Published Friday, June 28, 2002
Depending on which parent you listen to, three local teen-age brothers are either battling for their right to freely practice their religion or are just victims of a vicious custody battle.
According to Sherry B. Frank, her sons have sought the services of a Greenville lawyer in their fight to practice the religion of their choice.
However, Dr. Alan J. Frank, the boys' father, said the dispute "has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with a bitter custody battle," and that he is just trying to do his job as a father.
Several lawyers with whom The Herald spoke said they are unaware of existing case law establishing that a child has a right to elect to practice the religion of their choice, even if it is against the wishes of a parent or parents.
The parents -- the father is Jewish and the mother is Christian -- have been divorced since 2000 and wrangling in Mercer County Common Pleas Court over the nature of their child custody agreement. They have shared custody on an alternating weekly basis since they separated in 1997.
Ms. Frank's motion to get primary custody of the boys and allow the father custody every other weekend was denied by the court this spring.
Ms. Frank issued a media release earlier this week through her attorney, Richard A. Peterson of Greenville, saying her sons plan to challenge the custody order of Judge Thomas R. Dobson.
Ms. Frank and Peterson said the boys are upset because the court order prevents the boys from freely participating in worship services and other Christian activities while they are in the custody of their father and allows them to read their Bibles and discuss Christian principles only among themselves in their bedrooms at their father's home. "The order even prevents the children from electing to attend worship services on Easter Sunday and Christmas Day if those holy days fall within the father's periods of custody," the release said.
Ms. Frank was raised Methodist but converted to Judaism when she married Alan J. Frank of Sharon in 1985. When they separated in 1997, Ms. Frank left the Jewish faith and she now belongs to the Community Baptist Church in Farrell.
Their three sons -- a 14-year-old and two 13-year-old twins -- were raised Jewish but baptized at the Baptist church less than two months after their parents' divorce became official. Despite the existing joint custody agreement, Ms. Frank did not get her former husband's consent to the boys' baptisms, according to court documents. One of the boys also recently had his bar mitzvah at Temple Beth Israel in Sharon.
"The baptisms never should have occurred without the father's prior consent," Dobson wrote in his consideration of Ms. Frank's motion to modify the existing custody agreement. Ms. Frank said the boys' decision to be baptized was wholly their decision, which she felt they were old and mature enough to make.
A fourth Frank child, a teen-age daughter, remains Jewish. Her parents recently agreed to give primary custody of her to her father, with her spending one day a week with her mother.
While the Franks' separation and subsequent divorce has been marked by "substantial bitterness" and numerous court appearances, debate over their different parenting styles and religious faiths has only fueled the fire and could spark the boys' potential civil suit.
"The father does not hide his displeasure over the boys practice of Christianity (and) the mother is not as sensitive to the father's religious views as she should be," Dobson wrote.
He added: "The parties have fundamentally different parenting styles. The mother treats the children as more of an equal ... and the boys find her easier to talk to and be with. (She) gives them more freedom to make their own decisions. The father is more of a traditional parent. The boys dislike the fact their father does not give them the same freedom as their mother," Dobson said.
"I am just trying to establish a framework for the boys based on what I know and how I was raised," Frank said.
Ms. Frank said the boys have sought the services of Greenville attorney Christopher St. John.
St. John said he is considering how to proceed with the matter, but declined to comment further.