Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[Modbert]

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

As a guy, I know exactly what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to the issue of visiting rights. However, if the mother was the person who had primary care, then her wishes should be followed primarily.

That's the thing, who has primary care? Who's the one who is raising them the majority of the time? And things such as these should go down to the parent they are living with, who they are growing up with. Not the one whom they visit with. From what I understand, mothers usually have primary care unless they request otherwise or are just so fucked up beyond belief.

It can suck sometimes, but that's the way it goes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Wait let me get this straight..... the Mother claims they made an agreement and that, according to you is absolutely the truth. The Father denies it and THAT is a biased source? Have I got that about right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

 

[Modbert]

Wait let me get this straight..... the Mother claims they made an agreement and that, according to you is absolutely the truth. The Father denies it and THAT is a biased source? Have I got that about right?

No. But I question why the father is making this a issue now, 3 years later. Why not previously? Where was he these 7 months?

And considering the father already broke the law once in this case, it makes it more difficult for me to believe him.

I also noticed you ignored my valid point about you playing semantics and going to services.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

No. What is happening is that the father is trying to make sure that the child is not jewish in order to use religion to hurt the mother --- when he agreed on the child's religion when it was born -- probably before.

let me ask you something... i could marry someone non-jewish, no problem, right?

do you think for a single, solitary, second I would allow my child to be raised christian? And how badly would someone have to want to hurt me to do that? Not because I'm opposed to christianity. But because passing on my religion is important to me... it's important to many of us, particularly given how many family lines were destroyed.

seriously.... i know EXACTLY where this case comes from.

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

 

[manifold]

Absolutely...but they both agreed on it to begin with.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wait let me get this straight..... the Mother claims they made an agreement and that, according to you is absolutely the truth. The Father denies it and THAT is a biased source? Have I got that about right?

No. But I question why the father is making this a issue now, 3 years later. Why not previously? Where was he these 7 months?

And considering the father already broke the law once in this case, it makes it more difficult for me to believe him.

I also noticed you ignored my valid point about you playing semantics and going to services.

I ignored it because it is unimportant. If the Mother ACTUALLY was all hell bent on raising the child Jewish before they divorced and not now because she knows it will piss off the Father she would have started a lot sooner and more often then once or twice.

 

[Dr Grump]

[quo

No. What is happening is that the father is trying to make sure that the child is not jewish.

No he's not. If you read the piece Kathi linked he has no problem with her learning Judism...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

No. What is happening is that the father is trying to make sure that the child is not jewish in order to use religion to hurt the mother --- when he agreed on the child's religion when it was born -- probably before.

let me ask you something... i could marry someone non-jewish, no problem, right?

do you think for a single, solitary, second I would allow my child to be raised christian? And how badly would someone have to want to hurt me to do that? Not because I'm opposed to christianity. But because passing on my religion is important to me... it's important to many of us, particularly given how many family lines were destroyed.

seriously.... i know EXACTLY where this case comes from.

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

He says he NEVER agreed.

 

[Dr Grump]

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 and will deny it. I think it atrocious that only the mother gets to decide such things. As if a mother is the only one who is capable of making these decisions.

Also, your first paragraph - the court order only pertains to the second time he took her to church....the first time there was no court order. Still think it outrageous that the judge put in such an order.

 

[Immanuel]

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

As a guy, I know exactly what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to the issue of visiting rights. However, if the mother was the person who had primary care, then her wishes should be followed primarily.

That's the thing, who has primary care? Who's the one who is raising them the majority of the time? And things such as these should go down to the parent they are living with, who they are growing up with. Not the one whom they visit with. From what I understand, mothers usually have primary care unless they request otherwise or are just so fucked up beyond belief.

It can suck sometimes, but that's the way it goes.

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

 

[Annie]

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

As a guy, I know exactly what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to the issue of visiting rights. However, if the mother was the person who had primary care, then her wishes should be followed primarily.

That's the thing, who has primary care? Who's the one who is raising them the majority of the time? And things such as these should go down to the parent they are living with, who they are growing up with. Not the one whom they visit with. From what I understand, mothers usually have primary care unless they request otherwise or are just so fucked up beyond belief.

It can suck sometimes, but that's the way it goes.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Immanuel]

As a guy, I know exactly what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to the issue of visiting rights. However, if the mother was the person who had primary care, then her wishes should be followed primarily.

That's the thing, who has primary care? Who's the one who is raising them the majority of the time? And things such as these should go down to the parent they are living with, who they are growing up with. Not the one whom they visit with. From what I understand, mothers usually have primary care unless they request otherwise or are just so fucked up beyond belief.

It can suck sometimes, but that's the way it goes.

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

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

 

[manifold]

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

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[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.

Gonna just IGNORE the fact the Father STATES that is NOT true?

 

[jillian]

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?

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.

 

[manifold]

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.

I'm not even a learned lawyer like you and even I know that's not legally binding.

Interesting that you're spouting a bunch of shit that it is though.