Court Opinion

ID: 9821017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 07:44:52.566195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:33.527055
License: Public Domain

STOWERS, Justice,
dissenting.
I join in that part of Justice Winfree's dissent that would remand to the superior court to reconsider the issues of (1) the legitimacy of the mother's move and (2) the voluntary unemployment analysis, which should instead focus on her employment opportunities in Stebbins. However, I disagree to the extent the dissent suggests that the mother may have a valid Free Exercise of religion claim. The mother's claim that she wishes to move to a place because that place enhances her cultural and spiritual experience is, in my *76judgment, fairly conclusory and insufficient to state a Free Exercise claim. I particularly find this to be the case because the mother failed to mention, much less argue the applicability of, the Free Exercise clause before the trial court, Were the ease to be remanded for further proceedings, the mother of course could make a Free Exercise claim and seek to admit evidence in support of it.