Marriage of Hadeen, In re

Citation27 Wn.App. 566,619 P.2d 374
Decision Date03 November 1980
Docket NumberNo. 7864-0-I,7864-0-I
PartiesIn re the MARRIAGE of Judith Nell HADEEN, Appellant, and Glen Iven Hadeen, Respondent.
CourtWashington Court of Appeals

Bertha R. S. Houser, Seattle, for appellant.

Voris, Belcher, Swanson & Lackey, Chester T. Lackey, Bellingham, for respondent.

CALLOW, Chief Judge.

Judith N. Hadeen, petitioner below in a suit for the dissolution of her marriage to Glen I. Hadeen, appeals from the trial court's award of custody of four of the Hadeens' five daughters to Mr. Hadeen. The trial court awarded Mr. Hadeen custody of Lisa, age 15, Lynn, age 13, Lila, age 11, and LaVon, age 8. Mrs. Hadeen was awarded custody of the Hadeens' oldest daughter, Lori, age 17. This appeal presents the issues of whether religious acts may constitute a determinative factor in an award of custody, and, if so, what test must he used to protect the interests of children and the religious freedom of parents.

In the fall of 1977, a person who had previously been the Hadeens' minister returned from Canada and activated a Bellingham branch of the First Community Churches of America. The First Community Church is a fundamentalist Christian sect which demands much of its members' time, their total loyalty, and a subservience to the teachings of the church. The church teaches a strict code of discipline as a means of gaining parental control of children. Mrs. Hadeen admitted that on one occasion she had her other children hold her daughter Lisa while she spanked her with a Ping-Pong paddle for 2 hours. Mrs. Hadeen testified that usually only a few spankings were necessary. It is unclear whether Mr. Hadeen sanctioned Mrs. Hadeen's disciplinary practices. Witnesses testified that the church teaches enforced isolation and fasting as another means of discipline. The church also teaches that there are essentially two classes of people: 'natural people' and 'spirit filled people' who have repented, been baptized and received the Holy Spirit. There was testimony that children were taught to use foul language when speaking to other children who were 'natural people,' and that there was nothing wrong with lying to 'natural people.' Mrs. Hadeen denied that church members were taught not to associate with 'natural' people.

A few months before the separation of the parties in 1978, there was a split in the church. Mr. Hadeen went with the group that left the church while Mrs. Hadeen stayed. There is little testimony as to what precipitated this split. According to Mr. Hadden, in February of 1978 the pastor of the church unsuccessfully attempted to get Mr. Hadeen to sell the family home and give the proceeds to the ministry. Mr. Hadeen testified that his relationship with his wife deteriorated rapidly as a result of an incident occurring on Memorial Day of 1978. At that time, he and his wife had decided to paint the couple's house, but the pastor came over and said that they should not paint the house and that they were to go to a meeting in Seattle. Mr. Hadeen refused to go, but his wife argued that they should obey the pastor.

Mrs. Hadeen testified that she would allow Mr. Hadeen visitation if she were given custody of the children. She testified that she did not want custody of Lisa at that time unless 'she is ready to live right and walk right with the Lord.' Although their pastor had moved to Portland, there was a First Community Church in Seattle that Mrs. Hadeen would attend.

Mr. Hadeen testified that the church exercised control over its members to whatever extent possible. He said that he never treated his children violently, but had slapped and kicked Mrs. Hadeen in the children's presence following their separation. He did so, he testified, because on one occasion she would not talk to him and on another she cursed him and began 'speaking in tongues.'

Mrs. Hadeen's sister-in-law testified that the parties' religion had not had bad effects on the children and that their conduct was exemplary. Others testified similarly. Mr. Hadeen's sister-in-law testified that the church taught parents to spank their children until they stopped screaming. She further testified that ex-members were shunned. Another church member testified that ex-members were ostracized, and that some parents beat their children while others did not. According to this witness, the church came before family for Mrs. Hadeen.

The trial court interviewed three of the Hadeens' daughters in chambers. Lori testified that her grades are excellent and that she is active in basketball. She testified that the church did not force her or others to do anything. She said she did not visit her father because of the way he had treated her mother and tried to buy the children's affection. Lisa testified that her mother would not talk to her because she would not go to church. She left her mother because she beat her to force her to go to church. Lynn testified that she was in the seventh grade, played sports, had high grades, and did not like her father because he tried to bribe her.

When the taking of testimony was complete, the trial court appointed a psychiatrist as an independent expert to evaluate (a) the children's interrelationship; (b) the parents' and children's interrelationship; (c) whether the children had personality problems; and (d) the problems, effects and desirability of split custody. 1

Two and one-half months after the first hearing, another hearing was held. Mrs. Hadeen testified that she and the children had moved to Seattle where the children enrolled in school and she became employed. She testified that the move was made so she could get a job. According to her testimony, Lynn refused to visit her father, but she told her to visit him. As to Lisa, Mrs. Hadeen testified that she just wanted Lisa to abide by the rules by telling her where she is going and by being home at night. Mrs. Hadeen testified that she would not force the church on Lisa and would accept her back. Both parties agreed that there were and had been major disciplinary problems with Lisa, and that she was having emotional difficulties, was doing poorly in school, and was involved with alcohol and drugs. Mr. Hadeen testified that Mrs. Hadeen would not see Lisa, according to Lisa, until she got her bad spirits out. Mrs. Hadeen testified in rebuttal that she had never said anything to Lisa about bad spirits and that she wanted Lisa to visit her.

The trial court stated in its oral opinion:

The tenets of the church are not something the Court wants to spend a great deal of time with, primarily because religion, religious issues and conditions, I think, are those that fall peculiarly within the conscience and conviction of people who follow the dictates of their own beliefs and conscience. The Court is not concerned particularly with the tenets of this church, other than as it may affect the children. And in that regard, it does appear to be a denomination that requires complete submission and fidelity to the exclusion of other reasonable relationships that usually exist.

Based on the records before it, the trial court entered the following findings of fact respecting custody:

a) That the four youngest children of the parties maintain strong emotional bonds with both parents.

b) That the Petitioner provides proper physical care for the children.

c) That the children are reasonably well adjusted with the exception of Lisa who is having difficulties adjusting to the dissolution.

d) That both of the parties were members at one time in the First Community Churchs [sic] of America. The Respondent has subsequently removed himself from the church.

e) That the Petitioner, Judith Hadeen, is in complete submission to the First Community Church of America, to the exclusion of other reasonable relationships.

f) That the Petitioner's first fidelity is to the church, as is evidences [sic] by the Petitioner's rejection of the parties' minor child Lisa, and as evidenced by the Petitioner's move to Seattle with only a short time remaining in school and the subsequent move made in Seattle, all of which are not in the best interest of the parties' minor children.

g) That [the psychiatrist] recommends the children's custody be with the Petitioner, provided the problems caused by the Petitioner's religious involvement with the First Community Churches of America are satisfactorily resolved.

h) To award custody to the Petitioner, Judith Hadeen, would effectively cut Glen Hadeen off from his involvement with the children, and that the children need to have continued contact with both parents. That Lori Hadeen, the oldest of the parties' minor children, is deeply involved with the First Community Church of America, and she had close associations with her mother and the church. Because of her age Lori should be placed in the custody of her mother. i) The best interest of the parties' other minor children is served by placing those children in the custody of the Respondent, Glen Hadeen, subject to reasonable rights of visitation for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Hadeen assigns error to the last five of the findings and contends that the custody award constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion. She concedes that the best interests and welfare of the children are the primary and controlling considerations in custody matters, but argues that the trial court curtailed her First Amendment right freely to exercise her religion because the custody award was not made upon a clear and affirmative showing that her religion adversely affects the welfare of the children. She argues that the evidence does not support the finding that she is in complete submission to the church and that the court's consideration of her religion as an integral part of its decision constituted an abuse of discretion. She argues that there is no evidence to support the finding that an award to her would cut off Mr. Hadeen from his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Zummo v. Zummo
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • May 17, 1990
    ... ... Parents who "abrogate the unity of marriage" are not to be punished for their decision to divorce with denial of custody or the imposition of burdensome restrictions on visitation. Likewise, ... 79 (1980); Felton v. Felton, 383 Mass. 232, 418 N.E.2d 606 (1981); In re Marriage of Hadeen, 27 Wash.App. 566, 619 P.2d 374 (1980); Osier v. Osier, 410 A.2d 1027 (Me.1980); Robertson v. Robertson, 19 Wash.App. 425, 575 P.2d 1092 (1978); ... ...
  • Bienenfeld v. Bennett-White
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1991
    ...hand and love of a second parent may be to a child is taught by life itself") (citations omitted). See also In re Marriage of Hadeen, 27 Wash.App. 566, 619 P.2d 374, 382 (1980) ("to deny to the child an opportunity to know, associate with, love and be loved by either parent, may be a more s......
  • Ware v. Valley Stream High School Dist.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 5, 1989
    ...their time in group prayer and shun many modern technological innovations which they regard as evil (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Hadeen, 27 Wash.App. 566, 619 P.2d 374, 380). The appellants now find themselves faced with a perceived evil in the form of certain regulations promulgated by th......
  • Mendez v. Mendez
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 28, 1987
    ...affirmative showing of compelling reasons for such action ... [it] is tantamount to a manifest abuse of discretion."); In re Marriage of Hadeen, 27 Wash.App. 566, 579, In the absence of a showing that the child's best interest requires the father to be made primary custodian, the trial cour......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • §52.6 Analysis
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Civil Procedure Deskbook (WSBA) Chapter 52 Rule 52. Decisions,Findings and Conclusions
    • Invalid date
    ...Wn.2d 263, 616P.2d649 (1980) (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 958 (1981); In re Marriage ofHadeen, 27 Wn.App. 566, 619P.2d374 (1980) (freedom of religion), review denied, 95 Wn.2d 1009 (1981). See generally Jo L. Pitts, Where Fundamental Constitutional ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT