Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[RetiredGySgt]

Can anyone provide proof that her being raised in the Jewish faith was part of the divorce settlement?

there isn't a settlement. that's why they are still fighting.

it was part of their understanding when the child was born -- probably from before they got married, imo.

From the article since you INSIST on ignoring it.

Joseph Reyes said that’s not true. He insisted they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to Jewish services a few times together with the child.

Taking daughter to church could land dad in jail | Chicago Press Release Services

 

[RetiredGySgt]

if that is what my mate and i agreed to, then i'd abide by it.

if he changed the rules post marriage, then he has to abide by his prior agrement.

Once again Jillian the Father DENIES he EVER agreed to raise the child as a Jew. So I repeat are you going to pull a Dogbert and claim the Mother is not biased and the Father is on their conflicting claims?

I don't care what the father claims. The judge obviously didn't believe him.

Again, RGS, THE FATHER'S REMEDY WAS TO APPEAL.

not self-help, regardless of whether the judge was right or wrong.

Ohh I see the Mother is telling the truth and the Father is lying? So you ARE going to pull a Dogbert. Thanks for providing just one more piece of evidence YOU are BIASED.

 

[Annie]

The problem is, why does the mother usually get custody? Because it is tradition?

That doesn't make it right.

Personally, it seems that in this case the daughter probably should be with the mother. It seems that the father has some major issues hidden under the surface, but that doesn't mean it should always be that way.

The father definitely went about this the wrong way. But, sometimes "we the people" need to set the courts right with some non-violent disobedience.

Immie

I don't know about other states, but in IL if both parents are 'ok', joint custody is the norm, if both want it. This case was IL. My divorce was in IL. I have sole custody because the court decided that my ex would continue to cause harm to the children, he had very limited visitation for the first 6 years, until the youngest was 15. After that the judge allowed that the children could decide whether or not they wanted to go with him per arrangements, but needed to give him at least 24 hour notice if not visiting.

Sole custody is rare here.

My guess is that it is the norm elsewhere too. It just seems that it is so often the mother that gets custody with the father getting "visitation" rights. Coming from a man, that just does not seem fair to me.

Immie

It's been years, but from what I remember from when I went into file for divorce, they gave me a long sheet with all sorts of chores related to child care and asked how often each parent did what. I tried to give the ex as much time as seemed fair, though he was rarely home.

I think they figure out from that who will be 'primary' and such. Dunno for sure. But I know the ex also got one, the judge pulled it and said, "You mean you drive the kids to school, while you are at work? You travel at least 3 nights per week?" With that he tossed it to the side. My divorce took nearly 4 years and another 3 with the court having to keep adjusting or denying visitation.

Yeah, there were reasons he was ordered to undergo a psych evaluation, child development classes and I got sole custody.

 

[manifold]

For the record: I concede that the father is a doucher and was totally in the wrong in violating the court order. Even though I believe the order itself violated his 1st amendment rights.

I'm simply taking issue with the notion that he doesn't have the right to take his daughter to church.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't know about other states, but in IL if both parents are 'ok', joint custody is the norm, if both want it. This case was IL. My divorce was in IL. I have sole custody because the court decided that my ex would continue to cause harm to the children, he had very limited visitation for the first 6 years, until the youngest was 15. After that the judge allowed that the children could decide whether or not they wanted to go with him per arrangements, but needed to give him at least 24 hour notice if not visiting.

Sole custody is rare here.

My guess is that it is the norm elsewhere too. It just seems that it is so often the mother that gets custody with the father getting "visitation" rights. Coming from a man, that just does not seem fair to me.

Immie

It's been years, but from what I remember from when I went into file for divorce, they gave me a long sheet with all sorts of chores related to child care and asked how often each parent did what. I tried to give the ex as much time as seemed fair, though he was rarely home.

I think they figure out from that who will be 'primary' and such. Dunno for sure. But I know the ex also got one, the judge pulled it and said, "You mean you drive the kids to school, while you are at work? You travel at least 3 nights per week?" With that he tossed it to the side. My divorce took nearly 4 years and another 3 with the court having to keep adjusting or denying visitation.

Yeah, there were reasons he was ordered to undergo a psych evaluation, child development classes and I got sole custody.

Well, I can understand why that is the case.

Sexist or not, I can tell you that my wife did most of the child rearing especially when my children were young. I worked full time days, took a full course load at night and tried to eat in between... most of which I now regret, but still I give credit to my wife. She supported me all the way through.

Had my wife not been there, things would have had to have been different, but generally in our society it is the man that is the bread winner and the mom fixes the bacon. To fault the man for that after the fact, is just plain wrong.

Immie

 

[Luissa]

For the record: I concede that the father is a doucher and was totally in the wrong in violating the court order. Even though I believe the order itself violated his 1st amendment rights.

I'm simply taking issue with the notion that he doesn't have the right to take his daughter to church.

How did violate his first amendment rights? He was still allowed to go to church.

John Gosseling was not allowed to talk to the media while him and his wife were involved in a court dispute. Was the judge violating his first amendment right?

 

[jillian]

Once again Jillian the Father DENIES he EVER agreed to raise the child as a Jew. So I repeat are you going to pull a Dogbert and claim the Mother is not biased and the Father is on their conflicting claims?

I don't care what the father claims. The judge obviously didn't believe him.

Again, RGS, THE FATHER'S REMEDY WAS TO APPEAL.

not self-help, regardless of whether the judge was right or wrong.

Ohh I see the Mother is telling the truth and the Father is lying? So you ARE going to pull a Dogbert. Thanks for providing just one more piece of evidence YOU are BIASED.

try reading. I said the JUDGE who saw their demenor and evaluated them DIDN'T BELIEVE HIM.

Again... THE REMEDY WAS TO APPEAL.

Understand?

 

[jillian]

you know, i'm thinking that this case isn't at all about religion.

it's about the guy being a spiteful crud...

and the judge telling him he couldn't play that game....

and him doing it anyway.

 

[Modbert]

you know, i'm thinking that this case isn't at all about religion.

it's about the guy being a spiteful crud...

and the judge telling him he couldn't play that game....

and him doing it anyway.

I don't see why in those seven months he could of not gone to the courts and said "She's not letting me see my kid, or have a say."

This, coupled with the fact he taunted her with those pictures and broke a court order makes it hard for me to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

 

[Immanuel]

you know, i'm thinking that this case isn't at all about religion.

it's about the guy being a spiteful crud...

and the judge telling him he couldn't play that game....

and him doing it anyway.

Why is it always the guys fault with you ladies?

Maybe she was just being a Witch with a "B"?

Immie

 

[jillian]

you know, i'm thinking that this case isn't at all about religion.

it's about the guy being a spiteful crud...

and the judge telling him he couldn't play that game....

and him doing it anyway.

I don't see why in those seven months he could of not gone to the courts and said "She's not letting me see my kid, or have a say."

This, coupled with the fact he taunted her with those pictures and broke a court order makes it hard for me to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

apparently, the judge had the same difficulty.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Yep...he has every right to be an idiot but he has no right to use his child as a pawn.

 

[Ravi]

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?

Using your kid as a pawn is harmful to the kid. I hope you are at least honest enough to admit that.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Once again for the slow, the Father says he NEVER agreed to raise the child as a Jew. Are you gonna play a Dogbert here and claim the Mother is an unbiased source but the Father is a biased source?

He converted to Judiasm. One big thing in Judiasm is that religion is passed on through the mother. He knew this if he went to his classes and converted.

 

[Ravi]

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.

That's my point exactly numbnuts!

Thanks for putting a sweet exclamation point on Ravi's fail for me though.

Ah, I get it. You are hung up on the religion or the man. You are biased to take his side because of his gender and his religion.

What it boils down to is that the man used his daughter as a pawn. Happily and gleefully with malice toward the mother. Any parent that would do that with a child will continue to do it for the balance of the child's life.

 

[Ravi]

The problem is, why does the mother usually get custody? Because it is tradition?

That doesn't make it right.

Personally, it seems that in this case the daughter probably should be with the mother. It seems that the father has some major issues hidden under the surface, but that doesn't mean it should always be that way.

The father definitely went about this the wrong way. But, sometimes "we the people" need to set the courts right with some non-violent disobedience.

Immie

I don't know about other states, but in IL if both parents are 'ok', joint custody is the norm, if both want it. This case was IL. My divorce was in IL. I have sole custody because the court decided that my ex would continue to cause harm to the children, he had very limited visitation for the first 6 years, until the youngest was 15. After that the judge allowed that the children could decide whether or not they wanted to go with him per arrangements, but needed to give him at least 24 hour notice if not visiting.

Sole custody is rare here.

My guess is that it is the norm elsewhere too. It just seems that it is so often the mother that gets custody with the father getting "visitation" rights. Coming from a man, that just does not seem fair to me.

Immie

Yes, it can be unfair. In cases where during the marriage the father provides the most attention and hands on care to the child then the father should be granted custody, IMO. This is rarely the case, however. Women still are the primary care givers of their children even when married.

Ya'll need to work on that.

 

[Ravi]

So you'd deny your child the right to choose for himself if you married outside your religion? Isn't that selfish towards the father's POV?

And under what circumstances did he agree

if that is what my mate and i agreed to, then i'd abide by it.

if he changed the rules post marriage, then he has to abide by his prior agrement.

Once again Jillian the Father DENIES he EVER agreed to raise the child as a Jew. So I repeat are you going to pull a Dogbert and claim the Mother is not biased and the Father is on their conflicting claims?

Once again for the stupid: converting means he agreed to raise the child as a Jew.

 

[Ravi]

you know, i'm thinking that this case isn't at all about religion.

it's about the guy being a spiteful crud...

and the judge telling him he couldn't play that game....

and him doing it anyway.

Bingo.

 

[L.K.Eder]

saw the child in half. let the gods sort this out.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't know about other states, but in IL if both parents are 'ok', joint custody is the norm, if both want it. This case was IL. My divorce was in IL. I have sole custody because the court decided that my ex would continue to cause harm to the children, he had very limited visitation for the first 6 years, until the youngest was 15. After that the judge allowed that the children could decide whether or not they wanted to go with him per arrangements, but needed to give him at least 24 hour notice if not visiting.

Sole custody is rare here.

My guess is that it is the norm elsewhere too. It just seems that it is so often the mother that gets custody with the father getting "visitation" rights. Coming from a man, that just does not seem fair to me.

Immie

Yes, it can be unfair. In cases where during the marriage the father provides the most attention and hands on care to the child then the father should be granted custody, IMO. This is rarely the case, however. Women still are the primary care givers of their children even when married.

Ya'll need to work on that.

No, I don't. I said that earlier.

BTW: It is Y'all... You need to work on that dere sout'ren accent o' yours!

Immie