Religion invoked in custody battle between divorced parents in Chicago

[alp227]

I found this extraordinary Good Morning America story on Twitter just now. Joseph Reyes could face up to 6 months in jail for violating a restraining order by his ex-wife. What exactly is that order?

An already ugly divorce and child custody fight in Chicago has given way to a battle over religion.

On Tuesday, 35-year-old law student Joseph Reyes was arraigned in a downtown Chicago courtroom on charges he violated a temporary restraining order that says he can’t expose his 3-year-old daughter to any other religion than Judaism.

The order was sought by his estranged wife.

Reyes, who is Catholic, acknowledges he took their daughter Ela to Holy Name Cathedral on Jan. 17 — accompanied by a local television news crew — and that’s what landed him in trouble most recently.

Source: "Ugly divorce, custody fight turns into religious battle ", Chicago Sun-Times

Reyes was interviewed on GMA this morning.

I guess PZ Myers would've said that this kind of story would confirm his beliefs that religion is nothing more than divisive nonsense. I'd sorta agree with him, and I think this is just really silly. What about the First Amendment freedom of religion clause? If Reyes appealed to federal court, what do you think would happen?

[polichick]

1. Good grief - maybe someone needs to rescue the child from both religious nuts. nt

[alp227]

2. Speaking of nuts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathima_Rifqa_Bary_controversy

[polichick]

6. The American Taliban strikes again. nt

[etherealtruth]

7. My guess is that religion is simply being used as weapon ....

... against the other parent.

I was involved in a somewhat acrimonious divorce from a man who is a Muslim .... I was raised in an Irish/Scot catholic family .... even through the acrimony we both were able to see it was in the best interest of our children to know both religions and culture .... if only to help them see how their families were shaped.

My children are fairly agnostic .... but they understand both religious and cultural backgrounds.

[polichick]

8. Good for you and your ex, putting the kids first!

[Darth_Kitten]

26. Why? The father is not the one getting a restraining order?

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Wait...what? How did religion make it into a restraining order?

She got a RESTRAINING ORDER to ensure the child was only exposed to a certain RELIGION??? First Amendment, anyone? :wtf:

[frazzled]

9. If you read the story it makes some sense

The mother had sole custody of the child (with visitation by father). On one of his weekend visits, he took the child and had her baptized, and sent the mother photographs of it. That really sounds like a fairly provocative, vindictive thing to do.

If the mother was granted sole custody, the judge probably felt she had the right to make the basic choices in how to raise the child. Having your child baptized, unbeknownst to the custodial parent, is an aggressive act. I side with the mother and the judge on this one.

[Hello_Kitty]

14. I side with the First Amendment and subsequent case law affirming it at the state level.

No establishment of religion. The dad is a dick but the mom shouldn't get to use the power of law to curtail his ability to expose his child to his religion.

[msanthrope]

16. It isn't a First Amendment issue. He's "being a dick." (That's the legal term.)

The father isn't prevented from practicing his own religion.

Which is Judiasm, by the way. He converted.

What he did was---after not seeing his child for 7 months--take his Jewish 3-year old who attends a Jewish pre-school to a church, had her baptized, and sent the pictures to the mother.

It's called, in family law, "being a dick."

You know, when you do something that you KNOW will piss the custodial parent off. Like cut the kids hair, get their ears pierced, or let them get a tattoo...and then send the kid home.

ETA--now, just think for asecond about the kid--she's three. The best interests of the child are stability. Not Daddy deciding to change her religion/culture for the hell of it.

[LeftyMom]

30. Wow, I've never heard of anybody other than my dad pulling the sneak baptism thing.

Still, even if he was a douche about it, I'm astounded a court told one parent they couldn't expose their kid to their religion and the other parent that they could. That's pretty hard to justify.

[msanthrope]

36. Well, it's a TRO, not a final order.

And baptism isn't 'exposure.' It's conversion.

[LeftyMom]

37. It's water.

I'm definitely not Catholic, no matter that a man in a dress dribbled some water on my head.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. I got baptized, First Communion, and confirmed.

41 years old and, nope, not a Catholic.

[msanthrope]

57. And that is your belief. You are entitled to it.

But it's not the belief of either parent in this case.

[WolverineDG]

20. Parents have the right to determine their child's religious education

and if the mother was the sole parent with that right by court order, the father violated that order by taking her to a Catholic Church.

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

22. I didn't realize that parental orders covered religion.

I had this quaint idea that the government wasn't in the business of protecting religion. And unless you totally sequester your child in a mono-religious community, chances are that they're going to be exposed to other beliefs from someone.

[WolverineDG]

25. They do

and it's not the "government protecting religion." It's a court order between 2 parents delineating the rights each of them has. If they were still together, there would be no court order. And why? Because enough "adults" were fucking selfish enough to jerk around with their kids' religious instruction, so someone had to step in & say who got which rights. In most cases, where the parents split amicably, this isn't an issue.

Other things included in court orders regarding custody are visitation times, who determines where the child lives, goes to school, who has the right to consent to the child working, enlisting in the military, getting married, having surgery....things the government isn't in the business of either, but I don't see you complaining about those.

dg

[msanthrope]

29. You nailed it...

custody orders encompass a great deal when the parents can't grow the frak up.

I had one where the father had to be ordered to return his daughter's clothes when visitation weekend was over.

No kidding. Mother would send the kid on Fridays, suitcase full. Dad would send suitcase back empty on Sunday.

Lather, rinse, repeat for a few months.

Mother asked for the clothes--the kid has to go to school, afterall....

Dad wouldn't let the kid take anything back home--not just clothes, but toys, etc...

So Mom stopped packing clothes. The kid had a friggin' wardrobe at Dad's right?

Turns out Dad's girlfriend's daughter was taking them for her own spawn.

No kidding--DAD and girlfriend take Mom to court to force her to keep packing clothes. They lose, but only because Mom was able to produce pictures of girlfriend's kids wearing her daughter's clothes.

[WolverineDG]

31. Yup, that's in Texas' custody orders too

as well as orders to return a child's medication. Every time I see those, I wonder why some adults just can't grow the hell up. I've told clients who've wanted to do similar "Do you really want to explain to the judge why you kept your child's antibiotic & cough medicine? Really? Because I double-guarantee you that you will not only lose that argument, you will look like a shit head to everyone in the courtroom."

dg

[msanthrope]

34. You're lucky your clients listen to the 'you'll look like a shithead' argument.

Seriously.

I wish I had clients who had any shame about looking like a shithead to the judge....

[WolverineDG]

yeah, well, not all of them have

I just tell them *I'm* not going to make that argument. If they just have to make an ass of themselves despite everything that I advised them, I'm not stopping them. :)

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Religion isn't clothing.

It's not like the daughter "loses" her Jewishness by participating in some Catholic rituals. If the mother isn't confident enough in the persuasiveness of her faith over her daughter, then that is her problem. Both parents are being immature here. He for using religion to taunt his ex-wife and she for being intolerant of other faiths.

[WolverineDG]

48. Please stop now

You're making yourself look like an idiot.

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

56. No, the parents are idiots and so are judges who insert themselves in religious conflicts.

The father for taunting the mother by baptizing the daughter and the mother for not being the bigger person and simply saying, "That's nice that you got her baptized but I'm still her primary caregiver and I'm going to continue to instruct her in the tenets of Judaism".

[msanthrope]

58. She's not going to stop--she's simply going to ignore the law

because she doesn't agree with it.

[WolverineDG]

59. or even want to understand it nt

[Hello_Kitty]

62. The law? Or the law as selectively applied to protected persuasions?

You really think if Mom were a Satanist the decision would be the same?

[varelse]

63. No, actually

she's made rather good points here.

[Winterblues]

69. Most parents want to expand their childs mind not limit it.

Granted there are the fools among us though..

[frazzled]

4. Parents involved in custody battles will invoke all kinds of crazy things

I've seen it get really insane, for no real purpose other than to punish the other party.

If this woman had a restraining order on the subject granted by a judge, and the father violated it intentionally, having television crews accompany him to rub it in a little further ... then my answer to your question would be: no, he would not have a successful appeal. A restraining order is a restraining order. He should have gone to court to appeal that, not appeal it in the court of public opinion.

[KamaAina]

5. Who in hell would grant such a TRO in the first place?

:wtf:

[msanthrope]

13. A judge who didn't want the kid used as a pawn.

If you read the article, child was raised Jewish. Then Dad has her baptized and takes pics and sends to ex--fairly provocative and using the kid as a pawn.

No doubt the judge issued a TRO until a psychologist/case worker could interview/counsel the child, and then advise the court.

[Hello_Kitty]

15. I am not comfortable with any use of the force of law to protect a religious belief.

Furthermore, I'm trying to imagine the mother getting a TRO against the father taking the daughter to church if she were an atheist and simply didn't want the girl exposed to any religion. I'm having a hard time imagining it being granted.

[msanthrope]

17. It's not to protect a religious belief--it's to stop him from using the kid to get at the mother.

Happens all the time in family law--non-custodial parent decides to piss of the custodial one....so non-custodial decides to do "x" action, knowing it will provoke trouble.

It could be religion, it could be skydiving.

Here, you have a TRO, not a permanent order. That means this jackass gets the benefit of a hearing, where he can explain why he, a Jew, decided to get his Jewish daughter, who goes to a Jewish school, baptized.

Then he can explain why he chose to then send pictures to his ex.

And why, as a second-year law student, he can't read a fucking TRO.....

No. This guy is a douche.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. I don't care "why", I care "what".

As a non-believer this makes me uneasy.

[msanthrope]

19. As a non-believer, it doesn't make me uneasy, at all.

Because my primary concern is the three year old, and her feelings of stability.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Why would participating in another religion threaten that?

And please, don't bring up the father showing photos to the mother again. That's the parents' problem, not the child's. She's three. A baptism will not traumatize her, and I say this as a recovering Catholic.

[msanthrope]

27. Why would non-consenting conversion to another religion harm a child?

Is that what you are asking me?

[WolverineDG]

32. Why should a Jewish mother go nuts when a Catholic baptizes her child?

Is what she's really asking.


dg

[msanthrope]

35. Yep.

Methinks that a little more recovery from Catholicism might be in order......

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Maybe a little relenting from her rigidity would be in order.

The dad did convert to her faith when they were married, after all, not she to his.

[WolverineDG]

Yeah, you go tell that to the ladies at the Temple

You'd better stand close to an exit & wear your running shoes though.

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

51. I think it would depend on the temple. Or the parish, for that matter. eom

[WolverineDG]

54. Guess again nt

[Hello_Kitty]

38. Did the 3 year old consent to the first religion?

Whose interests are you really thinking about here?

[WolverineDG]

39. You *DO* realize that parents have the right to decide what religion

to bring their child up in, right? SCOTUS has determined that parental rights are on almost-equal footing with rights outlined in the Constitution & in order to infringe on those rights, there must be a showing that the parent is unfit.



dg

[Hello_Kitty]

41. So isn't the father her parent too? Has he been declared unfit?

And the fact that he converted to Judaism before and is now practicing Catholicism is irrelevant. People change religions all the time. Who is the mother to arbitrarily decide what religion the daughter will experience?

[WolverineDG]

52. You are persistent

Status quo of this child is being raised in Judaism since birth & attending a Jewish school. Mom didn't "arbitrarily" decide anything.

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

61. I'd go along with that

Were it not for stuff like this:

Myers v. Myers, 14 Phila. 224, 256–57 (Com. Pl. 1986)
(“Although the issue of religion is not controlling in a custody case, the religious training of children is a matter of serious concern and is a factor that should be considered in rendering a custody decision. ‘A proper religious atmosphere is an attribute of a good home and it contributes significantly to the ultimate welfare of a child.’ Where it appears that the religious training of the children will cease upon placement in a given custodial setting, courts lean in favor of the religious-minded contestant.”), aff’d without op., 520 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986);

That's not a concern for "status quo", it's a preference for a religious home.

Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C.3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977)
(awarding custody to mother, noting as factor in her favor that she often took children to church, while father rarely did, that “his court has often noted the absence of any regular church attendance in the pre- sentence reports of those who have been convicted of some crime, which appear on our desk,” and that “a religious education and upbringing can have a substantial effect upon the outlook and attitudes of a child, and in turn upon the life of the adult he or she will become.”)

Only "status quo" under consideration there is the societal bias toward participation in mainstream religion as opposed to non-participation.

Pountain v. Pountain, 503 S.E.2d 757, 761 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998)
(upholding denial of custody to father whom court described as “agnostic,” and stating that “Although the religious beliefs of parents are not dispositive in a child custody dispute, they are a factor relevant to determining the best interest of a child”);

"Best interest", not status-quo.

Sims v. Stanfield, No. CA98-1040, 1999 WL 239888, at *3–*4 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 1999)
(noting that lower court based award of custody to father partly on father’s having “‘rekindled’ a relationship with his church,” “regularly attend services,” and providing “a Christian home,” but declining on procedural grounds to review this);

Definitely not "status quo" there.

In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. App. 1980)
(noting “the mother’s neglect of the children’s religious upbringing,” and “n atheistic philosophy . . . discussed by the new husband to some extent with the daughter, prompting her to advise her nursery school teacher that she was ‘not a Christian or a Jew but an atheist’”).

ZOMG NOOOOOO!!1!! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF TEH CHILDREN??!??1?

With all due respect, WolverineDG, this is why it's in the best interests of citizens for judges NOT to be protecting or advancing religion. Since I realize I'm but a lowly citizen and you are a lawyer, I showed this thread to my boyfriend, who got his JD in 1988 and has practiced law in 3 states. He agrees with me. And trust me, he does not agree with me on every legal issue.

[WolverineDG]

64. You don't get it because you are biased against religion

and quite ignorant too, if you think it's no big deal for a Jewish child to be baptized in a Catholic Church.

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

66. And that has what to do with the law? eom

[WolverineDG]

73. It prevents you from understanding it nt

[Hello_Kitty]

74. Yeah, I guess I don't understand why mainstream religions are given such protection in the court

Again, if the mother in the OP were a Satanist, I suspect she wouldn't be getting much sympathy from the judge.

[WolverineDG]

76. They aren't, as has been explained to you over & over nt

[msanthrope]

60. Holy crap. You really don't want to get it, do you?

Some lawyer, somewhere, sometime--Jeebus you are gonna pay him/her some serious fees....

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. He was Catholic before he converted to Judaism

At issue is a disputed agreement that the one-time couple would raise the girl in the Jewish faith, attorneys in the case say.

While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.

After the pair split, the second-year law student returned to Catholicism — and says the case unfolding goes to the heart of the Constitution: Freedom of Religion.

Though I agree baptising her, sending the photos, and then getting a film crew to follow you into the cathedral are stupid, provocative moves.

He should have just taken her to church and said nothing about it.

Or told her that all religion is people trying to control you, and that she should ignore it all.

[msanthrope]

28. Well, if he can't figure out what the frak he is....

Seriously--this guy is such a liar. He converted to Judiasm, but didn't agree to raise his daughter Jewish?

Then why the frak did you convert, jackass? Because you were gonna raise the kid Methodist?

[Hello_Kitty]

47. What business is it of anyone but him?

People change religions all the time. Maybe he's doing the Catholic thing to piss off his ex, and maybe it's in earnest. Maybe it's a bit of both.

[Randall Flagg]

10. If the parents were non-mainstream religions there would never have been a ruling

in the first place.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Same thing if the mother were an atheist. eom

[WolverineDG]

33. Wrong. both of you. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Oh rly?

http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/03/30/atheists-discriminated-against-in-child-custody-cases.htm

[WolverineDG]

46. The determination of which parent decides religious instruction is boiler plate in my state

all geared towards keeping disruption in the child's life to a minimum. If the status quo of the child is to go to church, even sporadically, then that is what figures into the "best interests" standard. (and it sounds like in at least one of those cases, the atheist/agnostic parent was being an asshole & putting the child--nursery school age!--in the middle of the dispute, so go figure why she didn't have custody).

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

49. No, it looks like judges are predisposed to prefer religious homes from most of those opinions.

One atheist parent being an asshole doesn't change that. Speaking of which:

(and it sounds like in at least one of those cases, the atheist/agnostic parent was being an asshole & putting the child--nursery school age!--in the middle of the dispute, so go figure why she didn't have custody).

It looks like BOTH parents are guilty of this in the OP.

[WolverineDG]

53. No, most of them are upholding the status quo of the child's life nt

[Randall Flagg]

50. I'll agree with Kitty.

If one parent were a Wiccan and the other a Buddhist, there would be no political pressure for the Judge to make a ruling.

[lazarus]

55. when I was attempting to get custody of my daughter

the lawyer told me to start going to church or I wouldn't stand a chance. The judge had a copy of the Ten Commandments on his courtroom wall. Eventually, my ex voluntarily gave up custody, once my daughter had been turned in an out of control hellion. She's still in therapy to deal with all the physical and emotional abuse from her good Christian mother and stepdad.

FWIW, neither my ex nor I went to church at all while married. She turned fundie about a year later. So at the time, religion wasn't an issue as far as stability of my daughter's life.

No, the whole thing turned on the fact that I'm an avowed atheist. I didn't stand a chance.

[piratefish08]

70. Correct. And if one worshipped Thor and the other was worshipping Zeus, child services

probably would have considered them both unfit.......

[Fumesucker]

11. If this one makes it to the SCOTUS it should prove most interesting..

Given the number of justices that are Catholic..

[undeterred]

12. Put the kid in the middle of a religious battle

and he'll end up hating both religions.

[Fumesucker]

43. LOL... Every cloud has a silver lining, eh? n/t

[Arugula Latte]

65. One can hope.

:)

[TexasObserver]

67. The mother had the court ordered right to determine the child's religious training.

The father's action was a violation of the restraining order which provided that, and such provisions are common in temporary or permanent orders in custody cases. Where there is conflict, the court will often award the right to determine the religious and other training of a child. The court doesn't care what the religion is. The court simply wants to make the more responsible, more reasonable parent in charge of such matters. The court doesn't want some jackass like this father deciding to use the child as a pawn to piss off the ex.

Divorce orders or temporary orders about custody typically determine whether both parents have equal right to determine the child's religious upbringing, or that right resides only with one of them. This case appears to be one in which the father took a walk and didn't even see the child for 7 months. The mother probably got an order making her the sole determiner of the child's religious upbringing, making the child's medical decisions, and determining the child's education.

The article reveals that the father not only took the daughter to Catholic church, he also had her baptized, and he took photos of it, which he sent to the Jewish mother. He clearly did that to provoke the mother, which it did.

If the father wanted to take the girl to his church, he should have gone back to the court and sought to have order changed to provide for it. This is just another divorced or estranged parent acting badly and using religion as his excuse.

He was in the wrong, and he got what he had coming.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. I have linked to numerous examples above of courts discriminating against non-religious parents.

[TexasObserver]

71. This case isn't about "courts discriminating against non-religious parents."

If you have a point you want to make to me, make it. If I think it requires substantive response, I'll make one.

[Hello_Kitty]

75. Separation of Church and State is my point.

A principle that trumps anything in divorce law, IMO.

[TexasObserver]

77. This has nothing to do with the Separation of Church and State.

The STATE action here is one to give certain rights to a parent in a custody circumstance where a judge has determined upon good evidence that one parent's parenting is subordinate to the other's parenting authority. Neither parent is being prevented from practicing their religion. One parent is prevented from determining the religion of his child, in favor of the other parent's judgment.

The court gave the more responsible parent the authority, as is customary. Fathers who run off and leave their wife and child for 7 months without seeing the child don't get Father of the Year Awards or rights of the primary caregiver, or managing conservator, or whatever term is used in a state for the preeminent parent.

Custody orders in America typically provide for the child's religious training, and define the parent or parents who have such authority. Either both have it or one has it, but someone has it. The primary parent typically has the right to have their child religiously trained as they see fit. In contentious custody battles, one parent has to have the superior right.

There's a really simple rule for litigants in a custody case: Don't EVER violate the court's order regarding proper conduct involving the child. Using the child in a game of religious tug of war is never going to pass muster with a judge. This guy willfully violated the court order and appears to have done so maliciously. He's lucky he's not in jail for contempt.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. I understand what you're saying with regards to parental arrangements.

If you think of religion in the same terms as education or medical care or any other secular thing. But religion is a highly charged issue in our society, and as my examples with non-believing parents show, judges aren't always thinking about the status quo of the child when making rulings. Furthermore, there's a slippery slope here. If baptizing a child into a different faith gets a parent with visitation in hot water, what's to stop the primary parent from attacking visitation rights because the other parent took the child to a family holiday celebration or an Easter parade?

Think about minority religions like Buddhism and Islam. What if a Christian dad with primary custody decided to get back at his Muslim ex for taking their child to the grandparents for an Eid dinner, even though she had no intention of indoctrinating the child into the religion? What if he got himself a fundie judge who would sympathize with him?

From this thread I have learned, to my surprise, that religious training is a consideration in custody agreements. So I understand that people are arguing from a perspective of family law. Fine, I get it. I'm saying I don't agree with the custom. You shouldn't be able to use the courts to help you shield your child from other faiths. Frankly, the whole thing smacks of regarding children as property.

[TexasObserver]

79. I do prefer that parents share rights and that's possible with many.

If both parents can always put the child's interest first, they would know that it's right to expose the child to both parent's religions unless one is demonstrably harmful. Judism v. Catholicism are two versions of the same tribe. They both believe in the Old Testament/Torah-Prophets. They both trace themselves to Abraham. They share everything from Jesus back.

Jesus was a Jew, as were all his Apostles. Christianity evolved from a strictly Jewish group to a group that included some Jews who thought of Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy. As time passed, Christianity became completely separated from Judaism.

Even if one parent is a Mormon and the other a Wiccan, both parents should be able to tutor their child in their religion, except to the extent it involves conflicting instructions regarding the other's religious practices. The child can choose when he or she is an adult.

That's what should happen, and does if both parents are reasonable. But when one or both are not reasonable, it's a mess no matter how the court rules.

[NNN0LHI]

72. I am sure the children will look back fondly when reminiscing about this period of their life

Why would someone put their kids through such trauma?

Don