Maplewood, USA - A judge can't forbid a divorced Maplewood father from reading Bible stories to his children.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out an order issued in a custody dispute barring talk of "inappropriate" religious ideas and Bible stories.
The three-judge panel ruled the order was too vague and burdens Timothy Kinley's rights to free exercise of religion. It ordered Ramsey County District Judge Gary Bastian to refashion the order more narrowly.
Bastian barred Kinley from discussing religion with his three children after he and their mother, Barbara Peck of Oakdale, divorced.
Both parents are Baptists. But Peck contended her ex-husband used religion to malign her to the kids. Peck said Kinley called her an adulteress, said she was possessed by the devil and had the children read Bible verses about women's roles and marriage.
"It's very sad for church people because he gives us a bad reputation," Peck said in an interview. "He's very black and white and legalistic and focused on being right, but his heart is stone. ... My kids are heavily involved in church. They are not unchurched kids by any means."
Kinley denies calling his former wife an adulteress or saying she was possessed. He said this case was about defending his constitutional rights and teaching his children religious principles.
"This is actually a huge victory," Kinley said in an interview. "(My kids) have been told I can't teach them the Bible. I've been framed as this terrible person and it's lies. ... There's nothing in the court order that says what my 'inappropriate' religious ideas were."
Kinley said that even if he did call Peck an adulteress, that's a legitimate religious belief.
"That's not an inappropriate religious idea," he said. "Adultery has a definition."
Kinley's attorney said that, regardless of the details of the case, the ruling was significant because it reins in an overreaching judge.
"What's happened in family courts in general - not just in Minnesota but across the country - is that judges are tending to overstep the bounds in the cases before them," said attorney Thomas James.
"There's been a kind of notion that when people come into family court, all their constitutional rights are suspended. Judges can issue any kind of order that in their opinion is a good idea, without any concerns for the First Amendment."
According to the court opinion:
Kinley and Peck divorced in 1997. Peck was awarded full physical custody of the children, now ages 13, 17 and 23. Kinley received supervised visitation and shared legal custody.
In 2002, Kinley sought either full physical custody or unsupervised parenting time. Peck countered by seeking full legal custody and a restraining order barring Kinley from discussing "inappropriate" religious ideas and Bible lessons with the children.
In court filings Peck accused Kinley of becoming enraged when the children appeared uninterested in a Bible story. One child testified Kinley became "really mad," picked him up, carried him to his room and shook him when he didn't listen to a religion lesson.
Peck also said Kinley sent her harassing letters accusing her of having sinned by leaving him. Peck told the court Kinley contacted church leaders to have them administer church discipline against her.
A family psychologist said Kinley used Bible verses "in a way that was self-serving, and missing the overall meaning."
Judge Bastian found that religion had become a pervasive issue with Kinley. He barred discussion of inappropriate religious ideas and forcing the children to complete Bible lessons or listen to religious stories "whenever the children do not want to do so."
Kinley challenged that order as unconstitutional, and the appeals court agreed.
The appeals court ruled that the trial judge can place restrictions on Kinley's religious discussion with his children if it subverts the custodial parent's choices regarding religion or threatens the health, safety or welfare of the children. But the order has to be backed up by specific findings, and must be more narrowly defined.
Peck said the ruling does not surprise her because she knows it was overly broad. But she said it served its purpose at the time. Peck said she didn't want her ex-husband to distort religion to her children.
"You can't order someone not to teach their kids about God - I agree with that - but that's not the point," Peck said. "The order came out of some abusive crap that was happening."
Peck said Kinley has not seen the kids in two years at their request, and that he owes her more than $15,000 in child support. A court hearing on the support issue is set for this month.
Kinley acknowledges he has not seen the children and owes child support. He says it's because he's been denied his rights and doesn't have the income to make the payments.
"The court is saying I owe $20,000," Kinley said. "It's a terrible situation that the courts deny due process and can't do math."
Outraged by his treatment by the courts, Kinley has formed an outreach group called R-Kids - Remember Kids in Divorce Settlements.
Said Kinley: "I am doing a lot to fight the corruption in our courts."