Summary
In De Luca v. De Luca, 202 A.D.2d 580, 609 N.Y.S.2d 80 (App.Div.2d Dep't 1994), a case where the non-custodial parent was concerned about the child's exposure to the mother's choice of religion, the court stated that "[w]hether the subject matter is religion, health care, or education, absent an agreement, the court will not interfere with the custodial parent's decisions regarding the children's upbringing."
Summary of this case from Fuentes v. Board of EducOpinion
March 21, 1994
Appeal from the Family Court, Nassau County (Feiden, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the second and seventh decretal paragraphs thereof, and (2) by deleting from the third decretal paragraph the words "regardless of whether such activities are" and "or extended paternal family, or extended maternal family, at school, or with friends or any other individuals"; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In 1987, custody of the parties' two children — a boy named Bradley born on May 9, 1984, and a girl named Angela born on May 17, 1985 — was granted to the mother, with visitation to the father. The family was Roman Catholic, and the children were baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. Sometime in 1986, the mother became interested in the Jehovah's Witnesses, and she began attending their meetings in the fall of 1988. In December 1988, the father petitioned for custody of the children. He was concerned that the Jehovah's Witness religion would not allow his children to receive proper medical attention and that the religion's prohibition against celebrating birthdays and holidays, including Christmas and Halloween, would have an effect on the children. He also wished to be consulted and to participate in decisions regarding the children's medical and educational needs.
Whether the subject matter is religion, health care, or education, absent an agreement, the court will not interfere with the custodial parent's decisions regarding the children's upbringing (see, People ex rel. Portnoy v. Strasser, 303 N.Y. 539; People ex rel. Sisson v. Sisson, 271 N.Y. 285; Stevenot v Stevenot, 133 A.D.2d 820; Parrinelli v. Parrinelli, 138 Misc.2d 49; Matter of Paolella v. Phillips, 27 Misc.2d 763). Only when moral, mental, and physical conditions are so bad that they seriously affect the health or morals of the children should the court be called upon to act with respect to a disagreement between the parents over the internal arrangements of family life (see, People ex rel. Sisson v. Sisson, 271 N.Y. 285, supra). Upon searching the record, we find no evidence that the children are being harmed by their moral, mental, or physical conditions.
Finally, we note that the scheduled unsupervised visitation by the father poses no risk to the children and is not against their best interests (see, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170; Daghir v Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, affd 56 N.Y.2d 938). Moreover, the father should be permitted to expose the children to his religious beliefs and practices during his visitation periods (see, Marjorie G. v. Stephen G., 156 Misc.2d 198). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.