Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation

[Ed Brayton]

Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>	In re Didier, 2006 WL 2258571 (Wash. App.), raises an
>interesting question (though it's possible that on the facts in this
>particular case the objection was insincere):  Should parents who are
>unemployed or underemployed for religious reasons -- for instance,
>because they have taken a vow of poverty and committed themselves to a
>monastic or missionary life -- be exempted from a child support
>obligation that's based on the income the parent would have had if he
>had been gainfully employed?
>
>	The Washington Court of Appeals says no, citing Smith; but it
>doesn't discuss the possibility that this might be an "individualized
>exemptions" case a la Sherbert, and it doesn't the Washington state
>constitution, which has been interpreted as mandating strict scrutiny in
>religious exemption cases.  What  do people think would be the right
>answer under either of those doctrines?  See also Hunt v. Hunt, a
>mid-1990s Vermont case on the subject.
>  
>
I can't imagine such an exemption would or should be granted even under 
strict scrutiny. Clearly there is a compelling state interest in making 
sure that fathers support their children, and it's hard to imagine a 
less restrictive means of doing so than requiring them to contribute 
financially if they are physically able to do so. No one would even 
conceive of allowing a father to voluntarily decide to stop working to 
get out of paying child support. I can't imagine why making a religious 
excuse for such irresponsibility changes the situation any.

Ed Brayton