Can parents sue churches for performing religious ordinances without consent? Gulbraa v. Corporation of the President Explained

In Gulbraa v. Corporation of the President, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a custodial parent could pursue tort claims against the LDS Church for performing priesthood ordinances on his minor children without consent. The case illustrates the tension between parental rights and the First Amendment’s protection of religious autonomy.

Background and Facts

Michael Gulbraa held sole custody of his two sons following divorce proceedings. However, his ex-wife and her current husband took the children to Japan in violation of court orders, prompting federal kidnapping charges. As an active LDS Church member, Gulbraa contacted church leaders in Utah and Japan, specifically requesting that no priesthood ordinances be performed on his children without his knowledge, consent, and participation. Church leaders, including Elder Yoshihiko Kikuchi, allegedly assured Gulbraa that no ordinances would occur without his consent. Despite these assurances, the church performed priesthood ordinances on the children in December 2003.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether tort claims based on promises regarding religious ordinances violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause under the entanglement doctrine. The court applied the framework from Franco v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which prohibits civil courts from reviewing church law, policies, or practices in determining tort claims.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that most of Gulbraa’s claims—breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and injunctive relief—were barred because they would require courts to assess religious worthiness, evaluate participation in worship services, and place monetary value on religious experiences. However, the court distinguished Gulbraa’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim based on allegations that church leaders conspired to conceal the children’s location. This conduct constituted “secular activity potentially amounting to violations of generally applicable civil law” rather than purely religious matters.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes clear boundaries for tort claims against religious organizations. Practitioners must carefully separate allegations involving religious doctrine or ceremonies from those involving secular conduct. Claims challenging how religious ordinances are performed will likely face dismissal, while claims based on concealing information or interfering with legal relationships may survive if they can be adjudicated without reviewing religious doctrine.