A Maricopa County judge’s ruling that a father violated a custody agreement by not practicing “the Christian faith” because he instead attended a Mormon church with his children was overturned by the Arizona Court of Appeals last week in a sharply worded opinion.
Judge Michael Mandell ruled last year that Shawn Ball could not take his children to services at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because the church “was not Christian,” which the judge believed was required by a court-approved parenting plan signed by Ball and his ex-wife upon their 2018 divorce.
But on Dec. 10, the court of appeals reversed Mandell’s ruling on two grounds, one of which concluded the Maricopa County Superior Court judge overstepped his authority by involving the judiciary in a debate of religious doctrine.
“Courts are not the appropriate forum to assess whether someone who self-identifies as ‘Christian’ qualifies to use that term,” the appellate opinion states, adding that Mandell “was required to abstain from handling Mother’s claim once it became clear the dispute concerned an ecclesiastical matter.”
Instead, Mandell “engaged in the exact type of inquiry into church doctrine or belief that the First Amendment prohibits,” the opinion states.
According to court records, Ball married in 1999 and had two children with his wife. A divorce action was initiated by the wife in 2017, and when it was finalized both parents agreed to a parenting plan which addressed various issues involving child-rearing, including a section titled Religious Education Arrangements.
The parents, who identified themselves as Christians, agreed to the first clause of the religious section which read each “may take the minor children to a church or place of worship of his or her choice” when the minor children were with that parent. A second clause noted the children “may be instructed in the Christian faith.”
After his divorce, Ball joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and on occasion had his children attend with him. But his ex-wife went to court last year, claiming the Mormon church “is not Christian.”
According to a Gospel Essay published in 2013 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its members “unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians. They worship God the Eternal Father in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Mandell conducted two hearings after which he ruled “Mormonism does not fall within the confines of Christian faith and thus instructing the Children in a faith other than Christianity violates the Parenting Plan.” The judge reached his decision based in part on evidence put forth by Ball’s ex-wife with the help of her minister.
In its opinion last week, the court of appeals explained Mandell’s ruling that “Father’s Church is not Christian or part of the Christian Faith” had to be
overturned as it violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
“Here, the court dove into an ecclesiastical matter by addressing whether Father’s Church is part of the Christian faith,” the opinion states. “That very question has long been a matter of theological debate in the United States. A secular court must avoid ruling on such issues to prevent the appearance that government favors one religious view over another.”
The court of appeals’ opinion also notes the judges would have overturned Mandell’s ruling based on his misinterpretation of the Parenting Plan.
“To interpret a parenting plan, we apply the general rules of construction for any written instrument,” the opinion states. “The use of the word ‘may’ generally indicates permissive intent, while ‘shall’ and ‘will’ denote a mandatory provision,” the judges noted.
The opinion adds that “to interpret the word ‘may’ in the religious-education section as mandatory rather than permissive would render the distinction between the different words meaningless.”
The appellate judges included a warning to parents and other judges as to the “great care” which should be used to be as specific and detailed as possible when addressing religious education in a parenting plan.
“Failure to do so may impermissibly entangle the court in religious matters should a dispute ever arise,” the opinion states. “This case provides a potent example of this possibility made real. The ambiguities surrounding the phrase ‘the Christian faith’ thrust the court directly into a matter of theological controversy in which it could not take part.”
