Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[Luissa]

Gee, don't you think that mom is doing the same thing? Mom is just as guilty of using the little girl as dad is.

Personally, I think that dad turned his back on Christ. He converted to Judaism in order to get the piece of as... er tail he wanted, but it was not a heart felt conversion. I don't believe that he is as faithful as he claims in the story. If he was, then he would not have converted.

It seems to me that both parents are using the little girl to hurt the other parent.

This is a very sad case and the one who will suffer the most is the little girl.

Immie

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?

She declined or didn't you BOTHER to listen to the tape?

Um.. I think that was my point!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you have full custody that means you are providing the majority of the care, and should have the last say in how the child is raised.

It's a child, not a fucking car. Unless there is a seriously good reason, both parents should be equally responsible - nothing to do with the law - to do with the best interest of the child.

That would work great, in fantasy land!
And the father agreed to raise the child as jewish, not the mother's fault he went back on his word.

The mother married him for all eternity, she went back on HER word. Last I checked conversion to Judaism is not something that can not be undone. And LEGALLY he gets to decide what his faith is and he gets to take his child to those services. Once again need I remind you of the 1st Amendment?

 

[Immanuel]

I tellya.. nothing makes one's pecker shrivel and balls ascend quite like hearing that your kid went.. uh.. to church....

The man was told not to take the child to church by the judge, he then had the child baptized without even telling the mother. He could be facing jail time, and is obviously not thinking clearly. Why would I want my child anywhere near him?

I'm pretty sure the baptism took place before the court order. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the reason for the order.

If I understood the story the Baptism took place after he was told not the take the child to church. I may be wrong on that, but I thought he did it after being forbidden to do so by the judge.

In fact, he called the press after being ordered by the court not to take her to church.

Immie

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If that is the case the answer to "why?" would be because he's a criminal.

No, that would be the outcome, not the reason. If the father were to disappear with the kid, it would be because two fucking grown ups are not capable of putting the welfare of a child above their own shit. BOTH parents, not one. Kids are not possessions - and Mothers often see them as such.

Why are you so quick to take his side?

Here is what we know:

The woman is Jewish.
The man converted, tacitly agreeing to raise any children as Jews.
They divorced.
The man is breaking his original agreement on which religion to raise the child in.

No where in the story is the mother asked to present her side of the story and yet you are demonizing her.

I guess you missed the part where we were informed the Mother REFUSED to be interviewed and sent her Lawyer instead? Further he is not restricted to raising his child as a Jew. Even if he initial said he would. They are no longer together, he is no longer Jewish.

 

[Luissa]

Luissa,

Do you actually agree with the Judge's decision to issue the court order?

I think it was a bad situation, and he had to make a temporary ruling to try and stop it from getting worse. It obviously did get worse, because the father could not follow the order until a better decision was made. I do not feel bad for people who cannot follow the law, especially when it could mean loosing your child.

 

[Immanuel]

Never said he didn't, just said he should be supervised.

Why?

He's done absolutely nothing to endanger his daugher. Nothing.

He broke the law and could be facing jail time, he is also making choices for the child without discussing it with the mother.

Does she have to discuss the choices she makes for the child with the father?

I don't think so.

Yes, he disobeyed a court order. Sometimes that needs to be done because the courts are not always right.

Immie

 

[manifold]

The man was told not to take the child to church by the judge, he then had the child baptized without even telling the mother. He could be facing jail time, and is obviously not thinking clearly. Why would I want my child anywhere near him?

I'm pretty sure the baptism took place before the court order. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the reason for the order.

If I understood the story the Baptism took place after he was told not the take the child to church. I may be wrong on that, but I thought he did it after being forbidden to do so by the judge.

In fact, he called the press after being ordered by the court not to take her to church.

Immie

according to the video, she got the court order AFTER he got the child baptized.

He then went to a regular Sunday mass in violation of the unconstitutional court order.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Once again, LEGALLY the Father has EVERY legal right to take his child to HIS religious services. The only thing the Judge can do is rule on him not doing things harmful to the Child. It is ACCEPTED legal standard that the non custodial parent has the legal right to take their children to THEIR religious services. Including Baptizing them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The man was told not to take the child to church by the judge, he then had the child baptized without even telling the mother. He could be facing jail time, and is obviously not thinking clearly. Why would I want my child anywhere near him?

I'm pretty sure the baptism took place before the court order. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the reason for the order.

If I understood the story the Baptism took place after he was told not the take the child to church. I may be wrong on that, but I thought he did it after being forbidden to do so by the judge.

In fact, he called the press after being ordered by the court not to take her to church.

Immie

No she was baptized first. That was why the mother went to court.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm pretty sure the baptism took place before the court order. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the reason for the order.

If I understood the story the Baptism took place after he was told not the take the child to church. I may be wrong on that, but I thought he did it after being forbidden to do so by the judge.

In fact, he called the press after being ordered by the court not to take her to church.

Immie

No she was baptized first. That was why the mother went to court.

I'll take Mani's and your word for it. I thought it was the other way around, but I don't see that it makes any difference.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

So he takes his daughter to church and you think he shouldn't be allowed to have unsupervised visits.

WOW!

I knew you were an extreme feminist, but damn Ravi, that shit's just fuct!

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

 

[manifold]

So he takes his daughter to church and you think he shouldn't be allowed to have unsupervised visits.

WOW!

I knew you were an extreme feminist, but damn Ravi, that shit's just fuct!

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

The law says he has the right to expose her to his religion too.

 

[Dr Grump]

Luissa,

Do you actually agree with the Judge's decision to issue the court order?

I think it was a bad situation, and he had to make a temporary ruling to try and stop it from getting worse. It obviously did get worse, because the father could not follow the order until a better decision was made. I do not feel bad for people who cannot follow the law, especially when it could mean loosing your child.

But why should the father be the subject of the temporary order in the first place? So if the mother doesn't like Disneyland, he can't take the child there, and if he does she'll get an enforceable order against him? Every time she doesn't like something the father does she can do that? The judge should have dismissed the order in the first place. The mother sounds like an anally retentive nightmare....

 

[Ravi]

So he takes his daughter to church and you think he shouldn't be allowed to have unsupervised visits.

WOW!

I knew you were an extreme feminist, but damn Ravi, that shit's just fuct!

YOu have to trust the people you leave your child with.

Yep. How often do you read about single moms leaving their kids unsupervised when they go to work? The fathers in the equation never get lambasted if something goes wrong.

Why is that?

Double standard.

 

[Dr Grump]

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

Is that true Stateside? Honest question...not too sure if that is your opinion or fact. If fact, that really sucks....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So he takes his daughter to church and you think he shouldn't be allowed to have unsupervised visits.

WOW!

I knew you were an extreme feminist, but damn Ravi, that shit's just fuct!

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

SIMPLY WRONG. LEGALLY the non custodial parent has every right to take their children to THEIR religious services.

 

[Ravi]

I tellya.. nothing makes one's pecker shrivel and balls ascend quite like hearing that your kid went.. uh.. to church....

The man was told not to take the child to church by the judge, he then had the child baptized without even telling the mother. He could be facing jail time, and is obviously not thinking clearly. Why would I want my child anywhere near him?

which, in my estimation, violates his first amendment right to expressing his religious faith to his progeny. I watched the video, i'm well aware of what has happened in the court. But, that doesn't mean that poor decisions get made in the court that violates his rights as a parent.

and, you SHOULD want your child near him because he is the father as is just as valid as you are in the child's life. Again, he's a veteran law student not some junky on the street. I garenfuckingtee if this was about child support checks the question about why the mother should want him in the childs life would not be asked.

wtf is a veteran law student? Someone to immature to finish law school?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

Is that true Stateside? Honest question...not too sure if that is your opinion or fact. If fact, that really sucks....

In this case she is WRONG. Legally the father has every right to take his child to his religious services any time he has custody of her.

 

[Ravi]

It's the girls father not some stranger. And of course the mother doesn't trust him, they are divorced.

Sounds like the father has a religious discrimination lawsuit to me.

I don't care if it is the girl's father, being a father doesn't automatically make you trustworthy.

But the Dad has an absolute right to see his child. So whether Mom trusts him or not is a moot point.

Really? Why? I don't recall a right to see your child...there are many, many reasons to keep parents away from their children if the parents are causing harm.

 

[Ravi]

The mother has custody, end of story. If the father had custody he would have the same right to pick which religion to raise the girl in. He is apparently using the child as a tool.

I agree the father is being a tool, but I totally disagree that because the mother has custody of the child she has more say in the upbringing. Sometimes custody is given so the child has a more stable life, not because one parent is better than the other. Find your opinion very Kramer vs Kramerish ....

We can only follow the law. For all I know, the mother is a schizoid...but she does have custody and that counts for something.