Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation

[Jean Dudley]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:59 AM, 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.
>
> 	Eugene

With all due respect for those answering a calling to a religious  
vocation, I can't think of a single religion that relieves a person  
of the burden of financial responsibility to the child.  The rights  
of that child supersede those of the progenetor/-trix.  Monastary,  
missionary or being fired for not performing the duties of your job  
for "religious reasons" makes no difference.  Otherwise the burden of  
support falls on the government, and *that* is a violation of EC.

Jean Dudley