Month: October 2025

Haircuts Child Custody and Religion

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

The intersection of child custody, religion, and haircuts is under review after a California a family court weighed the religious convictions of a father who, as a practicing Sikh, wants his children’s hair left uncut. Who has the power to decide whether to give a simple haircuts when religion rights are involved?

Child Custody Haircut

Almost Cut My Hair

The parents of two children, a girl, 7, and a boy, 5 went to trial over child custody. The Father practices the Sikh faith, whose primary tenets are uncut hair from birth (kesh), as well as use of a bracelet (kara), a small comb (kanga), undergarment (kacha) and a small dagger (kirpan).

When their first child was conceived, he and the mother discussed raising her in the Sikh faith. The children wear a bracelet to remind then not to do wrong. The son started wearing a head covering, called a patka, before he was two years old, and has continued doing so without objections.

The Mother argued the Father harasses her with requests to not cut the children’s hair despite the children having had haircuts beginning as early as four months old; despite the children’s preference and standard to have their hair groomed to their liking, hygiene, and social standards. Besides, there is no court order prohibiting the children having their hair cut.

The trial court found it in the best interest of the children that if the children express a desire to have their hair cut that was okay, but no buzz cuts for the son. Additionally, the daughter’s hair cannot be cut shorter than shoulder length so the father will be able to braid her hair. The Father appealed.

Florida Religion and Child Custody

I’ve written about the intersection of religion and divorce. However, the issued of religion and haircuts is not a common complain in family court. Religion, religious beliefs, and religious practices are not statutory factors Florida courts consider when determining parental responsibility.

Nor is religion an area in which a parent may be granted ultimate responsibility over a child. Instead, the weight religion plays in custody disputes grew over time in various cases.

That’s because placing restrictions on a parent’s right to expose his or her child to his or her religious beliefs have consistently been overturned in the absence of a clear, affirmative showing that the religious activities at issue will be harmful to the child.

Generally, Florida courts will not stop a parent from practicing their religion or from influencing the religious training of their child inconsistent with that of the other parent. Religious practices can be restricted, however, when there is a clear, affirmative showing that they “will be harmful to the child.”

Haircut 100

The California appeals court noted that parents have a constitutional right to direct the inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship. In California, a court will not stop a parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of a showing that the child will be thereby harmed.

The trial court failed to determine whether mother showed that if the children adhered to father’s Sikh faith regarding haircuts, patka and bracelets, they would be harmed. Harm to the child from conflicting religious instructions or practices cannot be simply assumed, it must be demonstrated in detail.

The family judge also erred when he subordinated the father’s constitutional rights to the children’s wishes by allowing the children to decide if they wanted to wear bracelets and cut their hair without first determining if the children were mature enough to understand the religious observances.

The appellate court reversed the ruling permitting the child’s hair to be cut and deferring to their wishes and directed the family judge to decide if the children’s adherence to father’s religion would be harmful to the children.

The California opinion is here.

Remarriage and Prenuptial Agreements

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

A recent Pew Research Center report about divorce in the United States is showing that most adults who have divorced have gone on to remarry. Remarriage to future spouses, adult children and blended families raise interesting issues about the need for prenuptial agreements.

Remarriage prenup Research

Pew Research Study

The Pew researchers report that in 2023, over 1.8 million Americans divorced. Additionally, a third of Americans who have ever been married have also experienced divorce. While divorce has been declining in the US since the early 1980s, divorce still shapes a large part of U.S. culture.

One reason the divorce rate declined has to do with who is most likely to get married these days. Over time, the married population has shifted toward adults with higher levels of education. Adults with more education are less likely to divorce, and these shifts have driven down the divorce rate. People with lower levels of education have become less likely to marry. However, there is not a strong link between education and remarriage among Americans who have divorced.

A big exception to this is the gray divorce. In 1990, the divorce rate was 3.9 divorces per 1,000 married women ages 50 and older. By 2008, the divorce rate for this group had risen to 11.0. This stayed relatively stable through 2023, when the divorce rate among older adults was 10.3. In contrast, the divorce rate for those ages 15 to 49 remained stable from 1990 to 2008 and fell between 2008 and 2023.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans who have divorced have gone on to remarry. Divorced men are slightly more likely than women to remarry (68% vs. 64%).

For those who do remarry, the economic benefits can greatly outweigh the single life. Pew found that the median household wealth, or net worth, of divorced working adults was $98,700 in 2023, while those in their first marriage had a median household wealth of $326,900. Remarried people had a slightly higher net worth of $329,100, Pew researchers found. That is where prenuptial agreements can be helpful.

Florida Prenuptial Agreements

I’ve written about prenuptial agreements before. Prenuptial agreements are about more than just resolving uncertainty in a second or third marriage.

A prenuptial agreement (or “prenup” for short) is a contract between people intending to marry. A prenup determines spousal rights when the marriage ends by death or divorce. This can be especially important in second marriages.

If you divorce without a prenup, your property rights are determined under state law, and a spouse may have a claim to alimony while the suit for divorce is pending and after entry of a judgment.

Prospective second spouses may limit or expand state laws by an agreement. Prenups are also used to protect the interests of children from a prior marriage, and to avoid a contested divorce. Prenups can be a reliable guide for anyone contemplating remarriage after divorce.

More Research

Previous research has shown that men are more likely to remarry than women, but estimates of remarriage typically look at both widowed and divorced adults. Because widows are less likely than divorced adults to remarry and women are much more likely than men to be widowed, previously married women are less likely to remarry than men. The gender difference isn’t as large when looking only at divorced women and men.

Some divorced adults who have not remarried live with an unmarried (or cohabiting) partner. In 2023, 15% of divorced women and 19% of divorced men lived with an unmarried partner. The researchers at Pew also discovered that divorced adults have lower household incomes and less wealth than married adults. Perhaps this drives people to remarry.

Working-age adults who are currently divorced also have less median household wealth ($98,700) than those in their first marriage ($326,900) and those who are remarried ($329,100). However, divorced adults have more household wealth than never-married adults ($98,700 vs. $32,600).

The CBS News article is here.

International Custody and Brazil

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

After a mother wrongfully retains a child in Brazil, the father in New Jersey files a Hague Abduction Convention petition in Brazil, and an international custody case under the UCCJEA in Pennsylvania. But is New Jersey the home state if the child has never been there? An appellate court answers that question.

Brazil UCCJEA Hague

A Thrill in Brazil

The child, G.O. was born in September 2020, and lived with his parents in Pennsylvania until April 2021. Then, just before G.O. turned six months old, the parents took their child to Brazil in May 2021 for a one month vacation to see the Mother’s family.

The Father returned to the U.S, but the Mother refused to return with the child, and remained in Brazil with G.O. In July 2021, the Father filed an Emergency Petition to return G.O. from Brazil in Philadelphia. The Mother argued that she had filed for custody in Brazil.

In January 2022, the Mother filed an Emergency Petition for Custody in Pennsylvania, where they used to live, but the Father had moved to New Jersey, and had been residing there for over four months. The Pennsylvania court ruled in December 2024 that Pennsylvania no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to consider custody. The Father appealed.

Florida International Custody

I’ve written and spoken about international child custody cases under the Hague Convention and the UCCJEA before. The Hague Convention seeks to deter abducting parent by eliminating their primary motivation for doing so: to “deprive the abduction parent’s actions of any practical or juridical consequences.”

When a child under 16 who was habitually residing in one signatory country is wrongfully removed to, or retained in, another signatory country, the Hague Convention provides that the other country: “order the return of the child forthwith” and “shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody.”

The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.

Florida and almost all U.S. states passed the UCCJEA into law. The most fundamental aspect of the UCCJEA is the approach to the jurisdiction needed to start a case. In part, the UCCJEA requires a court have some jurisdiction vis-a-vis the child.

Another important aspect of the UCCJEA is the concept of continuing exclusive jurisdiction. Under the UCCJEA, the state originally making a custody determination retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until it determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer have a significant connection with the state, or until any state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent no longer reside in the decree-granting state.

Fulfilled in Brazil

On appeal, the Father argued the trial court erred when it divested itself of jurisdiction without properly considering its own prior orders affirming jurisdiction, and by disregarding the Brazilian court’s Hague Convention ruling, which determined that the U.S. is the habitual residence and the Mother’s retention in Brazil unlawful.

The purpose of the UCCJEA, the appellate court noted, is to avoid jurisdictional  competition, promote cooperation between courts, deter child abductions and facilitate the enforcement of custody orders of other states.

Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is based on the home state of the child, where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody case. When a child is six months of age or younger, home state means the state in which the child lived from birth with a parent.

Here, having found the Pennsylvania court was the home state and properly had jurisdiction, the question became did Pennsylvania lose exclusive continuing jurisdiction when the Mother, child and Father had all left the state.

However, the family court incorrectly held that Brazil had not determined a court of the United States would be the more appropriate forum. In fact, the Brazilian found that the U.S. courts were the more appropriate forum for deciding custody than Brazil.

Additionally, even if Brazil had home state jurisdiction to decide custody, under the Hague Convention, the courts in Brazil are not permitted to decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child should not be returned under the Convention.

Finally, if Pennsylvania had allowed the Mother to wrongfully retain G.O. in Brazil to create exclusive jurisdiction, the appellate court reasoned it would be rewarding the Mother for forum shopping and unjustified behavior.

The opinion is here.