Judge orders father to take his children to church

Haggisman said:
It's called compromise, so that instead of the mother getting her way 100% of the time, they both get their way 50% of the time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. What if the boy were a keen footballer, and the weekend parent were reluctant to take him to matches, or training or whatever. Would the family courts stipulate that that parent must take him as part of their care of the child?

If such terms exist (I have no idea), then this church one isn't so unreasonable.
 
cheesyboy said:
I'm not sure. What if the boy were a keen footballer, and the weekend parent were reluctant to take him to matches, or training or whatever. Would the family courts stipulate that that parent must take him as part of their care of the child?

If such terms exist (I have no idea), then this church one isn't so unreasonable.
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if such terms do exist, but if they do, then yes, this isn't so unreasonable (other than the fact that apparently "“My oldest son, who is now 10, has already expressed a clear lack of belief..." although that quote does need to be taken with a pinch of salt)
 
Haggisman said:
I would be very surprised if such terms do exist, but if they do, then yes, this isn't so unreasonable (other than the fact that apparently "“My oldest son, who is now 10, has already expressed a clear lack of belief..." although that quote does need to be taken with a pinch of salt)
Click to expand...

The things children are encouraged/made to do by their parents, are not always things that they would be too cheery about doing. That doesn't mean they stop doing them, and if the family thought it was for their benefit when it was whole, perhaps one half of that family withdrawing from it on their watch when separated can often be down to pettiness or similar negatively biased decision making. Courts may seek to protect from such.

In principle, yes, a court ordering a father to take his child/children to church is quite objectionable. But, as has been said, we don't know the full story.
 
A shame that despite numerous quotes from the father about the injustice of this situation, the article fails to mention if he has actually had custody of the children on Christmas day (which is the only circumstance in which the ruling would come into play) in any of the six years since this ruling was made.
 
Bill Door said:
A shame that despite numerous quotes from the father about the injustice of this situation, the article fails to mention if he has actually had custody of the children on Christmas day (which is the only circumstance in which the ruling would come into play) in any of the six years since this ruling was made.
Click to expand...

It's not relevant to the discussion whether he has or not.

Courts should not, ever, under any circumstances, enforce religious attendance.
 
D.P. said:
Without reading anything about the case my bet is the mother wants the children to be raised as Catholics and go to church every Sunday. The father wants to get the kids every weekend or 2nd weekend or some such and thus it is perfectly natural that the mother wants the children to maintain church attendance.


While there is no need for the father to attend someone needs to look after the kids in church.I'm sure the father could try to make friends with someone at the church who could babysit the kids while in service while he does something more productive.
Click to expand...

If the father normally took the kids to lazer quest but the mother was anti war, should the judge also order the mother to take the kids to lazer quest too as it is one of the activities they're used to?

I think it is micro-managing too much, parents will have different ideas about what is best for their kids. I don't see why one parents belief trumps another's non-belief especially as neither party requested the condition and the older kid isn't interested.
 
AJK said:
It's not relevant to the discussion whether he has or not.

Courts should not, ever, under any circumstances, enforce religious attendance.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree that it is an irrelevance, whilst it would not alter the debate regarding the rights or wrongs of state enforced religious activity, it seems a pertinent detail whether the conditional factor is ever met.

Why shouldn't courts be able to protect the ability of a child to undertake any activity, whether religious or not?
 
Bill Door said:
I'd disagree that it is an irrelevance, whilst it would not alter the debate regarding the rights or wrongs of state enforced religious activity, it seems a pertinent detail whether the conditional factor is ever met.

Why shouldn't courts be able to protect the ability of a child to undertake any activity, whether religious or not?
Click to expand...

yeah but forcing that attendance is against very basic human rights.
 
Bill Door said:
Why shouldn't courts be able to protect the ability of a child to undertake any activity, whether religious or not?
Click to expand...

This is a bit different though.

Had the mother insisted the father take her child to Church and made that part of the settlement between the two parties that would be fair enough. If he doesn't stick to his part of the agreement the mother can then go back to court and demand he loses his current custody rights.

What appears to have happened here though is that neither party requested Church attendance being a condition in any verdict and the judge has taken it upon himself to impose that condition (probably because it is something he personally believes in), with the father being in danger of contempt of court (an imprisonable offence) if he doesn't.
 
Must admit, when I saw the thread I thought this was going to be a story from the US. I didn't realise a court could order you to go to church. Seems wrong to me.
 
dowie said:
If the father normally took the kids to lazer quest but the mother was anti war, should the judge also order the mother to take the kids to lazer quest too as it is one of the activities they're used to?

I think it is micro-managing too much, parents will have different ideas about what is best for their kids. I don't see why one parents belief trumps another's non-belief especially as neither party requested the condition and the older kid isn't interested.
Click to expand...

Is it really the case that the mother didn't want the children to go to church?
If so then this case is ridiculous.
 
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.
Click to expand...
he's clearly out of touch with society as happens with judges long before they reach that age
 
D.P. said:
Is it really the case that the mother didn't want the children to go to church?
If so then this case is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No the father doesn't and the mother hasn't requested he does either (whether she takes them herself isn't stated, I'd presume she does). But it is a condition neither requested but that has been imposed by a 70yr old Catholic judge who's made other dubious rulings in the past.
 
This is what happens when evolved mammals run around the planet believing in sky pixies. When will humanity grow up ? :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom