Mesa v. Mesa
1995 WL 119226, 652 So. 2d 456 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may not restrict a noncustodial parent from exposing children to their religious beliefs and practices without a clear, affirmative showing that these activities will be harmful to the child, and a trial court abuses its discretion by failing to award permanent alimony in a long-term marriage when there is a significant income disparity and disparate future earning potential between the divorcing spouses.
Facts:
- Vicki Mesa and Steve Mesa were married for fourteen years.
- Vicki and Steve had three children and were both in their thirties at the time of the divorce.
- Vicki Mesa works part-time as a bank teller.
- Steve Mesa works as a police officer and has better future earning prospects, better benefits, and a pension.
- Vicki Mesa attends a charismatic church.
- Steve Mesa found Vicki's charismatic religious practices 'uncomfortable' but presented no evidence that exposing the children to it was causing them any harm; the teachings of both parents' churches were essentially the same.
Procedural Posture:
- Vicki Mesa and Steve Mesa underwent dissolution of marriage proceedings.
- The trial court awarded primary residence of the three children to Steve Mesa.
- The trial court issued an order prohibiting Vicki Mesa, as the noncustodial parent, from exposing the children to her religious services or educating them in her religious practices.
- The trial court awarded Vicki Mesa lump sum alimony payable at $300 per month for five years.
- Vicki Mesa (Appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, challenging the denial of primary residence, the denial of permanent alimony, and the religious restriction.
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 prohibiting a noncustodial parent from exposing children to their religious practices without a clear showing of harm, and does it abuse its discretion by failing to award permanent alimony in a long-term marriage with significant income disparity?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, Judge
Yes, a trial court does err in prohibiting a noncustodial parent from exposing children to their religious practices without a clear showing of harm, and yes, it does abuse its discretion by failing to award permanent alimony in a long-term marriage with significant income disparity. The court found that restricting a noncustodial parent from exposing a child to their religious beliefs and practices, an issue of first impression in Florida, is improper unless there is a 'clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be harmful to the child,' citing In re Marriage of Murga. Absent such a showing, allowing a court to choose one parent's religious beliefs over another's would violate the First Amendment, as supported by Munoz v. Munoz and Brown v. Szakal. Here, the father presented no evidence of harm despite his discomfort with the mother's charismatic church, and the churches' teachings were largely similar. The court affirmed the primary residence award, noting that the religious freedom argument was limited to the restriction itself, not the custody determination. Regarding alimony, the court held that Vicki Mesa is entitled to permanent alimony because, even working full-time, she will earn less than a third of Steve Mesa's income, and he has superior future earning prospects and benefits. This significant disparity constituted an abuse of discretion in failing to award permanent alimony, consistent with Steinberg v. Steinberg. The court vacated the religious restriction and remanded the case for an award of permanent alimony.
Concurring - Polen, J.
Justice Polen concurred with the majority opinion in its entirety.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Stone, J.
No, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to award permanent alimony. Justice Stone concurred with the majority's decision regarding the religious restriction but dissented from the portion directing the trial court to award permanent alimony. While acknowledging that the lump sum alimony award was not justified, Justice Stone concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not awarding permanent alimony, distinguishing the facts from Steinberg v. Steinberg. Justice Stone believed the record would instead support an award of rehabilitative alimony and would have directed the trial court, on remand, to amend the judgment to provide for rehabilitative alimony in the amount of the previously awarded lump sum installment payments.
Analysis:
This case is significant for solidifying the constitutional protection of parental religious freedom in Florida custody disputes, establishing a high bar—a clear showing of harm—before courts can restrict a noncustodial parent's religious exposure to children. It prevents judicial entanglement in religious preferences and upholds First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the decision clarifies the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in awarding permanent alimony in long-term marriages, particularly where there are substantial disparities in income and future earning capacity, guiding trial courts toward more equitable financial outcomes for divorcing spouses. This ruling reinforces the appellate court's role in correcting abuses of discretion concerning both constitutional rights and financial support in family law.
