This article examines a publicly documented court case to discuss how religious practices are addressed in family law proceedings, a matter of public interest.
The United States has long prided itself on protecting freedom of religion, enshrined in the First Amendment, with equal treatment under the law. Yet there are growing concerns that, in practice, some religions are more equal than others.
Recent debates over immigration and campus speech have highlighted perceived preference for Judeo-Christian interests. Less visible, however, are disputes arising in everyday legal settings, where similar concerns are impacting Hindu Americans.
A particularly notable example recently surfaced in New Jersey, where a Hindu American father was found by a family law court to be in bad faith and penalised, simply for defending his right to raise his children Hindu on his time. Based on publicly available court documents, the case of Yerasi vs Ingber raises important questions.
The Hindu American (Raj Yerasi) had joint legal and 50/50 custody of his young children with a Jewish American (Hanna Ingber). Their divorce and child custody agreements do not reflect any decision on the religious upbringing of their children.
While the parties later offered differing accounts of their prior understanding, it appears that during their short marriage the children were exposed to both religions. Following their separation, Mr Yerasi raised the children Hindu on his time while Ms Ingber raised them Jewish on her time.
The legal dispute arose a few years later when Ms Ingber scheduled additional Jewish schooling for the children on Mr Yerasi’s time. Mr Yerasi objected, and when the issue could not be resolved, the matter proceeded to court.
According to the court documents, Mr Yerasi requested that religious activities continue being conducted during each parent’s respective time. He argued that enforcing additional Jewish schooling on his time would create a timing conflict with his main Hindu activity with the children, a daily meditation practice. He also argued that his religious practices were not being supported during Ms Ingber’s time and questioned why his parenting time should be used for her religious activities.
In his filings, Mr Yerasi presented himself as respectful of his ex-wife’s faith and his children’s Jewish heritage. He proposed alternatives that would allow additional Jewish schooling during Ms Ingber’s time, which he said were suggested by his Jewish friends. While the parties disagreed on certain facts, the record does not reflect any findings that his representations were untrue.
Based on the hearing transcript, the family court judge did not make any statements indicating consideration of the Hindu religious practice described by Mr Yerasi. Instead, her statements emphasised the importance of Jewish schooling for the children and the need for accommodation (with no mention of accommodation being considered in reverse).
The family court judge ruled in favour of Ms Ingber, enforcing additional Jewish schooling during Mr Yerasi’s parenting time. While this might have been one-sided, she did agree to give Mr Yerasi adequate make-up time. However, what was most surprising was that she also found Mr Yerasi to have acted in bad faith, ordering him to pay Ms Ingber’s counsel fees as a penalty.
Mr Yerasi decided to appeal this portion of the decision, receiving support from the highly respected Hindu American Foundation, which filed an amicus curiae brief. He represented himself before a panel of appellate judges, and the appellate court reversed the lower court’s bad faith finding and penalty.
In its decision, the appellate court wrote that the lower court “mistakenly exercised its discretion” with the bad faith finding, which was “erroneous” and “not supported by the record.”
The appellate court further recognised that Mr Yerasi had been defending a legitimate religious practice. They wrote that he had “raised a reasonable argument” that Ms Ingber scheduling her religious activity on his time with the children “would interfere with his ability to train his son on the Hindu practice of meditation.”
However, Mr Yerasi did not appeal the scheduling aspect of the decision. As a result, the arrangement remained in place, which, in effect, favoured the children’s Jewish upbringing over their Hindu upbringing.
This case is publicly known because it was appealed, making the records publicly available. Family court case records in New Jersey are otherwise not readily available, and the vast majority of cases do not reach the appellate level. We therefore do not know the extent to which similar situations may be occurring to the detriment of Hindu Americans.
New Jersey is the state with the highest proportion of Hindu Americans. If such instances of judicial bias against Hindu Americans can occur there, it raises broader questions about how Hindu religious practices are treated in legal settings across the United States.
The Hindu American community should reflect on this case and consider how best to attain equal recognition of their religious practices in the US legal system.
Note: This article reflects the author’s interpretation of publicly available court filings from the State of New Jersey, United States. Copies of these documents have been made available here by the author for transparency, and readers are welcome to review them and form their own opinions