Free Exercise Clause and child support obligation

Jean Dudley jean.dudley at gmail.com
Mon Aug 14 12:52:37 PDT 2006


On Aug 14, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> 	Well, recall that under Thomas v. Review Board, you don't need
> an "official" belief of any well-established religious group -- a
> person's idiosyncratic religious belief, if held sincerely, would
> qualify.  We thus can't simply say there's no substantial burden in  
> such
> cases, I think, though a strict scrutiny argument would always be
> available.
>
> 	As to the argument that strict scrutiny is satisfied because
> otherwise the burden of supporting the child would fall on the
> government, and that would violate the Establishment Clause:  Can that
> be consistent with Sherbert, where the government was in fact required
> to support someone who for religious reasons refused to take a job  
> that
> would support herself?  The Court faced an Establishment Clause  
> argument
> there, and rejected it.

Good points, Eugene.  So conscience is the key here, not necessarily  
religious believe.  How does one prove sincerity of belief--is it the  
government's responsibility to disprove sincerity of belief, or is it  
the plaintiff's responsibility to prove sincerity?  I'm ignorant of  
"strict scrutiny";  I'm understanding that Washington State provides  
for individual cases in its constitution, and make exceptions?

I'm still not convinced that Sherbert applies here:  Again, I'll  
plead ignorance of the case--did the plaintiff have children to  
support?  Frankly, I know I'm working this backwards.  I believe that  
regardless of sincere religious conviction, a parent (regardless of  
gender) should be not be relieved of the burden of financial  
responsibility to their child.  I'm thinking that should a parent  
choose to take a vow of poverty, they should be required to perform  
community service in lieu of child support.  Give back to the  
community that is supporting their child.

If that parent's right to strict scrutiny is being denied, by all  
means, that needs to be rectified.

Jean Dudley.
And thank you for educating me so far. 


More information about the Religionlaw mailing list