Court Opinion

ID: 9618629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:14:42.554442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:30.927365
License: Public Domain

Dore, J.
(dissenting)—I would have affirmed the custody award of the trial court (a) giving custody of the minor daughters, Lisa, age 15, Lynn, age 13, Lila, age 11, and LaVon, age 8, to the father subject to liberal visitations by the mother, and (b) giving the custody of Lori, age 17, to the mother. I also would affirm the property division vesting the home in the father in order that he could care for the children, and giving the mother a lien for her community interest in such property.
The issues involved here are (1) whether the court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and (2) whether the order of custody to the father, Glen Hadeen, is arbitrary and capricious.
It is well established law that findings of fact which are assigned as error will not be disturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wn.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959).
The following finding of fact is at issue on this appeal:
f) That the Petitioners first fidelity is to the church, as is evidences [sic] by the Petitioner's rejection of the parties' minor child Lisa, and as evidenced by the Petitioner's move to Seattle with only a short time remaining in school and the subsequent move made in Seattle, all of which are not in the best interest of the parties' minor children.
g) That [the psychiatrist] recommends the children's custody be with the Petitioner, provided the problems caused by the Petitioner's religious involvement with the First Community Churches of America are satisfactorily resolved.
h) To award custody to the Petitioner, Judith Hadeen, would effectively cut Glen Hadeen off from his involvement with the children, and that the children need to have continued contact with both parents. That Lori Hadeen, the oldest of the parties' minor children, is deeply involved with the First Community Church of America, and she had close associations with her mother *583and the church. Because of her age Lori should be placed in the custody of her mother.
i) The best interest of the parties' other minor children is served by placing those children in the custody of the Respondent, Glen Hadeen, subject to reasonable rights of visitation for the Petitioner.
Finding of fact No. 7.
A review of the record conclusively shows there is substantial evidence upon which the trial court based the above finding of fact. In the record we find continuous and numerous outrageous incidents perpetuated by the petitioner mother upon her children over a long period of time. Some of these are:
1. She believes that "children overriding parents is witchcraft." In order to avoid and negate the witchcraft, Mrs. Hadeen admitted that she sent the children to the bedroom to fast. She stated that she did this with her children in order to make them obedient and they did not rebel as a result of it. However, she did state
They do not rebell [sic] but Lisa did rebell [sic] and this rebellion, which is witchcraft, it really is witchcraft, what it does, it comes against, I have seen it even cause sickness in homes if a child is rebelling or, say, one person in the home is rebelling. It can just cause, you know, cause all sorts of things to enter in that you don't want there. What we want is to keep the peace of God in our homes and to keep the children obeying us and being in submission to us.
2. Mrs. Hadeen admitted that the church teaches that you are to "spank until the will is broken—spank through the loud bellering, until they cry softly." She described paddling her daughter Lisa for 2 hours in the following language:
Q Okay. Do you recall an incident with Lisa, now I think you just referred to it possibly as a spanking?
A Uh-huh.
Q Did that spanking consist of having the girls hold her down and beat her with a rod for two hours?
A Yes, yes, I sure did, because that kid, she would not let me do it, she would fight it and so I had the girls hold *584her and I spanked her to where she felt it. You bet I did.
This was a beating of Lisa by the mother, not a spanking, and is an example of an outrageous child abuse.
Inez Hadeen, Glen's sister-in-law, testified that she was formerly a member of the First Community Church of Bellingham. They were taught by the church:
There's nothing wrong to lying to somebody because they aren't going to believe the truth anyway. This is the word from Bob Taylor's mouth. He said you're, they will not believe the truth anyway so, therefore, lie to them.
Q Okay. How about specifically like to school authorities?
A To school authorities, to somebody you work for, teachers, people that you come in contact with every day.
Q This is taught to the children?
A Yes, it is, and they're also taught to use the foulest language they want to to other children in the school because that is fine because that's the only language that other children understand.
Q By foul language, what do you mean?
A I mean the rotten four-letter words that most people object to. I heard it with my own ears and my children have done it too and now my husband and I are in the process of teaching our children different, trying to bring them up with a normal attitude toward life.
Q Okay. Now, Inez, on the other forms of disciplining, the rod and beating the children until they stopped screaming,—
A Uh-huh.
Q —was that taught to you, was that—
A Definitely, definitely, we were told to use a rod or a paddle to discipline the children with and to spank them until they quit the loud screaming and quit and spank them until they cried softly.
Q . . . Do you know of any children in this church that were beaten, I mean beaten to the point where they needed doctor's care or anything like that?
A Yes.
*585Lois Green, a friend of 6 years, testified as to the fact that the church comes first before children and husband. She stated that Mrs. Hadeen at one time stated:
A She said that, and this was part of the teaching from the church because Babe Lloyd also told this to me many a time and that when we were even to practice this that we would tell to our children, our husbands, whoever, that we were going on with the Lord regardless of them and if they didn't want to go, then they could just go on, whether they had to leave or whatever.
Judith Hadeen admits that it is the teaching of the church that another means of disciplining is to send the children to their rooms with no food or anything until repentance. It was the testimony of Lynn Hadeen that she practiced this method of discipline, and on one occasion Lori was forced to fast for a period of 2 days.
Consistent with the church philosophy, Judith Hadeen has rejected those who are "natural people" (people that are outside the church) and not filled with the spirit. Those include her parents, her daughter, her husband, her husband's parents, and other relatives of her husband. She presently does not speak to her parents, her husband's parents, or her daughter Lisa who has left the church.
In chambers, in discussion with the trial judge, Lisa stated:
She says she [mother] will talk to me when I repent and come back to the church. That is the last thing that she said to me and then she hung up on me.
It is undisputed that Judith Hadeen removed her children from school in Bellingham with 1 month remaining in the school year, and moved to Seattle. She admitted that she did this without even considering leaving the children with her husband so that they might finish the school year in the schools that they had attended all of their lives. The court, in commenting upon taking the children out of school a month before the end of the school year, stated: "I *586don't think that shows very good judgment. I don't think that shows a great deal of concern for the children."
Dr. Watson was appointed by the court as an independent expert psychiatrist, to determine the relationship of the children with their mother and father, and to secure his recommendation as to custody. In Dr. Watson's report to the court, he made the following statement:
Mrs. Hadeen provides the children with an adequate parenting situation with the knowledge of the severe limitations brought on by her involvement with the authoritarian ultra fundamentalistic Christian group that she is affiliated with, and how this involvement will ultimately result in the children being more and more isolated from familial and community involvement, as they become older and deeply affiliated with this religious group.
It is clear that Dr. Watson viewed the mother's involvement in the church with the limitation of ability to parent and recognized that problems were caused to the children by her association with the First Community Churches of America.
Dr. Watson reported that to award the custody of the children to petitioner would effectively cut off Glen Hadeen from his involvement with the children. There was testimony in the record that Glen Hadeen was a caring father, with the financial capacity and family support to care for the children, and the court had substantial evidence to support the finding that the children's best interests were served by placing them in the custody of the father. The trial court, in its decision, took into account the many bizarre actions of the mother toward her children in making its decision on the award of custody of the minor children to the father. However, Judith's religion itself was carefully avoided by the trial court, as illustrated by the following language in its oral opinion.
The tenets of the church are not something the Court wants to spend a great deal of time with, primarily because religion, religious issues and conditions, I think, are those that fall peculiarly within the conscience and conviction of people who follow the dictates of their own *587beliefs and conscience. The Court is not concerned particularly with the tenets of this church, other than as it may affect the children. And in that regard, it does appear to be a denomination that requires complete submission and fidelity to the exclusion of other reasonable relationships that usually exist.
The trial court made no further reference to the church in its oral opinion nor did it try to restrict the practice of Judith Hadeen's faith in her membership in the First Community Church, nor did it attempt to restrict the attendance of the children at such church services while visiting their mother.
The majority of this court, in remanding the subject case back for retrial on the issue of custody, stated at page 581:
Since the trial court did not find that the church membership of the mother posed a threat to the mental or physical welfare of the children, it would be improper to consider the religious involvement of the mother as an ingredient in the decision as to the award of custody. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wn.2d 810, 814, 489 P.2d 1133 (1971). The cause is remanded to the trial court for retrial of the issue of custody consistent with the guidelines expressed herein.
However, Munoz v. Munoz, supra, should be of no value to the majority as it can be readily distinguished on the facts from the subject case. In the Munoz case, the court entered an order prohibiting the father from taking the children to the Catholic church during visitation. The court stated at page 813:
We recognize the general rule that in child custody cases the trial court, in furtherance of the best interests and welfare of the child, is vested with a wide latitude of discretion and in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion in awarding the custody and control of minor children, its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal. Andersen v. Andersen, supra [75 Wn.2d 779, 453 P.2d 856 (1969)], and cases cited therein. However, where the trial court does not follow the generally established rule of noninterference in religious matters in child custody *588cases without an affirmative showing of compelling reasons for such action, we are of the opinion that this is tantamount to a manifest abuse of discretion.
In the instant case, there is no affirmative showing in the record that it would be detrimental to the well-being of the children to allow the defendant to take them to the Catholic Church or to religious instruction in that faith during the periods of his rights of visitation.
However, the trial court in the subject case made no order interfering in the religious matters of the mother, Judith Hadeen, or the children, but only took into account testimony and action of the mother in reference to the children as to whether or not the children would be better off in the custody of the father, rather than the mother.
The testimony in the record, and the court's oral opinion and its findings of fact, lead unmistakably to the conclusion that the court found that the church membership of the mother posed a threat to the mental and physical welfare of the children, and it is unnecessary to remand the case back to the trial court for entry of a finding that has already been established. In addition, such a finding in the subject case is not even necessary.
In re Marriage of Croley, 91 Wn.2d 288, 292, 588 P.2d 738 (1978) held that a finding that the mother's religion posed a threat to the mental and physical welfare of the children was in the oral opinion and therefore it would be unnecessary to have a specific finding to that effect.
Despite evidence on the statutory factors contained in the testimony, the trial court's consideration thereof reflected in its oral opinion and findings of fact, and the trial court's compliance with CR 52(a)(2)(B), we are invited to hold that RCW 26.09.190 also requires specific findings on each of the factors enumerated therein. Where, as here, the record indicates substantial evidence was presented on the statutory factors thus making them available for consideration by the trial court and for review by an appellate court, specific findings are not required on each factor.
(Italics mine.) However, although even if a specific finding was required, it would be unnecessary in the subject case as *589the court specifically avoided the religioiis issue in reaching its decision.
The sole issue in the subject case was whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the court's award of custody and the answer is simply yes. In fact, there was overwhelming evidence in the record to support the court's award of custody of the four minor children of the parties to the husband.
I would have affirmed the trial court.
Reconsideration denied December 30, 1980.
Review denied by Supreme Court March 13, 1981.