## Facts

- Rudy Johnson (husband/father) filed for divorce from Linda Johnson (wife/mother) in Alaska.   
- The parties were practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses and had two minor children, ages seven and five at the time of trial.   
- Rudy became disenchanted with the Jehovah’s Witness faith and was excommunicated (“disfellowshipped”) from the congregation for willfully smoking cigarettes.   
- Under congregation rules, members—including Linda and the children—were prohibited or strongly discouraged from associating with disfellowshipped persons, which would sharply limit Rudy’s contact with the children if Linda had custody.   
- Rudy attempted to persuade Linda to leave the church, but she remained in the congregation, causing severe strain on the marriage and contributing to the divorce.   
- Upon Rudy’s filing for divorce, the children were temporarily placed in his custody pending trial.   
- At trial, both parents sought custody; the primary contested issue was which home better served the children’s development and best interests, given the religious context and Rudy’s disfellowship status.   
- Rudy argued that if Linda received custody, he would have virtually no meaningful input into the children’s lives due to congregation shunning rules.   
- Rudy also contended the children’s development would be better served in his custody, offering testimony that Linda’s strict adherence to church rules limited ordinary childhood activities (holidays, birthdays, certain organizations) and even some basic skills.   
- A psychologist and a family counselor testified for Rudy that placing the children with him would better expose them to “usual experiences” of similarly aged children and was in their best interests.   
- Linda did not offer expert evidence to rebut Rudy’s witnesses and sought physical custody consistent with her intent to raise the children in accordance with Jehovah’s Witness doctrine.   
- The trial court applied the tender-years presumption—favoring the mother in custody of very young children—and awarded Linda physical custody, while granting joint legal custody so Rudy could participate in major decisions such as medical care.   
- Rudy appealed the custody award, challenging the trial court’s reliance on the tender-years presumption and arguing for a neutral best-interests-of-the-child standard.   

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by relying on the tender-years presumption, which favors mothers in custody determinations of young children, instead of applying a gender-neutral best-interests-of-the-child standard.   
2. Whether, under a proper best-interests analysis, the evidence required awarding primary physical custody of the minor children to Rudy rather than Linda, given the impact of Jehovah’s Witness disfellowship rules on Rudy’s access to the children.   

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held that custody determinations must be based on the best interests of the child and that the tender-years presumption is inconsistent with a gender-neutral best-interests standard.   
- The court concluded that automatic preference for mothers of young children could not control custody decisions and must instead give way to individualized assessment of the statutory best-interests factors.   
- Applying a best-interests analysis, the court determined that the trial court had improperly relied on the tender-years presumption and therefore committed legal error.   
- The court vacated the custody award and remanded for reconsideration under the proper best-interests-of-the-child standard, free from any gender-based presumption.   

## Legal Principles

- Custody decisions must rest on the best interests of the child, evaluated under neutral criteria; gender-based presumptions such as the tender-years doctrine are improper.   
- The tender-years presumption, which favors mothers for custody of young children, conflicts with modern statutory schemes and constitutional principles requiring gender neutrality in family law adjudication.   
- Courts may consider parents’ religious beliefs and practices only to the extent they affect the child’s welfare; religious affiliation or disfellowship itself cannot be the sole basis for custody decisions.   
- Expert testimony regarding children’s psychological and developmental needs is relevant but not dispositive; it must be weighed with all other evidence under the best-interests standard.   

## Conclusion

Johnson v. Johnson marks Alaska’s movement away from the traditional tender-years presumption toward a fully gender-neutral, best-interests-of-the-child standard. The decision emphasizes that custody awards cannot automatically favor mothers of young children but must instead turn on an individualized assessment of each parent’s ability to promote the child’s welfare, even when religious practices and community rules significantly affect a parent’s access to the children.


Johnson v. Johnson, 564 P.2d 71 (Alaska 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1048 (1978)