Father loses joint custody of children because he's not a Christian???? WTF?

[Bettie]

http://heraldbulletin.com/breakingnews/x1293919477/Custody-ruling-raises-legal-concerns

November 27, 2010

Custody ruling raises legal concerns
IU law expert: Order against agnostic father a reason for concern
By Dave Stafford
The Herald Bulletin The Herald Bulletin Sat Nov 27, 2010, 09:00 PM EST

ANDERSON­ — A court ruling in which an Anderson father’s religion was a determining factor to strip him of joint custody of his three children is cause for concern, an Indiana University law professor said.

Craig Scarberry of Anderson lost joint custody of his three children this month after Madison County Superior Court 3 Commissioner George C. Pancol issued an order that included court evidence that Scarberry, formerly a Christian, had become agnostic. The order was affirmed by Superior Court 3 Judge Thomas Newman.

(SNIP)
“I have read the order and am really concerned about why (Pancol) twice mentioned (Scarberry’s) religious beliefs,” Drobac wrote. “Such discretion would be clearly unconstitutional unless the parent’s religious practices were actually harming or posed a substantial threat of harm to the children.”

The ruling reduced Scarberry’s custody of his elementary-school-age children to alternating weekends plus four hours a week. Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling.

[aquart]

1. This needs to go high.

Although it is terrifying to think what the Roberts court would do with it.

[uppityperson]

20. MORE to the story, he had protection order, harassed her, here is link to discussion, info

To post downthread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9664334&mesg_id=9664517

It has info and links to more, I wanted this to be higher so maybe would be seen.

[Crystal Clarity]

49. I knew there had to be more to this story. Thanks. nt.

[aquart]

56. Harassing is a viable reason. Religion NOT.

By adding it into the decision, the judge makes it a possible precedent, doesn't he? Sneaking it in, as it were?

[uppityperson]

70. I agree with all that.

[MadMaddie]

85. The Judge had a clear cut case but adding the religion does

open it up to be over turned by a higher court don't you think?

[aquart]

110. I'd rather it be overturned than upheld on these terms.

[kayakjohnny]

2. Hopefully this will be overturned.

I see it as a reach that should be pushed back by an appeal.

Damn though.

[Bettie]

3. Upon reading more, this judge is known to

use his relgious beliefs to inform his cases quite often. What a great judge. (Sarcasm, obviously)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

4. Whines about "religion-bashing" in 3... 2... 1...

[Kalyke]

19. The story doesn't "religion-bash," but the comments here do.

1. The judge made an incorrect and poor decision that will be overturned upon appeal.

2. The posters here who claim to be tolerant liberals aren't so tolerant when it comes to religion and don't understand that not every Christian is a fundie-nut.

[Arugula Latte]

34. Works both ways.

There are occasional DU threads about atheists/agnostics putting up billboards or the like (there was one yesterday). We're inevitably told by several DUers that we should not broadcast our beliefs, keep them to ourselves, and to do otherwise is rude and in-the-face of religious people. Meanwhile, there is an onslaught of religious-motivated crapola like this ruling, 24/7/365.

[Kalyke]

42. Oh, I agree the story is interesting and should be posted.

What I don't agree with is the fact that so many atheists and agnostics on this board seem to be as close-minded and judgmental as the religious fundamentalists who are making the types of rulings evidenced in the OP.

[uppityperson]

71. Posting one's beliefs is different from insulting those who feel differently

That is what I see all too often. Talking about, discussing beliefs is very different from posting rude things about other's beliefs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. How much tolerance of religious intolerance should we demonstrate?

The judge appears to have let his judgment become impaired by religion.

[bluetrain]

5. Religious beliefs are harmful to all. I'm baffled that people still believe in that crap.

[opihimoimoi]

6. Such is IGNORANCE that denies Facts and common sense

in their world...emotion trumps all else...inclu reason and truth

[bluetrain]

8. Ignorance is, seemingly, a virtue to them.

[uppityperson]

10. No. Fundamentalism is harmful to all, not religious beliefs.

[bluetrain]

13. How is believing in the imaginary helpful to anyone? You don't need mystical thinking, thinking

which in no way correlates with reality, to have or live by an ethical code. The time and energy wasted trying to please sea fairies and sky monsters could be much better spent participating in actual reality.

[Ernesto]

15. works for me!.... nt

[uppityperson]

17. Ghandi was such a hurtful asshole, wasn't he. Martin Luther King Jr also.

Neither of them were in any way helpful to anyone since they had religious or spiritual beliefs and obviously never participated in actual reality.

Fundamentalists of all stripes are harmful. Including those who pass judgement like you have in that post.

It is not necessarily what you believe in, but what you do with it that is harmful or helpful.

[bluetrain]

22. "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of

nonviolence to cover impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi

[uppityperson]

25. "random quote" Anyone. So you think Ghandi was unhelpful, hurt the world.

So did MLKjr. And Mother Theresa.

It is not what you believe in but what you do with it

You are free to have your beliefs, I will not condemn you in any way. But seems you feel you have the right to condemn any who do not have your beliefs. Sounds along the lines of fundamentalist judgementalism to me.

[bluetrain]

28. I think you're pulling random names out of the air, people whom you apparently

don't know much about, and claiming them as average examples of theism while discounting all the horrors magical thinking has and continues to cause the world.

[uppityperson]

33. Don't you tire, jumping to those conclusions? Isn't it difficult, finding offense

at what isn't said?

[bluetrain]

36. So, you have nothing left to argue your "point" with.

[reggie the dog]

97. ????

yes, orgainized religion has a horrible human rights track record, but it is not the religion that makes that so, it is greed and lust for power and money in the hearts of man that makes that so. these "random names" were people who in my opinion better represented the average person who has faith and little or no lust for power or riches.... some of the best advocates for the poor here in france have historically been members of the catholic church, sure they were renegades according to the greedy corrupt catholic church leaders, but to the people they were brilliantly living a jesus like life. i am athiest and i am willing to accept help from pretty much anyone who wants to work to reduce the bite of poverty so long as they dont force their faith on the people benefiting from their charatable actions

[PassingFair]

82. It's GANDHI....

since you revere him so much, you might as
well learn to spell his name.

[uppityperson]

83. Saying someone was helpful=revering him so much. OK. whatever

And all you have to add is criticism of my spelling. Funny how you knew who I meant anyways, isn't it.

[reggie the dog]

98. ghandi or gandhi

is a very common misspelling in English.... since when do we knit pick about the way people spell or the idea that they did not use spell check? i know it is important to spell his name correctly. but politeness is important too

[PassingFair]

108. It's a man's NAME.

Ignorance is the only excuse for this one.

Why cite a MAN'S name if you can't SPELL it?

[uppityperson]

109. Funny how everyone knew who I meant though, isn't it?

This is an internet forum and sometimes people write quickly and don't spell check.

Why nitpick spelling rather than consider the point?

[Goblinmonger]

86. You might want to read what Hitchens has to say about Mother Teresa

before you put her on your list of the 7 wonders of theism.

Here's a link to a review
http://www.population-security.org/swom-96-09.htm

[uppityperson]

88. I have never considered her one of "the 7 wonders of theism" or "as an almost sacred figure"

I do think she was helpful though and that is what I said. If you want to take that as more than I meant, then that is you and your assumptions/opinions.

Again, I do not see people as all good or all bad, saint or evil. She wasn't a saint, but I think Mother Theresa was helpful.

[KansasVoter]

45. Do you really want to start naming religious people?? LOL

[uppityperson]

47. Just throwing out a few examples of how "believing the imaginary (could be) helpful to anyone"

There are helpful and unhelpful people of all beliefs. It isn't what you believe but what you do with it that determines helpful/unhelpfulness. That's all I'm saying. He/she wanted to know how it could be helpful, so I gave a couple examples of such cases. Well known for sure, but if I'd said Joe Poldkinsmith, would have just said "and who the hell is that?".

[Kalyke]

18. Well, your attitude is harmful.

We need less of people telling the other person they're wrong and putting them down for their beliefs and/or opinions.

How about this: don't tell Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. that they're stupid for their beliefs and they won't tell you that you are hell-bound for yours.

Work for you?

[bluetrain]

21. HA HA! Yes, all the misogyny, gay bashing and wars caused by atheists! Christ!

It's despicable! Reality will be waiting when you're ready to face it.

[uppityperson]

23. It is not what you believe in but what you do with it

You are free to have your beliefs, I will not condemn you in any way. But seems you feel you have the right to condemn any who do not have your beliefs. Sounds along the lines of fundamentalist judgementalism to me.

[bluetrain]

29. When your brethren stop killing people in the name of The Great Wind Demon, I will stop

judging.

[uppityperson]

32. Again you judge me. Who are my "brethren"? Curious, who the The Great Wind Demon?

[bluetrain]

37. Ask Xenu.

[uppityperson]

39. I am asking you since you brought it up. Seems all you have are insults.

It is a shame.

[bluetrain]

57. .......

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

[uppityperson]

60. AH. Is "God" any particular sex or entity? Why would you assume "God" would

fulfill your wishes? Is "God" a wish-master?

More appropriately, what is your definition of "God"? (notice the "your")

[bluetrain]

62. "God" does not exist.

[uppityperson]

64. Illogical to say "God" does not exist until you define what "God" is.

[bluetrain]

67. Read this:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/no-atheists.htm

[uppityperson]

68. Read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9664334&mesg_id=9666954

If you say "God" does not exist, what is your definition of "God"? A older bearded white man who sits on a cloud and grants wishes? The great unknown? The spirit that is all things? Physical? An idea? An emotion? What?

That link does not give your definition of what "God" is.

[bluetrain]

91. There can be no definition nor description of something which has no existence.

[uppityperson]

93. B.S. Describe a basilisk or unicorn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilisk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn
A unicorn (from Latin unus 'one' and cornu 'horn') is a mythological creature. Though the modern popular image of the unicorn is sometimes that of a horse differing only in the horn on its forehead, the traditional unicorn also has a billy-goat beard, a lion's tail, and cloven hooves—these distinguish it from a horse. Marianna Mayer has observed (The Unicorn and the Lake), "The unicorn is the only fabulous beast that does not seem to have been conceived out of human fears. In even the earliest references he is fierce yet good, selfless yet solitary, but always mysteriously beautiful. He could be captured only by unfair means, and his single horn was said to neutralize poison.

[reggie the dog]

101. The great unknown

i am an athiest, the great unknown is what started the universe, the great unknown is either eternel (no beginning and no end) or suddenly did a pop from nothing to something.... in either case i dont think it is "god" like most religions identify a god. but i have no idea what it could be. even to scientists what caused the big bang is the great unknown...

[tkmorris]

54. Exactly so, which is why your examples of MLK and Gandhi fail

Of COURSE they were net positives in the world, but it wasn't their religious beliefs that made them so.

[uppityperson]

55. Their religious beliefs had no impact on their actions? Huh.

What they did with what they believed made them incredible people and helpful to the world. I do not see how their religious beliefs had no impact on what they did. Enlighten me please.

[reggie the dog]

102. do unto others as thou......

no, christianity had no influence whatsoever on reverand martin luther king....none......"

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"



when he says justice will roll down like waters earlier, that people have been through great tiral and tribulations just to arrive in dc for the rally??? no religion??? are you just denying reality? he was a reverand, religion had a profound influence on who he was.

[Kalyke]

40. Whoosh.

Totally over your head.

:crazy:

There are a great number of believers who are not sexist, racist, homophobic or war mongers; however, it does seem that too many atheists are judgmental, rude, close-minded and extreme.

Becoming everything you claim to hate isn't a good path choice.

[uppityperson]

41. Fundamentalism comes in all stripes. It isn't what you believe but what you do with

those beliefs that is helpful/harmful. Passing judgment on others, being rude, close-minded and extreme is a fault of fundamentalists of all sorts indeed.

[Kalyke]

46. I don't understand why that's so hard for some people to get!

For example, an employer who fails to hire a qualified gay applicant because the employer claims he/she is a Christian is just as close-minded, rude and extreme as the atheist who tells the intelligent Christian that he/she is stupid and believes in "imaginary men in the sky."

I will acquiesce and say that more criminal acts have been done in the name of religion, but that doesn't mean that the actual deity, him or herself, of said religion is evil - just that the person doing the crime is misguided or propagandizing religion to suit his/her own wants (i.e. Bush's "crusade" into Iraq, not because Saddam was evil, but, in reality, because we want oil).

[reggie the dog]

103. i understand

i am athiest and i am a history teacher. gandhi and martin luther king were profoundly influenced by religion. rev. king quite often found bible texts which corresponded to empassioned calls for freedom and equality. i am athiest and i would vote for people like gandhi or king with no holdbacks...

[reggie the dog]

100. china, north korea, the ussr

just to name a few athiest countries that were not gay friendly and did fight wars... face it, hatred does not depend upon faith.

instead of trying to say athiests never make war etc. simply point to the many many examples of wars, slavery, genocide, rape, etc. being justified in the name of a religion....
in my opinion it makes your assertion about athiests become implicit as readers realize that in comparison athiests have had wars but have done far far less damage.

i know you are free to choose your writing style, and i think we agree that ORGANIZED religion has led to a lot of pain in the world... i have 2 questions athiest to athiest, does having a religion automatically make people violent or mean in your opinion? in turn does being an athiest automatically mean we are nice folks?

[cleanhippie]

75. Sure, thats fine.

They can go first...

[reggie the dog]

99. that is it in a nutshell

i have a highly religious uncle, he thinks his kind of christianity is the only way to heaven but is a rational thinking bloke so he understands that others think just as strongly that theirs is the way to heaven so he acknowledges that he does not have special powers to know truth. he and i talked about religion as we both had misconceptions about the other side, i thought he wanted to force his relgion on others whereas he simply says that the bible and church can always be visited if one is willing and leaves it at that! he thought that athiests were all hedonists and i explained that while he may have a covenant with god that most athiests have "covenants" if you will, promises they make and obligations they have towards others and that with that we did not simply live from short term thrill to short term thrill and did indeed have a sense of morality. we both are very troubled by what we see as a "single serving society" as was said in fight club (which we both saw) in which we are bombarded with marketing trying to convice us to abandon long term goals (staying faithful to ones spouse, being their for ones children) in exchange for short term fun (online sites to help one cheat etc) and consumerism. we are both troubled by the corporations selling out our jobs to places like china, i never once told him he was a fool for being christian and he never once told me i was hell bound for my athiesm, and you know what, he goes to a mega church every sunday with his family, his kids are in bible study... yet he tolerates that his teenage boy is drawn by anarcho syndicalism and the writings of marx because he respects that his son must forge his own path.... i may be wrong but i think most religious people are like that. you just hear the intolerant ones because they are not at all live and let live.

[uppityperson]

24. Mother Theresa spent time/energy trying to please sky monsters, not participating in actual reality.

Ah.

[bluetrain]

31. Yeah, she's clearly a great example of the average theist.

[uppityperson]

35. You discount my example because she is not "average"? Huh.

"How is believing in the imaginary helpful to anyone?" I show you and you discount it because she isn't average. AH.

[bluetrain]

38. Staw man. Thanks for playing.

[uppityperson]

43. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[reggie the dog]

104. average theist or average statesman

they still have power but dont really do much good with it, now an extraordinary theist or an extraordinary statesman on the other hand....they go down in the history books.

[jeff47]

59. Mother Theresa also believed in the cult of suffering

But that's not good for PR, so down the memory hole it goes.

[uppityperson]

63. Did she help the world more than hurt it?

Other than cartoon or fictional characters, in real life I don't know anyone who is totally good or bad.

[jeff47]

79. She gave men fish

I believe there's a book somewhere that says it's better to teach them to fish...

[dionysus]

72. i don't believe in religion myself but i find that kind of ridicule crass and offensive

[bluetrain]

92. Oh, no! The Faux-Outrage Police! Not again!

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/your-delusion.htm

[reggie the dog]

95. some people relax by drinking alcohol

others like me relax by smoking weed,

i have family members who relax by praying and reading the bible. hell i have even begun reading the bible too because my uncle asked me if i would like to talk about religion with him. i am athiest so i told him it would be like reading ancient mythology for me and he said that it is my choice to interpret the bible as fiction or a sacred text. if he, his wife, and their 2 teen children get a sense of well being from going to church and believing in god then i see no problem with it. where i do see a problem is if people want to force others to adopt their beliefs, so my uncle is putting his nose into das kapital and i into the bible and we are having discussions but neither i nor he is forcing our beliefs on the other.

another example comes from the mother of a friend i have had since we were both 12, so about 20 years now, she is a catholic mexican/native american and when she found out my wife left me she wrote me a letter telling me that she had empathy for my pain, that she was praying that i would find happiness again, praying that i would not end my own life and she always signs her letters and emails "jesus be with you". she knows i am athiest, i know she believes (she never goes to church, she has her own bible and that is enough for her). the fact that she took a bit of her time to pray for me touches me profoundly even though i dont myself believe. she wrote to me, invited me to come for a visit, gave me a big hug when i arrived and prayed that i would find inner peace again. the fact that she is praying to something i dont believe in does not matter it is her act of praying for me that touched me!

to me the usa is supposed to be about freedom of and freedom from religion, we are all free to believe what we want, the state is never to have an official religion, and we are supposed to accept the believes of others. that is to say LIVE AND LET LIVE!
do not let fundementalists give a bad name to people who simply have a faith. and i signal to you that i am a pure athiest myself.

[reggie the dog]

96. read up on liberation theology

also read up on martin luther king jr and malcolm x, they were both patriotic freedom fighters and highly religious, ghandi, bob marley... all religious people....

[siligut]

48. Yes, important distinction.

Unfortunately the fundies have a formula for recruiting. But they are a loud minority and hopefully that will bite them in the butt down the line.

[Taverner]

111. Yes - but this means this was a valid ruling

The guy was a FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN

Christians should champion this ruling

[madrchsod]

51. as far as i can figure out it has`t hurt me...

[Nye Bevan]

58. Yeah. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" really sucks.

So does "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

And "love your neighbor as yourself". Yes, that is *really* "harmful to all".

[Goblinmonger]

87. You think the Golden Rule is somehow the intellectual property

of theists? I don't think so.

[uppityperson]

90. Matthew 7:12 John 13:34 Here's a couple different translations....

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

John 13:34 (Jesus says...)
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.

Maybe not the "intellectual property", but here are a couple parts of the New Testament of the Bible they are in.

[Goblinmonger]

107. I know it's in there

but there are other societies and religions that have the same concept that predates the New Testament.

[JNelson6563]

7. This is awful

I hope the overturn this nonsense AND take a good look at the judge's record to what other religious nonsense he's injecting into the secular court.

Julie

[blondeatlast]

9. Appalling (and I hope appealed by his counsel)--and I'm a practicing Christian.

I really don't think He would approve, either.

[gkhouston]

27. +1000. n/t

[qb]

11. Family court systems are biased against dads & their kids in many ways. Sad.

[happyslug]

12. Starting on 11/23/2010 DU had a "discussion" on this, and in that discussion it it more then religio...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=528538&mesg_id=529327

Basically, something else is going on here, the father also had a protection order against him AND has harassed the wife at her home and work. Religion seems to be only a minor issue in the actual court case, but the only one that gets national attraction.
l
Assaulting an ex-mate is considered "normal" much like the old comment about "News" i.e. "Dog bites Man" is NOT news for it happens all the time, but "Man bites Dog" is news for it almost never happens. The same with this case, the parts NOT be reported are typical of a Custody Dispute and the breakup of a marriage or other relationship. Religion is almost never grounds for the BREAKUP of a relationship and thus front page news.

Please note, the Father in this case has a long history of problems with religion, mostly being a Fundamentalist who wanted to give out bibles in Public Parks in Chicago:
http://www.repentamerica.com/images/ChicagoComplaint.pdf

He may now be an Agnostic, but the above shows he has a strong tendency to seek headlines instead of working within the system and that is what he appears to be doing here. Given that this is a Custody case and as such closed to the Public all we can go by is his public statements AND that the Court heard enough to order him away from his children. Remember all we have is his WORD that the reason the children were taken away was religion. He has NOT produced the Actual Court record to support that statement and the other side has NOT spoken out (as is common in Custody Cases).

As others have said about this case, there is more then religion involved, but the Father wants Religion to be the main topic for he gets support on that issue, the other issues he gets much less support for and avoids.

Aside: I have been doing Custody work for over 20 years, when the Children are School age we end up with one parent being named the "Primary Physical Custodian" and the other parent getting every other week end and one day a week (Which is what the Father obtain in this latest court decision). The reason we end up with such an Order is School want to know which parent is the Primary Physical Custodian so they can deal with only one person Five days a Week every week. I suspect that is what is happening here, the Children Grades have declined do and the Judge determined the way to get those grades up is to make the Mother the Primary Physical Custodian. Furthermore the actions of the Father could be a factor in drop in grades. Thus the judge may have mentioned religion in passing in regards to education. This is all speculation for I have no first hand information on this case, but given the difficulty in doing a 50-50 custody situation given that School is Five days out of every Seven is a huge factor in most Custody cases. I have seen such 50-50 orders work, but most do not. Thus my suspicion that School is the major factor for Father retains every other weekend. One weekend with Mother, one weekend with father, and the five days in between the weekends in School. I notice Summer Vacation was NOT mentioned, nor Holiday Vacation for most times these tend to be divided equally between the Parents (School is less of a Factor).

Just a comment that something else is going on here beside Religion, please note the Father gets the Children every other Sunday, so if he wants to take them to church or not to church that is up to him. In cases where religion is truly a factor (and I have had some) the Children either goes to Church every Sunday with one or the other parent or NEVER go to Church or goes to Church depending on which parent they are with. This interferes with Weekend Visitation, but the Father is still getting every other Weekend Visitation. Thus Religion is at best a minor issue in this Custody case, but one that gets national press.

[uppityperson]

14. Thanks for the link about violence/stalking discussion about him.

Having the issue be simply religion is very different than these other things.

[Bettie]

16. The question then is WHY the religion thing was even in the ruling

I did some quick reading and it sounds as if neither of the parents is exactly a stellar example of parenting...there are allegations that the mom isn't providing necessary care as well as the dad's issues.

The point is that if his religion isn't an issue why is it even mentioned in the court documents?

This is from the Indiana Law Review blog:

Pancol’s order says Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training that the (mother) exercised and that (Scarberry) was agnostic.” Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends. * * *


(link to same) http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2010/11/ind_decisions_c_1417.html

Edited to fix spelling error

[happyslug]

26. You replied before I added by "Aside note"

I mention that for I think my Aside answered your Question, but as I said above something else is wrong here, what I do not know, but I suspect education for that is the primary reason Courts cut out "Joint Custody" agreements and go to the non-custodial parent getting every other weekend.

In cases where religion is a factor (rare but not unheard of) whoever has the child is given the right to "choose" the religion of the Child if there is an disagreement, but if that requires the child to miss part of their visitation with their non-custodial parent, that time has to be made up (in most cases it is decided that whoever has the child can take the child to whatever church they want to on that weekend, even if that means no church that weekend). In most cases religion does NOT come up, it had already been agreed to before the child was conceived OR both sides agree to religion at the time of birth (along with education and head-start, I have had more problems with non-custodial parents calling head-start "daycare" then I have had with differences as to religion).

In this case I Suspect the Judge had to decide as to Religion for the parents could not. That is what judges get to do when the parents can not agree among themselves on ANY TOPIC including education, daycare, head-start etc. The Judge is NOT imposing his religion onto the Children or the Parents, he is deciding the dispute between the parents and the parents themselves can NOT decide.

Now the judge had the right to impose a ruling that the Child NOT go to either religion, but that itself is a decision as to the religion of the Child. Even if the Judge ruled the child was to be raise atheist, that is the JUDGE'S imposition of religion on the child AGAINST both parents choice as to religion Thus a non-action by the Judge as to religion is also a decision as to Religion. Judge do their best to avoid such decisions, trying to get the parties to agree to some sort of compromise, but every so often the Judge has to decide for someone has to.

I suspect that the parties could not agree as to religion and the Judge had to make a decision as to religion and had to face the above choice. i.e. how to decide as to religion of the Child, which is the absolute right of a parent to chose, when the parents can not choose AND the refusal of the Court to decide as to religion is in itself an imposition of religion?

[WolverineDG]

69. Well, it was part of the evidence heard by the judge

if it hadn't been entered as evidence, it wouldn't be in the ruling. Also included in the list of evidence considered was the father's use of profanity in front of the kids (IIRC, they are little kids, not teens), his anger-management problems, & the "great number" of texts sent to the mom, which can be considered harassment in light of the protective order entered against him.

I would think that the protective order, anger management issues, harassment, & profanity had more to do with the ruling than his religious beliefs, especially if they were only mentioned in a list of evidence heard by the judge.

dg

[blondeatlast]

53. Thanks for the clarification. I'm in a really tricky custyody situation

(dad works overseas) and it's a miserable situation for all of us--I never get a break and my ex rrarely sees his son.

[happyslug]

80. I hate out of County Custody and Visitation orders

Within the County (and the neighboring counties) visitation tends to be every other weekend with the parties sharing transportation (Sometimes a half way point, but I prefer requiring the parent getting the child to drive all the way to the other parents home, i.e. the Non-Custodian parents drives to the Custodian home on Friday to pick up the Children, the Custodian parents drives to the Non-Custodian home on Sunday to get the Children back, that way any drive is clearly 50-50 On Friday one parent, on Sunday the other parent).

In Custody orders where such every other weekend orders can NOT occur do to the distance involves, we end up giving one parent Primary Physical Custody and the other parent visitation either as the parents agree OR whenever the Children is off School for more the 4 days (Thanksgiving in my area, the first day of Deer Season is the Monday after Thanksgiving so Thanksgiving is a five day break). This includes Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter/Spring break and most of the Summer.

Hopefully this is fair enough for both families, but the Children's education must come first, even if that means the non-custodian parents loses visitation (for example when a Child has to do summer School to pass a class the child has failed).

It is hard to get those to work, requires both parents to work together (and that is a problem, the family broke up for some reason, generally do to the parents NOT working together).

[WolverineDG]

66. Thanks for bringing this up

I got pilloried for stating that there was more to this case than the father's beliefs.

dg

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. So shared custody is discarded is because it is inconvenient for schools? n/t

[happyslug]

81. Yes, Schools want one parent to deal with

That is a important consideration in any Custody Orders. Most parents end up living in two different School Districts, thus which school shall the Child go to? It is easier if the child goes on the same bus every day, goes to the same house every day and does his or her homework at the same location and time every day. That tends to cut out most Joint Custody orders.

Now I have seen some work out, one case was the child lived with her mother, on Saturday night walked to her father's (less then a 1/4 mile away and she was a Teenager), take the School bus to School and back home to her fathers Monday and Tuesday, take the bus to school on Wednesday but another bus home to her mothers on Wednesday after School and took that same bus Thursday and Friday from School to home and back. It worked for her.

On the other hand it rarely works for other students. Children need Structure and that can best be done if the child's trips from School to home is the same and does his or her homework in the same location each night. It is much harder on the child if the Child has to switch study locations depending on which parent the child is with (It is possible, but such division of home work location is a primary cause of a drop in grade and the ending of the Joint Custody Agreement)

I have seen numerous Joint Physical Custody and most fail. Please note I am discussing Physical Custody, not what Pennsylvania calls Legal Custody. Legal Custody is always joint in Pennsylvania (except in rare cases and then for very good reasons only) and that includes the right of BOTH parents to talk to the Child's Doctors, Teachers and anyone else dealing with the child. Legal Custody is rarely disputed, the issue is almost always who physically get the child AND how much times the non-custodian parents gets the child (The right to Visitation is almost absolute, so rarely in dispute UNLESS a very good cause exists i.e. Something that raises to the level of "Great harm" to the child).

Remember the court has to decide what is in the child's best interest AND protect the right of both parents to interact with the child. Education is a huge factor and the courts will NOT ignore it.

[reggie the dog]

105. there are ways around court orders

it simply involves 2 parents doing what is best for the kid and working out that "ok the kid takes the same bus"...if the bus was from my ex's house that would mean that every other week she would take the bus, and every other week i would give her a ride to school and pick her up after school..... the key is to live within a 30 minute drive of each other... the judges dont even have to know.... but like i said it involves the 2 parents being fair to each other and the kid.

[Dorian Gray]

30. WTF?

That should have no bearing on custody. This needs to be taken to the next level, where it WILL be overturned.

[happyslug]

44. Then who is to decide the Religion of the Child when the Parents can NOT?

See my previous posts above for more details.

[Dorian Gray]

65. If the parents

argue and fight over the child's religion, then the child should choose when he or she turns 18 and can make life decisions him/herself.

[happyslug]

73. Thus the court makes the decision?

An older attorney (i.e. over 65) and I once had a case when religion was a factor. His client told the older attorney he was going to leave that up to the Child. The older attorney pointed out that is what his parents had done with him, and as he aged he saw how bad a mistake it was. As a teen he was rudderless. He had trouble in school, collage and law school (I heard from other older attorneys he only survived law school do to intervention of some older attorneys of that time period and intervention by one or two Judges who knew his family).

Religion provides a structure on how to view the world. Without some sort of Structure people tend to go "astray" i.e. lack goals and how to live life. Some people get over this by adopting a new structure and view of life, but the delay in determining such a structure is more harmful then rejecting a structure and adopting another. This is one of the jobs a parent has to provide. It is commonly called Religion, but does NOT include the need for a belief in God (The Communists are the Classic Example of this, endorse Atheism as a "State Religion" but then follows Marx/Lenin/Stalin as dogma to live and view life.

We adopt the world view of out parents, Sometime we reject those world views but to do so the World View of our parents must be clear to us. We adopt those world view via seeing out parents live their lives and why our parents do what they do. That is how Religion is transferred from one generation to the next. Going to Church or a Communist Cell is part of that transfer of religion. Thus to say that one can NOT do religion is to say one can NOT interact with your own children.

For the forgoing reason while it is an easy to say "leave it up to the Child", it is almost impossible to do. The Older Attorney made this clear to his client, we as attorneys can NOT impose religion on the Child nor can the Court, but the parents can and will even if they decide NOT to do so. It is thus better to address the issue straight on (and most parents do, so it is rarely an issue) then to argue over it constantly, but if the parents can NOT come to an agreement the Court has to and the Court's solution will be a bad one (since it is being done by a third party) but one that can be enforced (and thus followed).

One last comment, given today technology if the parents do NOT provide the religion of the Child, someone else will (and almost always will be big Business, i.e. your job in life is to buy, buy, buy to be happy and people who can not are not worth your attention).

Nature and people abhors a Vacuum and to leave the Child without Religion is to leave the child open to influences of forces the parents oppose. This Vacuum will be filled by someone in the child's Grade School years (if not before). Saturday Morning Cartoons are filled with messages that you should look up to Heroes to get things done NOT to do it yourself for example. The Cartoons show "Heroes" doing all the work, while peons get killed (but pays the bills). In between the programs, Children are told that as peons to be happy buy this and that.

That commerce message is what the Child will be exposed to. Almost any religion will also expose him to the ideas that he or she can DO SOMETHING about something that is wrong, not wait for a hero, almost any religion will tell him or her that you can NOT buy happiness, you get it by making others happy and similar stories which do NOT emphasis heroes OR the buying of Goods. You are your Brother's Keeper is a message ignored by the Right Wing and the Stores, for means money to people and not to the commercial Establishments. Religions sometimes go to war, but the two deadliest wars in history (WWI and WWII) had nothing to do with religion (Even the holocaust was the result of anti-jewish hatred on RACIAL Lines not religious lines). Some of the American Right wing use religion as part of their view of themselves, but the major view is that they are Special for their are Americans who happened to be Christan's, not that their are Christians who happen to be Americans.

Now, if both parties agree to leave the child do their religion themselves, I not any other attorney I know will stand in their way, neither will the courts. We will advice them otherwise but it is a parental decision and if both agrees not a problem. The problem is when the parents do NOT agree and do NOT agree to wait till the child is 18.

The worse part of this is almost all of the Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others that I know of, either decide this issue before the child is born OR the religions work together as to that child if the Child goes to two churches. It is rarely a problem, if both parents are talking to each other. It is a problem when the parents are not, but in most such cases the parents have other disputes do to the fact they are NOT talking to each other (and in most cases not even talking pass each other, i.e. talking but not listening, instead the parties do not communicate at all). This lack of Communication is more often then not the problem, religion is just one way that lack of communications affects the custody of the children. When the parents talk to each other about the Children, religion, like most things, do NOT come up. When Religion is in dispute it is often more an excuse NOT to talk to the other parent then any real dispute as to religion. Thus while I went into the need for both parents to address religion, the problem tends to be more a lack of communications then anything to do with actual religion.

[cleanhippie]

77. The CHILD should decide what, if any, relgion they WANT. No one else.

Children do not need to be taught religion, they need to be educated. Once they have a basic education, they can chose any religion they like.

[madrchsod]

52. there`s a big case in chicago over "religion"

the parents are fighting over what religion the children will be raised. both sides have violated the judge`s compromises. this goes to show the more money(these people are loaded) one has the dumber they act.

you are correct, religion should have nothing to do with child custody

[LynneSin]

50. The guy needs to buy a few automatic rifles for his house - then he'll get full custody

I mean who cares if they fuck with separation of Church & State as long as we can have guns.

[cleanhippie]

78. WTF are you talking about?

[spanone]

61. the united christian states of america

[TexasObserver]

84. Religion creates closed minds.

The only thing we know for sure is that they're all wrong. The notion that anyone knows if there is a god or gods, and if so, what they want or require, is utter nonsense.

Children would do better not being exposed to the tall tales and prejudices of religions. The father should have primary custody because he's clearly the rational one of the two.

[Liberal_in_LA]

89. wtf

[reggie the dog]

94. not an issue here in france

40% of us are athiest
about 12 percent are muslim
2 or 3% buddhist
1 or 2% jewish
and the other 43% are christian, but most of them do not practice.

there is no marjority religion in france.... athiest outnumber practicing religious folks..... i dont care what religion you have so long as it is not used as an excuse to trample on my rights.

[panzerfaust]

106. Court has duty to save children from Hell

So, if dad won't do it ...

It was not that long ago that in Europe Christian midwives/doctors/servants/whatever would - without consent and in secret - "baptize" the children of Jewish parents. Subsequently the Christian State would seize the children and remove them from their parents because as the kids were now Christians they could not legally be raised by Jews.

One of the last, and most well documented, of such cases was that of Edgardo Mortara who, in 1858 was seized from his Jewish parents (having been "baptized" by a Christian servant) by the Pope's orders and raised as a ward of the Papal States as a Roman Catholic. He eventually became a priest.

Sad as this case is, it pales before the mass forced "baptisms" of Jews throughout the centuries. One of the more famous ones occurring in Catholic Spain in 1492 (Yes, the same year that "Columbus sailed the ocean blue") when Spanish Jews were given a choice: Convert, Flee, or Die.

And Christians wonder why the rest of the world does not love and admire them as much as they love and admire themselves ...