Baptism against court orders

[philippaul]

From a legal context, it was made known to me when I was fortunate to get physical custody of my son, that it was ok for each parent to take the child to any religious service (so long as it wasn’t illegal) that the respective parent desired. My son was baptized in a Presbyterian church. I now take him to Catholic church. My former wife can take him to a Protestant service. There is nothing in the law that can stop either of us from doing that. I’m not sure I understand what is going on here and what legal grounds they are using to prosecute this man. Anyone possibly care to explain?

 

[maximus]

From a legal context, it was made known to me when I was fortunate to get physical custody of my son, that it was ok for each parent to take the child to any religious service (so long as it wasn’t illegal) that the respective parent desired. My son was baptized in a Presbyterian church. I now take him to Catholic church. My former wife can take him to a Protestant service. There is nothing in the law that can stop either of us from doing that. I’m not sure I understand what is going on here and what legal grounds they are using to prosecute this man. Anyone possibly care to explain?

I am sorry about your marriage.

Well looks like in your case there is a mutual understanding and nobody is trying to ensure that a child is to be raised in a particular religion. In that case the Husband converted to Judaism and then returned to Catholicism after his divorce. Apparently he had previously agreed to raise the child in the Jewish religion. The Mother, I assume has full custody and apparently after the divorce the Father wanted to introduce the child to Catholicism which the wife is dead set against. I guess from here it comes down to state law and apparently in this state they could block the Father from exposing his child to Catholicism. The man in this case went and got the child baptized and now he is in hot water. I could understand this legally if the Mother had sole custody and the Father for some reason had lost legal rights, but he apparently has some custodial rights. So the case is a little confusing to say the least.

God bless,

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

From a legal context, it was made known to me when I was fortunate to get physical custody of my son, that it was ok for each parent to take the child to any religious service (so long as it wasn’t illegal) that the respective parent desired. My son was baptized in a Presbyterian church. I now take him to Catholic church. My former wife can take him to a Protestant service. There is nothing in the law that can stop either of us from doing that. I’m not sure I understand what is going on here and what legal grounds they are using to prosecute this man. Anyone possibly care to explain?

I find the solution you and your ex-wife adopted quite reasonable.

I also have trouble understanding the war between the Catholic man and Jewish woman in the news story. I mean, if any party would bring the child to a church or synagogue that teaches that members of the other religion should be raped and then doused with gasoline and set on fire, then yeah, I could understand why a judge should be involved and forbid that… but this was not the case here, if I understand it correctly.

I also wonder, does the guy in the original story pay child support to his ex-wife? And if he is obligated to pay child support and has the right to take the child on some weekends, what kind of non-sense is that, that the ex-wife expects him not to bring the child to the church of his choice? I would feel exactly like this if the mother in case was a Roman Catholic, and the father a Hindu from India or a Muslim from Pakistan. If he pays child support, and if he has the right to take the child on weekends, let him have the right also to take the child to his Hindu temple or Islamic mosque, and expose the child to his Indian or Pakistani language and culture as well, as long as the other religion or culture doesn’t teach something that breaks the law, such as violent jihad, hatred and violence towards the other religion, etc.

And I don’t buy the argument that, when they married, he promised to raise their future child(ren) in a particular religion, and that this old promise should count now. How about the other promises they made to each other, when they married each other? They also promised to stay together until death does part them, and the court released them from that promise, and allowed them to divorce each other.

 

[maximus]

I will try to follow this case, because of the State/Religion implications. Below was an interesting tidbit from a law professor on this case. I find this case interesting because of the State vs. Religion conflict that is present.

While many divorce proceedings involving interfaith couples devolve into bitter feuds over religion, Emily Buss, a law professor at the University of Chicago, called the order to temporarily limit the child to Judaism “striking.” “The idea is we change religious views — that is what religious freedom includes,” Buss said. “Even if (one) parent has more authority in the form of more custody, the other parent can (usually) … still expose the child to his or her religion even if it was not the religious practices within the family when it was intact.”
From: chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-interfaith-divorce-20100216,0,2673258.story