Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A mother’s right as a custodial parent to choose her child’s religious upbringing, plus a father’s conduct, justiifed a trial court’s order to reduce the father’s parenting time and restrict his child’s involvement at his church, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.
Kenneth and Veronika Bardonner were married, and they had two children together, K.V.B. and W.B.
In April 2015, the mother filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. While that petition was pending, the father underwent a psychological evaluation with Dr. Jennifer Spencer, and she filed her report with the Monroe Circuit Court.
Spencer “diagnosed the Father as having narcissistic personality and exhibitionism disorders. She was concerned about Father’s inappropriate sexual boundaries, his attitudes toward women, his self-focus, and his lack of empathy.”
The trial court had encouraged the father to seek counseling to learn how to self-monitor his thoughts and behaviors that could impact his children negatively. The father did not engage in the recommended counseling.
The trial court issued the dissolution decree in September 2016, awarding custody of the children to the mother, with the father exercising parenting time. At some point, W.B. died.
In June 2017, the father filed a petition to modify custody of K.V.B.
After a hearing on that petition and other pending motions, on May 22, 2018, the trial court issued an order denying the father’s petition to modify custody.
The court noted, “. . . . Father disregards Mother’s legal authority to make decisions regarding religion and education and attempts to subvert it, going so far as to state that it is “his house, his rules.” Father claims that Mother’s actions demonstrate a pattern of harmful psychological conduct. However, Father has not demonstrated that Mother’s decisions relative to legal custody or Father’s parenting time have psychologically harmed [Child].”
“The actions of both parties continue to place [Child] in the middle of conflict. Mother must follow the orders of the Court and seek input from Father, in writing if desired, on matters concerning education, religion, and health care. Father must respect the legal authority of Mother, particularly on matters of religion, and strictly abide by the parenting time schedule and Mother’s decisions.”
In its order, the trial court also ordered that “Father will not bring [Child] to church services at All Saints Orthodox Church. Father may bring [Child] to social activities only when church teachings are not the focus of the activity.”
The father filed additional petitions to modify custody.
In August 2020, the trial court issued an order on all pending motions and denied the father’s then pending petition to modify custody. And the court granted the mother’s “request to have sole decision-making authority” for the child.
A May 23, 2023 order, based on a guardian ad litem’s recommendations, reduced the father’s parenting time “based upon the emotional harm [Child] experiences by Father’s implicit and explicit pressure about ‘fixing’ the parenting time schedule and the mature themes to which Father has been exposing [Child]. Father’s parenting time should remain reduced until these issues are resolved.”
Both parents were ordered to address in their own counseling what they can do to help their child understand that he is not responsible for fixing the parenting time schedule or anything else about the proceeding.
The child was also not permitted to attend any function or event of All Saints Orthodox Church.
The father appealed, arguing that the trial court’s order prohibiting the child’s attendance at at the father’s church or at any church-related activity violated his “Federal and State First Amendment constitutional rights.”
He also argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it modified his parenting time, including a reduction in his summer parenting time to less than that recommended under the state’s Parenting Time Guidelines.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Kenneth Bardonner and affirmed the trial court’s order, finding the trial court’s prohibition on the child’s involvement in certain activities related to the father’s church does not violate his First Amendment rights.
The court also found that the trial court’s order modifying the father’s parenting time is supported by the evidence and is not clearly erroneous.
Judge Paul Mathias wrote the opinion for the appellate court.
Mathias wrote that the father acknowledges that Indiana Code section 31-17-2-17 grants a custodial parent the right to “determine [a] child’s upbringing, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training.”
The statute further provides that a court may only limit the custodian’s authority upon a determination that, “in the absence of a specific limitation” of that authority, the child’s physical health would be endangered or his emotional development would be significantly impaired.
“Here, Father has made no such showing, and Mother’s right to determine Child’s religious training is therefore without limit, which includes her right to exclude Father’s religious preferences,” Mathias wrote.
Mathias stressed that the bottom line is that the mother has the exclusive authority to dictate her child’s religious training, and she has decided that the child shall not participate in the father’s church.
The appellate judge added that the mother does not need to explain her reasons or justify her decision in any way.
The trial court found multiple examples of Father’s conduct that harmed Child, especially “in exposing [Child] to the conflict between the parents[.],” Mathias noted, with the appellate court’s review of the record showing that the court’s assessment is well supported.
“Thus, the court’s restriction of parenting time to less than that recommended under the Guidelines was not an abuse of discretion. Father’s contention on appeal amounts to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do,” Mathias wrote.
Judges Elizabeth Tavitas and Leanna Weissmann concurred.
The case is Kenneth E. Bardonner v. Veronika Bardonner, 23A-DC-1393.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.