Family Court orders Dad not to take child to catholic church

[manifold]

Jillian, I would ask a question. Passing on your faith is important to you as it should be. Why can you not see that it might also be important to me as a Christian to pass my faith on to my children and extending that to the father in this case?

I agree that in this case, it appears that the father is using his daughter to get back at the mother and that is wrong, but he should have the right to expose his daughter to his faith and thus to his own upbringing. Don't you agree?

Immie

if he converted (which I hadn't seen before) his religion is jewish. So what religion is he passing on? The one he didn't believe in enough to keep?

And the answer is no. Not when their understanding is otherwise.

I have a cousin and a friend who each agreed to raise their child catholic for their husbands. End of story... there IS no other religion to be taught to the kids under those circumstances.

The father's whims are irrelevant and harmful to the child. Mostly, lots of things happen in healthy relationships, such as children being exposed to both of their parents' beliefs. When there has been a divorce, someone gets final say. And under these circumstances mom wins. Under other circumstances dad would.

for example...if i married an atheist who thought it emotionally harmful for his children to be exposed to religion...and i agreed to abide by that when i got married. i'd be obligated to see that through.

Once again your opinion is not legally binding.

 

[Ravi]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

His conversion does not equate to his agreement to raise the child Jewish. Nice try though. But to the point, even if he had agreed he has every LEGAL right to change his mind. And the Courts have no right to interfere so long as his actions are not going to cause harm to the child. I am STILL waiting for one of you to point out the HARM part.

 

[California Girl]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

That is not what the father says. Are we all to take the mother's word over the fathers? How very sexist.

For the record, I think both parents are behaving badly.

 

[Ravi]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

His conversion does not equate to his agreement to raise the child Jewish. Nice try though. But to the point, even if he had agreed he has every LEGAL right to change his mind. And the Courts have no right to interfere so long as his actions are not going to cause harm to the child. I am STILL waiting for one of you to point out the HARM part.

Yes. It. Does.

He would not be received as a Jew if he did not agree to this...just like someone would not be received as a converted Catholic if they did not agree to raise their children Catholic.

And of course he has a right to change his mind. What he doesn't have a right to do is use his daughter as a tool (that's where the harm comes in you freaking retard) and until the case goes through divorce court and agreements are hammered out neither parent has a right to break this agreement against the wishes of the other.

 

[Ravi]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

That is not what the father says. Are we all to take the mother's word over the fathers? How very sexist.

For the record, I think both parents are behaving badly.

There's nothing sexist about understanding what a conversion to a religion means.

However, it is sexist of you to call me sexist.

 

[Immanuel]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

First, I did not say baptism was meaningless.

Second, according to the Father, there was no verbal agreement. Also, a verbal agreement is not legally binding because it can not be proven to have existed in the first place.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

First, I did not say baptism was meaningless.

Second, according to the Father, there was no verbal agreement. Also, a verbal agreement is not legally binding because it can not be proven to have existed in the first place.

Immie

I didn't say you did...quit being so paranoid.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that one may not become a member of a religion without agreeing that if children are produced they are raised in that religion. It is true of Judaism and Catholicism and as far as I know every other religion.

 

[Immanuel]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

First, I did not say baptism was meaningless.

Second, according to the Father, there was no verbal agreement. Also, a verbal agreement is not legally binding because it can not be proven to have existed in the first place.

Immie

I didn't say you did...quit being so paranoid.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that one may not become a member of a religion without agreeing that if children are produced they are raised in that religion. It is true of Judaism and Catholicism and as far as I know every other religion.

I wasn't being paranoid. I believe I was the only one to imply that being baptized doesn't mean one is automatically saved or even a Christian. I just wanted to clarify what I said.

Also, whether or not he truly converted is still in question. He may have said that he would be Jewish simply to bring about peace in the family. That does not mean he was Jewish. From the entire story, it seems that the guy IS a jerk. He IS using his daughter to punish his ex-wife.

And another thing, if he DID not convert to Judaism, then he was at the very least dishonest with his wife. The guy does NOT deserve any pats on the back.

However, simply assuming that all of this is his fault is nothing short of... SEXIST!

Immie

 

[manifold]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

How much do you want to bet that when this gets settled, he'll be allowed to take his daughter to church?

 

[manifold]

His conversion does not equate to his agreement to raise the child Jewish. Nice try though. But to the point, even if he had agreed he has every LEGAL right to change his mind. And the Courts have no right to interfere so long as his actions are not going to cause harm to the child. I am STILL waiting for one of you to point out the HARM part.

Oh but haven't you been paying attention?

The vagina nazis insist that "using his child as a pawn" constitutes enough harm that he shouldn't be allowed visitation rights.

As if 99% of bitter divorcees don't use the kids to get back at each other.

 

[manifold]

For the record, I think both parents are behaving badly.

Bingo!

The only difference is she has a Jew judge on her side. Shocker!

 

[Ravi]

First, I did not say baptism was meaningless.

Second, according to the Father, there was no verbal agreement. Also, a verbal agreement is not legally binding because it can not be proven to have existed in the first place.

Immie

I didn't say you did...quit being so paranoid.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that one may not become a member of a religion without agreeing that if children are produced they are raised in that religion. It is true of Judaism and Catholicism and as far as I know every other religion.

I wasn't being paranoid. I believe I was the only one to imply that being baptized doesn't mean one is automatically saved or even a Christian. I just wanted to clarify what I said.

Also, whether or not he truly converted is still in question. He may have said that he would be Jewish simply to bring about peace in the family. That does not mean he was Jewish. From the entire story, it seems that the guy IS a jerk. He IS using his daughter to punish his ex-wife.

And another thing, if he DID not convert to Judaism, then he was at the very least dishonest with his wife. The guy does NOT deserve any pats on the back.

However, simply assuming that all of this is his fault is nothing short of... SEXIST!

Immie

If he didn't convert then I agree with your point. He did say he did...but of course he appears to be somewhat of a liar.

I never said "this is all his fault," what is his fault is that he used his daughter for a tool and violated a court order. For all I know his wife is a nasty bitch...but for the purposes of what we are discussing he was in the wrong and I believe the judge ruled correctly on the matter with this temporary bandaid.

 

[Ravi]

His conversion does not equate to his agreement to raise the child Jewish. Nice try though. But to the point, even if he had agreed he has every LEGAL right to change his mind. And the Courts have no right to interfere so long as his actions are not going to cause harm to the child. I am STILL waiting for one of you to point out the HARM part.

Oh but haven't you been paying attention?

The vagina nazis insist that "using his child as a pawn" constitutes enough harm that he shouldn't be allowed visitation rights.

As if 99% of bitter divorcees don't use the kids to get back at each other.

No one ever said that. But props to you for admitting what a sexist asshole you are by defending his behavior.

 

[manifold]

You're talking out of your vagina again Ravi.

And p.u. time for a douche!

 

[Immanuel]

I didn't say you did...quit being so paranoid.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that one may not become a member of a religion without agreeing that if children are produced they are raised in that religion. It is true of Judaism and Catholicism and as far as I know every other religion.

I wasn't being paranoid. I believe I was the only one to imply that being baptized doesn't mean one is automatically saved or even a Christian. I just wanted to clarify what I said.

Also, whether or not he truly converted is still in question. He may have said that he would be Jewish simply to bring about peace in the family. That does not mean he was Jewish. From the entire story, it seems that the guy IS a jerk. He IS using his daughter to punish his ex-wife.

And another thing, if he DID not convert to Judaism, then he was at the very least dishonest with his wife. The guy does NOT deserve any pats on the back.

However, simply assuming that all of this is his fault is nothing short of... SEXIST!

Immie

If he didn't convert then I agree with your point. He did say he did...but of course he appears to be somewhat of a liar.

I never said "this is all his fault," what is his fault is that he used his daughter for a tool and violated a court order. For all I know his wife is a nasty bitch...but for the purposes of what we are discussing he was in the wrong and I believe the judge ruled correctly on the matter with this temporary bandaid.

Thank you for clarifying that about it all being his fault.

As for the Judge's ruling, I'd have to say that the temporary remedy was probably a good idea. It would have given the judge a period of time to review the case and make a decision based upon the actions of the parents. It is not like the judge said, "Thou shalt never take thy daughter, Ela, into a Christian house of worship".

I do not believe that the judge would have that right. But, he does have the right to put a temporary stay on the actions of the father.

If it were me and the judge made it permanent, I would have to risk being charged with contempt, but a thirty day stay was reasonable.

Immie

 

[Ravi]

I wasn't being paranoid. I believe I was the only one to imply that being baptized doesn't mean one is automatically saved or even a Christian. I just wanted to clarify what I said.

Also, whether or not he truly converted is still in question. He may have said that he would be Jewish simply to bring about peace in the family. That does not mean he was Jewish. From the entire story, it seems that the guy IS a jerk. He IS using his daughter to punish his ex-wife.

And another thing, if he DID not convert to Judaism, then he was at the very least dishonest with his wife. The guy does NOT deserve any pats on the back.

However, simply assuming that all of this is his fault is nothing short of... SEXIST!

Immie

If he didn't convert then I agree with your point. He did say he did...but of course he appears to be somewhat of a liar.

I never said "this is all his fault," what is his fault is that he used his daughter for a tool and violated a court order. For all I know his wife is a nasty bitch...but for the purposes of what we are discussing he was in the wrong and I believe the judge ruled correctly on the matter with this temporary bandaid.

Thank you for clarifying that about it all being his fault.

As for the Judge's ruling, I'd have to say that the temporary remedy was probably a good idea. It would have given the judge a period of time to review the case and make a decision based upon the actions of the parents. It is not like the judge said, "Thou shalt never take thy daughter, Ela, into a Christian house of worship".

I do not believe that the judge would have that right. But, he does have the right to put a temporary stay on the actions of the father.

If it were me and the judge made it permanent, I would have to risk being charged with contempt, but a thirty day stay was reasonable.

Immie

Yep. But don't tell RGS, let him continue his freak out over nothing.

 

[California Girl]

An agreement, even a verbal agreement, is legally binding.

When the man converted to Judaism, he agreed to raise any children in that religion.

That is all.

And funny that a few here state that baptism is meaningless.

That is not what the father says. Are we all to take the mother's word over the fathers? How very sexist.

For the record, I think both parents are behaving badly.

There's nothing sexist about understanding what a conversion to a religion means.

However, it is sexist of you to call me sexist.

Then why are you assuming that the mother is telling the truth? Why not the father? It seems to me that some people (not necessarily you) are very quick to assume that the facts are as reported. Yet we all know that the media do not necessarily print ALL the facts, and on occasion, deliberately slant an article to favor one side over the other. Also, most of us (including you) recognize that divorces are messy on occasion and sometimes parents act in their own interest at the expense of their child. Some use their child as a weapon against their 'enemy'.

It is just not acceptable to assume the mother is being honest, any more than it is acceptable to punish the father by, as someone on here suggested, removing his visitation. No one, no matter who you are, has the right to come between a parent and child in order to punish the 'offending' parent. The child suffers more than the parent and the poor kids suffer enough in these circumstances.

 

[Shogun]

seriously. First ravi cries about my take on jews as if I don't also enjoy shitting on christians... and then she launches strait into the most predictable "vagina says so" self-righteous bullshit this side of the sun rising and her eternal rebuttal?


"you are sexist!"


*yawn*

Ravi might just be the Sarah Palin of USMB.

 

[Ravi]

That is not what the father says. Are we all to take the mother's word over the fathers? How very sexist.

For the record, I think both parents are behaving badly.

There's nothing sexist about understanding what a conversion to a religion means.

However, it is sexist of you to call me sexist.

Then why are you assuming that the mother is telling the truth? Why not the father? It seems to me that some people (not necessarily you) are very quick to assume that the facts are as reported. Yet we all know that the media do not necessarily print ALL the facts, and on occasion, deliberately slant an article to favor one side over the other. Also, most of us (including you) recognize that divorces are messy on occasion and sometimes parents act in their own interest at the expense of their child. Some use their child as a weapon against their 'enemy'.

It is just not acceptable to assume the mother is being honest, any more than it is acceptable to punish the father by, as someone on here suggested, removing his visitation. No one, no matter who you are, has the right to come between a parent and child in order to punish the 'offending' parent. The child suffers more than the parent and the poor kids suffer enough in these circumstances.

Whoa...if the guy says he converted to Judaism and he did not, he is a liar. If he did convert then he agreed to raise his kid as a Jew.

No one said to remove his visitation, rather I said, and I believe Luissa did, that his visitation should be supervised. And in fact, how else would the court know if he violates the court order or not?

I don't know if the mother is telling the truth. I do know that he said he converted and that is his admission that he agreed to raise the child as a Jew.