Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[Ravi]

If it were my X wife, her mother? Sure as hell. Ever hear of the 1st Amendment? You and Ravi are FUCKING IDIOTS.

The claim is that he somehow caused HARM to the child. That is an outright LIE. Any sane Judge who was not a JEW would agree. Again for the SLOW and STUPID, the parent without custody has EVERY RIGHT LEGALLY to take their child to THEIR religious services INCLUDING having them Baptized.

THAT is the LAW.

Link?

Go back and pay attention to the tape again. I realize I am asking a lot but it is in there.

Oh, I'm supposed to take the word of an immature and perpetual law student as fact because he has a penis.

 

[Dr Grump]

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....

Are you really equating Disneyworld with religion? Seriously?

Absolutely. I'm an athiest by the way, so both situations (religion and Disneyland) are equally as silly. I think it's terrible that the mother got the court order in the first place....

 

[Ravi]

Since when do we have a constitutional right to indoctrinate others?

Aren't both parents doing that?

Absolutely...but they both agreed on it to begin with.

 

[Dr Grump]

Since when do we have a constitutional right to indoctrinate others?

Aren't both parents doing that?

Absolutely...but they both agreed on it to begin with.

No doubt to appease his wife. Things change.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Link?

Go back and pay attention to the tape again. I realize I am asking a lot but it is in there.

Oh, I'm supposed to take the word of an immature and perpetual law student as fact because he has a penis.

Once again MORON the Father is not the source, LEGAL experts interviewed for the piece are though. You keep showing your ignorance.

The legal standard for getting a restraining order on a non custodial parents visits is that the child must be put in a situation that can cause harm. Go ahead prove to us that attending Sunday Mass at a Catholic church puts the child in harms way.

 

[manifold]

Since when do we have a constitutional right to indoctrinate others?

Aren't both parents doing that?

Absolutely...but they both agreed on it to begin with.

So indoctrinating others IS a constitutional right so long as it was agreed on to begin with now?

Your fail overfloweth.

Carry on.

 

[JD_2B]

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.

In that case, it most definitely would be as a couple of the SCOTUS dudes are devout Catholics and abortion is against their religion.

However, Abortion as an issue is not a matter of religion in the US Supreme Court. In fact, most people who have abortions identify themselves as being Catholic, Protestant, etc., so really whether the person is religious or not is a non issue there.

It is, however, an issue, when a Catholic Judge chooses to preside over an issue regarding religion, between a Catholic and, say, an Atheist. That gives one side an unfair advantage. That is why the judge in this case is known to be biased, as a Jewish man, and why the case should be thrown out completely, allowing the plaintiff the opportunity to refile with a new unbiased judge.

 

[JD_2B]

Funny how every dude here sides with the dad and every broad sides with the mom.

Without exception if I'm not mistaken.

Sexism is awesome.

I think that both sides are being equally immature about it, and using their daughter as a pawn in a bitter divorce case. Kid can't even fucking walk yet, and they are already acting as if she is to be the next Christian/ Jewish female icon to be heralded.

They need to get the fuck over it. BOTH of them. The woman is being a dumb bitch for filing a civil case against the father, all because they divorced over a lack of agreement in religions, and the father needs to stop acting like such a little TWIT about it, and bringing the media in with him, just to inflame the mom, all the while incriminating himself for a possible contempt charge, and for WHAT? For a little babbling toddler who doesn't even have the linguistic skills to understand the difference between Mary Magdalene and The Virgin Mary? COME ON. This whole case is absolutely preposterous from the word Go.

 

[JD_2B]

Aren't both parents doing that?

Absolutely...but they both agreed on it to begin with.

So indoctrinating others IS a constitutional right so long as it was agreed on to begin with now?

Your fail overfloweth.

Carry on.

They agreed to specific things, apparently. However, a verbal agreement about choosing what religion to teach your child is unconscionable, considering that people still retain the constitutional right to switch to a whole different religion altogether.

Guarantee: (100% or your money back!)

This little girl grows up to be an Atheist by the time she is 20. =)

 

[Luissa]

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.

Actually as Crimson White pointed out to you, the judge has ever right to rule on this.
ANd the father legally did not have the right to take the child to church after the judge ordered him not to. Also I would be very angry if my child's father baptized him without my knowledge, and so would you.

 

[Luissa]

Aren't both parents doing that?

Absolutely...but they both agreed on it to begin with.

So indoctrinating others IS a constitutional right so long as it was agreed on to begin with now?

Your fail overfloweth.

Carry on.

Teaching your children about the religion is a parents right, and you just made yourself look like a fool. So I would said the "fail" was on your part.

 

[jillian]

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.

A visiting parent is not allowed to change the child's religion. And courts frequently address such issues.

The father agreed the child would be raised jewish. He can't confuse the child now and violated an already existing court order.

The judge isn't being "slapped down" at all.

 

[Dr Grump]

A visiting parent is not allowed to change the child's religion. And courts frequently address such issues.

I think that it is terrible that one parent gets the nod over the other

The father agreed the child would be raised jewish. He can't confuse the child now and violated an already existing court orderl.

Of course he can change his mind. People do it all the time in all facets of life. There never should have been a court order in the first place IMO. She is only three. How confused can a kid at three get about religion unless BOTH parents make it so.

 

[jillian]

A visiting parent is not allowed to change the child's religion. And courts frequently address such issues.

I think that it is terrible that one parent gets the nod over the other

The father agreed the child would be raised jewish. He can't confuse the child now and violated an already existing court orderl.

Of course he can change his mind. People do it all the time in all facets of life. There never should have been a court order in the first place IMO. She is only three. How confused can a kid at three get about religion unless BOTH parents make it so.

they agreed on the child's religion prior to the divorce. the wife must have made a convincing showing that he was doing this just to make the proceedings more contentious.

it's not the religion that's getting the nod. it's the parties' agreement that is being enforced. And the only standard for that is the best interests of the child.

 

[Annie]

I'm all for exposing children to both parents religions, my ex is Jewish. He converted to Catholicism, but not really. Sounds a lot like the guy in this case as far as religion goes.

This case sounds bad though, on the dad's side. 1. He sent the mother pics of the baptism, obviously to upset her. 2. He had the media accompany the toddler and him to church, why? To prove what point? 'that Christianity in general, Catholicism specifically were 'radicalized versions' of Judaism?

Nonsense. He's using the child to upset the mother. The girl is 3, he went 7 months without seeing her? Then he plays these types of games?

 

[Dr Grump]

they agreed on the child's religion prior to the divorce. the wife must have made a convincing showing that he was doing this just to make the proceedings more contentious.

it's not the religion that's getting the nod. it's the parties' agreement that is being enforced. And the only standard for that is the best interests of the child.

At what time prior to the divorce? When they were young and in love and she and her parents were berating him? Remember he HAD to convert because her parents wouldn't accept him otherwise. Borders on blackmail IMO.

I disagree re the strong showing. Sounds like she got pissed and asked for an order and the father wasn't even at the hearing (remember it was a 30 day order which he broke, which sounds like it was only temporary - and how dare a judge make such an order on the mother's say so. I think it's outrageous)...

And what is in the best interests of a child? How does a judge know what religion is best for the child? If any at all?

 

[Luissa]

I'm all for exposing children to both parents religions, my ex is Jewish. He converted to Catholicism, but not really. Sounds a lot like the guy in this case as far as religion goes.

This case sounds bad though, on the dad's side. 1. He sent the mother pics of the baptism, obviously to upset her. 2. He had the media accompany the toddler and him to church, why? To prove what point? 'that Christianity in general, Catholicism specifically were 'radicalized versions' of Judaism?

Nonsense. He's using the child to upset the mother. The girl is 3, he went 7 months without seeing her? Then he plays these types of games?

If it is true he went seven months without seeing the child, I think the guy is even more of an ass and should have little input in the child's life.

 

[AllieBaba]

It doesn't matter. Obviously he's just needling the mom, and using the kid to do it.

He was wrong. And it's this sort of crap that makes kids hate church, hate their parents, and hate the world.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Actually as Crimson White pointed out to you, the judge has ever right to rule on this.
ANd the father legally did not have the right to take the child to church after the judge ordered him not to. Also I would be very angry if my child's father baptized him without my knowledge, and so would you.

A restraining order may only be issued in the case of possible harm to the child. Demonstrate where the possible harm would occur?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A visiting parent is not allowed to change the child's religion. And courts frequently address such issues.

I think that it is terrible that one parent gets the nod over the other

The father agreed the child would be raised jewish. He can't confuse the child now and violated an already existing court orderl.

Of course he can change his mind. People do it all the time in all facets of life. There never should have been a court order in the first place IMO. She is only three. How confused can a kid at three get about religion unless BOTH parents make it so.

they agreed on the child's religion prior to the divorce. the wife must have made a convincing showing that he was doing this just to make the proceedings more contentious.

it's not the religion that's getting the nod. it's the parties' agreement that is being enforced. And the only standard for that is the best interests of the child.

You are a LIAR. The non custodial parent has every right to take his child while in his custody to HIS religious services. Already addressed.