[looscnnn]

"this is a matter of indoctrination into an illegal activity."

But given what the US Supreme Court found in regards to the 2 Texas "gentlemen", which made sodomy (which was illegal) legal, couldn't that hold true in this case? If so, that would make polygamy legal. So then it would become "Catholic vs. protestant" so to speak.

If they rule against him (this is part of the government making the ruling), can't that be seen as governmental interference? I agree that this is issue that started between the parents, it is what caused the divorce, but as soon as the courts (and the legislatures) get involved isn't the government involvment counter to his beliefs still interference? Take out polygamy and put in baptism (or what ever) and see if that changes things in your view.

[BlueNgold]

This is a civil matter beng brought to the courts, not a government intrusion. Were the courts or the government to interject themselves without a complain from a citizen with legal standing then I would oppose it vehemently. But that is not the case. Everything the courts decide is not government intereference, some thngs are brought to the courts that they would just as soon never get involved in, as I believe is the case here.

Freedom of religion does not extend to all activities supported by said religion. A religious belief in 'naturalism' does not allow one to smoke pot legally, or to give it to children. As long as the case, and the ruling, remain this narrow I believe the courts should take the case and rule appropriately in protecting the child.
Narrow meaning: civil complain by a citizen with standing contesting the indoctrination of a child into activity illegal at the time of the complaint.