quincy
Senior Member
EthanMH, in doing your research, there are a few court cases on religious beliefs as they apply to minors that you may be interested in reviewing. It is not unheard of for courts to intervene when there is both a clear showing of harm to a minor (or likely harm) and such harm presents a greater risk than does intervention by a court into family privacy and the free exercise of religion.
A "harm of child" standard is used when a court looks to enjoin the parents' constitutional right of free exercise of religion and the parents' right to indoctrinate their child(ren) into this religion as they see fit. While this harm-to-child standard does not appear to be met by what you describe as your situation here, the following cases are presented for their educational value.
To preface what follows, the conflict over different religious beliefs and practices, where it involves minors, arises most often in divorce situations when the parents of the minor have differing religious beliefs, and not when the minors' religious beliefs differ from the parents. But some of the courts' decisions can be applied, in a very academic way, to a minor's rights to exercise his/her own religious beliefs. Justice William O. Douglas said that, "Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only as one attains the state-defined age of majority. Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights."
In Zummo v Zummo, 1990, an appellate court in Pennsylvania held that, to justify restrictions on the parents' right to instill religious beliefs in their children, it must be established that there is a substantial threat of present or future harm to the child(ren) should restrictions not be made. The court in Zummo stated that, by age 12, a child may have sufficient capacity to assert his/her own personal religious identity. Judges should, said the court, exercise their own discretion on the issue on a case-by-case basis.
While there has been no study done, to my knowledge, that shows being educated in a religion contrary to one's own is harmful in itself, a 1997 Massachusetts' case, Kendall v Kendall, had several experts testify that emotional harm to a child can result when negative messages about his/her practiced or preferred religion are communicated. In the Kendall case, the court found demonstrated evidence of harm to the minor child in the reports presented for the court's review.
In Bienenfeld v Bennett-White and in Kirchner v Caughey, Maryland court decisions 1992, courts restricted parental religious activities due to harmful emotional distress experienced by the children, and in Burnham v Burnham, Nebraska 1981, the court found that differing religious beliefs of the parents affected the well-being of the child, and in Bentley v Bentley and in Schwarzman v Schwarzman, New York, court decisions led to restrictions on parental religious practices when it involved their children, because of evidenced emotional damage and detrimental effects on the children.
Emotional harm, in other words, can potentially result with the "pitting" of another's religious beliefs against one's own.
States and courts have all required, however, a clear showing that religious activities and differences present a substantial threat to the physical and emotional well-being of a child before they will consider enjoining a parent. So the advice you have been given (ie. you must attend church with your mom) is the advice you should probably follow until you are no longer a minor and living under your mom's roof - unless your mom is willing to listen to a well-reasoned argument why you should be allowed to stay home. A well-reasoned argument may be easier to compose if you read over Justice Douglas' Dissent in Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205, 1972.
As an aside, some other countries provide for minors (ages 12 and older in a couple of countries, 14 and older in others) to exercise their own religious beliefs, even if their parents do not share or approve of the beliefs.
A "harm of child" standard is used when a court looks to enjoin the parents' constitutional right of free exercise of religion and the parents' right to indoctrinate their child(ren) into this religion as they see fit. While this harm-to-child standard does not appear to be met by what you describe as your situation here, the following cases are presented for their educational value.
To preface what follows, the conflict over different religious beliefs and practices, where it involves minors, arises most often in divorce situations when the parents of the minor have differing religious beliefs, and not when the minors' religious beliefs differ from the parents. But some of the courts' decisions can be applied, in a very academic way, to a minor's rights to exercise his/her own religious beliefs. Justice William O. Douglas said that, "Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only as one attains the state-defined age of majority. Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights."
In Zummo v Zummo, 1990, an appellate court in Pennsylvania held that, to justify restrictions on the parents' right to instill religious beliefs in their children, it must be established that there is a substantial threat of present or future harm to the child(ren) should restrictions not be made. The court in Zummo stated that, by age 12, a child may have sufficient capacity to assert his/her own personal religious identity. Judges should, said the court, exercise their own discretion on the issue on a case-by-case basis.
While there has been no study done, to my knowledge, that shows being educated in a religion contrary to one's own is harmful in itself, a 1997 Massachusetts' case, Kendall v Kendall, had several experts testify that emotional harm to a child can result when negative messages about his/her practiced or preferred religion are communicated. In the Kendall case, the court found demonstrated evidence of harm to the minor child in the reports presented for the court's review.
In Bienenfeld v Bennett-White and in Kirchner v Caughey, Maryland court decisions 1992, courts restricted parental religious activities due to harmful emotional distress experienced by the children, and in Burnham v Burnham, Nebraska 1981, the court found that differing religious beliefs of the parents affected the well-being of the child, and in Bentley v Bentley and in Schwarzman v Schwarzman, New York, court decisions led to restrictions on parental religious practices when it involved their children, because of evidenced emotional damage and detrimental effects on the children.
Emotional harm, in other words, can potentially result with the "pitting" of another's religious beliefs against one's own.
States and courts have all required, however, a clear showing that religious activities and differences present a substantial threat to the physical and emotional well-being of a child before they will consider enjoining a parent. So the advice you have been given (ie. you must attend church with your mom) is the advice you should probably follow until you are no longer a minor and living under your mom's roof - unless your mom is willing to listen to a well-reasoned argument why you should be allowed to stay home. A well-reasoned argument may be easier to compose if you read over Justice Douglas' Dissent in Wisconsin v Yoder, 406 US 205, 1972.
As an aside, some other countries provide for minors (ages 12 and older in a couple of countries, 14 and older in others) to exercise their own religious beliefs, even if their parents do not share or approve of the beliefs.
Last edited:
BUT. . . .
