Unmarried custody/ Religious Disparagement/Added Clauses? CA

[skeptiCA]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California (OC)

My ex has filed for 50/50 joint custody of our 8yo daughter. I have mediation in a few weeks. There are currently no court orders and no child support (I pay for school, insurance, etc... all of it). We were never married. Paternity established by signing a document at birth. Relationship ended 3/2011. Parenting time has been mostly with me but lately more 60/40 as he has a wife to help out. I had control of major decisions and scheduling, he got his parental time that fit his changing work schedules and didnt pay me. It worked ok for a while. (scroll down for more background)

My legal questions:
Is there a way to limit religious indoctrination by using disparagement/alienation even if no serious harm is yet realized? I know I cannot venture into the Establishment Clause area (thanks Wisconsin-Yoder 1972), but surely religious beliefs dehumanizing the other parent and causing guilt and anxiety in a child isn't ok just because it's from a religious belief.

He checked the boxes for joint agreement on everything except religious instruction and activities. If that box is checked (which is likely), what can I then object to?

My lawyer advised to just bring it up outright in mediation. She is non-religious as well and perhaps doesnt realize the culture of perceived persecution in this church. I don't want a religious war with an innocent child in the middle.

Can I just add some all-encompassing clause that includes something like "Child not allowed to join or attend groups, classes, or instruction by any group which discriminates, approves of, or advocates unequal treatment or status to any legally protected groups of persons, including, but not limited to, race, sexual preference, religious views, gender and gender identity, based solely on a person perceived to belong to such groups rather than on individual merit"?
or
"Child not allowed to join any church, religious community, or social group which teaches, holds as a statement of faith, or projects that the child can or will be separated from her biological mother at any point in the future, including belief in any future period after death, through any inferred or possible judgement or discretion of any supernatural force or deity". (* I wrote these myself so it may not fly at all or be what is legally needed. IANAL!)

So, he could go to any church he wants, as long as it doesnt disparage or alienate mother and daughter. Possible?
Any advice appreciated! There is surprisingly almost nothing on the internet about this type of situation.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further info, may not be legally relevant:

While we were together he was an agnostic/atheist. I have been atheist since High School. 2 years ago, he was "born again" and joined a non-denom ("new" Calvinist) Christian churches. At the time I had little concern. I am all for children being of religiously literate and exposing her to his beliefs seems a natural thing for a parent.
He started dating a woman (2014) which is now his new wife and, togerther, they are increasingly more intense in their faith. (or I am now becoming more aware)

My child was first told god is an all-powerful loving parent - normal stuff. Then, that mommy is a non believer but to pray for her - told her before I wanted to, but ok. Soon, she will learn that non-believers justly deserve eternal torture (but to still love and pray for them!). If she believes it, it seems reasonably guaranteed to harm the child and the parental relationship in a big way. Mommy goes away forever, a dark soul, condemned by the all-loving parent. She hardly needs to be told of the explicit connection. They've already taught her the idea that all humans are born unworthy depraved sinners who deserve death. (It's the only thing I outright told her wasn't AT ALL true!).
If a parent gives a child a bowl of yummy ice cream with poison spiders at the bottom, does it matter that she hasnt reached the bottom yet?
On which end of the abuse scale do we put a parent who threatens to burn his own children for not worshiping him?

My daughter says she doesnt really believe. She says she plays along. She could be just saying that to appease me- but I didnt bring it up and I do not disparage his views. She asked me to make it so she didnt have to attend church without hurting daddy's feelings. So I did. He responded that "she really loves church and was really looking forward to it". That "she has a light and joy in her devotion" and I wasnt considering her feelings. Daughter says if he asked her directly, she would lie, and go along. She will not tell him her true feelings. I don't want to either. It would likely make it worse.
So how do I protect her legally in the parenting agreement/judgement? From listening to her it seems she just wants me to "take care of it" and leave her out of it.


I could write a novel about what has gone on but let me just bullet some behaviors which are concerning.

- Found a pink sparkle bible they had sent with her to my home when she was 7 for her personal reading. Reading through, was shocked to find the plain language only made all the atrocities and mature content more easily understood for a child.
For example: "This is what the Lord says. I am bringing trouble to you from your own family. While you watch, I will take your wives from you. And I will give them to someone who is very close to you. He will have sexual relations with your wives, and everyone will know it...I will do this so all the people of Israel can see it"
And this fun family story "The next day the older daughter said to the younger 'Last night I had sexual relations with my father. Let's get him drunk again tonight. Then you can have sexual relations with him too...So both of Lot's daughters because pregnant by their father".
I sent it back and said she needed something age appropriate. My ex agreed.

- gave 3 days in summer to new stepmom to spend "bonding". We had a nice lunch prior to the wedding and she agreed to no indoctrination. I found out when my daughter returned that stepmom had actually signed her up for Vacation Bible School- with dads approval. The permission slip, which is supposed to be signed by the legal parent, was the worst I have ever read. Here's a sample

This release is intended to discharge Calvary Chapel against any and all liability arising out of or connected in any way with my child’s travel to, from, or participation in the activity, even though that liability may arise out of the negligence or carelessness on the part of Calvary Chapel. Should any claim be made or any lawsuit be filed against Calvary Chapel on account of any injury or damage to my child arising from any or related in any way related to my child’s travel to, from, or participation in the activity, I agree to defend, save, hold harmless, and to fully and completely indemnify Calvary Chapel for any and all amounts incurred, whether by settlement or judgment, including any amounts incurred by Calvary Chapel in defending against any such claim or judgment, including all attorney’s fees and costs incurred. Moreover.....

My daughter hesitated to tell me, initially trying to weave a story that would not get her in trouble. They told her not to tell me because I would be angry with her. I assured my daughter I was not the least bit angry with her, I hoped she had a fun time, and she could always tell me anything. Then I wrote a stern letter about keeping secrets and how it mirrored the tactics of abusers. This evidently made the new wife cry and the good relations with her were severed. They did it to "protect my feelings", so I'm the bad guy in this one.

- Notes sent to her in recent months have phrases like "Do not worry. You belong to Him. God, as your parent, will take care of you like the butterflies and flowers." And "Do not lean on your own understanding. Pray constantly"

- Found out very recently that not only was she going to 90min church service, but there are weekly groups, classes, daily prayer time, and nightly devotionals. It is constant. They insist this is not "indoctrination". We obviously have a disconnect on the definition of indoctrinating.


I believe children should find their own identity. I would prefer she develop her critical thinking skills, learn about the variety of religions, and make her own informed decision as a more mature individual. Then, she can change her mind a hundred times if she likes.

 

[Silverplum]

You each have the right to parent your mutual child. That means you can be a vegetarian and Dad can be an omnivore. You can be an atheist and he can be religious. One can be conservative and the other liberal. Each of you can teach your child about your views on issues. You can't control his home from afar.

 

[CTU]

You each have the right to parent your mutual child. That means you can be a vegetarian and Dad can be an omnivore. You can be an atheist and he can be religious. One can be conservative and the other liberal. Each of you can teach your child about your views on issues. You can't control his home from afar.

Perfectly put.

And Mom, that also means "No ifs, and or buts. Even if"

And as for this ...

Can I just add some all-encompassing clause that includes something like "Child not allowed to join or attend groups, classes, or instruction by any group which discriminates, approves of, or advocates unequal treatment or status to any legally protected groups of persons, including, but not limited to, race, sexual preference, religious views, gender and gender identity, based solely on a person perceived to belong to such groups rather than on individual merit"?
or
"Child not allowed to join any church, religious community, or social group which teaches, holds as a statement of faith, or projects that the child can or will be separated from her biological mother at any point in the future, including belief in any future period after death, through any inferred or possible judgement or discretion of any supernatural force or deity". (* I wrote these myself so it may not fly at all or be what is legally needed. IANAL!)

Utterly ridiculous. Just as you're allowed to teach her tolerance and respect, he's allowed to teach her how to be an intolerant bigot. That pendulum swings both ways; what makes you think your beliefs are more important than his?

 

[Silverplum]

I am never using that strange acronym, with or without an exclamation point.

WTF made that one up? I can only presume it stands for 'I Am Not A Lawyer,' but it's unworkable.

 

[CTU]

I am never using that strange acronym, with or without an exclamation point.

WTF made that one up? I can only presume it stands for 'I Am Not A Lawyer,' but it's unworkable.

My coffee just had an impromptu meeting with the laptop screen. Thank you

M would be very cross with me if I started listing the "what ifs" for that particular acronym

 

[skeptiCA]

I am never using that strange acronym, with or without an exclamation point.

WTF made that one up? I can only presume it stands for 'I Am Not A Lawyer,' but it's unworkable.

Was a common one I saw years ago in another forum. It just occurred to me why it may be read in another way!

 

[skeptiCA]

You each have the right to parent your mutual child. That means you can be a vegetarian and Dad can be an omnivore. You can be an atheist and he can be religious. One can be conservative and the other liberal. Each of you can teach your child about your views on issues. You can't control his home from afar.

And yet there are restrictions listed. The disparagement provision states:

"No negative comments. The parties will not make or allow others to make negative comments about each other or about their past or present relationships, family, or friends with hearing distance of the children."

As I understand it, we would both restricted from comments such as saying that the other parent is a total loser. Are you saying he is allowed to share a belief that all people like me deserve a punishment of eternal torture? This isn't on the same level as different eating habits or political parties. Parents are bound to have many such differences that aren't likely to instill intense fear in a young and trusting child.

I did read of a case where the mother was restricted from teaching anything religious that was considered homophobic because the father was gay. The reasoning being that it adversely affects the parent-child relationship. Same with racist remarks

Anyone know the specific criteria used in CA courts to decide what could be harmful enough to restrict?

 

[skeptiCA]

Perfectly put.

And Mom, that also means "No ifs, and or buts. Even if"

And as for this ...



Utterly ridiculous. Just as you're allowed to teach her tolerance and respect, he's allowed to teach her how to be an intolerant bigot. That pendulum swings both ways; what makes you think your beliefs are more important than his?

I do not think my lack of belief in a deity is more important. A "no-belief" that carries no punishment or condemnnation of the other parent is, demonstrably, more neutral. She doesn't even know the word atheist. She has no label for me.
I do think it's important that a young child not be taught that horrific things will happen to her mom. For any reason. Even if they were true.

But if it is ridiculous, I'd like to know what the guidelines are for psychological harm if this one is exempt.

 

[CdwJava]

Clauses prohibiting disparaging comments can be a part of a custody and visitation order. That does NOT mean that you have any control over what religious influences the father might choose to expose the child to just as he cannot say how you might present a lack of a religious belief to your child.

Yes, it might be a violation of any such disparagement order to say that you are going to burn in Hell as a non-believer, but, that would be up for a court to decide ... IF such a clause existed and the statements could be proven (likely through the statements of the child).

 

[stealth2]

There is also a difference between saying "our faith believes non-believers will spend eternity in damnation" and "Mommy's going to hell." Many, many faiths have a belief like the former. And not just about athiests - but about anyone not sharing their particular belief. <shrug> You teach her differently. Not to imply you have a special snowflake who needs protection from negative thoughts/beliefs, but she has/likely will, hear worse from her peers - about you, your beliefs, people of other backgrounds, colors, orientations, etc. It's your job to teach her to think critically and stand by her own beliefs/values.

 

[CTU]

I do not think my lack of belief in a deity is more important. A "no-belief" that carries no punishment or condemnnation of the other parent is, demonstrably, more neutral. She doesn't even know the word atheist. She has no label for me.
I do think it's important that a young child not be taught that horrific things will happen to her mom. For any reason. Even if they were true.

But if it is ridiculous, I'd like to know what the guidelines are for psychological harm if this one is exempt.

FOCUS.

Teach your child coping skills.

 

[CTU]

And yet there are restrictions listed. The disparagement provision states:

"No negative comments. The parties will not make or allow others to make negative comments about each other or about their past or present relationships, family, or friends with hearing distance of the children."

As I understand it, we would both restricted from comments such as saying that the other parent is a total loser. Are you saying he is allowed to share a belief that all people like me deserve a punishment of eternal torture? This isn't on the same level as different eating habits or political parties. Parents are bound to have many such differences that aren't likely to instill intense fear in a young and trusting child.

I did read of a case where the mother was restricted from teaching anything religious that was considered homophobic because the father was gay. The reasoning being that it adversely affects the parent-child relationship. Same with racist remarks

Anyone know the specific criteria used in CA courts to decide what could be harmful enough to restrict?

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.

 

[justalayman]

Please read your very first post again. All the while you are claiming to be a tolerant person you are espousing anti-religion statements.

while the website atheists.org states atheism is not a belief system, that is generally not what atheists espouse. The website attempts to claim an agnostic position rather that standing up and accepting what atheism is: a position that there is no God. Atheism is a defined position just as theism is only on opposite sides of the coin. The atheist organization wants it both ways.

I suggest you show yourself to be the tolerant person you claim to be and allow the other parent to teach the child their beliefs and you teach the child your beliefs.


Your real argument isn't one of religion/anti-religion.

 

[CTU]

Please read your very first post again. All the while you are claiming to be a tolerant person you are espousing anti-religion statements.

while the website atheists.org states atheism is not a belief system, that is generally not what atheists espouse. The website attempts to claim an agnostic position rather that standing up and accepting what atheism is: a position that there is no God. Atheism is a defined position just as theism is only on opposite sides of the coin. The atheist organization wants it both ways.

I suggest you show yourself to be the tolerant person you claim to be and allow the other parent to teach the child their beliefs and you teach the child your beliefs.


Your real argument isn't one of religion/anti-religion.

Bravo!

(we still have a silly 10-char. limit, but no "like" button? Really, though?!)

 

[skeptiCA]

Please read your very first post again. All the while you are claiming to be a tolerant person you are espousing anti-religion statements.

while the website atheists.org states atheism is not a belief system, that is generally not what atheists espouse. The website attempts to claim an agnostic position rather that standing up and accepting what atheism is: a position that there is no God. Atheism is a defined position just as theism is only on opposite sides of the coin. The atheist organization wants it both ways.

I suggest you show yourself to be the tolerant person you claim to be and allow the other parent to teach the child their beliefs and you teach the child your beliefs.


Your real argument isn't one of religion/anti-religion.

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.