Court Allows Mother's Relocation with Son to Saudi Arabia, Partly Because Son and Both Parents Are Muslim

In Coffee County (Alabama) Circuit Court Judge Henry T. Reagan II's decision Nov. 19 in Wasmiah v. Raymond, a divorcing "husband request[ed] a court order preventing the wife from relocating the minor child to Saudi Arabia," but the court said no. There were many reasons, including various secular concerns about the father's conduct, but the court often mentioned the child's being a Muslim. I'd love to hear what readers think about this:

The parties were married on November 7, 2014. The husband was previously married and has adult children. The wife is a natural born citizen of Saudi Arabia and maintains a dual citizenship in the United States of America. The parties have … a son, born August 2, 2015. The husband is age 71 years and the wife is age 41 years. The parties have lived in Coffee County, Alabama for the entire duration of their 11-year marriage….

The wife described how she first met the husband while he was working in Saudi Arabia. She testified the husband had converted to the Muslim faith before the two met. After knowing each other for two years, the wife agreed to marry the husband and relocate to Coffee County. Alabama. She gave birth to their son after moving to the U.S.A.

The parties are both members of the Islamic faith and agreed to raise the minor child as a Muslim….

The child … was not involved in any church, mosque, or community activities other than attending public school….

This court received no evidence regarding how often the child conducts his five daily Islamic prayers required of its followers. But this court is generally aware that most elementary school children in the Enterprise City School System do not engage in daily Islamic prayers. Relocating the child to Saudi Arabia would have a positive impact on the child's ability to practice his Islamic Faith. The court believes the child would likely have a feeling that he "fit in" better in Saudi Arabia….

The evidence established the child has deeper roots in Saudi Arabia than in Alabama. The child has more family members and playmates in Saudi Arabia than in Alabama. His Islamic faith is more common in Saudi Arabia than in Alabama. The opportunity to practice and strengthen his faith is greater in Saudi Arabia than in Alabama….

As previously stated herein, the child's emotional development and spiritual needs will be better met in Saudi Arabia due to the family's Muslim faith. The child will have a better opportunity to practice his faith, socialize with like minded children, and seek guidance from like-minded religious leaders….

The child's quality of life is lacking in Coffee County, Alabama. The court believes the child struggles to fit in. The child is not involved in any school or community activities. The child has no close friendships or family relationships in Alabama. The child has little to no opportunities to practice his Islamic faith in Alabama and likely feels different from the average child in the community.

The child's quality of life would be enhanced greatly by relocating to Saudi Arabia where he will routinely see many family members, attend school with cousins, and practice his faith in a Muslim society. The court believes his quality of life will be greatly enhanced….

The mother seeks to relocate to be near her family, seek employment opportunities, and to raise the  child in Saudi Arabia as a Muslim. The evidence demonstrated that relocation would meet the mother's objectives for the child….

The father opposed the relocation because he would not see the child as often. The evidence demonstrated the father does not take full advantage of current visitation opportunities. Due to the father's medical issues and sleep patterns, he is not awake when the child is active. Relocation to Saudi Arabia could promote a stronger father/son bond. The time zone difference would allow more video chat/gaming opportunities between the father and child. Extended summer visits would allow more consistent time for the father and child to bond. The father is a Muslim and is raising the child in the same faith. Saudi Arabia would provide better opportunities for the child to practice his faith….

The court found the child's home life was lonely and filled with unhappiness…. The family is not engaged in the community, social activities, or religious services. The child does not have a full life with friends, family, extracurricular activities, and religious youth groups. The child has not established roots in Alabama other than living in a house with his parents. The child's family roots, religious roots, and social roots are in Saudi Arabia.

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

Saudi Arabia’s a lot safer than Alabama.

[vampire flames]

The quote from Judge Reagan's opinion shows a depth of understanding of what would be in best interests of the child. Probably not a bunch of the Volokh readers have done a child custody case, but this opinion illustrates a Judge who understands the issues and has a thorough knowledge of the facts.

[Roger S]

No, it is extremely unlikely that the judge understands the issues. He acts as if he has knowledge and wisdom that he could not have. He just has some testimony, but no one knows what is in the long term interest of the child.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That's a really useless and silly statement.

No one, absolutely no one, knows what is in anybody's long term interest, since the only way to truly know would be to run all the possibilities in parallel universes. Even then, you'd have to define ahead of time what "long term" means.

[ReaderY]

I don’t think the post fairly represents the opinion. The opinion says the child has more connections to Saudi Arabia - family, friends, etc. - and has been somewhat lonely without them. Religion is only one piece, not the whole story.

[circleglider]

Indeed. Religion appears to be a fairly minor factor in the opinion. The father’s increasingly erratic and combative behavior—likely health-related—and the child’s close ties to his mother’s family (from multiple extended trips to Saudi Arabia) were far more significant.

[apedad]

"I'd love to hear what readers think about this . . . . "

And we in-turn would love to hear your professional opinion.

[apedad]

"The court believes his quality of life will be greatly enhanced…."

Really?

I wonder how they arrived at that.

"Social media activity Saudi authorities deem critical, offensive, or disruptive to public order, could lead to arrest. U.S. citizens have been arrested for past social media activity and comments made while outside of Saudi Arabia. This may include posting, re-posting, or liking comments critical of Saudi institutions, policies, or public life. Saudi laws on cybercrime and terrorism are used to prosecute these cases. Punishment for social media activity has included prison sentences of up to 45 years. Saudi courts do not necessarily consider the timeframe of the posts, or the location from which they were made, to be material." (US State Dept)

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Perhaps if you'd read the article you wouldn't have to wonder. The judge listed many reasons.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The title of the post, not added by an editor, seems misleading given this:

"There were many reasons [so not "because"?], including various secular concerns about the father's conduct, but the court often mentioned the child's being a Muslim."

What is notable about this opinion in your eyes?

[Eugene Volokh]

Good point -- I've added a "partly" to the title, to reflect this.

What is notable is what I quoted: The court seems to be considering religion quite substantially in the decision, which may raise some potential legal or policy questions related to whether and when secular courts should make judgments based on parties' perceived religions. Among other things, note that there was little evidence that the son himself was that religious; he doesn't seem to go mosque, and there wasn't even evidence that he was religious. So the argument seemed to be that, if you're nominally Muslim, you ought to be in a place where Islam is more common, whether or not you actually care about Islam. Not clear that this is quite right, but again, I'd love to hear what people think.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

there was little evidence that the son himself was that religious; he doesn't seem to go mosque, and there wasn't even evidence that he was religious.

I noticed that too, but it seems like a chicken and egg problem.

How much opportunity does he have to show how religious he is? Obviously infants can't pray at all, let alone five times a day; how do Muslims handle the transition? The father presumably does pray five times a day.

How well do any K-12 US schools accommodate Muslim pupils who want to pray five times a day? Do Muslim-heavy K-12 schools in, say, Dearborn or Minneapolis make it easier for Muslims to pray five times a day, and how does this impact non-Muslims?

[John F. Carr]

According to an internet search, the obligation to pray begins some time around puberty.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

So the argument seemed to be that, if you're nominally Muslim, you ought to be in a place where Islam is more common,

Doesn't the opinion cite various reasons why this specific Muslim would fit in better there?

[Krayt]

Be a Muslim...in a nasty dictatorship lousy with corruption.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Or some other religion in another unsavory nation, which includes many (some might now include our own), where you have a range of connections, including your parents.

[Drewski]

Alabama's lousy with corruption, sure, but I wouldn't call it a dictatorship.

[Drewski]

Utterly banal. Family courts in most states consider a religious upbringing better than a nonreligious one. I'm not sure that's the best approach but if we change it we'll have to relitigate a large number of custody orders. The judge definitely shouldn't declare that a ten-year old child isn't Muslim when both parents say he is - didn't you used to be a libertarian?

[Moderation4ever]

Allowing the relocation seems reasonable. I would hope the boy is allowed to keep dual citizenship and should he wish to return to the US that still be an option for him.

[Roger S]

No, if moving to Saudi Arabia is so beneficial, then he should become a citizen there and lose his USA citizenship.

[Moderation4ever]

As it is his mother making the decision, and as she is the mother I support her choice, but I feel it important to leave the option open for the child should he feel different as he becomes an adult.

[santamonica811]

Mod,
Absolutely. What a weird reply from Roger . . . "Let's punish a child who is under the full legal control of his parents."

[Roger S]

The judge is making the decision. If moving to Saudi Arabia is a punishment, then the judge should not order it.

[John F. Carr]

It's hard to argue with the judge's opinion without knowing more about the evidence he heard. Given that both parents want a Muslim child the judge does not have to weigh the merits of different religions. There is no public policy problem as there might be enforcing a foreign divorce agreement from a country that doesn't give women a say in the divorce.

[Bob from Ohio]

Bye. Don't come back.

[John 4]

If it were a Jewish child moving to Israel?

[santamonica811]

Bob, are you talking to the kid, or to the mom? (If you're talking to the mom, then I kinda agree with you. If you're talking to the kid, then you're being an unfeeling a-hole.)

[bloocow2]

I don't want to assume that the comment is just a xenophobic "they're Muslim, Muslims shouldn't be in this country, get that kid out of here" kind of thing. But without elaboration, one could easily reach that conclusion!

[David Nieporent]

Oh, it's Bob from Ohio; that's overdetermined.

[Bored Lawyer]

The evidence demonstrated the father does not take full advantage of current visitation opportunities. Due to the father's medical issues and sleep patterns, he is not awake when the child is active. Relocation to Saudi Arabia could promote a stronger father/son bond. The time zone difference would allow more video chat/gaming opportunities between the father and child. Extended summer visits would allow more consistent time for the father and child to bond.

Any long-distance parenting situation is difficult. I do not find this passage convincing. I am dubious that the child will end up having much of a relationship with the father. Religious faith aside, the mother moved to the US and had a child here. She now wants to take him 6000 miles away. I would be skeptical of such a claim.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Agreed. It's hard to see how it's best for the kid to take him 6000 miles away from his dad just so he'll have increased exposure to his religion.

[Roger S]

It is also hard to see how increased exposure to Islam will be beneficial. This is something that only a follower of Islam would believe. An Alabama judge should not be seeking to advance Islam.

[TwelveInchPianist]

People can certainly have different opinions about how much exposure to Islam is beneficial, but do courts have any business deciding what the optimum level of exposure to a particular religion is?

I suppose you could equally argue that it's better for the kids to have exposure to a variety of religions, and that's even a more secular argument.

[Frank Drackman]

He's not really "advancing" Islam, more like moving it 6,000 miles away.

[Moderation4ever]

The article lists the father as 71 years old. My guess is that at the father's age he will likely have a very limited relationship with the child no matter how close the child is located.

[wvattorney13]

Yes. I came here to post exactly that. The judge's comments are silly.

I will strengthen the bond you have with your child by moving him about as far away on the earth that I can because it will make you appreciate what you have.

I mean, I get that you have to make tough decisions and if this is what you have to allow, then it is a trade off. But I would be so upset if the judge was trying to tell me that this is really good if I think about it.

[Joe_dallas]

All the divorces cases I have been involved in have required the parents to live within the same county or within a 30-50 mile radius to facilitate some form of joint parenting/custody.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The father is apparently not using the quota he has.

The father opposed the relocation because he would not see the child as often. The evidence demonstrated the father does not take full advantage of current visitation opportunities. Due to the father's medical issues and sleep patterns, he is not awake when the child is active.

[MollyGodiva]

Seems like a well reasoned decision based on what is best for the child. The Muslim part was used not for religious reasons, but for cultural.

[Harvey Mosley]

Maybe I misunderstand but it seems as if the mother is not trying to be part of the community in Alabama or have her son be a part of it either. If that's the case maybe she should have to make that effort before a judge let's her take the child 6000 miles away from the father.

[Roger S]

Yes, this is an example of an over-opinionated family court judge rewarding the mom for bad parenting.

[Joe_dallas]

As I noted above, almost every divorce case I have been involved in has required the parents to live in the same county or within 30 or so miles of the other so that visitation, joint custody , etc can be facilitated. 6k miles apart doesnt facilitate joint parenting.

[JonFrum]

Many hundreds of years ago, when Islam had established itself in its home lands, Islamic scholars had to rule on whether one could be a good Muslim and live in a non-Muslim land. Their ruling was that yes, if Muslim merchants or diplomats needed to travel out of lands where Islamic law and community controlled, they could do so. But they had a responsibility to return to Muslim lands as soon as possible.
I agree with that ruling. Islam isn't just a theology - it's a social world view. And Muslims can't be good Muslims in the United States - they need to live under Islamic rule. So out you go.

[MollyGodiva]

Can Christians be good Christians under any circumstance? So far history says no.

[Krayt]

Can secular socialists be good people? Or will they, too, plague us with the approval of their own conscience?

[Gregory]

Seems reasonable as a policy matter. A child might not have a fleshed out faith, but it’s reasonable to assume that it’s in the best interest of the child to be able to participate in their parents religious practices. I don’t know how heavily to weigh that factor, but it looks like it was only one among many in this ruling.

[Roger S]

When the parents had a choice of where to live, they moved from Saudi Arabia to Alabama. That implies that they preferred the son to grow up in Alabama. This judge is overruling this for a religious purpose.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe the poor kid's an Auburn fan. I'd sometimes prefer to be in Saudi Arabia during College Foo-bawl season.

[Gregory]

The order is pretty clear, they moved because the husband had a work opportunity in Alabama, the wife felt socially isolated (with her counsel arguing that the husband purposefully isolated her) and wanted to return to her home country. That’s a pretty common narrative in divorce cases. Now that I’ve actually read the order, I’m far more offended by the choice of typeface.

[Roger S]

So now she wants the dad to keep working at that Alabama job, and mail child support checks to Saudi Arabia? This is wrong on many levels.

[Krenn]

What's the problem, exactly?

He's a minor child, so he kind of has to engage in whatever non-endangering religious activities his parents want for him. Prior to marriage and birth, both parents were on record as wanting Islam for him. The capital of Islam is Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia, and making a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in your life if at all possible is a religious duty, right? Both parents are also on record as being ok with Saudi Arabia as a country, since the husband was working in that country, as a converted muslim, when they first met.

Under the circumstances, I'm inclined to say that either the father must make a plausible case for why he now believes Saudi Arabia to be a dystopian hellhole, despite being just fine with it in the past, or else the Father will just have to lump it if the mother has custody and wants to take the boy on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Living in Saudi Arabia permanently is a different discussion, of course, but a lot of the same arguments are going to come up. If you converted to Islam, worked in Saudi Arabia, married a Saudi girl, and promised to raise your son in Islam and with respect for Saudi Arabia... You're really not in a position to complain that your ex-wife now wants to go live in Saudi Arabia. The only argument you've got is that visitation rights will be strained, and she's certainly entitled to argue anything that suggests a prior agreement to accept Saudi Arabia before the divorce occurred, including prior agreements about religions relevant to Saudi Arabia.

Now, if either party had proof that the parents had originally agreed to the opposite of all that, and originally planned to raise the boy as a Shia Muslim instead, and mutually denounced the backwardness and oppression of Sunni Saudi Arabia, that would also be highly relevant evidence to bring before the court.

[nicmart]

How often do courts endeavor to facilitate the faith of children? That is not an appropriate function of government.

[Krenn]

Why wouldn't it be? There were some interesting arguments about this online as far back as the Catholic Charity Adoption Cases...

The ONLY job the government has with regards to orphans in it's care is to advance the best interest of the orphan, as that might plausibly have been defined by either the orphan's parents or by the orphan himself, if-and-when the orphan is fully informed and in his right mind and able to clearly express what he believes his best interests to be, which may not be until adulthood.

The government must take orphans as it finds them.

If the government finds a little lost baby orphan floating down the river in a clear plastic container hastily converted into a mini-boat, and is unable to figure out where on earth the baby came from or who the parents are...

But the baby was packed with lots of catholic paraphenelia, and there's a note on the baby's chest saying something like "I'll be dead and my body disappeared when my enemies find me in about within the next five minutes, please raise my baby in a catholic environment..."

In that situation, the Government HAS to make a good-faith effort to raise the baby in it's care in a catholic environment. The reasoning why is very clear.

Normal level of government interest in what religion someone else raised their baby in: zero.

Level of Government ability to care, on the government's own behalf, what religion a generic government orphan baby will be raised in by default: also zero.

Amount Government is allowed to care, on it's own behalf, whether or not this particular baby should be raised catholic: zero.

Amount that it even matters what the government even wants to do here, religiously speaking: zero.

Amount of original parents interest in the Baby being raised catholic: pretty safe bet it's greater than zero.

Probability that the baby, in hindsight, as an adult, will have wanted to have been raised as a catholic as the only connection the baby ever had with it's long-lost mother: probably greater than zero.

Balance of interests:
Governments interest that the baby NOT be raised catholic: Zero * Zero * Zero = Zero.

Government's duty to act to further the baby's and parents implied believed best interest in the baby being raised catholic and therefore not being doomed to eventual purgatory: Very High if suitable catholic adoptive parents or foster parents can even be found in the first place.

Therefore, as the government must act in the baby's apparent own best interests, rather than for the government's preference for what it wants the baby's best interests to be, the government must do it's best to ensure that the baby be raised catholic.

Same basic argument should work in divorce and custody cases.

[circleglider]

Interesting follow-on tidbit: about a week after the final divorce decree, the father sued the presiding judge in federal court pro se under § 1983 and asked for a TRO to stop the child’s relocation. It was dismissed sua sponte without prejudice on December 3rd.

Bower v. Reagan (1:25-cv-00938), M.D. Alabama.