religious beliefs without interference from any other religion, non-religion or the government.” Mercy Hospital, 62 Md.App. at 414, 489 A.2d 1130. It has been recognized that freedom of religion includes the right to direct the religious upbringing of one’s children. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 1541, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972); Thomas v. Alleghany County Bd. of Education, 51 Md.App. 312, 316, 443 A.2d 622 (1982). The authority to make custody determinations does not give courts license to engage in constitutionally prohibited activities. Consequently, courts may not weigh the merits of different religions or different religious upbringings— including nonreligion — in resolving custody disputes. See, e.g., Levitsky v. Levitsky, 231 Md. 388, 398, 190 A.2d 621 (1963) (<HOLDING>); Sanders, 38 Md.App. at 416 n. 10, 381 A.2d
holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child holding that the domicile of the child follows that of the parent with lawful custody holding interference with visitation of the noncustodial parent   that negatively impacts    the welfare of the child can constitute a substantial change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a change of custody recognizing that the fact that a parent teaches a child religious doctrines which are at variance with those of the majority is not a ground for a change of custody holding that a showing of a change in circumstances that is or is likely to be beneficial to the child may also warrant a change in custody