Dad takes daughter to church, violates court order.

[Cubby]

SCM- I was being deliberately sarcastic with my posts. I agree with your last post. I am sure there is more to the story than what meets the eye. It just seems crazy that any parent could be court ordered to not expose a child to any religion and the other parent deeming if their child was exposed to any belief other than their own it would cause their child irreparable harm. Maybe I am wrong to assume the courts stay out of it unless a child is in some kind of danger.

Here we have a Catholic school, Lutheran school, Muslim school and Public school all within a 3-5 minute drive of each other in a residential neighborhood with 25 mile an hour speed limits. I think if these 'poor children' being exposed to each other and different beliefs were that extreme it would cause them irreparable harm, we'd have to built large gated communities and keep everyone segregated, not just religiously, but for each and every other minute difference we have. . Gangs, drugs, pedophiles, those cause children irreparable harm, as does two fighting parents. Exposure to more than a single religious belief does not. Now could I understand BOTH parents being court ordered to NOT bash the other parents religious choice YES, but not to put such restrictions on one parent over the other... especially when the judge shares the same religious belief as the mother. While he may very well not be biased, it would, imo, be in his best interest to recuse himself from this case and have a judge who practises neither Christianity or Judaism to hear the case, thus neither parent could cry foul.

JMO

 

[believe09]

Wait, wait wait a minute...there was a court order in place preventing this father from making decisions regarding the education, spiritual or otherwise, of his child. He violated it, and now he is hoping that by drawing the media into it, he will look like some kind of religious martyr rather than a non compliant co parent??

Other than the lack of parental kidnapping, is this case so far from the Jenkins/Miller case we have been following?

Stories like this, jmo, are designed to prevent people from seeing this story for what it is...dude willfully violated a standing order in his custodial agreement. End of story.

 

[Cubby]

Why do you say so believe? In the Jenkins Miller case, custodial interference is a violation of the law as is parental kidnapping. It was my understanding the laws, at least in the United States protect freedom of religion. What makes this court ordered choice or rather denial of choice of religion legal and within the basis of our constitutional rights?

 

[Cubby]

any child born of a Jewish mother is Jewish, not half Jewish. Is this child not entitled to have some security in the matter of her religious upbringing? Should she be taken to Jewish services by her mother, and Christian services by her father? It sounds as though the father converted to Judaism, and that he consented to have the child reared as Jewish. The fact that he sent the mother a picture of the child's baptism sounds like an act of spite.
I would feel the same way if a Jewish father refused to abide by the agreements he had made regarding his child's religious upbringing. As in so many marriages, when Daddy stops loving Mommy- and vice versa- the children become pawns in the family dissolution.

I can understand and respect this. however, even if dad agreed, and right now it is her word against his and vice versa, what were the two parents planning on doing with regards to this child spending time with her paternal extended family who still practised the Christian faith? Clearly, mom and dad would have had to have some kind of explaination for this child regarding the differences of faith, or...... and I am being sarcastic again, were they simply going to not allow this child any contact with her paternal family because "if this child was exposed to any faith other than Judaism it would cause her irreperable harm". I wonder if the judged asked either parent how they planned to handle that type of scenario if their marriage had not broken up before he decided upon the restraining order. just food for thought.

 

[southcitymom]

I can understand and respect this. however, even if dad agreed, and right now it is her word against his and vice versa, what were the two parents planning on doing with regards to this child spending time with her paternal extended family who still practised the Christian faith? Clearly, mom and dad would have had to have some kind of explaination for this child regarding the differences of faith, or...... and I am being sarcastic again, were they simply going to not allow this child any contact with her paternal family because "if this child was exposed to any faith other than Judaism it would cause her irreperable harm". I wonder if the judged asked either parent how they planned to handle that type of scenario if their marriage had not broken up before he decided upon the restraining order. just food for thought.

In Georgia, the parties tell the Judge HOW they are going to settle disputes over major issues (school, religion, academic, non-emergency healthcare...) in a Parenting Plan that is filed in agreement before the dispute comes up. Many parties choose mediation or arbitration to deal with such a dispute.

Courts always prefer parties work these things out themselves which is why they make the parties have a plan before it is needed.

I agree that it sounds like the Father in this case agreed to one course of action and then changed his mind and tried to "sneak" another course of action past the Mom. No Judge in the world is going to look favorably upon those types of hijinks.

 

[southcitymom]

Why do you say so believe? In the Jenkins Miller case, custodial interference is a violation of the law as is parental kidnapping. It was my understanding the laws, at least in the United States protect freedom of religion. What makes this court ordered choice or rather denial of choice of religion legal and within the basis of our constitutional rights?

Without knowing more, it seems to me that the Judge is simply ordering the Father to do what he agreed to do. The Father must not have presented a case based on religion freedom, though he may well do so now.

 

[Kimster]

Wait, wait wait a minute...there was a court order in place preventing this father from making decisions regarding the education, spiritual or otherwise, of his child. He violated it, and now he is hoping that by drawing the media into it, he will look like some kind of religious martyr rather than a non compliant co parent??

Other than the lack of parental kidnapping, is this case so far from the Jenkins/Miller case we have been following?

Stories like this, jmo, are designed to prevent people from seeing this story for what it is...dude willfully violated a standing order in his custodial agreement. End of story.

I agree with you in that he shouldn't have violated the court order. I would fight the court order if I were him and yet obey the law. I'm sure it didn't say he couldn't teach Christianity at home.

 

[RLynne]

While I generally agree with courts staying out of religion, it *is* different in family law.

I worked on a couple of cases where one parent was a Jehovah's Witness and the other was not. In one particular case, Mom had left the Church (and had primary placement of the child, for other varied reasons). Dad was a member, and Child wanted to be. However, the church was teaching Child that Mom, as an ex-member, was evil, going to hell, and a part of the antichrist.

After a whole lot of litigation, the parents shared joint custody (decision-making ability), *except* for religion, where Mom had sole authority. The beliefs were just irreconcilable, and the difference was causing some serious mental harm to the kid. When the kid turns 18 (if he hasn't already...this was awhile ago), he will, of course, be free to make his own religious decisions.

I *don't* know all the circumstances in the present case...but while it sucks when the courts have to make these sorts of decisions, sometimes it *is* the best thing for the kid. Irreconcilable religious beliefs within a family can cause some serious damage, and if the parents can't or won't come to an agreement, there really is no other choice but for court intervention.

 

[Kimster]

If the church is saying bad things about the other parent, then I totally agree that a court order of prevention is in order! Oh my gosh! That is horrid!!!

 

[believe09]

I agree with you in that he shouldn't have violated the court order. I would fight the court order if I were him and yet obey the law. I'm sure it didn't say he couldn't teach Christianity at home.

Hmmm...that is too bad. What if he were taking her to a Fundamentalist sect?

 

[believe09]

Why do you say so believe? In the Jenkins Miller case, custodial interference is a violation of the law as is parental kidnapping. It was my understanding the laws, at least in the United States protect freedom of religion. What makes this court ordered choice or rather denial of choice of religion legal and within the basis of our constitutional rights?

HUH? What does freedom of religion have to do with a court order specifiying how this child is to be raised?

Miller does not want her child to have contact with Jenkins allegedly because of her current views of her previous lifestyle. Parental kidnapping and custodial interference are the degree Miller took her fight to...set those actions aside and we have a disagreement between two parents on how a child is going to be raised. One that they could not settle on their own but had the court settle for them.

This father chooses not to challenge his issue in the court-instead he has decided to use the media to try and gain sympathy. IMHO, he is choosing to put his CHILD in the line of fire rather than making a challenge to the custodial agreement. Who does this make sense to? I dont think the issue is his religion at all-I think the issue is he wants to do what he wants to do regardless of what he has been told by the courts.

Is it any wonder he has a custodial agreement that spells everything out down to the religion the child will practice????

I am quite startled by the acceptance and support of his actions-I cannot picture a scenario where I would put a child of mine through a tug of war like this and not handle it above boards and within the framework that has been provided to him-the family court system.

 

[Cubby]

HUH? What does freedom of religion have to do with a court order specifiying how this child is to be raised?

Miller does not want her child to have contact with Jenkins allegedly because of her current views of her previous lifestyle. Parental kidnapping and custodial interference are the degree Miller took her fight to...set those actions aside and we have a disagreement between two parents on how a child is going to be raised. One that they could not settle on their own but had the court settle for them.

This father chooses not to challenge his issue in the court-instead he has decided to use the media to try and gain sympathy. IMHO, he is choosing to put his CHILD in the line of fire rather than making a challenge to the custodial agreement. Who does this make sense to? I dont think the issue is his religion at all-I think the issue is he wants to do what he wants to do regardless of what he has been told by the courts.

Is it any wonder he has a custodial agreement that spells everything out down to the religion the child will practice????

I am quite startled by the acceptance and support of his actions-I cannot picture a scenario where I would put a child of mine through a tug of war like this and not handle it above boards and within the framework that has been provided to him-the family court system.

I see your points, however Miller lost her custodial rights based on her 'religious beliefs' and allowing those religious beliefs to be turned into a weapon against her former partner. I don't have enough information from the article regarding the father, (other than his sending the picture to his childs mother) to demonstrate Reyes was willing to go to those same extremes as Miller. Mom, howver, having to have the courts write an order to exclude the childs 'other parent' from even so much as exposing the child to christianity tells me mom is willing to go to some extremes. Jenkins took her case to the media for support because she was being unfairly treated. Remember, initially Jenkins did not have custody, but only visitation... later Millers 'extremism' in her beliefs and actions (along with refusal to obey the courts order) caused the court to change their ruling. Jenkins took her issues with visitation interference before the media before the courts changed their ruling. At this point, I don't know that the father bringing this case before the media in the hopes of gaining public support to 'share some of his Christian beliefs' with his daughter is any different than Jenkins seeking media attention for her case as a then non custodial parent being denied equal treatment, as is Mr. Reyes, the current non custodial parent, also being denied equal treatment.

For me, the question remains which of these two parents is using religion as a weapon? I see one parent requesting his child be exposed to a variety of beliefs and to be able to share his belief despite it being different than the custodial parents and the other custodial parent claiming the child will suffer based on being exposed to anything other than the custodial parents single belief.

My other questions regarding the legality of a court order deciding a childs religious beliefs have apparently been answered. Makes me more glad my sons father and I have dealt with all but our initial child support order 6 years or so ago, out of the court system. While it has been rough, the deciding factor for myself, is I need to pick my battles, as I am not going to win them all. Apparently, for these parents, religion is an issue worth dragging this poor child through a tug of war through the courts.

JMO

 

[believe09]

Miller lost her custodial rights because she refused to play fair. I see your point, but at the end of the day this is how I see it. Miller defied order after order...at some point, the judge had to do something to ensure Jenkins right to Isabella.

There is a standing order in the case here in this thread that requires the father NOT to impose Christianity on the child. Or expose her to it.

But he did it anyway, sent a picture to Mom and then called a press conference.

Who is acting in the best interest of the child here? Mom said her piece and expects Dad to follow the order. He doesnt want to.

I am not sure he IS being denied equal treatment, but if he is and he has an issue he should seek relief in a manner that does not put the child in the middle of it.

I think it is creepy, quite frankly, to take a picture violating a court order and then send it to your ex spouse. It is vaguely stalkerish to me....

 

[Cubby]

I see your points Believe. I guess my thoughts at this point are the whether or not it is within our constitutional rights for the courts to deny he expose her to anything other than Judaism. I have no problem with the courts deciding which parent will be allowed to choose the faith in which a child will be raised. What I do question, and what concerns me is the courts going beyond that decision in this case. For example, say if one of this childs paternal relatives died. Technically as the court order was presented by the journalist ( who I am sure at least saw a copy of the restraining order before he printed his story ) the father would be breaking the law and could face jail time if he took his daughter to a funeral Mass for one of his family members.

I just don't know the extent at which the courts can legally restrict his 'exposing' his daughter to any beliefs outside of Judaism. I mean, technically, this means if he has friends from church who have either a crucifix hanging in their home, or a bible sitting out within view, he would be legally facing jail time or consequences for violating a restraining order which technically he could do simply by choosing to have dinner with his daughter and a couple he is friends with from church who have a child her same age, and his daughter sees a Christian bible or crucifix in a friends home. This is where I am questioning the courts decision.

I think BOTH parents in this case clearly have some deep seated issues between themselves and religion just happens to be an avenue they are BOTH fighting over at this point.

JMO

 

[believe09]

This is a separation between church and state. Family court is the end game here.

JMO.

And FWIW, we have absolutely NO IDEA what led up to the decision by the judge. Perhaps Dad was telling the child that there is something abhorrent about Judaism. That the Jews killed Christ....we do not know. But, given the fact that the decision was clear in that Dad was not to HARM the child by exposing her to his faith, I would say that it comfortably trumped the freedom of religion argument.

 

[Linda7NJ]

SCM- I was being deliberately sarcastic with my posts. I agree with your last post. I am sure there is more to the story than what meets the eye. It just seems crazy that any parent could be court ordered to not expose a child to any religion and the other parent deeming if their child was exposed to any belief other than their own it would cause their child irreparable harm. Maybe I am wrong to assume the courts stay out of it unless a child is in some kind of danger.

Here we have a Catholic school, Lutheran school, Muslim school and Public school all within a 3-5 minute drive of each other in a residential neighborhood with 25 mile an hour speed limits. I think if these 'poor children' being exposed to each other and different beliefs were that extreme it would cause them irreparable harm, we'd have to built large gated communities and keep everyone segregated, not just religiously, but for each and every other minute difference we have. . Gangs, drugs, pedophiles, those cause children irreparable harm, as does two fighting parents. Exposure to more than a single religious belief does not. Now could I understand BOTH parents being court ordered to NOT bash the other parents religious choice YES, but not to put such restrictions on one parent over the other... especially when the judge shares the same religious belief as the mother. While he may very well not be biased, it would, imo, be in his best interest to recuse himself from this case and have a judge who practises neither Christianity or Judaism to hear the case, thus neither parent could cry foul.

JMO

I'm an atheist and I think the father should be able to take his child to church, celebrate Christmas and the mother should be able to take her to Temple and celebrate Hanukkah.

Really, what's the big deal? Expose her to both and let the child chose if she wants to, when she is grown.

Having the judge order the brainwashing of a child is just wrong.

 

[Cubby]

This is a separation between church and state. Family court is the end game here.

JMO.

And FWIW, we have absolutely NO IDEA what led up to the decision by the judge. Perhaps Dad was telling the child that there is something abhorrent about Judaism. That the Jews killed Christ....we do not know. But, given the fact that the decision was clear in that Dad was not to HARM the child by exposing her to his faith, I would say that it comfortably trumped the freedom of religion argument.

I'm not ready to jump the gun that family court trumps the constitution and does not have rules they have to work within...... Nor am I ready to put the burden of "harming" this child solely on the father by the simple act of sharing his religious beliefs which differ from the childs mother. I simply don't have enough information from one news story to make that determination. From what I got from the article your above scenario, imo, is speculation, as would be the putting the sole responsiblity for this being unfair on the mother.

I simply want to know to what extent the courts can rule a child CAN NOT be exposed to ANY religion other than judaism, or it will cause the child irreperable harm. What proof of harm did the article offer? None that I saw.Imo, it sounds like the picture did more harm to the mother based on her beliefs than it would actually cause harm to the child. This mother, imo, had a choice to have a child with a man who did not share her beliefs. From what the father is stating he was 'cooerced' to convert. If she really wanted to have a child who would not be exposed to people who are not of the Jewish faith, she should have chosen a father who shared her beliefs. She made the decision to have a child with a man she knew was of a different faith. Honestly, it sounds more than a bit petty on both sides.

Can his tactics be questioned? Certainly, but heck, who knows what would have happened with the civil rights movement if not for Rosa Parks. Perhaps a court order indicating yes, I believe something different than you and mommy.. and when you are 18 you will have a choice as to what you believe, but to DENY him to even speak it? Denying a person the freedom to share their religious belief with their child. I'm just not sure that did not cross a line. so I will be awaiting further decisions of the court or further information regarding the case. In the mean time, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Cubby]

I'm an atheist and I think the father should be able to take his child to church, celebrate Christmas and the mother should be able to take her to Temple and celebrate Hanukkah.

Really, what's the big deal? Expose her to both and let the child chose if she wants to, when she is grown.

Having the judge order the brainwashing of a child is just wrong.

I agree, I have seen this scenario numerous times with couples who are of different faiths. I'd really love to know if the judge asked them how they planned to handle the differences in beliefs had the marriage not failed. Clearly they HAD to have discussed that prior to marrying. At least one would think so.....

 

[Boyz_Mum]

Snips from link in OP:

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Reyes.Jewish.Catholic.2.1365449.html

It's a picture of Joseph Reyes and his 3-year-old daughter on the day she was baptized as a Roman Catholic. It was a happy day for this 35-year old Chicago man. But to his estranged wife, it was a malicious act.


"I wouldn't harm my daughter simply to somehow spite my soon (soon)to-be ex-wife," Joseph Reyes said. "That's silly and ridiculous."


Based on this article, I honestly feel Mr Reyes could have waited to have his daughter baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. The article implies the divorce wasn't over and I honestly feel he could have waited and even addressed this in the divorce/custody papers.

If the child has been raised with Judaism as the practiced faith in the household, I would think it best to continue that practice. I have no problem with the child being exposed to Catholicism but to baptize the child into the faith is another area IMO all together. He didn't just take her to church and expose her to a different religion, he had her baptized. IMO, Mr Reyes was out of line. I hope this couple (or non-couple) can figure this out and somehow work together in the long run in making decisions.

JMO.

I wanted to add that since baptism is frequently done while the child is an infant (not that some don't wait for various reasons), I am curious if the father had ever intended to raise the child in the Catholic faith, until it was being challenged? JMO and just curious.

 

[believe09]

I'm not ready to jump the gun that family court trumps the constitution and does not have rules they have to work within...... Nor am I ready to put the burden of "harming" this child solely on the father by the simple act of sharing his religious beliefs which differ from the childs mother. I simply don't have enough information from one news story to make that determination. From what I got from the article your above scenario, imo, is speculation, as would be the putting the sole responsiblity for this being unfair on the mother.

I simply want to know to what extent the courts can rule a child CAN NOT be exposed to ANY religion other than judaism, or it will cause the child irreperable harm. What proof of harm did the article offer? None that I saw.Imo, it sounds like the picture did more harm to the mother based on her beliefs than it would actually cause harm to the child. This mother, imo, had a choice to have a child with a man who did not share her beliefs. From what the father is stating he was 'cooerced' to convert. If she really wanted to have a child who would not be exposed to people who are not of the Jewish faith, she should have chosen a father who shared her beliefs. She made the decision to have a child with a man she knew was of a different faith. Honestly, it sounds more than a bit petty on both sides.

Can his tactics be questioned? Certainly, but heck, who knows what would have happened with the civil rights movement if not for Rosa Parks. Perhaps a court order indicating yes, I believe something different than you and mommy.. and when you are 18 you will have a choice as to what you believe, but to DENY him to even speak it? Denying a person the freedom to share their religious belief with their child. I'm just not sure that did not cross a line. so I will be awaiting further decisions of the court or further information regarding the case. In the mean time, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Jump the gun? :waitasec: