Anti-Hindu Bias in an American Family Court: A New Jersey Example

Image Courtesy: LinkedIn

Editor’s Note: As Hindus migrate and settle abroad, not much thought goes into how their lives might be affected by local laws, their own choices to marry outside their faith or community, how to raise children, how to engage with the teachers of their children, disputes with their neighbors, and a whole lot of issues that might upend their lives if they are not aware of all the variety of legal, cultural, and social rules, regulations, and expectations. Dilip Amin of Interfaith Shaadi has offered yeoman service in the matter of intercultural and interfaith marriages. Organizations like the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), the Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA), and Sewa International USA have invested time, money, and energy and have gained much experience in helping Hindu Americans. They are working hard to ensure that Hindu American voices are heard and responded to without prejudice. It is important, therefore, for Hindu American families to support these organizations. Please read this story carefully, for it has much to offer you.

We recently came across a legal case in New Jersey where a Hindu American man was declared to be in bad faith and penalized by a family court judge, simply for defending his right to raise his children Hindu.  Fortunately, the Hindu American appealed this finding, and with the help of HAF (the Hindu American Foundation), he won.

But we were intrigued by how this could happen in the first place in New Jersey, which has the highest percentage of Hindu Americans of any state, and where Hindu Americans increasingly hold elective office.  We decided to take a closer look and obtained the court filings in this legal case (which are a matter of public record).

What we found was shocking.  While it’s not uncommon for judges to make mistakes, the family court judge’s decision was a clear-cut case of anti-Hindu bias.

The Hindu American in this case had 50/50 custody of his young children with his ex-wife (a Jewish American).  It was clear they had decided to raise the children in both faiths, with plenty of documentary evidence showing this, including the children having both Hindu and Jewish names.

Post their separation, they each had gone their separate ways on religious upbringing, with the Hindu American raising the children Hindu on his time and the Jewish American raising them Jewish on her time.  Fair enough.

The trouble started when the Jewish American woman decided to schedule additional Jewish schooling for the children, over 2 hours weekly, on the Hindu American’s time.  The Hindu American husband resisted this.  Unable to agree, they went to court.

In his motion, the husband explained at length how there was a timing conflict with his main Hindu activity with the children (a daily meditation practice of Hindu origin). He also made the perfectly logical argument that his Hindu activity wasn’t being supported by the Jewish American on her time with the children, so why should he be forced to give up his time with the children for her religious activity?  He quite reasonably asked that she continue doing her religious activities on her time.

In all the documents we reviewed, the Hindu American was completely respectful of his ex-wife’s faith, courteous towards her, and accepting of his children’s Jewish heritage.  He offered alternatives that would enable his ex-wife to conduct additional Jewish schooling on her time (referencing his Jewish friends who suggested these alternatives).  He explained his religious activities thoroughly.  Nothing he presented was found to be untrue, and he comes across as honest and professional.

By contrast, the Jewish American (a journalist for The New York Times, who has written numerous articles and represented The New York Times publicly) behaved the following way:

• She claimed the parties had agreed to raise their children Jewish, period, despite clear evidence to the contrary. When the Hindu American presented an old email in which his wife had written to him (in her own words) that “we had always said” the children could be raised Hindu as well, she reversed course.
• While she was trying to make the case that the children were 100% Jewish, she went so far as to write that the Hindu American educating his children in Hinduism was “offensive.”
• She questioned the Hindu American’s faith, saying that he did not practice “a moment of Hinduism,” even though he practiced a Hindu-origin meditation every day, twice a day. She insulted him in other ways throughout her papers.
• She presented as evidence a text message from the Hindu American, which she had cropped to convey her desired meaning, when the full text showed the exact opposite meaning (which the Hindu American demonstrated by presenting the full text in court).
• She tried to intimidate the Hindu American from going to court in the first place, threatening to take away custody of their children from him unless he agreed to her scheduling demands.

The above all leaps out from even a casual reading of the documents.  But instead of finding the ex-wife in bad faith, the judge decided the Hindu American was in bad faith, without any good reason.  Moreover, the judge rewarded the ex-wife by ordering the Hindu American to pay her counsel fees.

Meanwhile, we see nothing on the Hindu American’s part that would justify penalizing him.  Indeed, the appellate court very definitively overturned the family court judge’s decision, declaring that there was no reason for the Hindu American to have been found in bad faith, validating his arguments.

All of this smacks of anti-Hindu bias on the part of the family law court judge.

While it is good that the appeals process worked in this particular instance, the reality is that the vast majority of cases aren’t appealed.  Appeals are both costly and extremely difficult to win (due to the amount of discretion given to judges, especially in family law).  So biased family law judges can still do enormous damage.

In fact, there was lasting damage done in this case.  Due to how much discretion is given to family court judges (based on “the best interests of the child,” a fuzzy legal standard that can be interpreted in any number of ways), the Hindu American did not appeal the judge’s ruling that his children would go to Jewish school on his time.

In the hearing transcript, the judge spoke at length about the importance of Jewish schooling for the children.  But she did not once comment on the importance of the Hindu religious activity for the children.  In fact, she did not comment on it at all.

The judge (a white Christian woman) also did not once ask why the Jewish activity should be given precedence, and enforced on the Hindu American’s time, when the Hindu activity wasn’t being supported on the Jewish American’s time.  Had there been equal treatment of religions, that would be a natural question to ask.

This judge effectively took children who were supposed to be raised both Hindu and Jewish, and favored their Jewish upbringing over their Hindu upbringing.  That should be illegal per the Constitution.  Unfortunately, it happened.

It is impossible to ignore the fact that the judge was also of Judeo-Christian heritage.  And it is impossible to ignore that she rewarded anti-Hindu comments, including  the ex-wife referring to Hindu religious activities as “offensive.”

As Dilip Amin of Interfaith Shaadi asked in an interview with the husband, would his wife have dared refer to Christian activities as “offensive,” going before a Christian judge?  One assumes not.  Yet it seems this kind of language is perfectly acceptable in certain courts when it is directed towards Hindus.

This is an affront to all Hindu Americans.  The judge in this case ought to be investigated. If she has anti-Hindu bias, she should not be serving as a judge, at least not in the state of New Jersey.  At a minimum, she should not be hearing cases involving Hindu Americans. Unless Hindu American groups take these matters up, appeal to their local legislators and relevant judicial oversight committees, these kinds of anti-Hindu bigotry will continue. We will then have no one to blame but ourselves.

Moreover, there ought to be reform to prevent other judges from discriminating against Hindu Americans and their children.  Virtually all judges are of Judeo-Christian heritage.  Whether it is out of bias or ignorance, giving judges the unfettered ability to decide on religious upbringing (based on “best interests of the child”) seems destined to favor the Judeo-Christian side in such situations.

That’s effectively what happened in this legal case, where the judge cited “best interests of the child” to justify her prejudiced and biased decision-making.  How is favoring the activities of one religion over another in the “best interests” of a child?  This is not about health or safety.  When it comes to religious upbringing, it seems the “best interests” standard is more about the best interests of the more established religion.

There is a bill that has been proposed in New Jersey that condemns Hinduphobia and anti-Hindu bigotry and intolerance.  That is fine and well.  But the Hindu American community should also tackle tangible issues like this one, which work against us and our children.

If we truly care about anti-Hindu bigotry, let’s not just condemn it; let’s do something about it.