## Facts

- Barbara Zeitler Kendall (Jewish; later Orthodox) and Jeffrey P. Kendall (Catholic; later member of the Boston Church of Christ) married in 1988 and had three minor children.
- Before marriage, the parents agreed the children would be raised in the Jewish faith.
- After marital breakdown, the parents’ religious conflict intensified: Jeffrey sought to convert the children to his faith and expressed beliefs that nonbelievers were damned; Barbara raised the children in Orthodox Jewish practices.
- The Probate and Family Court appointed a guardian ad litem to assess the interreligious conflict and its effect on the children.
- The judge found demonstrable evidence of substantial emotional harm to the children (ages three, five, and seven) attributable to the parents’ religious conflict and Jeffrey’s conduct and statements, including denigrating the children’s and mother’s beliefs and incidents such as cutting the son’s sidelocks (payes).
- The divorce judgment granted joint legal custody and imposed detailed restrictions intended to prevent either parent from indoctrinating or acting in ways that would alienate the children from the other parent or cause emotional distress.
- Jeffrey appealed the religion-related restrictions as unconstitutional; Barbara cross-appealed on custody, fees, and disposition of the marital home.

## Issues

1. Under what standard may a court restrict a parent’s religiously motivated speech and conduct with minor children in custody and visitation orders.
2. Whether restrictions imposed to address interreligious conflict violate the Free Exercise Clause when based on findings of harm to the children.
3. Whether the challenged provisions were neutral and narrowly tailored to prevent substantial harm rather than to favor one faith.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the probate court’s authority to impose specific restrictions on a parent’s religious conduct and communications with children when there is demonstrable evidence of substantial harm or a substantial threat of harm.
- The court held that the restrictions did not violate free exercise because they were directed at preventing serious emotional injury and protecting the children’s welfare, not at evaluating religious truth or preferring one religion.
- The court largely upheld the religion-related provisions, with modifications or clarifications to ensure neutrality and proper tailoring.

## Legal Principles

- A court may limit a parent’s religious practices or religious speech affecting minor children only upon a showing of substantial harm or a substantial threat of substantial harm to the children.
- The state’s compelling interest in protecting children from serious harm can justify narrowly drawn limits on parental religious liberty.
- Courts must remain religiously neutral: they may not decide theological correctness or select one faith as superior, and must focus on secular effects on the child’s welfare.
- Restrictions must be no broader than necessary to prevent the identified harm, and should target conduct that denigrates the other parent’s faith, damages the parent-child relationship, or causes severe emotional distress.

## Conclusion

The court sustained religion-related custody restrictions because the trial judge found substantial emotional harm to the children and crafted neutral, narrowly tailored provisions aimed at preventing further harm rather than favoring either parent’s religion.


Kendall v. Kendall, 687 N.E.2d 1228 (Mass. 1997)