Abstract
Courts officially dismiss religion as a factor in child custody & access disputes. To test court neutrality, custody & access cases in five Common Law jurisdictions (Australia, Canada, GB, New Zealand, & the US) that use the best interests or welfare of the child standard are examined. Results indicate that the courts are not neutral in practice & parents adhering to minority or unpopular religions are at a disadvantage. In custody cases, the courts restrict consideration of religion to the social or temporal effects of the parent's religious beliefs, without considering the beliefs themselves. In access cases, attempts by the noncustodial parent to include their children in their religious activities are viewed with prejudice. It is concluded that a doctrine requiring clear evidence of harm from religious practice would better protect parents belonging to minority religions from adverse & prejudicial treatment in custody & access cases. 26 References. J. Ferrari