On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
In re Didier, 2006 WL 2258571 (Wash. App.), raises an interesting question (though it's possible that on the facts in this particular case the objection was insincere): Should parents who are unemployed or underemployed for religious reasons -- for instance, because they have taken a vow of poverty and committed themselves to a monastic or missionary life -- be exempted from a child support obligation that's based on the income the parent would have had if he had been gainfully employed? The Washington Court of Appeals says no, citing Smith; but it doesn't discuss the possibility that this might be an "individualized exemptions" case a la Sherbert, and it doesn't the Washington stateconstitution, which has been interpreted as mandating strict scrutiny inreligious exemption cases. What do people think would be the right answer under either of those doctrines? See also Hunt v. Hunt, a mid-1990s Vermont case on the subject. Eugene
With all due respect for those answering a calling to a religious vocation, I can't think of a single religion that relieves a person of the burden of financial responsibility to the child. The rights of that child supersede those of the progenetor/-trix. Monastary, missionary or being fired for not performing the duties of your job for "religious reasons" makes no difference. Otherwise the burden of support falls on the government, and *that* is a violation of EC.
Jean Dudley _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
