In a custody case heard by the Fifth Division of the District Court of Murcia, located in Cartagena, a judge rejected a father’s petition to retain full custody of his children. The petition argued that his ex-wife’s adherence to Hare Krishna practices could harm the child, a claim the court did not accept.
The mother sought adjustments to the arrangement and asked that sole custody be awarded to her. The court, in its ruling, denied this request and continued with a joint custody framework. It also ordered the appointment of a psychologist to serve as a parental coordinator. This professional’s main role is to facilitate better communication between the parents, offering tools to reduce conflict, help them reach decisions that favor the children, and oversee the child’s psycho-emotional development and possible participation in religious activities.
The judge stressed that the expert’s duties were to address potential risks to the child’s psycho-emotional growth and to prevent situations that could create a loyalty conflict for the minor.
The psychologist is to provide semi-annual reports to this court detailing the progress of the intervention and any other issues deemed relevant to the child’s well-being. Reports may also be issued sooner if the child’s interests require urgent attention.
The father submitted videos to the court showing his son participating in rituals with his mother associated with a Hindu movement founded by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1966. The father had been a member of the same spiritual tradition to which the mother belonged, a practice described in the record as emphasizing strict customs and certain expectations surrounding conduct and relationships, sometimes portraying the guru or spiritual teacher as a central guide.
The case notes describe the father as previously aligned with the same spiritual community that the mother follows, a group characterized in the records by its disciplined practices and its distinctive approach to family life and religious study.
not “extreme”
Yet the judge, by upholding the existing joint custody arrangement and denying the father’s request for change, acknowledged that it is difficult to know how future developments will affect the child. The court noted that the child will be influenced by the mother’s religious practices when accompanying her in those rites, even as the father is present in the child’s life.
The decision recognized that children are shaped by their parents’ beliefs, and in a shared custody situation the child may be influenced by both parents’ religious views. The court suggested that the child’s potential exposure to either religion should be weighed by the parents’ choices, including the possibility of pursuing neither tradition.
The ruling stated that a parent’s religious status cannot alone justify limiting guardianship rights or responsibilities unless there is an extreme degree of religious practice impacting the minor and causing irreparable harm, which the court did not find in this case. This interpretation aligns with the principle that joint custody preserves the child’s ties to both parental environments while prioritizing the child’s ongoing welfare. The record emphasizes that maintaining balance, open communication, and ongoing professional oversight serves the child’s best interests in the evolving family dynamic.