Pater v. Pater
63 Ohio St.3d 393, 588 N.E.2d 794, 1992 Ohio LEXIS 651 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a domestic relations court may consider parental religious practices to protect a child's best interests, it cannot evaluate the merits of religious doctrine or deny custody or restrict visitation based on religious beliefs unless there is clear, probative evidence that those practices will adversely affect the child's physical or mental health.
Facts:
- Robert and Jennifer Pater were divorcing and had a young son named Bobby.
- Jennifer Pater was a Jehovah's Witness.
- Robert Pater expressed concerns that if Jennifer received custody, she would not allow Bobby to celebrate holidays, salute the flag, participate in extracurricular activities, socialize with non-Witnesses, or attend college.
- Robert feared Bobby would be socially ostracized and not adequately exposed to ideas other than those endorsed by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
- Jennifer Pater had been Bobby's primary caretaker for the first three years of his life.
- Both Robert and Jennifer were loving parents, and there was no serious dispute about either parent's ability to nurture Bobby.
Procedural Posture:
- A domestic relations trial court (court of first instance) heard the child custody dispute between Robert and Jennifer Pater.
- The trial court awarded custody of the child, Bobby, to Robert Pater and issued a visitation order that prohibited Jennifer Pater from exposing Bobby to Jehovah's Witness beliefs.
- Jennifer Pater appealed the trial court's custody and visitation orders to an Ohio Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the custody determination.
- Jennifer Pater, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio (highest state court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by basing its child custody and visitation orders on a parent's religious beliefs without clear, probative evidence that those beliefs adversely affected the child's mental or physical health?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by improperly basing its custody and visitation orders on Jennifer Pater's religious beliefs without sufficient evidence of harm to the child. The Court affirmed that while domestic relations courts can consider religious practices when determining a child's best interests (citing Birch v. Birch), the U.S. Constitution absolutely prohibits evaluating the merits of religious doctrine (Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div.) and interfering with a parent's fundamental right to educate their children, including religious upbringing (Wisconsin v. Yoder, Pierce v. Society of Sisters). Denying custody solely based on religious affiliation violates the First Amendment. The Court clarified that a parent's religiously motivated actions are not immune from inquiry if they pose a direct threat to the child's mental or physical health (Prince v. Massachusetts), but such harm requires specific, probative evidence. The evidence presented by Robert, consisting of generalized expert testimony about mental illness rates among Jehovah's Witnesses or the general benefits of extracurricular activities, without proof of specific harm to Bobby, was insufficient. The trial court's broad visitation order, which forbade Jennifer from exposing Bobby to Jehovah's Witness beliefs, was an unconstitutional infringement on her parental rights, as it lacked a clear and affirmative showing that the conflicting religious beliefs were affecting the child's general welfare. Courts must remain strictly impartial between religions.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Alice Robie Resnick, J.
The trial court's order forbidding Jennifer from exposing Bobby to her religious beliefs was unduly broad, but the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding custody to Robert. Justice Resnick agreed with the majority regarding the overly broad visitation order. However, she disagreed with overturning the custody decision, arguing that the Court of Appeals correctly found that the trial court's decision was not based solely on religious beliefs, but rather on considering all relevant factors for the child's best interests, as required by statute. She questioned the workability of the majority's standard, finding it difficult to prove future harm from specific religious practices, and emphasized the significant deference that should be given to a trial judge's custody determination given their direct observation of witnesses and parties. She concluded that the trial judge's decision was not 'unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable'.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the constitutional limits on judicial inquiry into parental religious practices in child custody and visitation disputes. It establishes a demanding standard for proving harm, requiring specific, probative evidence of adverse effects on a child's mental or physical health, explicitly rejecting general societal disapproval of religious practices or generalized expert testimony. By emphasizing strict impartiality between religions and safeguarding parental rights to direct a child's religious upbringing, the decision helps prevent courts from imposing their own secular values or religious preferences under the guise of the 'best interests of the child' standard. This ruling reinforces free exercise protections and limits judicial discretion when religious beliefs are at issue in domestic relations.
