Court: Christians rejected as foster parents for spanking kids suffered no constitutional violation
A Christian couple who occasionally spanked their children as part of their faith were properly turned down in their bid to become foster parents, the top court in Massachusetts has ruled.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled on Monday that the substantial burden on couple’s religious beliefs was outweighed by the state’s interest in protecting the emotional and physical well-being of foster children, report the Legal Profession Blog, the Worcester Telegram, the Boston Globe and the State House News Service.
The court ruled against Gregory and Melanie Magazu of Fitchburg, who disclosed they have spanked their two daughters on the buttocks with an open hand in the privacy of their bedrooms. Spanking is only a small part of their parenting style, the Magazus said, and it is used only when necessary.
The Magazus said they were willing to refrain from spanking foster children, and said the foster children would not witness the spankings of their daughters because they were carried out in private. The Department of Children and Families denied the Magazus’ foster application, citing the Magazus’ use and belief in corporal punishment as an appropriate and effective means of discipline for their children.
A hearing officer in the case said foster children have been exposed to abuse and neglect, and a foster’s child’s awareness of corporal punishment could trigger additional trauma. The officer also said the state had legitimate concerns about the Magazus’ discipline of foster children whom they later adopted.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in an opinion (PDF) by Justice Francis Spina, said the Department of Children and Families had the authority to set a no-spanking policy, and its decision to bar the Magazus’ from becoming foster parents was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The Supreme Judicial Court also found no violation of the free-exercise clause of the Massachusetts Constitution, which has been interpreted to provide greater protection than the U.S. Constitution. Though the department had substantially burdened the Magazus’ right to free exercise, it had a compelling interest in protecting children that outweighed the burden, the court said.
A concurring justice, Robert Cordy, said the Magazus had a stable home environment and a nurturing, supportive relationship with their own children. “One is left to wonder,” Cordy said, “whether the real problem in this case was not so much the department’s concern for child safety, but rather a disagreement with the plaintiff’s beliefs regarding the upbringing of their children.”
