A different approach to parents' different levels of religiosity in child custody cases

[Volokh, Eugene]

Judy Baer writes:

> Hey, folks, anybody else notice what these two cases have in 
> common? Daddy won. Feminists, take note!

	Isn't it a little unhelpful to generalize from a sample of 2
cases?  Here, by way of comparison, are the first nine cases I cite in
my Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions -- these
are all the ones from the first state I list (Michigan) for which I
included detailed parentheticals.  They split 5-4 in favor of the mother
-- which hardly proves that the courts are unbiased, but does seem to
undermine the inference from the smaller sample that Prof. Baer was
drawing.  (Or was the message intended to be tongue-in-cheek, and I just
missed it?)

	Eugene

A) Underhill v. Garcia, No. 261651, 2005 WL 3304120, at *2 (Mich. Ct.
App. Dec. 6,
2005) (noting that "[father] regularly took [son] to church and Sabbath
school,
taught [him] how to pray and read him Bible stories, while [mother]
testified that
she did not regularly attend church and presented no evidence
demonstrating any
willingness or capacity to attend to religion with [son]");
b) Reed v. Lewandowski, No. 260372, 2005 WL 2291850, at *4 (Mich. Ct.
App. Sept.
20, 2005) (noting that "[mother] attended church regularly and brought
the child
with her" whereas father "did not attend church" but only "tried to
teach the child
about religion at home");
c) Deboe v. Deboe, No. 246083, 2003 Mich. App. LEXIS 2379, at *17 (Mich.
Ct.
App. Sept. 18, 2003) (noting mother's "continu[ing] to attend church
with the children"
and absence of "evidence that [father] took any initiative to take the
children
to church or to maintain their religious education"; court pointed to no
evidence that continuity of preexisting religious education, as opposed
to mere
presence of religious education, was important in this case);
d) Sharrow v. Davis, Nos. 244043, 245117, 2003 WL 21699876, at *3 (Mich.
Ct. App.
July 22, 2003) (noting that "[father] never attended church and his
older children
were not baptized," that "[father] felt [the children] should experience
many religions
and choose one when they were older," and that though "[mother] did not
attend church regularly, she attended periodically and would take all of
the children
with her");
e) Goodrich v. Jex, No. 243455, 2003 WL 21362971, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App.
June 12,
2003) (noting "that [father] has a greater capacity and willingness to
continue to
take the parties' daughters to church and related activities," and that
trial court
had been "concerned with [mother's] belief that her minor daughters are
capable
of making their own decisions whether to attend church");
f) Boot v. Boot, No. 227262, 2001 WL 766115, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan.
30, 2001)
(noting that "[mother] often attended church with the children" while
father "had
not demonstrated that he provided the children with any moral or
religious
training");
g) Riley v. Downs, No. 224314, 2000 WL 33399796, at *4 (Mich. Ct. App.
Dec. 1,
2000) (noting that "[mother] played an active role in [son's]
behavioral, religious
and academic training and . . . [father] was uninvolved in [son's]
academic progress
and did not encourage him to attend church");
h) Beebe v. Beebe, No. 226125, 2000 WL 33403012, at *4 (Mich. Ct. App.
Nov. 3,
2000) (noting that "[mother] described her religious activities, while
[father] testified
that he did not go to church with the children regularly");
i) Root v. Smith, No. 222266, 2000 WL 33534021, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App.
Feb. 18,
2000) (noting "[father]'s regular church attendance"); 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Judith Baer
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:00 AM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: A different approach to parents' different 
> levels of religiosity in child custody cases
> 
> Hey, folks, anybody else notice what these two cases have in 
> common? Daddy won. Feminists, take note!
> 
> Judy Baer
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu To 
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others.
>