## Facts

- Divorced parents had three minor children and had agreed before marriage that the children would be raised in the Jewish faith.
- The mother, who was Jewish, had primary physical custody; the father, who was Catholic, exercised custody/visitation every other weekend.
- The father sought to expose the children to his Catholic tradition, including attending Catholic religious services during his visitation time.
- The mother petitioned for an order (1) compelling the father to take the children to synagogue Sunday school during his visitation weekends and (2) prohibiting him from taking the children to religious services “contrary to the Jewish faith” during his custodial periods.
- The trial court granted both requests.
- The trial court made no finding that the children had suffered, or faced an actual and substantial threat of, serious physical or mental harm from attending Catholic services.

## Issues

1. Whether a visitation restriction barring a noncustodial parent from taking children to religious services “contrary” to the custodial parent’s faith violates constitutional protections and constitutes an abuse of discretion absent a showing of substantial harm to the children.
2. Whether a court may require a noncustodial parent to present the children for synagogue Sunday school during the parent’s weekend visitation as a scheduling component of the custody order.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in part and vacated in part.
- The court vacated the prohibition preventing the father from taking the children to non-Jewish religious services during visitation, holding it violated the father’s constitutional rights and was an abuse of discretion absent proof of substantial harm.
- The court affirmed the requirement that the father deliver the children to synagogue Sunday school during his weekend visitation, treating it as a permissible scheduling directive within custody administration.

## Legal Principles

- A custody or visitation order may not restrict a parent’s religious exercise with a child absent evidence of actual or substantial threat of serious harm to the child; speculative confusion or interfaith conflict is insufficient.
- The “best interests of the child” standard in custody matters must be applied subject to constitutional limits, including parental rights and protections for free exercise and religious neutrality.
- Courts must avoid content-based religious restrictions that favor one faith over another; such restrictions raise constitutional concerns and require a heightened justification.
- Neutral scheduling provisions that secure a child’s continued participation in established educational or religious programs can be permissible if they do not suppress a parent’s ability to practice or discuss the parent’s faith beyond the limited scheduling requirement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a visitation-time requirement that the father present the children for synagogue Sunday school as a neutral scheduling measure, but struck down a ban on taking the children to Catholic services because the record lacked a showing of substantial harm and the restriction impermissibly preferred one religious practice over another.


Zummo v. Zummo, 574 A.2d 1130 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)