Leppert v. Leppert

Supreme Court of North Dakota
519 N.W.2d 287 (1994)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

In a child custody determination, a court must consider the secular, harmful impact of a parent's religiously motivated actions on a child's physical and emotional well-being. While a court cannot pass judgment on the validity of religious beliefs themselves, it cannot ignore religiously motivated conduct when there is a clear showing of harm to the child.

Facts:

Joel Leppert and Quinta Leppert married and had five children.
Quinta is a devout follower of her father, Gordon Winrod, who leads a small religious sect that teaches its followers to hate non-believers, lie to them, and reject government authority.
Quinta believes she has a duty to raise her children to follow all of Winrod's teachings and has moved to live in a commune-like residence with him and other followers.
Joel, who no longer follows Winrod, remained on the family farm in North Dakota.
Quinta home-schooled the two oldest children, who were later found to have academic and social skills significantly below age-level norms.
In recorded phone calls, Quinta told her children that their father, Joel, and his family were 'evil,' 'wicked,' 'satanic,' a 'pig,' and a 'swine.'
A court-appointed guardian ad litem concluded that Quinta's parenting was 'extremely dangerous to the children’s psychological and emotional health' and recommended Joel receive custody of all five children.

Procedural Posture:

Joel Leppert filed a complaint for divorce in a North Dakota district court.
The district court issued an interim order granting temporary physical custody of all five children to Joel.
The court later issued an amended order granting temporary custody of the three youngest children to Quinta and alternating custody of the two oldest.
Following a trial, the district court awarded permanent physical custody of the two oldest children to Joel and the three youngest children to Quinta.
Joel Leppert, the appellant, appealed the district court's custody award to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.

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 err in a child custody determination by refusing to consider the clear physical and emotional harm caused by a parent's religiously motivated actions when evaluating the best interests of the children?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Neumann

Yes. A trial court errs when it refuses to consider the harmful impact of a parent's religiously motivated actions on the children. While courts must not discount a parent because of their religious beliefs, this does not immunize religiously motivated actions that are physically or emotionally harmful from consideration in a best interests analysis. The trial court was presented with unequivocal evidence from the guardian ad litem that Quinta's parenting constituted an extreme danger to the children. Its finding that there was not a clear showing of harm was clearly erroneous, as courts have a duty to objectively determine whether a belief system's secular effects are likely to cause harm to children.

Concurring - Chief Justice Vande Walle

Yes. While reluctant to reverse a trial court in custody matters, the trial court in this case was misled by the majority opinion in a prior case, Hanson v. Hanson. That case may have been interpreted as setting too high a standard for what constitutes evidence of physical or emotional harm necessary for a parent's religious beliefs to be a determining factor. This case correctly clarifies that the significant emotional harm demonstrated here is a critical factor that must be considered in the custody decision.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the critical distinction between religious belief and religiously motivated harmful action in child custody disputes. It establishes a precedent that a parent's First Amendment right to freedom of religion does not shield their actions from scrutiny when those actions are shown to be detrimental to a child's well-being. The ruling empowers courts to prioritize the secular best interests of the child, ensuring that tangible emotional and psychological harm is not ignored simply because it originates from a parent's religious practices. This decision provides a framework for future courts to navigate the sensitive intersection of parental rights and child protection.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Leppert v. Leppert (1994)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature