Interview with Stanley Shepp

Recently the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stanley Shepp’s right to talk to his own daughter about his religious beliefs. This is a huge victory in the midst of a culture that seems to be rushing head-long into institutionalized misandry. Groups such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, and Tapestry Against Polygamy have fought relentlessly to erase all meaningful paternal rights. Mr. Shepp kept fighting despite early rulings against him, and we all owe him our gratitude for his perseverence. His win has been a win for all parents.

While Mr. Shepp has declined other media interviews, he has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Here are the questions and answers, completely unedited. Some of what he has to say was discouraging. For example, the willingness of some news outlets and courts to uncritically accept the claims of those with whom they already agree. However, most of what he says is very encouraging. Some courts and many regular Americans still believe in freedom of religion and keeping out of their neighbor’s business.


Jay: Where did you live when this fight began?
Stanley M Shepp: York, PA

Jay: How did your community and church there react?
Stanley M Shepp: I was excommunicated from the LDS church.

Jay: Where do you live now?
Stanley M Shepp: St. George, Utah.

Jay: How has that community and church reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: The LDS church here does not allow me to attend any activities. I currently attend meetings with a Mormon Fundamentalist Group.

Jay: How has your extended family reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: My family generally supports and loves me. They may not agree with my beliefs, but they know that I would never do anything to harm my daughter.

Jay: How have those reactions affected your personal life?
Stanley M Shepp: Minimally.

Jay: Do you (or did you) work for another company?
Stanley M Shepp: I changed jobs when I left Pennsylvania and came to Utah.

Jay: How has this fight affected your work environment?
Stanley M Shepp: My work environment is fine. Some people know and some people do not. Those who know have been supportive.

Jay: How has this fight affected your relationship with your daughter?
Stanley M Shepp: For the past 4 years, it has allowed others to discuss with her their views of my religious beliefs – while denying my right to correct any misstatements. While my ex-wife denies badmouthing me or my beliefs to my daughter, she has also stated that my daughter is afraid that I will marry her off to some old man now that she is 13. My daughter should have no such fear.

Jay: Was your ex-wife motivated more by concern for what you might actually do or by a gut reaction against the very idea of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: A woman named Carmen Thompson motivated my ex-wife. Ms. Thompson is an anti-polygamy activist who is affiliated with Tapestry Against Polygamy. Ms. Thompson moved from Utah to York, Co. PA and did everything that she could to stir up a contentious environment with mine and my wife’s ex-spouses.

Jay: Do you think your ex-wife will appeal?
Stanley M Shepp: I doubt it. The ruling was 5-1 in my favor. There were two different arguments in my favor. She would have an extremely difficult case and I doubt that the US Supreme Court would even hear it.

Jay: What was the most frightening aspect and moment of all of this?
Stanley M Shepp: The fear that the judge would believe my ex-step-daughter’s stories.

Jay: How did judges and others in the court system react to your patriarchal beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: Some seemed repulsed, some seemed supportive, some seemed understanding. The Supreme Court Judge that I felt was obviously repulsed, was the woman who wrote the majority opinion in my favor. So I might not be a very good judge of how their reactions appeared. I assume now that she was repulsed that the lower court ever wrote an opinion that would trample a man’s freedom of religion and his freedom of speech all in one ruling.

Jay: Did you attempt to downplay your more controversial beliefs in court?
Stanley M Shepp: Surely we did. My religious beliefs are not that big of a deal. While they are deeply held, they are not harmful to anyone – and as such, were insignificant to the custody case. My ex-wife’s continuous accusations that I wanted to “marry her off” to some old man were preposterous and based on Carmen Thompson’s fear mongering.
I do acknowledge that her fears are real, like a child who is afraid of the monster under the bed. The fear is real, but it is not based on reality.

Jay: Did you ever have problems with child protective services or similar agencies?
Stanley M Shepp: They interviewed me based on my ex-step-daughter’s accusations. The interview took about 3 minutes. Apparently, the investigator had already concluded, from her interviews with that step-daughter, that her stories were fabricated and that the agency was going to being used for leverage in a custody case.

Jay: Has there been a lot of publicity around your fight?
Stanley M Shepp: Only when we talk to the press. My ex-wife interviewing with Montel Williams after the Superior Court ruling, and with Geraldo Rivera after this ruling were only scrapped after I refused to interview with them. I am of the opinion that the publicity is not good for my daughter. My ex-wife apparently believes that it is good for her, since she has repeatedly invited these people into her home and allowed them to interview my daughter.

Jay: What kind of publicity did you have around the adverse lower court rulings?
Stanley M Shepp: It was in newspapers around the free world. The Abramms report called, Montel Williams called. My ex-wife thrived on the publicity. I was lured in to interviewing with the AP and the local newspaper. I learned that they were not necessarily after the truth, but they were out to sell newspapers.

Jay: How much did the fight cost you?
Stanley M Shepp: The cost is immeasurable. Financially, an exact number could be placed on it, but I do not know exactly how much. I would say over $10,000, less than $20,000. Emotionally, the cost was extensive. The constant emotional stress proved to be too much for my current wife. The loss of that relationship was largely due to the constant attacks by My ex-wife and her ex-husband.

Jay: Have you received financial, legal, or other help from anyone?
Stanley M Shepp: My attorney believed in the importance of this case and the ruling and did much of the research and writing of the appeals pro bono.

Jay: How do you think this judgement will relate to cases involving homosexual parents or parents with any other controversial lifestyles or beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: I believe that it will allow them to discuss their beliefs and lifestyles with their children.

Jay: You wrote, “This case, in my mind, was about the rights of *every* Pennsylvania parent to discuss their religious beliefs with their children.” What would you say to people who object that your arguments could be used to allow a Satanist or pedophile to teach his beliefs to his children?
Stanley M Shepp: While I might disagree with Satanists, it is not illegal to be a Satanist. Pedophilia is certainly a crime, but it should not be illegal for a parent to discuss those things with their children. What if someone is a pedophile, knows it, and is doing their best to not act on those impulses. They may feel that it would be wise for them to explain that to their child at some point. “Janey, we cannot have your friends stay the night at our house. I suffer from an extreme and often uncontrollable attraction to young girls. It would be better for you to spend the night at their house instead.”

Jay: You wrote, “I do not look forward to the court case that will be generated by my desire to have [my daughter] come [to Utah].” What court case is that?
Stanley M Shepp: I am required to give a two week written notice of my intent to take my daughter out of the state. I was already found guilty of contempt of court for taking her to Maryland – after obtaining her mother’s verbal approval. I am sure that when I give written notice, that they will file for a hearing and a judge will have to decide if I can bring her to Utah or not.

Jay: How will this ruling affect the cases of other fathers in Utah, Texas, or any other state who might want to teach their children about the acceptability of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: I am not a legal expert, but my understanding is that an attorney in another state could use my case as the basis of their argument. The judges in other states would not be bound by that ruling, because the jurisdiction does not overlap. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court – and they refuse to listen to it or they side with me, then it would be more binding on other states.

Jay: What was the most damaging argument against you?
Stanley M Shepp: My ex-step-daughter’s testimony that I touched her inappropriately and proposed to her. Her argument was less damaging in the second case (my wife’s case with her ex-husband over custody of their children) The testimony in that case was elevated to another level. The accusations were worse and the testimony was intended to be more damaging. Our attorney presented the first testimony and questioned why the two stories were not consistent with each other. The girl was obviously at a loss for an answer – and in essence caught in her lies. The judge in that case put much less emphasis on her testimony.
When we heard her testimony at the end of my case – my attorney asked if there was anything else that I wanted to have offered as testimony, and I said that I wanted an opportunity to deny those accusations under oath. He advised against it, but I insisted. It was a good thing that I answered them. On one point that I did not offer counter testimony, one of the judges later commented that such-and-such an accusation was not denied – indicating that it was quite likely true. It was more a case of my attorney not asking me about it and so I did not have the opportunity to respond to it.

Jay: What was the most important argument in your favor?
Stanley M Shepp: The most important argument on our side was the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and supported in the Yoder v. Wisconsin US Supreme Court ruling. One of the PA Supreme Court Justices, during our oral arguments, asked my ex-wife’s attorney the following question: “In the Yoder v. Wisconsin case, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling, would it have been illegal for the Yoder parents to discuss home schooling with the Yoder children?” The attorney answered, “Well, no.” The Supreme Court Justice sat back in his chair and said, “Well, if there is a difference between that case and this case, I would like to know what it is.” My ex-wife’s attorney stuttered and stammered – “Well, this is about polygamy, not home schooling.” It was apparent to me that this justice’s mind was already made up.