In In re the Marriage of Acacia Jensen and Timothy Jensen, (MT Sup. Ct., Aug. 4, 2026), the Montana Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision upheld a trial court's order modifying a parenting plan for a divorced couple's three children. The mother objected to various provisions in the modified plan, including a provision that the children not to be influenced by Liana Shanti or the Lemurian Mystery School. According to the court, Liana Shanti is an online based spiritual teacher and mentor who promotes the recovery of suppressed memories, and who leads the Lemurian Mystery School that believe they can recover memories of their previous lives on the lost continent of Lemuria. The modified Plan also prohibits the use of Lemurian Mystery School nicknames for the children. The court said in part:
We turn now to the claim that the nickname restriction violated Alihana’s First Amendment and fundamental parenting rights....
The evidence in the record makes it clear that Liana Shanti and her group are known to encourage followers to discover and act upon false “repressed memories” of abuse. Once these false abusive memories are uncovered, followers are encouraged to sever ties with family and friends and become more closely involved in the group. Here, a preponderance of evidence shows that Alihana has engaged in embracing false memories of abuse. She has repeatedly accused Tim and her parents of abusive behavior for which no evidence exists....
... While it is a constitutional right of a parent to provide spiritual education and teaching to their child, it is not the right of a parent to inflict abusive memories upon their child, be those memories fictional or actual. This Court ... cannot hold, then, that it is the constitutional right of a parent to expose their children to fictionalized sexual abuse....
Chief Justice Swanson, joined by Justice Shea dissented, saying in part:
... This limitation, which precludes exposure to the teachings of the Lemurian Mystery School,effectively prevents Alihana from practicing the tenets of her faith in front of her children and therefore prevents her from freely exercising her faith for days at a time....
It is worth noting the parenting plan singles out a particular faith as offensive and forbidden, thus discriminating against that religion. Although the Lemurian Mystery school is not a mainstream religion and appears to be controversial, Alihana’s right to practice her religion is no less protected. Had the District Court imposed equivalent restrictions on a parental adherent to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity, we would likely not be having this conversation. An obscure minority faith—even or perhaps especially with abnormal beliefs—deserves the same legal protections as those mainstream systems of belief....
This parenting plan ... unduly burdens Alihana’s right to educate her children concerning her religion. ...
... [T]he Opinion spends pages reciting Alihana’s harmful conduct toward the children, Tim, and other family members, and documenting the harmful conduct of Lemurian Mystery School or Liana Shanti followers. That proves my point. If Alihana is engaged in such harmful conduct, then the District Court should restrict the conduct. If it is impossible to prohibit the harmful conduct while still awarding Alihanapartial unsupervised custody, then the District Court must fashion a parenting plan in the best interests of the children, which may mean awarding full custody to Tim....
