Is racism grounds for change of custody

[BelizeBreeze]

any group that teaches that jews and blacks are inferior to whites is teaching hate. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out!!!!!!!! Sure are some stupid people around here.

yep, and I just read a reply from one of them.

Edited and added: Very fine discourse big guy.

 

[shell007]

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:

• 
  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

OMG!!!!

Talk about holding back and then......BAM!!!

 

[Just Blue]

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:

• 
  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

Brilliant post!...

 

[BelizeBreeze]

BB~ Surely that was not meant re; Me? I, like Halls, have a bi-racial child...and during my years as a child advocate saw terrific damage caused by parents indoctrinating their children into bigotry etc.

No but if you agree with Hall then it can be.

This 'numnuts' (paraphrasing a lovely lady on this forum ) is another ASSUMMING all sorts of things not posted about this "Group" and that is the problem when people of limited intelligence discuss controversial subjects.

They can't because they are not intelligent.

 

[casa]

No but if you agree with Hall then it can be.

This 'numnuts' (paraphrasing a lovely lady on this forum ) is another ASSUMMING all sorts of things not posted about this "Group" and that is the problem when people of limited intelligence discuss controversial subjects.

They can't because they are not intelligent.

I was referring to my reply being one of the most recent at the time of your post. Upon your edit, I understood, and deleted my question.

 

[stealth2]

any group that teaches that jews and blacks are inferior to whites is teaching hate. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out!!!!!!!! Sure are some stupid people around here.

So where do you draw the line? Can African American parents advocate the tactics of the Black Panthers to their children? Can Jewish parents advocate the tactics of Kahane Chai to their kids? What about Muslim parents in today's climate? It's a slippery slope - and one needs to be very careful of where it slides.

 

[casa]

If it slides towards things which will be detrimental the child (advocates violence=eventual arrests), if it negatively impacts the child emotionally and socially (alienates them from peers, creates anti-social tendencies) ...then this can be documented with effective therapy...and with that professional's opinion, would weigh in court with a reasonable judge.

Of course, as I said before, I have no clue what the 'climate' is like in LA. It all seems rather straight forward: It doesn't benefit a child to teach them to exclude/deny/avoid entire 'categories' of people. Same for gender, Same for socio-economics etc. etc.

 

[Gum_Drop]

Sadly, we live in a 'Good 'ole Boy' Parish. It is known for its racism, (you can google Livingston Parish, fema trailers, and Hurricaine Katrina) Thankfully their mom wasnt born and raised here, so she doesnt have the backwards morals as a lot of the parish members.

Her X became involved with a group of guys from a hunting club this past hunting season. This is the first instance, of him taking the children to one of their get togethers. Now I can not say that it is KKK, but being a white member of this community, I know it does exist.


If her son, were to secretly tape a meeting, if they are brought to another one, would it be able to be used determing what goes on at these functions?

If this does go to court, can a local judges decision be appealed? Can a change of venue be granted?

 

[casa]

Sadly, we live in a 'Good 'ole Boy' Parish. It is known for its racism, (you can google Livingston Parish, fema trailers, and Hurricaine Katrina) Thankfully their mom wasnt born and raised here, so she doesnt have the backwards morals as a lot of the parish members.

Her X became involved with a group of guys from a hunting club this past hunting season. This is the first instance, of him taking the children to one of their get togethers. Now I can not say that it is KKK, but being a white member of this community, I know it does exist.


If her son, were to secretly tape a meeting, if they are brought to another one, would it be able to be used determing what goes on at these functions?

If this does go to court, can a local judges decision be appealed? Can a change of venue be granted?

Do not encourage her underage children to secretly tape these people- DO NOT. First, you do not know the legalities of the recordings until you research state law for LA. Second, if they are untowardly people weilding weapons, you might not want to further jeapordize the children. You've already been told how to get that testimony into the court.

You can appeal, yes, but it's not likely to end up with you winning. Overall, unless there was some horrific miscarriage of justice- Judge's don't go around un-doing what they have spent their days/weeks/lives Doing in the first place....making rulings.

Why would there be a change in venue? He's not some high profile criminal...he's a Dad who's aligning himself for social/emotional support with unsavory characters who may be damaging his relationship wth his children or worse.

 

[Gum_Drop]

ok advice taken on the taping, and change of venue, cause this is a small parish, with a handful of judges, and here its not what you know but who you know...

 

[LdiJ]

Brilliant post!...

100% agreed...this is the IAAL that deserves respect....unfortunately this is the IAAL that rarely shows himself. This is the same IAAL that literally posted a full fledged legal response for a parent to use in court (on the grandparent forum) a few months back....which made me cheer.

I wish this was the IAAL that we see everyday. Unfortunately its not.