Judge orders father to take his children to church

[estebanrey]

I had to check this was from 2015 and not 1215.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...rs-father-to-take-his-children-to-church.html

A judge has ordered a father to take his children to Roman Catholic mass as part of a divorce settlement, even though he is not Catholic.

The man faces possible contempt of court and a jail sentence if he fails to go to church when he has custody of the children.

The church attendance requirement was imposed by Judge James Orrell during a hearing at an undisclosed county court in the Midlands.

How this wasn't overturned at the first appeal I'll never know. How can a judge legally enforce church attendance and how is this not a direct contravention to the freedom of (or from) religious expression?

Forget Sharia Courts, we need to get our own in order first before we start to cast the first stone.

 

[wnb]

His kid must be Roman Catholic and I guess he must have them when the mass in on.

 

[Thekwango]

Does seem rather bizarre, especially as it seems it wasn't even part of his ex wife's settlement demands. I don't understand how any judge or law can demand anyone partake of a religious ceremony. I am a catholic but would be hugely miffed if I was legally forced into participating in mass.

 

[Raggs]

judge sounds like a religious loon to be fair why is he talking about his faith or his (delusion) imo during the judgement completely irrelevant .

 

[dowie]

Sounds pretty dodgy - there have been quite a few dubious stories in the press in the past few weeks concerning family courts, the secrecy aspect is pretty dubious too... I do wonder about the sort of people we have as Judges there. It certainly sounds like there is a need for some reform.

 

[Mynight]

Can someone explain for the idiots why is it done in secret? While I can understand not wanting to release names to press surely verdict/circumstances wouldn't be any different to a criminal case(assuming said secret case was even newsworthy(loose term)).

 

[dowie]

Also why have we got a situation where a 70 yr old Judge is making rather dodgy rulings and hasn't been retired off yet, with no shortage of supply of people willing to come up the ranks. I presume it is a bit harder to either sack or force these people to retire... it probably shouldn't be.

 

[Werewolf]

Can someone explain for the idiots why is it done in secret? While I can understand not wanting to release names to press surely verdict/circumstances wouldn't be any different to a criminal case(assuming said secret case was even newsworthy(loose term)).

Because a lot of the information tends to be of a nature that could prove unhelpful for the children if it was in the public, and because it's actually pretty easy to work out who the people involved are if you've got some information on the people before, and then get a case that doesn't name them but does have some of that information matching up (for example if you know that a 5 year old girl has been taken into care from X area, it doesn't take much to work out that in a court girl X who was that age, and from that area at the time is likely to be the same girl).
And because when things go to the family courts they don't know the full details a lot of the time it makes sense for all the cases to be held behind closed doors, especially as if you only do that for the worst cases it makes it that much more obvious which are the bad ones (and make it worse for the children involved in those cases).

The thing I tend to take into account with any court reporting is fairly simple.
The papers can rarely be bothered to get the facts correct when it's in an open court and all the information is available to people who wish to look it up.
So when it comes to the family courts you have to remember that you're very very rarely going to get even one half of the story.

My guess is in this particular case if the mother was Catholic, and the Children were being raised as Catholic before the divorce then the (and this might shock people) the Judge may have asked the children if they wished to continue to go to church, or may have thought that continuing going to the same church would have been a continuity thing for the children and thus potentially offer them some stability by letting them see their friends.
IIRC Family courts have to look to the best for the Children and that can mean trying to minimise the disruption to their lives.

 

[Werewolf]

Also why have we got a situation where a 70 yr old Judge is making rather dodgy rulings and hasn't been retired off yet, with no shortage of supply of people willing to come up the ranks. I presume it is a bit harder to either sack or force these people to retire... it probably shouldn't be.

Why does the fact the Judge is 70 have anything to do with it?
If anything if he/she still has their faculties* they'll probably be better equipped to deal with the variety of situations than younger judges - and likely have decades of experience to call upon.


*And if not you can be fairly sure they'd be pulled fast, it's not like the American Supreme Court judges who are IIRC appointed for life/unless they decide to retire, all UK judges have their decisions monitored and if they deviate too far or too often from the guidelines without very good reasons and will tend to get asked to step down/not asked to do any more cases..
Next time you see a "normal" court case where the papers have gone all "the judge is too soft/hard/out of touch" spend some time and check the judges reasoning, these days they try to get it online fairly fast and it's very enlightening, as they normally have to (and do) list the reasons for the decision including the legal starting point and maximum, the circumstances that affect it and the judges own thoughts/reasoning. It's usually quite telling that the papers will only list the minimum when they want to make it look like the jude is soft, and the maximum if they want to make it look like it's too harsh, they very rarely put the Judges recommendation, let alone any of the reasons.

 

[Rangerjr1]

Imposing a belief on an impressionable child is mental abuse in my eyes, if he actually ends up believing this he's gonna live a restricted life to say the least. Not to mention if he doesnt believe it he's gonna have to come out to his father (which i assume is a believer) which might take a toll on him AND his father, and their relationship.

And as werewolf said, what does the judge have to do with it? What the hell, **** like this makes me sad.

 

[Kronos]

I was forced to go to church as a child right up until I was 15 and having an enquiring mind I questioned the existence of god and Jesus and the caring religious teachers beat the **** out of me. As a result I am a passionate non beleiver.

 

[dowie]

Why does the fact the Judge is 70 have anything to do with it?

A lot of public sector workers retire earlier than that, quite a few pretty much have to.

This is a guy who has been able to make some rather dubious decisions and is still in that position of power. The way these sorts if cases are dealt with in general should be reformed, too much secrecy, too many draconian powers in the hands of Judges. The idea of a 70yr old Catholic judge telling a non Catholic that taking the kids to Chrismas Mass is compulsory, in 2015, when the father isn't Catholic and had stated his elder kid is already not interested in religion is archaic and out of touch.

 

[Hades]

y guess is in this particular case if the mother was Catholic, and the Children were being raised as Catholic before the divorce then the (and this might shock people) the Judge may have asked the children if they wished to continue to go to church, or may have thought that continuing going to the same church would have been a continuity thing for the children and thus potentially offer them some stability by letting them see their friends.
IIRC Family courts have to look to the best for the Children and that can mean trying to minimise the disruption to their lives.

This. My initial thought was anger at a child being forced to go to church but then I thought about it more and there would almost certainly have been a reason for it.

 

[dowie]

I think you're assuming too much, especially as neither party requested this and the older kid is apparently not religious.

 

[MooMoo444]

Could you not just..not do it? Are you really going to be sent to prison for not taking your son to church? Surely that conviction would fall apart faster than a wet tissue.

 

[Haggisman]

His kid must be Roman Catholic and I guess he must have them when the mass in on.

My guess is in this particular case if the mother was Catholic, and the Children were being raised as Catholic before the divorce then the (and this might shock people) the Judge may have asked the children if they wished to continue to go to church, or may have thought that continuing going to the same church would have been a continuity thing for the children and thus potentially offer them some stability by letting them see their friends.
IIRC Family courts have to look to the best for the Children and that can mean trying to minimise the disruption to their lives.

This. My initial thought was anger at a child being forced to go to church but then I thought about it more and there would almost certainly have been a reason for it.

Surely if this were the case then the mother would have had the same conditions imposed on her?

Sounds like the judge is trying to impose his own values and beliefs rather than uphold the law fairly and impartially.

 

[estebanrey]

My guess is in this particular case if the mother was Catholic, and the Children were being raised as Catholic before the divorce then the (and this might shock people) the Judge may have asked the children if they wished to continue to go to church, or may have thought that continuing going to the same church would have been a continuity thing for the children and thus potentially offer them some stability by letting them see their friends.
IIRC Family courts have to look to the best for the Children and that can mean trying to minimise the disruption to their lives.

Ignoring the fact the older child has shown a "clear lack of belief" according to his father, how can you mandate the attendance of anything in a court order over custody rights?

I'm not too clued up on how these kind of cases work but is forcing the custodial parent to do certain activities normal in these kind of settlements? Let's say, for example, my child goes to Laser Quest every week and my wife and I split up and get custody of him on Saturdays. Would it be 'normal' for a judge to rule that I must take him to Laser Quest when I have him? That seems bizarre to me.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

His kid must be Roman Catholic and I guess he must have them when the mass in on.

Yeah the son did express that he is not religious and has no religious beliefs.

I think this is embarrassing, and I'm surprised that someone else hasn't interceded.

I also think that the fact that the judge is old is relevant; apparently he still deems a religious education necessary for a child to function. Although I can see it being beneficial (more in a text book type of learning environment, not being fed crap by the priest), I think it's archaic and ridiculous, never mind absolutely eliminating the vague freedom of religion in this country.

Castiel care to comment?

 

[AJK]

The judge is a nutter.

 

[Clav]

It is once a year, at Christmas, if he has them. Presumably that as a Catholic the mother already takes them to Church for Christmas and so doesn't need to be ordered. Not disputing that the ruling seems ridiculous but we don't know the full context.

It reads: “If the children are with their father at Christmas he will undertake that they will attend the Christmas mass.”