Here, the parties were involved in a divorce, and they both had different accounts as to how they agreed to raise their children religiously. One parent wanted to raise the children of the Catholic faith, but that they would expose the children to the Jewish religion and holidays. Meanwhile, the other parent wanted to raise the children in the Jewish religion especially since he had physical custody, and he was the primary caretaker. One of the parties’ children was baptized in the Catholic Church and was given a Hebrew name in a Jewish naming ceremony. The second child was baptized in the Catholic Church and only given a Hebrew name after the parties were divorced. The parties’ third child was both baptized in the Catholic Church and circumcised in a bris, a Jewish ceremony. The parties’ PSA had not provisions as to the religious upbringing of the children. The PSA did provide that the parties would have custody of their children on their respective religious holidays. Moreover, the PSA provided that when a Jewish and a Catholic holiday conflicted, such as Christmas and Chanukah, then priority was given to the Catholic holiday.
The Appellate Division held that the secondary caretaker could not enroll the children in training and educational classes or programs in a different religion over the primary caretaker’s objections when exercising parting time. Here, the father was Jewish and he was also the primary caretaker. The mother was Catholic and she tried to enroll the children into CCD classes as well. The Appellate Division held that the non-custodial parent could not formally educate the children in a second religion, through CCD classes.
The court held that the decision to enroll the children in CCD classes runs contrary to the right to that the primary caretaker has to educate the children in the religion of his choice.
The Appellate Division did emphasize that the mother was not prohibited from taking the children to church services during her visitation time. In summary, the Feldman court held that the parent of primary residence has the final say in the religious upbringing of his or her children. However, the parent of the alternate residence is not barred from taking the children to religious services that he or she chooses when exercising parenting time. The reasoning behind the court’s decision to give the primary caretaker the sole authority when choosing his or her children’s religion is that it is in the children’s best interests. Moreover, the court emphasized that it wanted to reduce the pressure on the children from having to choose between two different religions.