Church and Child Custody

         How much authority does a parent have over their child’s religious exercise? In April 2015, Veronika Bardonner filed for divorce from her husband Kenneth Bardonner with whom she had two children. At some point during the divorce proceedings, Kenneth underwent a psychological evaluation in which he was diagnosed with narcissistic personality and exhibitionism disorders. As a result of these diagnoses, Kenneth was encouraged to attend counseling to recognize the negative impact such behaviors and thoughts would have on his children, but he ignored this suggestion. The divorce was finalized in September 2016 and the trial court awarded custody to Veronika with Kenneth receiving visitation rights. Following the divorce, Kenneth issued several petitions to modify his custody arrangements. All requests were denied because the court viewed that Kenneth was “emotionally harming the child by putting implicit and explicit pressure on him to ‘fix’ the parenting time [schedule].” All in all, the court found Kenneth’s obsessive behavior disturbing and in August 2020, the court gave Veronika sole decision-making authority. 

        Because the court believed that Kenneth’s actions posed a potential threat to the children, it issued an additional order in May 2018 that prohibited Kenneth from bringing his children to church services hosted by the All Saints Orthodox Church; however, they still could attend church functions that did not involve religious teachings. According to the court report, Veronika has several objections to the children’s participation with this church. Kenneth consistently ignored this order; in fact, a picture with Kenneth and his child can be found in the church’s 2020 directory. Upon learning about this blatant disregard, the court forbade Kenneth from bringing his children to any church-related events. Again, Kenneth did not abide by this order, declaring that the court’s restrictions violated his free exercise rights. In his appeal, Kenneth states, “[Kenneth’s] religious freedom and freedom of association is infringed when he is forced by the trial court to choose between involving his child in his church community or face having access to his son stripped.”

        On March 12, 2024, the Court of Appeals of Indiana rendered that the court order did not infringe upon Kenneth’s First Amendment rights. To support its opinion, the Court of Appeals cited Indiana law that bestows upon a custodial parent the right to regulate all aspects of a child’s upbringing, including religious training. As the custodial parent, Veronika has sole authority over her children’s religious upbringing and is therefore permitted to reject Kenneth’s preferences without explicit justification. The court order does not prohibit Kenneth from attending the All Saints Orthodox Church, only his children; thus, his free exercise rights remain intact. Additionally, the appeals court noted that it was Kenneth’s own poor behavior that led to the restrictive court order. Had he followed the initial, less prohibitive instructions, he would have no reason to claim a free exercise violation.

After reviewing the facts of the case and the court’s ruling, one might ask, “Does the court have the authority to deny Kenneth’s desire to include his children in his religious tradition or does such a restriction constitute a free exercise violation?” Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), a case about the conflict between the Amish faith and the education of minors, examines the free exercise rights of parents as it relates to children. In Yoder, the Supreme Court found, despite opposing opinions, that parents have authority over the religious training of their children. Parents can dictate what religion their children practice and what religious traditions they observe. Upon reaching adulthood, children can choose for themselves what religion, if any, they wish to follow. Therefore, Veronika and Kenneth are the arbiters of what is religiously appropriate for their children; however, in my opinion, Kenneth’s right to free exercise was not violated.

           Because Kenneth does not have custody of his children, his responsibility of religious training is no longer applicable. If he does not have legal authority to raise his children, then he cannot expect his religious preferences to be heeded. Although they are his children, legally, Kenneth is not entitled to guide their upbringing, as the court has ruled that the children are safer without his influence. Veronika’s position as custodial parent allows her to direct nearly every aspect of her children’s lives and she has the right to refuse accommodation of Kenneth’s demands. Also, I agree with the appeals court’s opinion that the order did not inhibit Kenneth’s own free exercise. The trial court did not prevent Kenneth from attending the church of his choice, nor did it suggest that Kenneth should stop attending the All Saints Orthodox Church for the sake of his children. Even though parents have the authority to guide the religious training of their children, Kenneth surrendered that privilege when he lost custody of his children and consequently, he did not experience a denial of his right to free exercise. 

Sources:

https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=77tYIxyVlZj6Q5db8u9Llh_aWd0ptCjk76pEe889Phr9aPMi4IHSKWh4wewOoXMK0

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/406/205/