Abbo v. Briskin
660 So. 2d 1157, 1995 WL 565997 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court cannot compel a custodial parent to raise a child in the religious faith of the other parent or prevent the custodial parent from influencing the child with their own religious faith, unless there is a specific finding that such influence would adversely affect the child's physical or psychological welfare.
Facts:
- Gigi Abbo (mother), a Roman Catholic, and Alan D. Briskin (father), of the Jewish faith, began considering marriage.
- Abbo already had two young children from a previous marriage who resided with her and were being raised as Catholics.
- Briskin insisted that Abbo convert to Judaism as a condition for marriage, and Abbo ultimately agreed despite having strong spiritual ties to Catholicism.
- Approximately a year after their marriage, their daughter was born.
- Shortly after the daughter's birth, Abbo converted back to Catholicism.
- When their daughter was 4 1/2 years old, Abbo and Briskin decided to divorce.
- The primary disagreement during their divorce proceedings was concerning the child's religious upbringing.
Procedural Posture:
- Alan D. Briskin and Gigi Abbo initiated divorce proceedings in a Florida trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court granted shared parental custody, designated Gigi Abbo as the primary, custodial parent, and ordered her to ensure the child was raised in the Jewish faith without interference from her own religious influence.
- Gigi Abbo filed a motion for rehearing regarding the religious upbringing order, which the trial court denied, further clarifying its requirements.
- Gigi Abbo, the mother, appealed the trial court's orders to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial judge have the authority to compel a custodial parent to raise a child in the religious faith of the other parent and to prevent the custodial parent from influencing the child with their own religious faith, absent a finding that such influence would adversely affect the child's welfare?
Opinions:
Majority - Farmer, Judge
No, a trial judge does not have the authority to compel a custodial parent to raise a child in the religious faith of the other parent or to prevent the custodial parent from influencing the child with their own religious faith, absent a finding that such influence would adversely affect the child's welfare. The court found that the trial judge's injunction was not expressly founded on any fact relating to the physical or psychological welfare of the child. Instead, it seemed to flow from the court's finding that the mother had agreed before marriage to convert to the Jewish faith. The court emphasized that the freedom to choose any religion necessarily comprehends the freedom to change religions, and premarital agreements to raise a child in a particular faith are viewed with grave doubts, especially when the parent experiences a genuine change of religious conscience. Florida Statute section 61.13(2) and (3), which governs custody decisions, states that the 'best interests of the child' is the sine qua non (essential condition), and religion is not expressly listed as a factor. The court was unwilling to read such a personal belief into the statute without more positive and express legislative direction. Citing Rogers v. Rogers, the court reiterated that a trial court may consider religion as a factor in a custody determination, but it may not condition the award of custody upon the parent's curtailment of their religious activities or beliefs unless there is a showing of detriment to the child's welfare. The court distinguished Mendez v. Mendez, noting that its majority opinion avoided imposing an obligation on the non-custodial parent to enforce the religious beliefs of the father. The court concluded that a child's religion is no proper business of judges, and decisions regarding religious training must be left to the parents, even if they clash, as affirmed by Sotnick v. Sotnick.
Concurring - Glickstein, Judge
Yes, the trial court's order should be reversed because decisions about a child's religion should be left to the parents, fostering understanding and dialogue with citizens of other faiths. Judge Glickstein specially concurred to underscore the importance of religious diversity in American society. He highlighted the need for understanding, which is substantially different from mere toleration, and expressed hope that with a Catholic mother and a Jewish father, their child would grow up with an understanding of self and others. He implicitly agreed with the majority that judicial intervention in this sphere is inappropriate, suggesting that such exposure could prevent the child from being 'taught to hate and fear'.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits judicial intervention in the religious upbringing of children post-divorce, reinforcing the principle that courts must prioritize the child's best interests based on demonstrable harm or benefit, rather than premarital agreements or judicial preferences. It establishes a high bar for restricting a custodial parent's religious influence, requiring specific findings of detriment to the child's welfare. The ruling upholds the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion for parents and curtails judicial overreach into deeply personal matters of faith, thereby strengthening parental autonomy in child-rearing decisions regarding religion unless actual harm is proven.
