This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.
They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.
She reaped what she sowed.
That's right; it is a constitutional case. I'll get to that addressing your next point.
They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.
Utterly irrelevant. Why? Because of the wording of the TN Constitution:
Art 1, Section 3.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.
To assert that this agreement has any binding force is to reject the above portion of the State's Constitution.
It violates the underlined portion in that it prevents the boy from worshiping according to his own conscience; i.e. that he is prevented from, say, being a Catholic [or trained thereby] if the parents are against it.
It violates the italicized portion in that he is being compelled to support [by his presence] the religious institutions in the agreement.
It violates the bolded part in that the enforcement thereof is reliant upon human authority to control and interfere with those rights of conscience.
She reaped what she sowed.
Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court's readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.
This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.
They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.
She reaped what she sowed.