Court Forces Non-Religious Mom To Get Christian Counseling Or Lose Custody Of Her Children

[BlueGin]

Then give us the grounds for the order.

Look at the original decree of termination of the marriage pertaining to the children. Wanna bet there is something about children living in a religious environment?

And if there is, the judge has grounds.

Exactly. Her kids are probably being raised in a Christian environment.

 

[paddymurphy]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

That's corrects SHE went to the Court, and when you do that you agree to the judges decision. If you don't like that, DON'T GO TO ******* FAMILY COURT

duh

You agree to the Judge's decision? You have got to be the dumbest ***** of dumb ***** who post here. Google the word "Appeal". If the woman doing the counseling did the things this woman reported, then forcing her to attend violated her first amendment rights. That you are too addle brained to understand that is your problem and the problem of anyone unlucky enough to know you.

 

[peach174]

If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.

What Bible homework?

 

[paddymurphy]

I don't think this is a problem with the court - maybe the family court, but not the district.
seems as if Mary Pepper was operating out of bounds, both as a counselor and as a business.

kind of shows you the shit that can happen when you farm out something that should be a government service to the private sector.

That is what it seems. I would bet she is off the short list for custody counseling.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then give us the grounds for the order.

Look at the original decree of termination of the marriage pertaining to the children. Wanna bet there is something about children living in a religious environment?

And if there is, the judge has grounds.

Exactly. Her kids are probably being raised in a Christian environment.

The counseling was requested by her and it was for co-parenting. It had nothing to do with the children living in any particular religious environment.

 

[paddymurphy]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

You should also fact check the base article. The judge did not order "religious sessions". The offering by the court has a syllabus that has nothing to do with religion. Mary Pepper who provides the classes should be the one drawing ire right now.

That is right. The Judge, by his comments to mom, did not realize how religious the counseling was.

 

[daws101]

Another false comparison.

Actually it is not. You're just another partisan moron.

Both cases deal with the law. The difference is one case you want the law to allow something and in the other you don't , when the reality is that the law allows for BOTH, not just the one you approve of.

False the cake bullshit is contract law.
The other is for lack of the proper legal phase family law.

LOL If it were contract law bro I could certainly refuse to serve a gay or a Mulsim, or a negro, or a white guy, or a woman, or whatever.

Has NOTHING to do with contract law.

False

No, I'm 100% correct and it is easily provable.

I can discriminate , just not for a few reasons.

Proving that the laws are

A) not meant to eliminate discrimination

and

B) are in violation of the 14th Amendment in that they do not offer equal protection for all.

Those laws are feel good laws, and nothing more.

False

 

[peach174]

If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.

Another false comparison.

Actually it is not. You're just another partisan moron.

Both cases deal with the law. The difference is one case you want the law to allow something and in the other you don't , when the reality is that the law allows for BOTH, not just the one you approve of.

You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

 

[jknowgood]

If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.

Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?

Being queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.

False

Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.

Again false
Only homophobes say it is , but hey that's all you.

Yeah right, I have never done anything against a queer, but medically it is a mental disorder. I'm just tired of hearing about it every where I go.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't think this is a problem with the court - maybe the family court, but not the district.
seems as if Mary Pepper was operating out of bounds, both as a counselor and as a business.

kind of shows you the shit that can happen when you farm out something that should be a government service to the private sector.

That is what it seems. I would bet she is off the short list for custody counseling.

she definitely should be. there's some shady stuff going on there. can't believe i'm saying this, but i agree with DarkFury, i tsuspect there's some shady stuff going on with the assignments

 

[peach174]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

 

[ogibillm]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

it's unnecessary - if the counselor wanted to do that she could have done so before meeting with salzman.

also, that wasn't it.

does that look like 'just a prayer'

 

[peach174]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

it's unnecessary - if the counselor wanted to do that she could have done so before meeting with salzman.

also, that wasn't it.

does that look like 'just a prayer'

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[daws101]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

it's unnecessary - if the counselor wanted to do that she could have done so before meeting with salzman.

also, that wasn't it.

does that look like 'just a prayer'

Other than being outside the scope of the alleged counceling yes.

 

[ogibillm]

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

it's unnecessary - if the counselor wanted to do that she could have done so before meeting with salzman.

also, that wasn't it.

does that look like 'just a prayer'

What in the world are you talking about?

you're claim is that the only religious activity the counselor engaged in was the opening prayer.
that's false.
she gave out religious homework and handouts, such as the one pictured in my earlier response.
is there any other confusion?

 

[daws101]

Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?

Being queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.

False

Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.

Again false
Only homophobes say it is , but hey that's all you.

Yeah right, I have never done anything against a queer, but medically it is a mental disorder. I'm just tired of hearing about it every where I go.

False 50 years ago it was but not now it's as homophobic and as antiquated as the pejorative queer.

 

[daws101]

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

it's unnecessary - if the counselor wanted to do that she could have done so before meeting with salzman.

also, that wasn't it.

does that look like 'just a prayer'

What in the world are you talking about?

Stop playing dumb ....oh you're not playing.

 

[peach174]

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

it's unnecessary - if the counselor wanted to do that she could have done so before meeting with salzman.

also, that wasn't it.

does that look like 'just a prayer'

What in the world are you talking about?

you're claim is that the only religious activity the counselor engaged in was the opening prayer.
that's false.
she gave out religious homework and handouts, such as the one pictured in my earlier response.
is there any other confusion?

I seem to have missed the link that says she gave out religious homework and handouts.
Could you please put that back up or tell me where it was posted?

 

[jknowgood]

If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.

What Bible homework?

I don't know someone on here said something about it.

 

[jknowgood]

Being queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.

False

Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.

Again false
Only homophobes say it is , but hey that's all you.

Yeah right, I have never done anything against a queer, but medically it is a mental disorder. I'm just tired of hearing about it every where I go.

False 50 years ago it was but not now it's as homophobic and as antiquated as the pejorative queer.

That is a mental disorder.