Wood v. DeHahn
1997 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1166, 571 N.W.2d 186, 214 Wis. 2d 221 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While a custodial parent has the right to choose a child's religion, it is the court's responsibility, not the parent's, to determine if a noncustodial parent's actions are inconsistent with that choice. A court will only restrict the noncustodial parent's actions if it deems such a restriction necessary and reasonable to protect the custodial parent's decision-making authority.
Facts:
- After Phillip J. DeHahn and Michelle Wood divorced, DeHahn was awarded sole legal custody of their two minor children.
- DeHahn, a practicing Mormon, chose to raise the children in the Mormon faith.
- Wood is a practicing Catholic.
- On Christmas, Easter, and Mother's Day, Wood took the children with her to attend Catholic church services.
- DeHahn objected to the children attending Catholic services with Wood.
Procedural Posture:
- Phillip J. DeHahn sought a court order in the trial court to prevent his former wife, Michelle Wood, from taking their children to Catholic church services.
- The trial court denied DeHahn's request for an order.
- DeHahn (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, with Wood as the 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 a statute granting a custodial parent the right to make major decisions about a child's religion also grant that parent the sole authority to determine whether the noncustodial parent's actions are inconsistent with that choice, thereby requiring a court to enforce the custodial parent's determination absent a showing of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. A statute granting a custodial parent the right to choose a child's religion does not give that parent the unfettered right to determine what is inconsistent with that choice; that determination is a matter for the court's discretion. The court reasoned that state statutes grant it broad authority to make provisions it deems "just and reasonable" concerning child custody and to do all acts "necessary and proper" in family actions. Therefore, it is the court's responsibility to weigh whether a noncustodial parent's actions are truly inconsistent with the custodial parent's choice and whether a restrictive order is "necessary and reasonable." The burden is on the custodial parent to demonstrate that the noncustodial parent's actions are subverting their religious upbringing, not merely exposing them to another faith. Here, DeHahn failed to show that Wood taking the children to Catholic services three times a year was subverting his authority or harming the children's Mormon upbringing, unlike in cases like Lange v. Lange where a parent actively tried to undermine the other's religious choice.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a custodial parent's authority over a child's religious upbringing in a post-divorce context. It establishes that the right to choose a child's religion is not an absolute power to control all religious exposure. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter in custody disputes, requiring a factual showing of inconsistency or harm before a court will intervene. This precedent prevents a custodial parent from unilaterally vetoing the noncustodial parent's ability to share their own faith with their children, instead applying a judicial standard of reasonableness to balance the rights of both parents.
Unlock the full brief for Wood v. DeHahn