Roberts v. Roberts
586 S.E.2d 290, 2003 Va. App. LEXIS 486, 41 Va. App. 513 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may restrict a parent's visitation rights, including the right to religious instruction, when that parent's conduct, even if religiously motivated, is shown by clear evidence to be causing demonstrable psychological and emotional harm to the children, as the state's compelling interest in protecting the child's best interests outweighs the parent's free exercise rights.
Facts:
- After Jeffrey Scott Roberts (father) and Sonja Knipe Roberts (mother) divorced, mother was awarded physical custody of their two children, N. and H., with father having liberal visitation.
- During visits, father required the children to spend extensive time reading the Bible and doing chores, allowing no 'free time' or television.
- Father told the children that their mother was a 'fornicator' and 'adulterer' who would go to hell, referred to her as 'the devil,' and instructed them not to call her 'Mom.'
- Father insisted the children call his new wife 'Mom' because she was 'godly,' and he threatened the children with damnation if they disobeyed him.
- The children began to exhibit significant distress before visits, feigning illness, crying, and begging not to go.
- The children's school performance declined immediately before and after visits with their father but improved noticeably after mother halted visitation.
- A clinical psychologist, Dr. Leigh Hagan, testified that the children were distressed by father's proselytizing and condemnation of their mother and were at risk of psychological damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Sonja Knipe Roberts (mother) and Jeffrey Scott Roberts (father) were divorced by a final decree in a trial court on June 24, 1998.
- Following the divorce, the trial court awarded mother physical custody and granted father liberal visitation rights.
- On December 3, 2001, mother filed a 'Motion to Suspend or Modify Visitation' in the trial court.
- The trial court held a hearing and found that father's conduct was contrary to the children's best interests.
- The trial court's order awarded mother sole legal and physical custody, terminated father’s in-person visitation, and denied father's motion to reduce child support.
- Jeffrey Scott Roberts (father), as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, with Sonja Knipe Roberts as appellee.
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 terminating a parent's in-person visitation rights, based on conduct stemming from the parent's religious beliefs that is found to be psychologically and emotionally harmful to the children, violate the parent's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion?
Opinions:
Majority - Willis, J.
No, terminating the father's in-person visitation rights does not violate his First Amendment rights because the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from harm. The court's decision was not based on the father’s religious beliefs themselves, but on his harmful conduct, which included the bitter denunciation of the mother, eschatological threats to the children, and actively undermining the mother-child relationship. This conduct was causing demonstrable psychological and emotional harm to the children. The remedy, which terminates only in-person visitation and is subject to future review upon a change in circumstances, is sufficiently tailored to protect the children's best interests.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Felton, J.
Yes, the trial court's order terminating all in-person visitation violates the father's constitutionally protected interests because the remedy was not narrowly tailored. While the father's conduct was harmful and warranted modification or even temporary suspension of visitation, completely terminating in-person visitation and giving the mother absolute veto power over telephone calls is too extreme. The court failed to balance the state's interest in protecting the children with the father's fundamental liberty interest in the care, companionship, and religious education of his children by not choosing a less restrictive alternative.
Analysis:
This case establishes that while parents have a fundamental right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, this right is not absolute and must yield to the state's compelling interest in protecting a child's welfare. It clarifies that courts will intervene when religiously motivated parental conduct is proven to cause specific, demonstrable emotional and psychological harm to a child. The decision reinforces the paramountcy of the 'best interests of the child' standard in custody and visitation disputes, allowing for significant restrictions on parental rights when a direct link between the parent's conduct and harm to the child is established. Future cases will likely use this precedent to scrutinize parental behavior that alienates a child from the other parent, regardless of its motivation.
Unlock the full brief for Roberts v. Roberts