Saw some snippets from the show earlier on GMA (Good morning America) and I was surprised at
what a judge had already ordered in regards to a child of a divorcing couple, the husband is
Catholic and the wife is a Jew.
The wife was able to get a decree from the judge, prohibiting the husband from taking the child to
church under the guise of causing "irreparable injury or harm" to the child.
This just begs the question,whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?
And that the state would take no action relating to the establishment or promoting of one church/faith
over another.
If this story continues on its present course it could/can set legal precedence for other
such actions, such as when a J.W. don't want their children taken to any church under the guise
of 'irreparable injury or harm" to the child.
The story airs tonight at 10:00 p.m. on 20/20 on ABC
If you would like to see a couple excerpts of the show before it airs go to abcnews.com and
scroll down till you see the link for 20/20.
Look for the divorce turns into Holy War.
I think this has all the makings of a line that shouldn't be crossed legally but appears it will and in
that sense it would impact all of us to some degree in what can be done to our families.
Story on ABC news program 20/20 tonight could have very far reaching effects and ramifications for JW's/ Ex- Jw's in regards to family relations in USA.
by StoneWall 20 Replies latest social current
-
StoneWall
-
VIII
This has been in the local Chicago news the last few weeks. He converted to Judaism for the wife. Now he wants to take the 3-year old daughter to a Catholic church.
Rebecca said that Joseph is entitled to be Catholic and Ela can choose Catholicism when she is older, but they "had pledged in the marriage contract to raise Jewish children, and so we had a Jewish home." Joseph had converted to Judaism, complete with a ritualized circumcision.
Above all, Rebecca adamantly maintained that Joseph put Ela at risk when he called a local television station to document his defiant church visit and that it was him, not her, who thrust their story into the media.
"Good parents do not exploit their children for their own financial or personal gain," she said.
This storybook romance, which began when the couple met in a boxing ring, has turned into a sort of holy war with a little girl caught in the middle.
Here is a link to GMA:
Very sad for the little girl caught in the middle.
Why, oh, Why, do parents use religion as a means to hurt the ex-spouse?
-
StoneWall
VIII thanks for the above link to GMA.
Even on that link notice how the first paragraph is worded.
I will quote it on here and underline the part that everyone should be concerned about in my opinion.
Last week, ABC News spoke exclusively with Joseph Reyes, the husband in a bitter divorce battle who faces up to six months in jail for marching his toddler into a Catholic Church, cameras in tow, in defiance of a temporary court order that forbade him from exposing his daughter to "any other religion other than the Jewish religion."
-
JeffT
First of all this is a civil case (divorce) and inolves only a temporary restraining order, therefore the first amendment has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, the husband is an idiot for violating the temporary restraining order. All such an order means is that he can't do anything like this while the judge and the lawyers are sorting out what they want to do. Violating such an order is just stupid.
-
StoneWall
JeffT I am well aware of the fact that this is a civil case being that it involves divorce.
But whether its Civil or Criminal court, they're both cogs on the same machine.
The judge is supposed to be held to the same legislative laws as the rest of us in the seperation of church and state.
I've been involved with some of my family in their cases of divorce or seperation and have never seen a situation where
the judge/magistrate ordered for a child to be kept from any other religion than the one that the father/mother practiced.
My view is if this is upheld even as a temporary injunction,where will it end?
I can already see in my minds eye the lawyers up at Brooklyn Bethel watching this story with keen anticipation as
regards child custody cases with JW's and how to keep the children from involvement with other religions.
-
ziddina
I do agree with Stone Wall; knowing how the WTBTS likes to slant everything in ITS direction, I, too, can see the WTBTS' lawyers salivating over the possibilities in this case... Zid
-
JeffT
Stonewall; this is NOT a first amendment issue. The first amendment prohibits congress from passing laws on the subject. A temporary restraining order is not a law. It isn't even a real court order. This amounts to the judge saying "nobody do anything while I think about this."
It is well within in the judge's power in a divorce case to decide which parent is best able to raise the child. This may or may not include language about the religious upbringing of the child.
We can argue about parental rights all we want (and I have no doubt the lawyers are doing so as we speak at $300/hr). The judge issued a restraining order and it was violated. The father damaged his case very badly by what he did, the temporary restraining order did not imperile his religious freedom or that of his child. Dragging the first amendment into this is a red herring that will obscure the real issues about parental rights and responsibilities.
Frankly, we should hope it holds up because what this will mean is that no parent can unilaterly decide what to do with their child in such a case.
-
Gayle
Husband broke the civil law (restraining order), clearly, and now face the consequences . However, how was there even, in just the "civil" courts, in the first place, a temporary restraining order forbidding him to take his child to any other church than Jewish. How can the government rule that in the first place? I can understand if the father was under restraining order altogether to take the child 'anywhere' because of being 'abusive' but apparantly, that was not the issue.
How can the government enforce any "church" agreement. Those agreements should only remain within in the church and not be "government" enforced.
The law cannot, should not, require a parent to take their child to only go to one certain church, even temporarily.
-
bluesapphire
Right. The judge could have ordered restrainment from all religions while he thought about it. Totally unfair and biased against the father or possibly the Catholic Church. It's not like the father was a sacrificing satanist or anything.
-
JeffT
The issue is that the father had converted to Judaism, and one would assume that the parents had an agreement to raise their child Jewish. The mother has a right to believe that would be the case. The purpose of the restraining order, as I said, would be to prevent the father from doing anything rash while the judge considered the correct long term course of action.
It is a similar situation to freezing assets while a court decides who should get how much.