Dad fails in bid for court order compelling ex-wife to take their 2 kids to church camp

The mother denied obstructing the formation of Christian faith in the children, saying she did not take them for some activities because of their school schedule.

She also argued that the attendance at the camp involves a scheduling decision that fell within her authority as the parent with care and control.

A court order compelling her to personally transport the children to and from the camp each day would be “oppressive and unreasonable”, she argued.

She also said that her agreement was required before the children could be enrolled in the camp, since she had joint custody rights, and the father could not unilaterally decide on the issue and compel her to take them there.

The mother also said she was concerned about her son’s emotional state, as he had recently expressed suicidal ideation and was under counselling. He had told her that he felt stressed about attending the camp, leading her to feel that his attendance there would be “seriously detrimental” to his mental health.

The mother added that her daughter also said she was reluctant to attend the camp.

Judge Kow noted that while the father’s requests were confined to attendance at the camp, he expanded the orders sought in written submissions to include compelling the mother to ensure the kids attend 12 other church events and weekly mass. He also asked for photographic proof bearing a date, timestamp and GPS location.

Judge Kow declined to consider these additional requests.

JUDGE’S FINDINGS

On the main church camp issue, he said the application raises an important question: “When, if at all, should the court exercise its coercive powers to compel one parent to facilitate a child’s participation in a religious activity over the objection of the other?”

Judge Kow said two key principles come into play – the welfare of the children, which includes religious and emotional well-being, and judicial restraint in making coercive orders.

“Not every parenting disagreement over child-related issues requires court orders to break the impasse. This is especially true where the issue involves religious matters,” he said.

“Consideration for a child’s welfare is not a licence for judicial micromanagement of the child’s life. The court is not intended to function as a day-to-day surrogate parent tasked with resolving every ordinary parenting disagreement. The child’s natural parents should be the ones making decisions for the child,” said Judge Kow.

He said the courtroom is “ill-equipped to determine which parent’s religious preference for the child should prevail”.

“Frequently, there is no clearly correct or wrong answers in such matters. The court must thus remain scrupulously neutral and not make mandatory orders lightly,” said Judge Kow.

He found that the father had failed to satisfy the court that his requested orders were necessary.

“The mere fact that an activity may benefit a child does not automatically warrant judicial intervention in the name of the child’s welfare. Many activities – educational, sporting, artistic, cultural or religious – may benefit a child. Courts do not, on this basis alone, routinely transform one parent’s preferred conception of good parenting into a legally enforceable obligation imposed upon the other,” said the judge.

He said the proposed court orders are “unduly intrusive” and that the man appeared to be seeking court orders to enforce his ex-wife’s compliance with his preferred approach to the children’s religious upbringing.

“Court orders are not tools to be exploited by one parent to impose his or her conception of ideal parenting on the other parent,” said Judge Kow, adding that there was no evidence that the children’s absence from the camp would materially compromise their welfare.

“There is also no evidence that the mother is attempting to erase the children’s Christian identity. It is undisputed that the children remain enrolled in Christian schools,” he said.

He accepted that the mother’s decision not to send them to the camp was based on the children’s welfare.

“The exercise of restraint in this case should not be misunderstood as the court’s indifference to religion or its benefits of the camp to the children. Rather, the restraint reflects recognition of a deeper principle – that absent clear evidence of harm to a child’s welfare, the law should be slow to compel one parent into facilitating the other parent’s religious choices for their child,” said Judge Kow.

“For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this judgment prevents the father from sharing his faith with the children during his own access time … and subject always to the children’s welfare, their wishes and their emotional well-being.”