Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

They decided to raise the child jewish, the child was going to a jewish daycare, the father knew the mother didn't want the child being raised catholic. He then had the child baptized, I don't think the mother is playing games at all. She is protecting her child from an idiot, who is putting himself before the child. Notice how the mom was not interviewed?

My children went to a Jewish Daycare as well but I didn't raise them Jewish.

Dad agreed to raise the child(ren) Jewish... true. Mom vowed "until death do they part". It doesn't seem that either one of them fulfilled their vows.

I agree, Dad's doing this to hurt mom. Not a good thing and I am very glad I never had to go through such an ordeal with my wife.

She might be, but how do you get that idea from this story? The mother is raising the child according to her religious customs, the customs the father agreed to when he converted to Judiasm.

Mom would not speak to the reporters. Most likely because it is evident in what she says and how she says it. Come on, why else would she attempt to stop him from just taking her to church? She's doing it to hurt him... maybe with good reason, maybe not.

My brother (raised Lutheran) married a Catholic as well. He agreed to raise their children as Catholics although his wife was not devout and they never attended church regularly.

Personally, I see no problem with mom raising the little girl under her religious faith. She has that right. I do see a problem though with not allowing him to at least expose her to his faith. It breeds intolerance.

However, dad is going about this wrong. He does not appear to be doing it because of his faith. He appears to be doing it to rub her nose in it.

Immie
I don't think Jews promise "until death do us part" so in reality the only vow broken was his to raise the child as a Jew.

Good point.


It's disturbing to see you and a few others projecting your own prejudices onto this woman. We have no idea what she thinks aside from the fact that she is trying to raise her child in her religion.

True the only thing we have is human nature.

Immie
 
Sounds like a judge that needs a new job off the bench and as bad as a judge who would give one parent no visitation rights whatsoever because the parent was not of the same religious cult as he was. In most states these judges do come up for re-election every two or four years.
So you would alright with someone taking your child to a church you don't approve of?
You say "someone" where in the case of the OP it is the child's dad. As far as my own children go I let my children make their own choices as to whom they wished to go to church that is if they even wanted to go to church.

I have personally talked to a man whose wife used their children as a tool. A magistrate took away all of his parental rights merely because the judge did not like the church that the guy belong to. It was not the church the judge went to and the judge made a comment to state this as he made his ruling. One parent was Mormon and the other was Catholic. IMO, the judge violated the rights of the child and the father because of his personal prejudices. The community at large being members of all different beliefs and faiths voted the creep off the bench. Even a members of the magistrate's own church were disgusted when they learned what had truly been happening in this guy's courtroom. Prior to the information getting out to the public the magistrate's church group had stood behind him and bashed anyone that disagreed that this guy even belonged on the bench making rulings that could affect people's lives so drastically.

This man agreed to raise the child jewish, he knew the child was already attending a jewish pre school. He then without even asking the mother and without her permission, he baptized her catholic. This judge probably being experienced in divorce cases knew that things were about to ugly, sided with the mother who had FULL custody. This also sounds like it was not a final judgment, more like a bandaid on a bad situation.
 
Family Feud Over Faith

This is unbelievable until you get to the end and discover the Family Judge just happens to be a Jewish man also.

Freedom of Religion can not be usurped by the Courts, even illegal courts like Family Courts. The mother claims that some how it harms the daughter to take her to a Catholic Church.

Legal experts all agree that even the parent with out custody while having a visit with the child can take said child to their religious services.

This is stupidity and a mother simply acting out to harm the Father.

I hope the Judge gets slapped down as well.

It sounds to me like both parents are guilty of using their choices in religion to inflame each other. The father went so far as to call the media to videotape him bringing his daughter to church. Obviously, that brings attention to the case, and is a smart move, as long as we all agree that the order is unreasonable..

The judge was also Jewish, and should be removed, due to bias.

Plus, the little girl is so young- I don't know why anyone would believe that she understands either religion enough to make an informed choice, in any event. I think both sides are playing the power and control game, and using the poor girl as a pawn. They are divorcing for religious reasons, so it stands to reason, as well, that the biggest issue with parental rights/ responsibility would be religion as well.

<yawn>

I do hope the case gets dropped.
 
Sounds to me like the equitable thing to do would be to ban both parents from indoctrinating their daughter into any religion.

Let the kid decide when she is of age.
 
Jews can't be impartial?

Would you say the same thing if the father was a Christian Scientist?

How about a Mormon?

Muslim?

Jewish people are as impartial as the rest of us.

Yes, I would say the same about a Christian Scientist, a Mormon or even a Lutheran.

In this case, it appears that the judge is not being impartial. A judge should recuse himself any time there is the slightest possibility of a conflict of interest. This case being a religious dispute between his faith and another faith leaves the potential of a conflict.

You recuse yourself from a case if there is a potential conflict of interest not afterwards. That is why I was so upset about the Halliburton no bid contracts granted by the Bush Admin. There was the appearance of a conflict there. The Admin should have had others review the entire matter and make the recommendations to give the contracts to Halliburton even if these contracts were not issued as paybacks.

Immie
Then in your opinion only an Islamic, Buddhist or atheist judge could be impartial.

But not a Christian or a Jew.

:thup:

No, not only a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist... you also have Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and a whole spew of other faiths. ;)

Also, a Jewish individual may be impartial although a devout man of Jewish faith or a devout Catholic may not be impartial. I think it depends on whether or not the Judge is a practicing Jew or a Jew in name only.

Also, one does not recuse himself because he is not impartial, but rather to avoid any possible indication that one is not impartial. One recuses himself because there is the possibility that one cannot judge both parties fairly. Maybe he can be impartial, but then everything he says in this case that favors the mother will be viewed as being biased... that is why one recuses himself. It guarantees that one party cannot claim bias even if there is no bias.

Immie
 
Jewish people are as impartial as the rest of us.

Yes, I would say the same about a Christian Scientist, a Mormon or even a Lutheran.

In this case, it appears that the judge is not being impartial. A judge should recuse himself any time there is the slightest possibility of a conflict of interest. This case being a religious dispute between his faith and another faith leaves the potential of a conflict.

You recuse yourself from a case if there is a potential conflict of interest not afterwards. That is why I was so upset about the Halliburton no bid contracts granted by the Bush Admin. There was the appearance of a conflict there. The Admin should have had others review the entire matter and make the recommendations to give the contracts to Halliburton even if these contracts were not issued as paybacks.

Immie
Then in your opinion only an Islamic, Buddhist or atheist judge could be impartial.

But not a Christian or a Jew.

:thup:

No, not only a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist... you also have Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and a whole spew of other faiths. ;)

Also, a Jewish individual may be impartial although a devout man of Jewish faith or a devout Catholic may not be impartial. I think it depends on whether or not the Judge is a practicing Jew or a Jew in name only.

Also, one does not recuse himself because he is not impartial, but rather to avoid any possible indication that one is not impartial. One recuses himself because there is the possibility that one cannot judge both parties fairly. Maybe he can be impartial, but then everything he says in this case that favors the mother will be viewed as being biased... that is why one recuses himself. It guarantees that one party cannot claim bias even if there is no bias.

Immie
I disagree with you here, but I look forward to you calling for a bunch of SCOTUSes recusing themselves if Roe v. Wade ever makes it back to court.
 
So you would alright with someone taking your child to a church you don't approve of?
You say "someone" where in the case of the OP it is the child's dad. As far as my own children go I let my children make their own choices as to whom they wished to go to church that is if they even wanted to go to church.

I have personally talked to a man whose wife used their children as a tool. A magistrate took away all of his parental rights merely because the judge did not like the church that the guy belong to. It was not the church the judge went to and the judge made a comment to state this as he made his ruling. One parent was Mormon and the other was Catholic. IMO, the judge violated the rights of the child and the father because of his personal prejudices. The community at large being members of all different beliefs and faiths voted the creep off the bench. Even a members of the magistrate's own church were disgusted when they learned what had truly been happening in this guy's courtroom. Prior to the information getting out to the public the magistrate's church group had stood behind him and bashed anyone that disagreed that this guy even belonged on the bench making rulings that could affect people's lives so drastically.

This man agreed to raise the child jewish, he knew the child was already attending a jewish pre school. He then without even asking the mother and without her permission, he baptized her catholic. This judge probably being experienced in divorce cases knew that things were about to ugly, sided with the mother who had FULL custody. This also sounds like it was not a final judgment, more like a bandaid on a bad situation.

I may be wrong on this, but according to the story, it seems to me like he told her that he was going to take her to church, or had done so before. Then she went to court and got the court order preventing him from doing so again.

After that he defied the order and took her again and had her Baptized.

And you are right, it does appear that it was more of a temporary hold rather than a permanent hold. It would have served the father better to have waited for a more direct answer than to jump to this solution. He surely did not make any friends with the court and more than likely hurt his case by taking this course of action.

Immie
 
Then in your opinion only an Islamic, Buddhist or atheist judge could be impartial.

But not a Christian or a Jew.

:thup:

No, not only a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist... you also have Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and a whole spew of other faiths. ;)

Also, a Jewish individual may be impartial although a devout man of Jewish faith or a devout Catholic may not be impartial. I think it depends on whether or not the Judge is a practicing Jew or a Jew in name only.

Also, one does not recuse himself because he is not impartial, but rather to avoid any possible indication that one is not impartial. One recuses himself because there is the possibility that one cannot judge both parties fairly. Maybe he can be impartial, but then everything he says in this case that favors the mother will be viewed as being biased... that is why one recuses himself. It guarantees that one party cannot claim bias even if there is no bias.

Immie
I disagree with you here, but I look forward to you calling for a bunch of SCOTUSes recusing themselves if Roe v. Wade ever makes it back to court.

Only two should recuse themselves if that happens soon... Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomyer. :) Hehe, just kidding.

Please explain what you disagree with. The last sentence? If so, what would be the reason for recusing oneself?

Immie
 
You said he should lose visitation rights.

How exactly does that not punish the child by not allowing her to see her dad?
:eusa_liar:

He shouldn't go to jail but he should loose some visitation rights.

Let's see you hide behind your spelling mistake. :lol:
You missed the word some. There's a huge difference between loosing some visitation rights and not allowing the girl to see her father.

tsk tsk tsk ... you are slipping.
 
According to one of the experts, it's quite normal for children of divorced parents of differing religions to be exposed to both.

I don't see why that should be a problem here.
 
I disagree with you here, but I look forward to you calling for a bunch of SCOTUSes recusing themselves if Roe v. Wade ever makes it back to court.

Based on what conflict of interest? Religion is not a conflict of interest, except in cases where the basis of the dispute is religious in nature.
 
No, not only a Muslim, Buddhist or atheist... you also have Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and a whole spew of other faiths. ;)

Also, a Jewish individual may be impartial although a devout man of Jewish faith or a devout Catholic may not be impartial. I think it depends on whether or not the Judge is a practicing Jew or a Jew in name only.

Also, one does not recuse himself because he is not impartial, but rather to avoid any possible indication that one is not impartial. One recuses himself because there is the possibility that one cannot judge both parties fairly. Maybe he can be impartial, but then everything he says in this case that favors the mother will be viewed as being biased... that is why one recuses himself. It guarantees that one party cannot claim bias even if there is no bias.

Immie
I disagree with you here, but I look forward to you calling for a bunch of SCOTUSes recusing themselves if Roe v. Wade ever makes it back to court.

Only two should recuse themselves if that happens soon... Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomyer. :) Hehe, just kidding.

Please explain what you disagree with. The last sentence? If so, what would be the reason for recusing oneself?

Immie
I disagree that practicing anythings can't be impartial. If that were true, we'd have no judges since the majority of the population of this country practices a religion...and that includes judges.
 

He shouldn't go to jail but he should loose some visitation rights.

Let's see you hide behind your spelling mistake. :lol:
You missed the word some. There's a huge difference between loosing some visitation rights and not allowing the girl to see her father.

tsk tsk tsk ... you are slipping.

Nice red herring. :thup:

So, feel free to explain how losing SOME visitation rights isn't punishing the child. :eusa_whistle:

And while you're at it, go and and quantify what you meant by SOME. :thup:
 
I disagree with you here, but I look forward to you calling for a bunch of SCOTUSes recusing themselves if Roe v. Wade ever makes it back to court.

Only two should recuse themselves if that happens soon... Ruth Bader-Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomyer. :) Hehe, just kidding.

Please explain what you disagree with. The last sentence? If so, what would be the reason for recusing oneself?

Immie
I disagree that practicing anythings can't be impartial. If that were true, we'd have no judges since the majority of the population of this country practices a religion...and that includes judges.

Actually, I think you need to read what I said again or maybe I should just rewrite it and attempt to be more clear.

I did not say they could not be impartial.

I said one recuses himself to avoid the appearance of partiality.

One may very well be impartial, but if there is a potential of a conflict of interests, then every ruling, in this case for the mother, will appear to be based on the conflict of interest even IF the judge is absolutely correct in his ruling.

Immie
 

Forum List

Back
Top