Judge ordered mother not to take child to church or read her scripture

[Saltwater60]

Oh this one could get interesting to see what happens. I’m not sure how they can chose the wishes of one parent over the other on something that causes the child no harm. I mean anything can be determined to cause psychological harm. Many say disciplining your kids does that these days.

Mom battles judge’s order banning her taking daughter to church

A Maine mom challenges a judge’s sweeping order that barred her from taking her daughter to church or teaching the Bible.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Defilade]

Mother says "Who the fuck are you? I'm not your property! and neither is my daughter. My daughter is my property!"

 

[Celt]

The court is overstepping here from the little bit ive read.

 

[Grimscale]

something that causes the child no harm.

That's the part of the equation that is not being told.

Supposedly the specific church the father fought to prevent the mother from exposing the child to is one of those fire & brimstone types. And exposure to it was harming the relationship the child had with the father.

I mean anything can be determined to cause psychological harm. Many say disciplining your kids does that these days.

I am not disputing these statements. However, IF there really is a cause for alarm, a temporary hold against taking the child to that specific church until the truth can be discovered harms no one.

 

[Saltwater60]

That's the part of the equation that is not being told.

Supposedly the specific church the father fought to prevent the mother from exposing the child to is one of those fire & brimstone types. And exposure to it was harming the relationship the child had with the father.


I am not disputing these statements. However, IF there really is a cause for alarm, a temporary hold against taking the child to that specific church until the truth can be discovered harms no one.

While I’ll be the first to say there are good and bad churches and I completely agree that is probably not good for the kid if it’s that intense. The mother could say not taking her there and saving her soul is harming her as well. She is 12 so she could probably impart some of her own wisdom into this at that age and I hope that was considered.
Remember she was also told no Bible reading as well.

 

[Parzival]

Their website looks like a typical modern non-denominational church.

Sadly, this is probably just two adults who can’t act like adults and the kid is caught in the middle.

 

[fresch]

Just so long as the child won't be late to the homosexual drag shows.
Fire the judge now.
Looks like they want to play survival of the fittest; they don't look that fit to me.
Would the judge be ok if it was islame?

 

[Saltwater60]

I know a guy who got divorced and his wife is in the medical field. She is nuts. One of the unparenting types who let their kids make all their own choices. As in if you want snickers and Cheetos for dinner for a week no problem. The kids have horrible diet, hygiene, mental health, changing genders, disabled son reverts to diapers while there and not changed regularly and the judge sides with her. She make 4-5x’s what he makes and is in the medical field so she knows best. Sad thing is the kid with disabilities she could care less about and the kid he can have. The ex keeps the two girls and essentially ignores the disabled one except when it suits her needs. The courts do not do what is right. It’s all because he wanted to be a parent and not a friend. It is sad to see how unhealthy his kids look now under her care.

 

[Zerex]

Unusual..................Dad may be porking the child and grooming her as a substitute wife.

Topic: Child abuse in the United States

Find the most up-to-date statistics and facts on child abuse in the U.S.

www.statista.com

Half a million cases of sex abuse of children in 2023.................many dads getting it on.

 

[spat]

That's the part of the equation that is not being told.

Supposedly the specific church the father fought to prevent the mother from exposing the child to is one of those fire & brimstone types. And exposure to it was harming the relationship the child had with the father.


I am not disputing these statements. However, IF there really is a cause for alarm, a temporary hold against taking the child to that specific church until the truth can be discovered harms no one.

If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.

So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.

This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no acceptable middle ground here.

 

[Saltwater60]

If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.

So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.

This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no acceptable middle ground here.

As usual good thoughts.

 

[tirwin1]

The court is overstepping here from the little bit ive read.

There is alot of that going around these days.

 

[Grimscale]

If the church is really a danger to kids, just telling one mother she can't take her one kid there is *not* the answer.

So, either this is bullshit, or the Judge is OK endangering dozens of other kids.

This needs to be either nothing, or a full blown criminal investigation. There is no acceptable middle ground here.

There is only one mother and father in front of the judge. NOT the entire country. It would be a stretch for him to say "no one can go to this church".
What they may (or may not) be doing might not rise to a criminal act, but could impact a relationship between a parent and their child.

The mother could say not taking her there and saving her soul is harming her as well.

Subjective.

 

[Saltwater60]

There is only one mother and father in front of the judge. NOT the entire country. It would be a stretch for him to say "no one can go to this church".
What they may (or may not) be doing might not rise to a criminal act, but could impact a relationship between a parent and their child.


Subjective.

Are t most things subjective and a matter of circumstance.

 

[spat]

There is only one mother and father in front of the judge. NOT the entire country. It would be a stretch for him to say "no one can go to this church".
What they may (or may not) be doing might not rise to a criminal act, but could impact a relationship between a parent and their child.


Subjective.

If it's not criminally endangering the kid, then the judge has no business interfering.

Let's say it's a real fire and brimstone church, and they're preaching that some aspect of the father's life is sinful and he's headed for eternal damnation. Is that really something the government should get involved in ?

I get "alienation of affection", but that's no excuse for the government to start micromanageing what is ultimately a private disagreement.

1st ammendment and all, the court should *really* not be able to order people to be silent about a subject except in very extreme circumstances (if even then).

If it would be unconstitutional for the legislature to pass a law, it should be unconstitutional for a judge to order it too.

 

[Grimscale]

Let's say it's a real fire and brimstone church, and they're preaching that some aspect of the father's life is sinful and he's headed for eternal damnation. Is that really something the government should get involved in ?

And you don't think that this is, essentially, brainwashing?
Convincing a kid that their father is some kind of evil person because he may not follow all of the religion's rules and, ultimately, be subject to some unspecific and vague "punishment" after he dies?
It sounds sick to me.
I see it as no different than one parent trying to convince a kid they are trans and the other trying to save them.

Why is it that everyone wants to force everyone else into their own psychotic fantasy?

 

[Saltwater60]

And you don't think that this is, essentially, brainwashing?
Convincing a kid that their father is some kind of evil person because he may not follow all of the religion's rules and, ultimately, be subject to some unspecific and vague "punishment" after he dies?
It sounds sick to me.
I see it as no different than one parent trying to convince a kid they are trans and the other trying to save them.

Why is it that everyone wants to force everyone else into their own psychotic fantasy?

Parents do it all the time religion related or not.
The guy I know his ex has convinced his two daughters that he hates them because he didn’t want them on male hormones at a young age and wants them to have a balanced meal. He doesn’t care what the food is just not Cheetos and Swedish fish for dinner regularly is all he asks. Judge sides with her because she’s a doctor.
I think the question here is about the church and not reading the Bible at home. Does the mother’s freedom of religion end when she has the kid and does her practicing her religion end if and when she has her kid.
I’ve never been to a huge fire and brimstone style church so I can’t say what they are like. I could see where it might make the girl a bit uncomfortable but I can’t imagine they preach this all the time but I don’t know.

 

[spat]

And you don't think that this is, essentially, brainwashing?
Convincing a kid that their father is some kind of evil person because he may not follow all of the religion's rules and, ultimately, be subject to some unspecific and vague "punishment" after he dies?
It sounds sick to me.
I see it as no different than one parent trying to convince a kid they are trans and the other trying to save them.

Why is it that everyone wants to force everyone else into their own psychotic fantasy?

I don't disagree.

But do we really want the government deciding what topics are dangerous brainwashing ?

What if it's the father who is trying to trans the kid here and the "dangerous brainwashing" from the church is just that there are only 2 genders, and you don't get to pick yours ?

There are 2 sides (or more) to every conflict, and I certainly don't trust the government to pick the correct one on an ideological difference.

I'm certainly no religious zealot, but lately I think they're right about more topics than the left wing secular zealots who seem to include half the judiciary.

 

[Grimscale]

I can’t imagine they preach this all the time but I don’t know.

What if

This is the real problem. WE DON'T KNOW all the facts of this case. We can only base our opinion on what little dribbles of soundbites get put out.

I know there are churches who are all fire & brimstone. I've seen them.
I also know there can be fathers who are not actually thinking of their child's best interests. Same with mothers.

But if a father is honestly trying to have a normal relationship with his child, and make sure that child is safe, I absolutely would hope that a court would pause any indoctrination being forced by the mother until all of the facts are out. Once the damage is done it is almost impossible to break.

But do we really want the government deciding what topics are dangerous brainwashing ?

No. I would hope We The People would be able to decide that.

But what can you do if the parents of a child are doing things that are part of their religion, but very detrimental to the health and well being of a child? Let them continue?

 

[Saltwater60]

This is the real problem. WE DON'T KNOW all the facts of this case. We can only base our opinion on what little dribbles of soundbites get put out.

I know there are churches who are all fire & brimstone. I've seen them.
I also know there can be fathers who are not actually thinking of their child's best interests. Same with mothers.

But if a father is honestly trying to have a normal relationship with his child, and make sure that child is safe, I absolutely would hope that a court would pause any indoctrination being forced by the mother until all of the facts are out. Once the damage is done it is almost impossible to break.



No. I would hope We The People would be able to decide that.

But what can you do if the parents of a child are doing things that are part of their religion, but very detrimental to the health and well being of a child? Let them continue?

I do not disagree with any of your statements. Some religious practices are cults and are harmful. Every now and again we see a sex cult thing and a lot of times they tie it into religion.
However the Bible has some fire and brimstone and it’s part of religion. Where does the practicing your religion end, with you, your kids, your neighbors? That’s the question to me.
Im of the camp you can’t force someone to religion. Ask, invite, and be ok with a no.

 

[spat]

This is the real problem. WE DON'T KNOW all the facts of this case. We can only base our opinion on what little dribbles of soundbites get put out.

I know there are churches who are all fire & brimstone. I've seen them.
I also know there can be fathers who are not actually thinking of their child's best interests. Same with mothers.

But if a father is honestly trying to have a normal relationship with his child, and make sure that child is safe, I absolutely would hope that a court would pause any indoctrination being forced by the mother until all of the facts are out. Once the damage is done it is almost impossible to break.



No. I would hope We The People would be able to decide that.

But what can you do if the parents of a child are doing things that are part of their religion, but very detrimental to the health and well being of a child? Let them continue?

The problem there is that if you create a system where we *need* to know what that church was teaching in order to reach a conclusion, then the conclusion will be subject to the whims of fashion.

Now, I agree, if it's causing actual physical harm to the child, then that's actionable abuse.

But if it's just causing the child to develop opinions that aren't in fashion, then that's the whole point of the 1A. Even if holding out of fashion beliefs could cause social harm.

The last administration would consider the opinion that there are only 2 genders and they are immutable as "harmful", and indeed, expressing that opinion in public *would* have been dangerous.

 

[fresch]

What is the father's belief?
Why can't children have anxiety, very common in young girls/ children.
What is the judge's belief?
If the father tells her that, killing someone will end up with her going to jail for life or being put to death herself (I know we don't do that any more), would the judge say not to teach the laws of the land?
Where is the fathers statements on this?
I know many here believe they crawled out of the mud puddle and if so who are they to tell anyone anything, just some other life form no better than any other. Making life only eat, shit, fuck, die, just like the rest of the other life on earth.
Myself I believe in God and Christ and yes there are those who say they do only to take advantage of others.

A judge has zero business telling anyone who can go to church or not.

As normal we need more information and family court is a joke.