N.S. v. H.C., decided Friday by the California Court of Appeal (Justice Terry O'Rourke, joined by Justices Judith McConnell and Jose Castillo), involved a Sikh ex-husband, a "nonpracticing Christian" ex-wife, and a daughter and son who, "at the time of trial, … were seven and five years old respectively." The chief dispute had to do with whether the children should comply with various Sikh practices, including (1) not cutting their hair, (2) wearing religious bracelets, and (3) for the son, wearing a head covering (a patka). Here's an excerpt of the analysis as to the cutting of the hair:
The [trial] court concluded, "… The court finds that it is in the best interest of the children to feel comfortable with their hair and the length of the hair. However, the court finds that there have been times when mother has engaged in cutting [son's] hair, in particular, to intentionally upset … father. The court orders that if the children express a desire to have their hair cut, they may have their hair cut; however, at no time shall [son] receive a buzz cut and at no time shall [daughter's] hair be cut shorter than shoulder length. This assures that her father will still be able to braid her hair, notwithstanding that it is in two braids, rather than one braid." …
[The trial] court erred by failing to determine … whether mother had made a clear affirmative showing that if the children adhered to father's Sikh faith as regards the haircuts … it would be harmful to them. "[H]arm to the child from conflicting religious instructions or practices … should not be simply assumed or surmised; it must be demonstrated in detail."
