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 haircut when religious rights are involved?
Almost Cut My Hair
The parents of two children, a girl aged 7, and a boy aged 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 them 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 to leave the haircut decision to the children themselves. 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 issue of religion and haircuts is not a common complaint 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 has grown over time in various cases. Why?
Because placing restrictions on a parent’s right to expose his or her child to religious beliefs has consistently been overturned by courts 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 the mother showed that if the children adhered to the father’s Sikh faith regarding haircuts, patka and bracelets, they would be harmed. Harm to a 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 themselves to decide if they wanted to wear bracelets and cut their hair. The family judge deferred to the children 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.
