Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[RetiredGySgt]

Sounds like a judge that needs a new job off the bench and as bad as a judge who would give one parent no visitation rights whatsoever because the parent was not of the same religious cult as he was. In most states these judges do come up for re-election every two or four years.

So you would alright with someone taking your child to a church you don't approve of?

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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

because he wants to take the kid to church?

it's not like he's been charged with diddling here.

 

[manifold]

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.

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

Why?

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

 

[Luissa]

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.

And the FATHER of the child taking her to church is cause for distrust... exactly why?

He took the child to church, knowing full well he was breaking the law. Why would I trust my child with someone who has no respect for a court order?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She has custody and is raising the child according to her religious views.
He sneaks the child off and has her baptised a Catholic.

And he still practiced Catholicism after he converted to Judiasm.

What a phony.

I have no sympathy for him. He shouldn't go to jail but he should loose some visitation rights.

I imagine you'd all be singing a different tune if he snuck her off and enrolled her in an Islamic religion.

Gee, it must be great to to so perfect that you have never made a mistake. And that you are more concerned with some form of punishment for the father that you're happy to see his kids suffer - because when you stop access between parent and child, it is the child who suffers most. Contrary to popular female belief, are not the property of a mother. They are people in their own right.

It is when I read posts like yours that I understand why lefties see abortion as acceptable. They don't care about the child after its born, so no wonder it's a struggle to care before it is.

I find it fascinating how many Americans are not in the slightest bit interested in the rights of others.

You have obviously never gone through a custody battle.
This man is playing games, and the only reason why he baptized that child was to get at her mom and you know it. I also think his visitations should be limited, because like you said it is the child who is going to suffer because her father is acting like a child himself.
If you are the primary care giver for the child/full custody it is up to you how that child is raised, and the father should only have some input.

FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG. Once again dumb ass the non custodial parent has the LEGAL right to take their children to THEIR religious services when they have visitation. THAT includes Baptizing them in their church. You are a ******* DUMB ****.

 

[manifold]

I bet he doesn't trust the mother any more than she trusts him.

Should she be supervised too to make sure she doesnt' fill her daughter's head full of lies about her father?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

And the FATHER of the child taking her to church is cause for distrust... exactly why?

He took the child to church, knowing full well he was breaking the law. Why would I trust my child with someone who has no respect for a court order?

So it's OK for the courts to ban a person from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom?

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Why? Does he have a history of inappropriate behaviour towards the child? I don't agree with him taking her to church, but then the mother shouldn't foist her religion on the child either. Right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

She has custody and is raising the child according to her religious views.
He sneaks the child off and has her baptised a Catholic.

And he still practiced Catholicism after he converted to Judiasm.

What a phony.

I have no sympathy for him. He shouldn't go to jail but he should loose some visitation rights.

I imagine you'd all be singing a different tune if he snuck her off and enrolled her in an Islamic religion.

Gee, it must be great to to so perfect that you have never made a mistake. And that you are more concerned with some form of punishment for the father that you're happy to see his kids suffer - because when you stop access between parent and child, it is the child who suffers most. Contrary to popular female belief, are not the property of a mother. They are people in their own right.

It is when I read posts like yours that I understand why lefties see abortion as acceptable. They don't care about the child after its born, so no wonder it's a struggle to care before it is.

I find it fascinating how many Americans are not in the slightest bit interested in the rights of others.

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.

Once again Factually and LEGAL wrong. A non custodial parent has the LEGAL RIGHT to take their children to their religious services including having them Baptized into said religion.

 

[manifold]

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

And the FATHER of the child taking her to church is cause for distrust... exactly why?

He took the child to church, knowing full well he was breaking the law. Why would I trust my child with someone who has no respect for a court order?

And that poses a danger to the girl exactly how?

 

[Luissa]

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

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

So if you have ever gotten a speeding ticket, you should have to have supervised visitationas well.

After all if you have no respect for the law, you cannot be trusted with your own kids.

 

[manifold]

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.

So if you have ever gotten a speeding ticket, you should have to have supervised visitationas well.

After all if you have no respect for the law, you cannot be trusted with your own kids.

beat me to it rep

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you would alright with someone taking your child to a church you don't approve of?

Since when has a father been classified as 'someone'. It's his child too. Mothers do not have ownership of children - custody is not ownership. Kids ain't cars.

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.

The LAW states that the non custodial parent can legally take his child to his religious services. The mother has no say on what he does religious wise while he has the child.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have obviously never gone through a custody battle.
This man is playing games, and the only reason why he baptized that child was to get at her mom and you know it. I also think his visitations should be limited, because like you said it is the child who is going to suffer because her father is acting like a child himself.
If you are the primary care giver for the child/full custody it is up to you how that child is raised, and the father should only have some input.

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?

 

[Luissa]

Gee, it must be great to to so perfect that you have never made a mistake. And that you are more concerned with some form of punishment for the father that you're happy to see his kids suffer - because when you stop access between parent and child, it is the child who suffers most. Contrary to popular female belief, are not the property of a mother. They are people in their own right.

It is when I read posts like yours that I understand why lefties see abortion as acceptable. They don't care about the child after its born, so no wonder it's a struggle to care before it is.

I find it fascinating how many Americans are not in the slightest bit interested in the rights of others.

You have obviously never gone through a custody battle.
This man is playing games, and the only reason why he baptized that child was to get at her mom and you know it. I also think his visitations should be limited, because like you said it is the child who is going to suffer because her father is acting like a child himself.
If you are the primary care giver for the child/full custody it is up to you how that child is raised, and the father should only have some input.

FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG. Once again dumb ass the non custodial parent has the LEGAL right to take their children to THEIR religious services when they have visitation. THAT includes Baptizing them in their church. You are a ******* DUMB ****.

Of course RGS has to come in calling name, while most everyone else has been respectful.

He was told not to take the child to church, Crimson already pointed out that the judge had the right to do so. It was also a temporary ruling, if you had any clue you would know it was not the judge's final decision.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have obviously never gone through a custody battle.
This man is playing games, and the only reason why he baptized that child was to get at her mom and you know it. I also think his visitations should be limited, because like you said it is the child who is going to suffer because her father is acting like a child himself.
If you are the primary care giver for the child/full custody it is up to you how that child is raised, and the father should only have some input.

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

She might be, but how do you get that idea from this story? The mother is raising the child according to her religious customs, the customs the father agreed to when he converted to Judiasm.

Once again by the LAW he has every right to take her to his religious services and even baptize her in his faith.

 

[manifold]

Seems like Luissa believes that a mother's dislike for her ex-husband is sufficient grounds to limit him to only supervised visits with his child.

Pretty thin hurdle if you ask me.

And even if the visits were supervised, what right would the supervisor have to keep them from going to church?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have obviously never gone through a custody battle.
This man is playing games, and the only reason why he baptized that child was to get at her mom and you know it. I also think his visitations should be limited, because like you said it is the child who is going to suffer because her father is acting like a child himself.
If you are the primary care giver for the child/full custody it is up to you how that child is raised, and the father should only have some input.

FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG. Once again dumb ass the non custodial parent has the LEGAL right to take their children to THEIR religious services when they have visitation. THAT includes Baptizing them in their church. You are a ******* DUMB ****.

Of course RGS has to come in calling name, while most everyone else has been respectful.

He was told not to take the child to church, Crimson already pointed out that the judge had the right to do so. It was also a temporary ruling, if you had any clue you would know it was not the judge's final decision.

You are full of it, you are ranting and raving he should have his rights and visitation removed, that he has no LEGAL right to take his child to his religious services because the Mother has custody.

You are a LIAR.

The Judge had no legal right to make the ruling, ever hear of the 1st Amendment? The law states that the Judge can only make such rulings if the child will be put in danger. Taking a Child to religious services in a Catholic church does not cause any harm especially to a 3 year old.

 

[manifold]

Luissa,

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