RIGHTS TO RELIGION-BASED
EDUCATION
By K. Dean Kantaras and Roberta Blush
F ew things are considered more
sacred in the United States than
religious freedom, and The Florida
Third District Court of Appeal has
recently made an important decision
affecting religious freedom of parents in the
context of marital and family law litigation.
Ordinarily, a court may not prohibit or
hinder a parent’s religious practices and
is precluded from preventing one parent
from influencing the religious practices of
a child in common when such influence is
inconsistent with the religion of the other
parent. Simply put, a court cannot render
a decision in favor of one religion over the
objection of the other parent. In Lane v.
Lane, the court discussed how it determines
the right of one parent to enroll a child in
a religion-based school over the objection
of the other parent.
At the heart of this decision lies the
parents’ struggle with shared parental
responsibility, and the father’s desire for the
minor children to attend a private Christian
school over the mother’s objection. The
mother objected to the private school
despite the father’s willingness to be solely
responsible for the costs associated with
the children attending the private school.
Though the parties could not agree to the
children’s school, the father took one of the
children to be tested for entrance eligibility
at the school of his choice. The mother
filed a motion for contempt, arguing that
the father violated the principles of shared
parental responsibility by taking the child
for testing at the proposed private school
without her knowledge or consent. In turn,
the father filed a motion authorizing him to
enroll the children in his proposed school,
despite the objection of the mother. At
trial, the mother testified that she was
opposed to the private school because she
did not believe a Christian education was
essential. She also testified that she would
not necessarily object to a school because
LAARWT
K. Dean Kantaras, Esq.
142 TAMPA BAY MAGAZINE | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2019
the children’s applications to the private
school did not serve to force the mother
to enforce the father’s religious beliefs,
but rather to be an active participant in
the children’s education.
The mother also appealed the trial
court’s order denying her motion for
contempt. In rendering its opinion, the
appellate court enumerated examples
of the appropriate use of a motion for
contempt when one parent violates shared
parental responsibility. However, the
appellate court in Lane v. Lane held that
unilaterally taking a child for academic
testing does not constitute a violation of
shared parental responsibility.
It is important to note that if two parents
are awarded shared parental responsibility
and are unable to agree on a major decision
affecting a child, it is incumbent upon the
parties to seek resolution through the court.
Shared parental responsibility gives both
parents equal say in any major decisions
affecting a child, including but not limited
to education, non-emergency medical, and
religion training. Neither parent’s decision
is more significant than the other’s. The
court will generally decide what is in the
child’s best interest and is not likely to
overlook the unilateral act of one parent
over the other. 9
EDITOR’S NOTE: K. Dean Kantaras is
the managing partner of K. Dean Kantaras,
P.A., a firm handling cases in family law and
immigration. Mr. Kantaras is board certified
in marital and family law by the Florida Bar.
He has been practicing for over 25 years and
is “AV” rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Roberta
“Bobbi” Blush is a graduate of the University
of Florida and Florida Coastal School of Law.
Their offices are located at 3531 Alternate
19, Palm Harbor, 34683, (727) 781-0000
and 1930 East Bay Drive, Largo, 33771,
kantaraslaw.com.
the education was religion-based. When
asked if the issue was whether the children
study the Bible, the mother responded that
the issue is the children’s education. The
trial court denied the mother’s motion for
contempt and granted the father’s motion
authorizing him to enroll the children in
the private school. The mother was also
ordered to cooperate and support the
children’s education at the private school.
The mother appealed on the basis that
the trial court’s order impermissibly
interfered with her religious beliefs. The
appellate court disagreed and affirmed
the trial court’s decision because the
mother’s objection was not based on the
school’s religious belief and did not involve
a conflict with her own beliefs. Rather,
her objection was centered around the
children’s overall education. The Third
District Court of Appeal also found that the
trial court’s order for the mother to support