Silverplum
Senior Member
I don't even think it has to go back eight years -- I'd think a year or two would show the court that Dad and kids are used to "X" amount of time togther. Period.weenor said:
-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Is racism grounds for change of custody
- Thread starter Gum_Drop
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
Well you could be right...obviously it depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the judge you draw. I just know that my hubby initially allowed extra visitation for approximately one year...until we realized what Bio mom was doing. Hubby had to pull back to the CO order before we could complain to the judge because the first thing out of the judge's mouth would have been, well why did you let that go on if it was so bad?Silverplum said:
Ohiogal
Queen Bee
This is a stretch HOWEVER if she can prove that the white supremist organization that dad joined has a history of legal problems (inciting violence, being involved in violent activities) she could probably get the court to deny dad the right to take his children around the organization. There would be a valid argument that the people are a danger to her children as they engage in illegal behavior. HOWEVER she would have to PROVE it.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
a very BIG stretch 
Ithildriel
Member
Would the kids have a voice?
If Dad tried to get more visitation based on past history, at ages 12 and 14 would the kids be able to voice their preference to the judge that 1. They don't want more time with dad, and 2. They don't want to be forced to go to these racist meetings?
If Dad tried to get more visitation based on past history, at ages 12 and 14 would the kids be able to voice their preference to the judge that 1. They don't want more time with dad, and 2. They don't want to be forced to go to these racist meetings?
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
that depends entirely on the court and the judge. Most likely yes, but in law, the only certainty is there is no certainty...not even the law.Ithildriel said:
Yes, there is the US constitution, but the fact is family court judges could care less about it! I've seen a NCP dad win custody of his children based on the fact that mom is a lesbian living with her partner.
I would think that going back to the court order is the way to go. If dad files for more visitation I think he wouldn't get it because a family court judge would be disgusted that dad is teaching his children hate like that. He won't take away his visitation cause the father has a right to see the kids,but I bet he won't do him any more favors than that.
I have a biracial son and believe it or not my sons father who is black and his SM were teaching my son when he was 4-5 years of age to hate white people. They have sensed stopped when a counselor we were seeing told them to stop it. But my plan was and still to this day is teach my son that we are all equals and children of God and hope and pray that comes out on top of whatever he learns elsewhere. That is al you can do!
I would think that going back to the court order is the way to go. If dad files for more visitation I think he wouldn't get it because a family court judge would be disgusted that dad is teaching his children hate like that. He won't take away his visitation cause the father has a right to see the kids,but I bet he won't do him any more favors than that.
I have a biracial son and believe it or not my sons father who is black and his SM were teaching my son when he was 4-5 years of age to hate white people. They have sensed stopped when a counselor we were seeing told them to stop it. But my plan was and still to this day is teach my son that we are all equals and children of God and hope and pray that comes out on top of whatever he learns elsewhere. That is al you can do!
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
and who said anything about teaching hate? Do you even know the name of the organization she's talking about? What they believe in and what they practice? Someone mentioned "Hate" in a response and it caught on. So who is not prejudiced? Just because the group is a 'white supremist' group doesn't necessarily mean they preach or practice HATE.Halls said:
I guess we all let out a little prejudice on that one.
No one knows that. And what you believe is racist may not be my measure or the judges.
The simple fact is, any such judgement can be appealed if the basis of denying visitation is membership in such an organization and there is plenty of case law in support of the father.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
DAMN STRAIGHT... but they have one hell of a crawfish boil every spring in MonroeCJane said:
Ohiogal said:I know I know. But ......
But it MIGHT be worth a try depending on how much you were troubled by the racism and the group indoctrinating your child.
Well just a thought anyway**************but if the mother could show that Dad and his new friends were creating emotional problems for the kids, she might have a shot...I would say the children "saying" they don't like it without proof of damage to them would be insufficient to warrant any change in visitation or custody. Some things we assume as damaging, others just depend on the facts.
She needs to revert to the court order ASAP. She can also enroll them in counseling~ at 12 & 14 years old they are mature enough to describe the 'meetings' and their feelings about them. That will be vital if Dad fights for more visitation time. (Which he can via citing 'status quo' if it's gone on long enough). A professional's opinion will most definately address how teaching our children not to accept people who are a large portion of our society...is not only confusing to them, but will only encourage anti-social behavior.elsieshup said:
Although courts don't like to get involved in things like Religion and personal beliefs~ White supremacy & Racism to the extent described, will NOT go unnoticed.
My response:
This is not only a good issue, but one which can be very illuminating, difficult, and mind-boggling - - not only for the courts and parents, but also for legal scholars all over this country. A court has wide discretion and latitude on these types of issues, taken on a case-by-case basis and, depending on the judge, county or even the State where the decision is being made, will have great significance on a decision by the court. Social mores differ from even judge to judge! But, because of their wide discretion and latitude, a judge's decision will not be disturbed on appeal.
First, we have the United States Constitution which guarantees our right of free association. The first Amendment states:
Let's look at this again . . . "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
That's an exquisite and important statement, by good ol' Thomas Jefferson, for all of us - - not just some of us. It simply means that we can say or do or associate UNLESS we do damage to someone else; e.g., we cannot slander someone, we cannot hit someone, and we cannot yell FIRE! in a theater that isn't burning. Simply, we cannot do damage to another with our statements or deeds.
Now, that's where this whole issue takes a wild hairpin turn . . . "damage to another person." Where is the line drawn, especially when it comes to children?
The courts are very cognizant of the fact that parents are very protective of their children and, likewise, so are the courts. The dividing factor is "detriment" and "best interests" of the child. Detriment to, or Best Interests to the child is not easy to define, and does not reside in a vacuum. This is where "community standards" come into play, as well as each judge's "wide discretion and latitude on these types of issues." What may be fine in California, may not be okay in Louisianna. The child's "best interest" is the paramount consideration steering the court's decision in a custody or visitation dispute between the parents.
In deference to the parents' substantive due process, there is a "fundamental liberty interest" in the care, custody and control of their children (see Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060.
We all have biases and prejudices. Prejudice can be extremely abhorant to some, and perfectly acceptable to others. Some parents dislike White people, and others dislike Blacks, or Jews, or whomever, and for whatever reasons. But, is teaching an impressionable child about biases, or prejudices wrong? Again, some parents say absolutely no, while others emphatically say yes. Most courts won't even involve themselves in matters of Religion, despite what one parent wants to teach their child versus what the other parent wants to teach. The courts simply will not involve themselves in such a contest. There are few statutory guidelines on the question whether parental custody would be "detrimental" to the child. In their own way, some Southern States, for example, are STILL, to this date, "fighting" the Civil War! Some States feel that Jefferson Davis was a hero, rather than a coward who ran away when the War was ended. Should we not teach our children what was right or wrong with that insurrection? Some parents find these subjects completely and utterly abrasive and want to protect our children from these thoughts or beliefs. Let's not even get into the subject of "creationism" versus "evolution"! Depending upon where you live, there is a huge diversity of thoughts and beliefs that we cannot protect our children from, and cannot mandate a law for or against them.
But, the legislative intent is to leave courts with broad flexibility to make the ultimate decision based on the specific facts in light of the totality of the evidence. A finding of "detriment to the child" does not require any finding of parental "unfitness."
Parents come into my offices all the time wanting this, or not wanting that for their children. Most times, I have to advise that they can't get what they want for their children, and they don't want to understand it, no matter how well I explain the problem!
In summary, it depends on the organization, their activities in moving their views forward, and whether the court, on that day, at that time, and under all the known circumstances in conjunction with the then community standards, will make a finding of "detriment." A court will do everything in it's power to make sure that no harm comes to a child; but, there MUST be a clear showing of harm before "association" will be impeded - - and that's a tall order to prove.
IAAL
This is not only a good issue, but one which can be very illuminating, difficult, and mind-boggling - - not only for the courts and parents, but also for legal scholars all over this country. A court has wide discretion and latitude on these types of issues, taken on a case-by-case basis and, depending on the judge, county or even the State where the decision is being made, will have great significance on a decision by the court. Social mores differ from even judge to judge! But, because of their wide discretion and latitude, a judge's decision will not be disturbed on appeal.
First, we have the United States Constitution which guarantees our right of free association. The first Amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Let's look at this again . . . "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
That's an exquisite and important statement, by good ol' Thomas Jefferson, for all of us - - not just some of us. It simply means that we can say or do or associate UNLESS we do damage to someone else; e.g., we cannot slander someone, we cannot hit someone, and we cannot yell FIRE! in a theater that isn't burning. Simply, we cannot do damage to another with our statements or deeds.
Now, that's where this whole issue takes a wild hairpin turn . . . "damage to another person." Where is the line drawn, especially when it comes to children?
The courts are very cognizant of the fact that parents are very protective of their children and, likewise, so are the courts. The dividing factor is "detriment" and "best interests" of the child. Detriment to, or Best Interests to the child is not easy to define, and does not reside in a vacuum. This is where "community standards" come into play, as well as each judge's "wide discretion and latitude on these types of issues." What may be fine in California, may not be okay in Louisianna. The child's "best interest" is the paramount consideration steering the court's decision in a custody or visitation dispute between the parents.
In deference to the parents' substantive due process, there is a "fundamental liberty interest" in the care, custody and control of their children (see Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 65, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 2060.
We all have biases and prejudices. Prejudice can be extremely abhorant to some, and perfectly acceptable to others. Some parents dislike White people, and others dislike Blacks, or Jews, or whomever, and for whatever reasons. But, is teaching an impressionable child about biases, or prejudices wrong? Again, some parents say absolutely no, while others emphatically say yes. Most courts won't even involve themselves in matters of Religion, despite what one parent wants to teach their child versus what the other parent wants to teach. The courts simply will not involve themselves in such a contest. There are few statutory guidelines on the question whether parental custody would be "detrimental" to the child. In their own way, some Southern States, for example, are STILL, to this date, "fighting" the Civil War! Some States feel that Jefferson Davis was a hero, rather than a coward who ran away when the War was ended. Should we not teach our children what was right or wrong with that insurrection? Some parents find these subjects completely and utterly abrasive and want to protect our children from these thoughts or beliefs. Let's not even get into the subject of "creationism" versus "evolution"! Depending upon where you live, there is a huge diversity of thoughts and beliefs that we cannot protect our children from, and cannot mandate a law for or against them.
But, the legislative intent is to leave courts with broad flexibility to make the ultimate decision based on the specific facts in light of the totality of the evidence. A finding of "detriment to the child" does not require any finding of parental "unfitness."
Parents come into my offices all the time wanting this, or not wanting that for their children. Most times, I have to advise that they can't get what they want for their children, and they don't want to understand it, no matter how well I explain the problem!
In summary, it depends on the organization, their activities in moving their views forward, and whether the court, on that day, at that time, and under all the known circumstances in conjunction with the then community standards, will make a finding of "detriment." A court will do everything in it's power to make sure that no harm comes to a child; but, there MUST be a clear showing of harm before "association" will be impeded - - and that's a tall order to prove.
IAAL
- Status
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">