Quiner v. Quiner

• Decision Date: 25 May 1967
• Citation: 59 Cal.Rptr. 503
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: Edward D. QUINER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Linnea M. QUINER, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 29840.

Page 503

59 Cal.Rptr. 503

Edward D. QUINER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Linnea M. QUINER, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 29840.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

May 25, 1967 Hearing Ordered on Court's own Motion July 12, 1967.

Wise, Kilpatrick & Clayton by George E. Wise, Long Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

ROTH, Presiding Justice.

In this divorce action, appellant, wife and mother, is apparently content with that portion of the judgment which awards the decree to respondent, husband and father.She appeals from and disputes the part which awards the custody of their son John Edward, two and one-half years old at commencement of the action, and now approximately five, to the father.

The court found each parent to be of sound character.The devotion of each to John Edward is not in issue.The father testified: 'Q You feel that you have a strong love and affection for your child?A Yes.Q Do you feel that Mrs. Quiner does?A Yes, I do.'

Linnea and Edward Quiner were married in Los Angeles on May 20, 1961 and separated November 21, 1963.John Edward, their only child, was born December 12, 1962.

Edward sued for divorce on November 29, 1963, alleging extreme mental cruelty and requesting custody of John Edward.Linnea cross complained for separate maintenance and custody.An interlocutory judgment of divorce in favor of Edward was entered on April 19, 1965.

The judgment, among other things, granted visitation rights to Linnea, but enjoined her '* * * from teaching or informing said child of any matter or thing or religious belief concerning the Plymouth Brethren, or the 'Exclusive Brethren', or the concept of 'separation' as believed or practiced by the 'Exclusive Brethren' or from permitting said child to remain in the presence of any person or groups of persons at any time during the discussion or teaching of any of said subjects and * * * restraining [Linnea] from taking said child to any meetings, assemblies or religious services of the 'Exclusive Brethren."

The concept of 'separation' referred to in the above excerpt zealously espoused and acted upon by appellant, is made clear from her testimony, parts of which are as follows:

'Q As part of your religious belief, Mrs. Quiner, you cannot have fellowship with those who are not members of your particular religious group; is that correct?A There is no fellowship with those we are not in fellowship with.* * * Q If your husband was not a member of the religious group, does this mean that you could not eat meals with your husband?A Inasmuch as my husband has chosen to go his own way and has chosen to be out of the fellowship, I must maintain separation.

'* * *.

'Q * * * Would you have to dissociate [sic] yourself from the family member who was not a member of the religious group?A Yes, I would.

'* * *.

'Q Would this separation take the form of not being able to have sexual intercourse with your husband?A That would be involved in the separation.

'* * *.

'Q Would you be allowed to have a Hi-Fi or Stereo set and listen to music as part of your religious belief?A I would not want to.THE COURT: That is not the answer to the question.THE WITNESS: No.

'* * *.

'Q BY MR. MODJESKI: Do you consider these these items that we have just mentioned, such as the radio, television, movies and theatre, as being worldly items?A Yes, I do.Q Do you also consider them to be evil and to be avoided?A Yes.Q These religious beliefs led to arguments between yourself and your husband; didn't they?A Yes, they did.'

Queried as to respondent's request to her to see a marriage counselor to save the marriage, appellant replied:

'A No. I told him that I didn't need the services of a counselor.They couldn't help me because the issue was regarding religion.Q You couldn't compromise on the separation as long as Mr. Quiner was not a member of your religious group; is that correct?A Yes.

'* * *.

'Q You consider is a duty to instruct your son in your own religious beliefs; do you not?A Yes, I do.Q Do you take your son to religious meetings with you?A I take him to the group of brotherhood that I meet with and that I have met with all my life, yes.Q Mrs. Quiner, how often during a normal week do you attend religious meetings?A I would say an average of six times, six occasions.Q Six occasions during the week?A Yes.Q How much time do you spend at these six occasions?Are they all and hour or two hours; could you give us some indication of the time spent?A Each occasion is approximately an hour and fifteen minutes long.

'* * *.

'Q * * *.If your son joined the religious group according to the beliefs of your religion, he could not associate with his father; is that correct?In other words, he would have to practice the principle of separation from his father; is that correct?A Yes, he would.Q And if his father's parents, the boy's grandparents, were also not members, he would have to practice the principle of separation from his grandparents; is that correct?A That is right.Q Would he look upon his father as being evil and to be avoided because he was not a member of the group?A That would be up to him.He would--Q But would he be taught this as part of the religion?A He would be shown to see that his father was not going on rightly according to the truth of Scripture.

'Mrs. Quiner, getting to the raising of children aspect of this, which is most important in this case, are children within the religious group brought up to think that others outside the religious group are unclean?A I think that is set out in Scripture.

'* * *.'

The depth of appellant's desire to indoctrinate John Edward with the concept of separation is such that she admitted she would keep him away from his father if she could.She testified:

'* * * [W]ould you be content to allow your husband to have John with him and away from your home or away from your parents' home during that time?A If that seems to be the only way it could possibly be worked out.Q Would you be willing that your husband should have John with him for a period of say, a week during the summertime?A I wouldn't be willing.Q Nevertheless, you would follow the Court's order if it were made along that line; would you not?A I would have to.

'* * *.

'Q Will it be necessary for you, according to your religious belief, to teach your son to hate his father as he grows older?A No, it would not at all.Q Would it be necessary for you to teach him to dishonour his father in any way?A No, it would not be necessary.Q What attitude would you be bound to teach to your boy, as well as you could, concerning his father?A I would teach him to love his father as a son and as his father and to respect him in every way and to obey him.I would not teach him to hate his father at all.

'* * *.

'Q Mrs. Quiner, you just testified that you would not teach your son to hate his father or to dishonour him.However, within your religious group, would the boy's father be looked upon as evil and to be separated from?I don't mean evil in the sense of native (?)[sic] but would there have to be a separation from Mr. Quiner, not being a member of the religious group?A There would have to be a separation in that way, yes.

'* * *.

'Q.Now, naturally you are still in love with your husband, aren't you?A.Yes.Q Hhowever, you do feel that you have to separate from him?A That is right.Q And the boy would be brought up in this atmosphere, would he not, of separation from his father?A Yes.Q Not because of any hate or dishonor to his father but simply because of the necessity to separate?A That is right.Q From those who are not members?A That is right.'

The principle of separation espoused by appellant would be further aggravated by the fact that appellant stated she expected to live with her parents.The evidence shows that her parents are even more firmly entrenched in the doctrine of separation than is appellant.

Respondent testified, when asked why he deemed it his 'duty' to seek custody of John Edward:

'A Well, I feel that when he becomes older, he will be so indoctrinated in the beliefs which my wife has that he will not be able to associate with me at all nor with my parents, his grandparents, and that he will have nothing to do with us.'

Mr. Quiner further testified:

'Q You and your wife have not had any difficulties at these times when you come to visit John; is that about right?You have not had any arguments between you or anything like that?A Yes, we have.Q Oh, have you?A Yes.Q Has this happened recently?A Yes.Q What has been the subject of the argument?A Religion.'

Respondent and appellant at the time the divorce action was filed, were respectively 24 and 23 years of age.At the time of their marriage, the parties and their respective parents were in fellowship in a Christian religious group called the 'Brethren.'Appellant had been with the Brethren all her life and 'came into fellowship' 13 years prior to the trial.Respondent had also attended religious meetings throughout his life with the same religious group, and his parents had been members of the group since 1925.

Appellant testified: 'I am not a member of any sect.I am a Christian and we are called 'Brethren" and the record makes clear that from the standpoint of the members, every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is a member of the body of Christ which his the Church.¹ Formally the Brethren meet in four different places in Los Angeles.On Sunday morning, or the Lord's Day, between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m., the Brethren break bread or take the Lord's Supper, at which time those who are free to do so, may praise divine persons in song or individually.At 12:00 noon, the Brethren meet collectively and informally in one room in the city to read scriptures, and in the conduct of the meeting, any male member may take part.The meetings last one to one and one-quarter hours.At 3:00 p.m., there...