Unmarried custody/ Religious Disparagement/Added Clauses? CA

[commentator]

It means while you have her you can try to impress your beliefs and feelings about religious issues upon her. Your husband does not dictate to you what you are and are not allowed to say or where you are allowed to take her, or what you are to expose her to during your time with her.

While he has her, he is free to teach her about and freely practice his religion with her in tow. He is not required to fail to mention anything about his religion simply because mommy doesn't approve of the fact that they may believe all others should believe as they do, eternal rewards/eternal punishment sort of thing.

Fifty fifty. That is time and and religious ideas. Frankly, it sounds to me like you with all your over-discussing and analyzing about whether your husband is allowed to teach your child this and that sounds much more obsessive and disruptive than what they are doing. Not to mention all those little discussions you are having with her about whether she "truly believes" what they are teaching her in dad's church or "really wants" to go to church with them. I can't imagine anything more anxiety producing than having to lie to her mother about how she feels and then also having to lie to her father about how she feels concerning such a sensitive and personal topic. Why not make your home a healthy, functional religion free zone? Instead of beating this horse to death at every turn, show her the example of you, with a working sound system of beliefs or non beliefs that brings happiness and order to your life.

 

[quincy]

First I am both an atheist and an agnostic. One is about belief and the other is about knowledge. I do not know any non-believers who say "I know there is no god". Not believing in bigfoot, fairies, or astrology are also not belief systems. There isn't inherently anything wrong people choosing to believe these things. For me, I see no evidence such things exist. If these extraordinary claims bring some new evidence to substantiate them, then I change. It's pretty simple.

I am also not anti-religion. I have taken my daughter to the buddhist temples, catholic masses, and just last night we went to the Hindu Diwali festival. The concern I have is a specific, super intense level of indoctrination to the child. It is the insertion of a "real and present" 3rd parent whose supreme unyielding authority is beyond question. I have no doubt that my ex has the best intentions, sharing what is so very comforting and true to him, like any parent would.

The legal question I have is: What constitutes psychological harm to a child? Could he send her to **** youth class if I was Jewish if he sincerely believed it was best for her? I'm trying to get a sense of where the line gets crossed and specific actions are restricted. Does the child not have any rights here, independent of either parent?

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is: If the judgement says we have joint decision-making in her religious upbringing, what does that mean? It seems that the consensus here is that, in practice, it means absolutely nothing as he can do what he likes without restriction.
If that is truly the case, then there is no action to be taken other than trying to come to some resolution in mediation and continuing to parent as I have.

From California, In re Marriage of Murga: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/103/498.html

"It is our holding ... that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the child's religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of showing that the child will be thereby harmed."

From California, In re Marriage of Weiss: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/42/106.html

"... in view of Marsha's inalienable First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion which includes her right to change her religious beliefs and to share those beliefs with her offspring, her antenuptial commitment to raise her children in M artin's faith is not legally enforceable ..."

Compare these holdings in California to Kendall v. Kendall, out of Massachusetts (where there is a good discussion of harm allowing for religious restrictions): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16880672587888326102&q=Kendall+v.+Kendall&hl=en&as_sdt=4,22

 

[justalayman]

While you state you are atheist and agnostic, the truth is it you can be a theist and an agnostic but not an atheist and an agnostic. Being atheist you deny there is a God. Being agnostic you state one cannot have the knowledge the gnostics claim to have but you don't deny theism itself. If you are atheist, agnosticism is meaningless as there is nothing to know so making the statement one cannot know something about nothing is meaningless.


Ya see, the conversion from agnosticism to any theism simply means one has gained faith. To change from an atheist to a theist belief means one has to make a complete reversal of their position on religion in whole. Being an atheist means you state there is no God. Converting means you now accept there is a God.

 

[CTU]

From California, In re Marriage of Murga: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/103/498.html

"It is our holding ... that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the child's religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of showing that the child will be thereby harmed."

From California, In re Marriage of Weiss: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/42/106.html

"... in view of Marsha's inalienable First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion which includes her right to change her religious beliefs and to share those beliefs with her offspring, her antenuptial commitment to raise her children in M artin's faith is not legally enforceable ..."

Compare these holdings in California to Kendall v. Kendall, out of Massachusetts (where there is a good discussion of harm allowing for religious restrictions): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16880672587888326102&q=Kendall+v.+Kendall&hl=en&as_sdt=4,22

Thank you (I do so mourn the loss of our "like" feature).

 

[skeptiCA]

It means while you have her you can try to impress your beliefs and feelings about religious issues upon her. Your husband does not dictate to you what you are and are not allowed to say or where you are allowed to take her, or what you are to expose her to during your time with her.

While he has her, he is free to teach her about and freely practice his religion with her in tow. He is not required to fail to mention anything about his religion simply because mommy doesn't approve of the fact that they may believe all others should believe as they do, eternal rewards/eternal punishment sort of thing.

Fifty fifty. That is time and and religious ideas. Frankly, it sounds to me like you with all your over-discussing and analyzing about whether your husband is allowed to teach your child this and that sounds much more obsessive and disruptive than what they are doing. Not to mention all those little discussions you are having with her about whether she "truly believes" what they are teaching her in dad's church or "really wants" to go to church with them. I can't imagine anything more anxiety producing than having to lie to her mother about how she feels and then also having to lie to her father about how she feels concerning such a sensitive and personal topic. Why not make your home a healthy, functional religion free zone? Instead of beating this horse to death at every turn, show her the example of you, with a working sound system of beliefs or non beliefs that brings happiness and order to your life.

I do not ask my daughter if she believes or try to probe her for her worldview at 8yo. Not doing it.

The reason I know is because she watched a show called Brain Games. 4 free seasons she saw multiple times. Then we found 3 more seasons on Amazon. The last season had an episode called "God Mind" or something similar. At the end she simply told me "You know, I don't really believe in that stuff Mom." I answered "That's ok. You can believe or not believe or change your mind a thousand times if you want." And that was it.
She mentioned it again last Friday when she asked me if she HAD to go to church. I told her she would have to ask her dad about that. That is when she told me she wouldn't tell him and that if he asked her, she would "play along" so as not to hurt his feelings. It troubles me she is in such a position but I don't share that with her. Why would I make it worse?
You don't know me, and that's ok. Neither does the mediator or the judge. They may make the same assumptions if I presented this as some area of ultimate urgency.

I, myself, am thinking about it now a lot because I was just served a lawsuit that requires my response with the ex requesting 50/50 and no joint decision in this area. I want to know what it means and how I might respond. I do NOT bring my kid into it. I hope he doesn't either.

Is any of this legally relevant to filing a response to the court with what I believe in the best interest of the child?

I do, in a way, appreciate all the devil's advocacy. It tells me there are preconcieved ideas of what my words mean and I need to be better at conveying my thoughts.

 

[skeptiCA]

From California, In re Marriage of Murga: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/103/498.html

"It is our holding ... that while the custodial parent undoubtedly has the right to make ultimate decisions concerning the child's religious upbringing, a court will not enjoin the noncustodial parent from discussing religion with the child or involving the child in his or her religious activities in the absence of showing that the child will be thereby harmed."

From California, In re Marriage of Weiss: http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/42/106.html

"... in view of Marsha's inalienable First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion which includes her right to change her religious beliefs and to share those beliefs with her offspring, her antenuptial commitment to raise her children in M artin's faith is not legally enforceable ..."

Compare these holdings in California to Kendall v. Kendall, out of Massachusetts (where there is a good discussion of harm allowing for religious restrictions): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16880672587888326102&q=Kendall+v.+Kendall&hl=en&as_sdt=4,22

Thank you! I'll read the decisions.
Descriptions of my judge have him as a strict constitutionalist. Just the facts applied to the law. No emotional appeals considered. No compassionately worded rulings. Being forced to have my personal business as a matter of public record (which I have avoided), I actually appreciate this.

 

[CTU]

I do not ask my daughter if she believes or try to probe her for her worldview at 8yo. Not doing it.

The reason I know is because she watched a show called Brain Games. 4 free seasons she saw multiple times. Then we found 3 more seasons on Amazon. The last season had an episode called "God Mind" or something similar. At the end she simply told me "You know, I don't really believe in that stuff Mom." I answered "That's ok. You can believe or not believe or change your mind a thousand times if you want." And that was it.
She mentioned it again last Friday when she asked me if she HAD to go to church. I told her she would have to ask her dad about that. That is when she told me she wouldn't tell him and that if he asked her, she would "play along" so as not to hurt his feelings. It troubles me she is in such a position but I don't share that with her. Why would I make it worse?
You don't know me, and that's ok. Neither does the mediator or the judge. They may make the same assumptions if I presented this as some area of ultimate urgency.

I, myself, am thinking about it now a lot because I was just served a lawsuit that requires my response with the ex requesting 50/50 and no joint decision in this area. I want to know what it means and how I might respond. I do NOT bring my kid into it. I hope he doesn't either.

Is any of this legally relevant to filing a response to the court with what I believe in the best interest of the child?

I do, in a way, appreciate all the devil's advocacy. It tells me there are preconcieved ideas of what my words mean and I need to be better at conveying my thoughts.

Expect the court to give the exact same consideration to what Dad believes in is the child's best interest.

You seem to have trouble getting your head around that part, and that's very common. So common that it's probably best to call it "normal". What you have to realize is that no matter what happens in court, there's only so much the court can actually do and when they're called to micro-manage parenting decisions, the parents generally don't like the results.

And that's not even touching on the fact that it's inevitably the poor child who has to suffer her parents' ... "tendencies", if you will.

 

[skeptiCA]

I find it tragic that the courts are expected to parent the parents.

Tragic.

Feel free to pay for a consult with a local attorney.

Nonsense. I expect no such thing from the court. I was served a lawsuit. I am compelled to respond in the best interests of the child.
Any response or non-response to certain provisions already outlined by the petitioner will have legal interpretations. I want to know my options.
If I have to accept some things I may not agree with because I have no legal argument, then fine.
There will be some judgement signed no matter what.

 

[skeptiCA]

Expect the court to give the exact same consideration to what Dad believes in is the child's best interest.

You seem to have trouble getting your head around that part, and that's very common. So common that it's probably best to call it "normal". What you have to realize is that no matter what happens in court, there's only so much the court can actually do and when they're called to micro-manage parenting decisions, the parents generally don't like the results.

And that's not even touching on the fact that it's inevitably the poor child who has to suffer her parents' ... "tendencies", if you will.

I do understand, which is why I ask in the first place. I am essentially negotiating a parental contract. I naturally do not come from a position of arguing what is best for the other party's needs. So if there is an ideal contract I think is best, I have to ask, "Is the law on my side or not"? If I know that it is normal that he will get most of what he is asking, I will not even think to let it get to a hearing and gamble on whatever the judge decides. I will likely compromise in mediation.

It's as if many here think that I am somehow being disrespectful of his right to indoctrinate. Action seems to trump the right to inaction. In joint medical decisions, you cannot have the surgery and also not have it. If the core tenet of my sacred belief was that a child not be evangelized until age 14, and his was to start at 4, then one of the parents equally valid and considered freedom to practice is infringed. It cannot be both. My viewpoint just happens not to be "sacred."

"poor child who has to suffer"....is exactly why I ask. I'm sure most parents who disagree like this do lots of speaking about it in front of the kids or have arguments they hear. We do most everything in writing. Like any kid, she wants her parents to love each other as she does and she sees indifference. She experiences changes in routine that may be hard to adapt to. She see that her mom and dad aren't like her friends' parents who happen to all live together. These are unavoidable. She doesn't see this particular disagreement, unless he specifically tells her.

I'm leaning towards putting my efforts to a healthy visitation schedule and leaving this entire subject as a simple checked box/not checked box decision.

 

[Silverplum]

Thank you! I'll read the decisions.
Descriptions of my judge have him as a strict constitutionalist. Just the facts applied to the law. No emotional appeals considered. No compassionately worded rulings. Being forced to have my personal business as a matter of public record (which I have avoided), I actually appreciate this.

Good for the Judge. No special snowflakes in his courtroom.