Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[Luissa]

you had to watch the video.

convenient that he left that out, right?

What video? The one in the OP? I watched it. Didn't hear or see anything about him not seeing his daughter for seven months. Could have missed it though...

You did not miss it, it is not there.

The couple separated in 2008, and after a 7-month stretch in which he didn’t see the girl, Joseph Reyes took his estranged wife to court.
Taking daughter to church could land dad in jail | Chicago Press Release Services

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What video? The one in the OP? I watched it. Didn't hear or see anything about him not seeing his daughter for seven months. Could have missed it though...

You did not miss it, it is not there.

It has to be somewhere. The seven months statement came from Annie. I don't believe that Annie would have made that up and/or simply chosen "7 months" out of the blue.

Immie

Then find it. The video is linked on the first post. Neither I nor Grump recall any mention of him not seeing his daughter for 7 months.

 

[Luissa]

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

Um.. let's see, he using his child to get at the mother, taking picture and sending them to her to piss her off. And from the sounds of it we don't know the whole case, and the judge obviously put in place a 30 day restraining order to keep this guy from playing anymore games. It also doesn't matter what you think, the judge made the ruling and the father was suppose to follow it. He then with cameras took his daughter back to church, which was obviously a publicity stunt.
The man is going to mentally harm his child, because he wants to one up her mother. And we all know the reason why you are on his side is because one his a man, and two because he is a christian.

Well I can not argue I am not a man. However provide one instance from my postings, where I have EVER been anti semite, EVER. It has NOTHING to do with what religion he is or the Mother is. It has to do with the law and the Constitution.

Go ahead ask Jillian just how anti semite I am.

Never said you were anti jewish, my point is you have biased view because he is christian.

 

[Modbert]

I think RGS just has issues when there's any governmental limitation of any religious activity -- regardless of how questionable that activity is.

I don't agree with him.

But I understand him.

Oh I understand why he's doing it. But his outrage at acting like this is the first time this is being done is a bit ridiculous.

 

[Annie]

he went 7 months without seeing her? Then he plays these types of games?

I didn't see that in the OP. Was it in there?

I don't do that well with video, so went and found an article. The case happens to be in Chicago, so:

WBBM 780 - Chicago's #1 source for local news, traffic and weather - Taking Daughter To Church Could Land Dad In Jail

Posted: Tuesday, 16 February 2010 4:45PM

Taking Daughter To Church Could Land Dad In Jail



CHICAGO (CBS) ― It's a divorce case that's made national news and on Tuesday, the civil proceeding became a criminal case.

CBS 2's Mike Puccinelli reports that a Chicago father faced a judge on contempt charges in a case stemming from a bitter dispute with his ex-wife over religious faith.

Joseph Reyes, 35, was at the Daley Center on Tuesday to find out if he was going to be thrown in jail for defying a court order barring him from taking his 3-year-old daughter to non-Jewish religious services.

Last month, Reyes invited reporters to come with him when he took his daughter to mass at Holy Name Cathedral. He said taking his daughter Ela to church violated no court order, because much of Catholicism is based on Judaism.
...

After his split from Rebecca, Joseph had their daughter baptized in a Catholic church without first consulting Rebecca. Joseph sent Rebecca a photo of their daughter's late-November baptism at Queen of Martyrs Catholic Church in south suburban Evergreen Park, according to court records.

"I sent her pictures which she took as malicious," Reyes said outside a Daley Center courtroom, saying that sharing the photos was simply a chance to show the girl all dressed up and enjoying the occasion....

The couple separated in 2008, and after a 7-month stretch in which he didn't see the girl, Joseph Reyes took his estranged wife to court.

On Tuesday, as the divorce case continues, Rebecca Reyes has sole custody of Ela with, Joseph Reyes taking his daughter every other weekend and every Thursday for dinner.

The child attends a Jewish pre-school, Joseph Reyes says.

"I have no problem with that. ... If anything, I encourage Ela to see different perspectives."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What video? The one in the OP? I watched it. Didn't hear or see anything about him not seeing his daughter for seven months. Could have missed it though...

You did not miss it, it is not there.

The couple separated in 2008, and after a 7-month stretch in which he didn’t see the girl, Joseph Reyes took his estranged wife to court.
Taking daughter to church could land dad in jail | Chicago Press Release Services

In other words it was NOT in the video thanks for proving my point.

 

[Immanuel]

But that's not happening. She is indoctrinating her religion onto the daughter. And she is three now, and apparently he hasn't seen the daughter for 7 months, which suggests they have been split at least since the girl was two. My sons can't even remember being two or three years old.

Of course things changed when they split. People changing is probably the reason most people split up in the first place...

No. What is happening is that the father is trying to make sure that the child is not jewish --- which is something he agreed to when the child was born.

Same diff, imo.

I don't think he said that at all. He simply wants his daughter to have some exposure to his faith. You can't blame him for that, but it is too early to worry about that and he did it in defiance of the courts.

I can see defying the courts in certain instances, but this was neither the time nor the place to do so.

Immie

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Um.. let's see, he using his child to get at the mother, taking picture and sending them to her to piss her off. And from the sounds of it we don't know the whole case, and the judge obviously put in place a 30 day restraining order to keep this guy from playing anymore games. It also doesn't matter what you think, the judge made the ruling and the father was suppose to follow it. He then with cameras took his daughter back to church, which was obviously a publicity stunt.
The man is going to mentally harm his child, because he wants to one up her mother. And we all know the reason why you are on his side is because one his a man, and two because he is a christian.

Well I can not argue I am not a man. However provide one instance from my postings, where I have EVER been anti semite, EVER. It has NOTHING to do with what religion he is or the Mother is. It has to do with the law and the Constitution.

Go ahead ask Jillian just how anti semite I am.

Never said you were anti jewish, my point is you have biased view because he is christian.

And you are wrong, this has NOTHING to do with his religion or the Mothers. In fact I think the Catholic Church is a false Church.

 

[Annie]

What video? The one in the OP? I watched it. Didn't hear or see anything about him not seeing his daughter for seven months. Could have missed it though...

You did not miss it, it is not there.

It has to be somewhere. The seven months statement came from Annie. I don't believe that Annie would have made that up and/or simply chosen "7 months" out of the blue.

Immie

I'm sorry. It's my hearing with video. When possible I'll put closed captioning on, but it's usually not there. So I went and read an article, I excerpted and linked above. I should have from the get go. Sorry.

 

[Modbert]

The daughter has been Jewish since her birth. She goes to a Jewish Pre-School and everything else. The father was under court order to not take her to the church.

What else was he expecting? He knew the amount of his actions, and the fact he was taunting with her previously seals it.

This is no different than a Islamic Father taking his son who was baptized at birth, and in a Christian preschool to the Islamic Equivalent.

I have a feeling if this wasn't a Christian church being restricted, we wouldn't hear so much discontent at the ruling.

The mother is the person who has primary care. As far as the law is concerned as I've always read, the mother chooses these sort of things. If the father wanted to take his daughter to church, he should of gone to court and fought there. Going behind her back and ignoring a court order was neither the smartest or most legal thing to do.

And none of you can deny that.

 

[Modbert]

And you are wrong, this has NOTHING to do with his religion or the Mothers. In fact I think the Catholic Church is a false Church.

RGS is a Mormon Luissa.

They Baptize dead people, without their consent at times.

Oh wait, sorry RGS, "Proxy Baptisms."

 

[jillian]

And you are wrong, this has NOTHING to do with his religion or the Mothers. In fact I think the Catholic Church is a false Church.

now ask yourself how you'd feel if you were the child's mother and they were going to tell the kid that if she believed what the mother does, and what the father agreed the child would be, then she is going to hell

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The daughter has been Jewish since her birth. She goes to a Jewish Pre-School and everything else. The father was under court order to not take her to the church.

What else was he expecting? He knew the amount of his actions, and the fact he was taunting with her previously seals it.

This is no different than a Islamic Father taking his son who was baptized at birth, and in a Christian preschool to the Islamic Equivalent.

I have a feeling if this wasn't a Christian church being restricted, we wouldn't hear so much discontent at the ruling.

The mother is the person who has primary care. As far as the law is concerned as I've always read, the mother chooses these sort of things. If the father wanted to take his daughter to church, he should of gone to court and fought there. Going behind her back and ignoring a court order was neither the smartest or most legal thing to do.

And none of you can deny that.

I can. Legal expert on the tape CLEARLY STATES that the Non custodial parent has the LEGAL right to take his child to HIS religious services while said child is in his custody. A restraining order is only issued to prevent possible harm to the child, which the mother claimed would happen by the simple act of taking said child to a Catholic Church.

The Judge was wrong.

 

[Immanuel]

You did not miss it, it is not there.

It has to be somewhere. The seven months statement came from Annie. I don't believe that Annie would have made that up and/or simply chosen "7 months" out of the blue.

Immie

Then find it. The video is linked on the first post. Neither I nor Grump recall any mention of him not seeing his daughter for 7 months.

See link in post #181... Thanks Luissa.

Immie

 

[jillian]

The daughter has been Jewish since her birth. She goes to a Jewish Pre-School and everything else. The father was under court order to not take her to the church.

What else was he expecting? He knew the amount of his actions, and the fact he was taunting with her previously seals it.

This is no different than a Islamic Father taking his son who was baptized at birth, and in a Christian preschool to the Islamic Equivalent.

I have a feeling if this wasn't a Christian church being restricted, we wouldn't hear so much discontent at the ruling.

The mother is the person who has primary care. As far as the law is concerned as I've always read, the mother chooses these sort of things. If the father wanted to take his daughter to church, he should of gone to court and fought there. Going behind her back and ignoring a court order was neither the smartest or most legal thing to do.

And none of you can deny that.

^^^^^^^^

what he said.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And you are wrong, this has NOTHING to do with his religion or the Mothers. In fact I think the Catholic Church is a false Church.

now ask yourself how you'd feel if you were the child's mother and they were going to tell the kid that if she believed what the mother does, and what the father agreed the child would be, then she is going to hell

It does not matter. If my wife and I had divorced it would not have mattered one whit which church she took the kids to. And I would have been free to take them to MY church.

Everyone wants to ignore legal precedent, the 1st Amendment and the rights of Parents. Further the father states for the record she was NOT raised as a Jew at all. They only went to services a couple times before the divorce. They NEVER agreed to which religion she would be raised in. The Mother kept him from seeing his child for 7 months and then pulled the raised as a Jew card.

 

[Modbert]

I can. Legal expert on the tape CLEARLY STATES that the Non custodial parent has the LEGAL right to take his child to HIS religious services while said child is in his custody. A restraining order is only issued to prevent possible harm to the child, which the mother claimed would happen by the simple act of taking said child to a Catholic Church.

The Judge was wrong.

The restraining order was in place. The father broke it.

The law is very simple as to what happens when people break the law.

Legal experts are irrelevant because you can easily get another who can say the exact opposite.

The father should of went to court to fight this, instead, he broke the law knowing exactly what was going to happen. And to be quite honest, if they had previously agreed to raise the child Jewish (which I assume since it's been three years) then the father had broken a verbal agreement.

Though this is a lesson to all to make sure you get everything in writing, even if they are your married spouse.

 

[Modbert]

Further the father states for the record she was NOT raised as a Jew at all. They only went to services a couple times before the divorce. They NEVER agreed to which religion she would be raised in. The Mother kept him from seeing his child for 7 months and then pulled the raised as a Jew card.

Because that's not a biased source or anything.

And going to services a couple times is still going to services. Or are you just playing semantics?

Whether I go to my church and believe one time or 365 times a year, I'm still Christian.

 

[Immanuel]

The daughter has been Jewish since her birth. She goes to a Jewish Pre-School and everything else. The father was under court order to not take her to the church.

What else was he expecting? He knew the amount of his actions, and the fact he was taunting with her previously seals it.

This is no different than a Islamic Father taking his son who was baptized at birth, and in a Christian preschool to the Islamic Equivalent.

I have a feeling if this wasn't a Christian church being restricted, we wouldn't hear so much discontent at the ruling.

The mother is the person who has primary care. As far as the law is concerned as I've always read, the mother chooses these sort of things. If the father wanted to take his daughter to church, he should of gone to court and fought there. Going behind her back and ignoring a court order was neither the smartest or most legal thing to do.

And none of you can deny that.

I can deny it.

I have no problem with the mother raising her daughter Jewish.

What bothers me is that it seems that the mother almost always gets the final say in these kinds of things and the father's wishes are always second fiddle if not third fiddle behind the mother's parents wishes.

I'm sure it is not always like that, but it sure as hell seems that way.

Immie

 

[jillian]

It does not matter. If my wife and I had divorced it would not have mattered one whit which church she took the kids to. And I would have been free to take them to MY church.

Everyone wants to ignore legal precedent, the 1st Amendment and the rights of Parents. Further the father states for the record she was NOT raised as a Jew at all. They only went to services a couple times before the divorce. They NEVER agreed to which religion she would be raised in. The Mother kept him from seeing his child for 7 months and then pulled the raised as a Jew card.

of course it matters.

and if the father objected to the ruling, the remedy is to appeal.

where do you see that he didn't see the child for 7 months because the mother didn't LET him? I seem to have missed that. I thought his absense was voluntary.

either way....irrelevant. he agreed to the child's religion. it's not the 'jew card'. the mom would have been held to the same standard had it gone the other way.

i did a case once where the father took the kid and had it christened. the jewish mother objected. and the judge said "tough. the child is christian because it was christened". our position was that mom didn't recognize the legitimacy of any christening.

but that's what the court ruled.

stuff happens.