I do think it's an element to consider.
(R. 108-115).