Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[Ravi]

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.

Link?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

I agree the father is being a tool, but I totally disagree that because the mother has custody of the child she has more say in the upbringing. Sometimes custody is given so the child has a more stable life, not because one parent is better than the other. Find your opinion very Kramer vs Kramerish ....

We can only follow the law. For all I know, the mother is a schizoid...but she does have custody and that counts for something.

The court had no legal right to issue the order. It is established law that a non custodial parent can take their children to their religious ceremonies when they have custody. They even, gasp, have the right to baptize them in their religion.

 

[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.

Really? Why? I don't recall a right to see your child...there are many, many reasons to keep parents away from their children if the parents are causing harm.

All efforts to show how the father here caused his daughter harm have failed.

Feel free to try to do better.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Link?

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

 

[Ravi]

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?

Jeesh! You all really distrust women, don't you? SHE wasn't doing anything with the child that wasn't already agreed upon. He was.

I see you can't get past your knee jerk defense of anyone with a penis, no matter how wrong they may be.

 

[manifold]

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.

I agree the father is being a tool, but I totally disagree that because the mother has custody of the child she has more say in the upbringing. Sometimes custody is given so the child has a more stable life, not because one parent is better than the other. Find your opinion very Kramer vs Kramerish ....

We can only follow the law. For all I know, the mother is a schizoid...but she does have custody and that counts for something.

something?

Based on the opinions you've expressed so far, I'd say you think it counts for EVERYTHING.

And of course I disagree.

 

[Ravi]

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?

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

 

[manifold]

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?

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

One of the perks of parenthood.

 

[Ravi]

It's a child, not a ******* car. Unless there is a seriously good reason, both parents should be equally responsible - nothing to do with the law - to do with the best interest of the child.

That would work great, in fantasy land!
And the father agreed to raise the child as jewish, not the mother's fault he went back on his word.

The mother married him for all eternity, she went back on HER word. Last I checked conversion to Judaism is not something that can not be undone. And LEGALLY he gets to decide what his faith is and he gets to take his child to those services. Once again need I remind you of the 1st Amendment?

Um, no...she did not. Not everyone subscribes to the silly rules of the Angel Macaroni.

 

[Dr Grump]

SHE wasn't doing anything with the child that wasn't already agreed upon. He was..

Of course he agreed with her when they were young and in love and said things to appease her and her parents. Now they are split, he can once again be his true self. Are you saying you had the same ideals and values and thoughts on subjects since you first formed ideas? Mine have changed over time, as do most peoples. Some do stay the same, but not all....

 

[Dr Grump]

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

Aren't both parents doing that?

 

[Ravi]

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!

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

The law says he has the right to expose her to his religion too.

Link? And even if true...baptism is more than exposure.

 

[manifold]

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.

 

[Ravi]

Luissa,

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

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

The law says he has the right to expose her to his religion too.

Link? And even if true...baptism is more than exposure.

AGAIN watch the tape, it is covered.

 

[manifold]

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

The law says he has the right to expose her to his religion too.

Link? And even if true...baptism is more than exposure.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how that endangers the child to the point where his visits should be supervised.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

California Girl did not side with the Mom.

 

[Ravi]

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

Is that true Stateside? Honest question...not too sure if that is your opinion or fact. If fact, that really sucks....

It is true. The custodial parent can also go to jail if they **** up...so it makes sense.

 

[manifold]

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

Aren't both parents doing that?

The mother is actually doing it moreso.

She wants to limit the daughter's exposure to one and only one religion. The dad is ok with her being exposed to two.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

hmmmm? It wasn't just taking her to church. I'd feel the same way if the situation were reversed. The custodial parent simply enjoys more rights because they are also the responsible party. Just a sad fact of life.

Sad for the kids, that is...the parents are the ones that made all the bad choices.

Is that true Stateside? Honest question...not too sure if that is your opinion or fact. If fact, that really sucks....

It is true. The custodial parent can also go to jail if they **** up...so it makes sense.

Once again RETARD watch the tape, LEGALLY the non custodial parent has every right to take their children to THEIR religious services unless the Custodial parent can prove harm.