Kendall v. Kendall

[William D Rich]

At 01:45 PM 12/12/97 MST, Michael McConnell wrote:
>Several posts in response to my earlier post suggest that I
>should clarify/modify it to say that the investigation of
>the father's church was improper insofar as the court was
>making a normative judgment. It may be necessary to make
>some factual inquiry, so as to determine whether the
>pre-breakup "deal" is being carried out.

This is a helpful clarification/modification, but now I wonder in what
respects the court is thought to have made such normative judgments.  The
decision does not appear to rest on a determination that (Orthodox) Judaism
is better than (Boston-Church-of-Christ) Christianity, or even that
(Orthodox) Judaism promotes the best interests of the Kendall children more
than does (Boston-Church-of-Christ) Christianity.  The court made a factual
determination that the Boston Church of Christ teaches that Jews (like
others who don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior) are condemned to
hell, and the judgment that that teaching causes serious psychological harm
to the Kendall children because of their mother's and their own Judaism.
The preference in the case for the mother's religion over the father's
derives from the prior agreement of the parties, as McConnell proposes
(rightly, I think) that it ought to.

Bill Rich
Univ. of Akron Law School
rich at uakron.edu