## Facts

- After divorce, the mother had primary custody of the parties’ young daughter; the father had visitation.
- The mother remarried and moved with her new husband and the child from Alabama to rural Indiana in connection with the husband’s Christian mission work.
- In custody-modification proceedings, the trial court found the new husband isolated and controlled the mother and child, alienated extended family, and physically disciplined the child; the mother did not stop him.
- The trial court found the relocation separated the child from a large, supportive Alabama family network and did not benefit the child.
- The trial court found the mother and new husband imposed strict modesty rules and that the child’s personality and behavior deteriorated in that household.
- After the father received temporary custody, the trial court observed the child became happy and well-adjusted in the father’s home.
- The trial court awarded permanent custody to the father and imposed conditions on the mother’s religious expression: she could provide religious training “only by example” and could not criticize or disparage the father’s religious beliefs or his household.
- The mother challenged the religious-expression restrictions on constitutional grounds; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.
- The state supreme court granted certiorari but later quashed the writ as improvidently granted, leaving the affirmed judgment in effect.

## Issues

1. Whether custody-order provisions limiting a parent’s religious instruction to “example” and barring criticism or disparagement of the other parent’s religious beliefs violate constitutional protections for free exercise and free speech.
2. To what extent a court in a custody-modification case may impose religion-related speech conditions based on the child’s best interests and the custody-modification standard.

## Decision

- The court quashed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
- The intermediate appellate affirmance remained in place, as did the trial court’s custody modification awarding the father custody.
- The challenged restrictions on the mother’s religious instruction and disparagement of the father’s beliefs also remained enforceable as part of the custody order.
- The court did not issue a merits ruling resolving the constitutional questions.

## Legal Principles

- In custody-modification litigation, appellate review generally defers to trial-court fact-finding made after an ore tenus hearing when supported by evidence.
- A custody change may be upheld where evidence supports that the change materially benefits the child and outweighs disruption from relocation or transfer.
- Courts may distinguish between protected religious belief and parenting conduct (including religiously motivated conduct) that demonstrably affects a child’s welfare.
- When crafting custody conditions, courts may impose limits aimed at protecting the child from harm arising from parental conflict, including restrictions directed at disparagement of the other parent, so long as the order is tied to child welfare rather than disapproval of beliefs.
- Quashing certiorari leaves the lower-court judgment intact and carries no definitive statewide merits rule on the constitutional questions presented.

## Conclusion

The court declined further review and left standing a custody modification based on findings that the mother’s household environment harmed the child, as well as order provisions limiting the mother’s religious instruction to “example” and barring disparagement of the father’s religious beliefs and home.


Ex parte Snider, 929 So. 2d 447 (Ala. 2005)