Arthur v. Arthur
720 N.E.2d 176, 130 Ohio App. 3d 398, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 5109 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court does not improperly consider a parent's religious beliefs when making a custody determination if the decision is based on secular concerns about the quality of education and social environment provided by a church-affiliated school, rather than on the religious affiliation itself.
Facts:
- Cindy A. Arthur ('wife') and Michael J. Arthur ('husband') were married in 1981 and had four children.
- After the birth of their first child in 1983, the couple agreed the wife would be a full-time homemaker.
- In 1987, the family moved to Ohio and their lives became centered around the World Harvest Church ('the Church'); the husband began working for the Church and the children attended the church-affiliated World Harvest Christian Academy ('the Academy').
- In 1994, the husband left his job with the Church and began to disassociate himself from it.
- In December 1995, the husband informed the wife he wanted a divorce and moved out of the marital residence.
- During divorce proceedings, a court-appointed psychologist testified about concerns with the Academy, noting its 'cloistering aspect,' below-average class sizes, staffing issues, lack of curriculum, and limited noncompetitive extracurricular activities.
- The psychologist noted that sports were 'paramount' in the boys' lives, and with their father they became involved in organized, competitive sports leagues not available through the Academy.
- After visits commenced with the husband, the three oldest children expressed a desire to live with him.
Procedural Posture:
- Cindy A. Arthur ('wife') filed a complaint for divorce against Michael J. Arthur ('husband') in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, the trial court.
- The trial court entered temporary orders for a shared-parenting arrangement.
- After a full trial, the trial court issued a final judgment entry and decree of divorce, which created a split custody arrangement designating the wife as the residential parent for the two daughters and the husband as the residential parent for the two sons.
- The wife appealed the divorce decree to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, asserting the trial court abused its discretion in separating the children.
- The husband filed a cross-appeal challenging other aspects of the decree.
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 court abuse its discretion by ordering a split custody arrangement based on concerns about the secular quality of a church-affiliated school, or does this constitute impermissible consideration of a parent's religious practices under Pater v. Pater?
Opinions:
Majority - William B. Hoffman, Judge.
No, the trial court's decision was not an abuse of discretion and did not constitute impermissible consideration of the wife's religious practices. A court may base a custody decision on the secular quality of a child's education without improperly penalizing a parent for their religious beliefs. The court distinguished this case from Pater v. Pater, which held that a parent cannot be denied custody based on religious practices unless there is evidence of harm to the child. Here, the trial court's decision was not based on the wife’s affiliation with the Church or its religious philosophy. Instead, the court focused on neutral, secular concerns regarding the quality of education at the Academy, including its lack of curriculum, inexperienced teachers, and the 'sheltered lifestyle' it promoted. Furthermore, the split custody arrangement, while unusual, was justified as it served the best interests of the children by allowing the boys to pursue their significant interest in organized sports. The court also noted that the extensive visitation schedule ensured the siblings would still be together for the majority of the year.
Analysis:
This decision refines the rule from Pater v. Pater by clarifying the distinction between impermissibly judging a parent's religious beliefs and permissibly evaluating the secular consequences of those beliefs on a child's welfare. It establishes that courts can scrutinize the tangible, real-world impacts of a parent's choices, such as the quality of education at a religious school, as part of the 'best interests of the child' analysis. This precedent provides a framework for courts to address concerns related to a child's development and education in religiously-charged custody disputes without violating principles of religious freedom, so long as the focus remains on objective, secular factors rather than the religious doctrine itself.
