Can Utah courts restrict a parent's religious influence on children in custody cases? Kingston v. Kingston Explained

In Kingston v. Kingston, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether a district court could broadly prohibit a noncustodial parent from encouraging their children to adopt religious teachings. The case arose from a contentious divorce involving members of a polygamous religious community.

Background and Facts

Ryan and Jessica Kingston divorced after eight years of marriage and four children. Both had been members of the Order, a polygamous religious community, but Jessica left before the divorce. The district court awarded Jessica sole legal custody and both parents shared physical custody. Concerned about potential harm from the Order’s practices—including grooming children for early marriage and alienating them from those who left the group—the court prohibited Ryan from encouraging the children “to adopt the teachings of any religion” without Jessica’s consent.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the court’s prohibition violated Ryan’s fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause. Ryan argued the restriction was overly broad and must satisfy strict scrutiny. Jessica countered that as the noncustodial parent, Ryan lacked fundamental rights regarding religious instruction.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court held that parents retain a fundamental right to encourage their children in religious practice, even after losing legal custody. The court distinguished between custody allocation decisions—which are governed by the child’s best interests—and restrictions that go beyond allocating decision-making authority. Because the prohibition interfered with Ryan’s fundamental right and wasn’t limited to major decisions, strict scrutiny applied. While the state had compelling interests in protecting children from psychological harm, the prohibition was not narrowly tailored since it applied to “any religion” rather than just the specific harmful practices identified.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes important limits on courts’ authority to restrict parental religious influence in custody cases. Practitioners should understand that while courts can allocate religious decision-making authority based on children’s best interests, any broader restrictions on a parent’s religious encouragement must survive strict scrutiny. The decision also emphasizes the importance of adequately briefing constitutional claims, as the court declined to address Ryan’s hybrid rights theory due to insufficient briefing.