Judge forbids parents from exposing child to their religion

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I really have no words.</p>

<p>

An Indianapolis father is appealing a Marion County judge’s unusual order that prohibits him and his ex-wife from exposing their child to “non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals.”</p>

<p>The parents practice Wicca, a contemporary pagan religion that emphasizes a balance in nature and reverence for the earth.</p>

<p>Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion Superior Court, kept the unusual provision in the couple’s divorce decree last year over their fierce objections, court records show. The order does not define a mainstream religion.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481[/url]”>http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[1075]

<p>Welcome to the republican revolution.</p>

[primitivefuture]

<p>Say bye to Democracy!</p>

[thesbohemian]

<p>I can already hear the “conservatives” screaming about “liberal judges” when this is overturned on appeal. Don’t you know that the First Amendment was only intended to apply to the free exercise of Christian beliefs? :rolleyes:</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>Happy and perplexed to see ccer’s defending ‘religion,’ even witchcraft (the good kind?).</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

I can already hear the “conservatives” screaming about “liberal judges” when this is overturned on appeal.

</p>

<p>Sorry to diasappoint you, but this is one conservative who had exactly the opposite reaction to this. While this judge may indeed be a conservative, his ruling is another example of judicial activism that most conservatives decry.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>hey my daughter from the time of when she was about 5 announced she was Pagan.
She didn’t believe in Santa or the Bible she said but she believed in Mother Earth
( contrast that to her sister who believed in Santa for years)
But the youngest- never really did- the first time I realized that was when we were at Costco and waay down another aisle were the same type of coffee cups that Santa gave us for xmas.

• ohhhh* she said- as everything fit into place for her- she was 5 or a little younger- small enough to fit in the child seat in the cart anyway.</p>

<p>It really really bothers me to see judges using such free rein in interpreting law- it is scary
I don’t have a problem with intelligent conservatives on the bench- after all the Supremes were mostly pretty conservative but they have been much more moderate in their decisions.
But a judgeship isnt carte blanche to create your own little world.</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>My daughter, at about the same age, announced (well, told us) no more than what she hoped to find below the tree on Christmas morning, with seemingly little thought to the cosmological or theological implications attached to the mysterious events of the occasion.</p>

<p>I’m also a bit miffed at this decision, although, I was rather put-out over the decisions revolving around Christmas displays on public property and in schools; although, I’m a bit old fashioned that way.</p>

[thesbohemian]

<p>Fundingfather,
I’m not disappointed at all! The reason I put “conservatives” in quotes is because most who call themselves that are in reality just pursuing judicial activism from another angle. Nice to know there’s a fellow traveler around. :)</p>

[willow_41z]

<p><a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031105-122726-4541r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031105-122726-4541r.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It goes both ways…</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>Willow,</p>

<p>unreal!</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>That certainly is a difficult case .
Who do you advocate for when you have shared custody but parents that have conflictiing ideologies?</p>

[Woodwork]

<p>It is not clear to me that there were two parents. Am I wrong?</p>

[texas137]

<p>what if instead of “love of Mother Earth”, the alternative religion involved exposing the child to sex acts or animal sacrifice?</p>

[docmom]

<p>But doesn’t this kind of happen all the time? Divorced parents are often Jewish/Christian, or other combinations. Usually they both just doctrinate their kids however they want. I admit this must be confusing, but surely the kids decide what they believe as they grow up.</p>

<p>And count me as another conservative appalled by the judge’s decision in the OP’s first post. How un-American.</p>

[ariesathena]

<p>Yet another appalled conservative. So what if the kid grows up caring about the environment and nature? What next - you can’t let the kid grow up vegetarian?</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>there is another woman who to the childs point of view has been her parent for her entire life- although she did not legally adopt the child however she does have court ordered joint custody

Dr. McLeod and Dr. Clark had a twelve-year relationship that began in 1989 and ended in February 2001, when McLeod decided to leave the relationship.</p>

<h1>Religious difference were not an issue at all when Dr. McLeod decided to leave.</h1>

<h1>The couple owned two houses in joint tenancy, and raised their daughter in one of these houses together for six years.</h1>

<h1>On July 31, 1993, the couple had a Commitment Ceremony in Denver attended by 80 people, including family members and friends.</h1>

<h1>The couple decided jointly to adopt a child.</h1>

<h1>In May 1995, both women traveled together to China to bring their daughter home to Denver.</h1>

<h1>On July 11, 1995, the adoption was completed, with Clark as the official adoptive parent, since two-parent same-gender adoption is not allowed by law in Colorado. Dr. McLeod and Dr. Clark decided together that Dr. Clark would be the official adoptive parent.</h1>

<h1>In September 1995, a name change was filed with the Denver District Court to include both McLeod and Clark as part of their daughter’s name.</h1>

<h1>Both mothers took extended periods of time off of work to be home with their daughter after the adoption.</h1>

<h1>The child knows one of the couple as Mommy (McLeod) and one as Mama (Clark).</h1>

<h1>In 1996, both mothers mutually filed a joint petition in the Denver District Court seeking joint rights and responsibilities for their daughter.</h1>

<h1>In 1996, Denver District Court awarded the joint custody petition to both mothers. (This was rendered void in the spring of 2001 because there was no case in controversy at the time – Clark contested the joint custody after the break-up).</h1>

<h1>Both women had equal time, responsibility, shared day-to-day financial costs and decision-making regarding their daughter. They were a family, with a child and two mothers.</h1>

<h1>In February 2001, the relationship ended and a motion to establish a parenting time schedule was filed by McLeod; Clark filed a verified motion for temporary orders in March 2001.</h1>

<h1>Clark identified herself as a lesbian most of her adult life.</h1>

<h1>Clark found her Evangelical Christianity religion approximately 6 months to a year after the couple’s relationship ended.</h1>

<h1>In April 2003, Judge Coughlin in Denver District Court heard permanent orders. In April 2003, the judge awarded joint parental responsibilities to each parent except in the areas of religion and dental care. It was also ordered that their daughter continue to spend equal time with each of her mothers.</h1>

<h1>Thus far the courts have applied the best interests and psychological parent standards in ordering joint allocation of parenting responsibility and equal parenting time. The courts are adhering to the Colorado doctrine that recognizes individuals as psychological parents who meet the criteria of this role.</h1>

<h1>Clark filed an appeal of the permanent orders decision of April 2003 to the Colorado Court of Appeals. This appeal is still pending. Oral arguments before the Colorado Court of Appeals have not been set. It is uncertain how long the Colorado Court of Appeals will take to reach their decision after arguments.

</h1>

[willow_41z]

<p>Docmom,
In the first case, the parents are both pagans, so I’m assuming you mean the second one? The thing is, Ms. McLeod never adopted the girl and so should not have custody of her.</p>

[ariesathena]

<p>Texas - those specific practices would fall under OTHER laws, such as laws against having minors engage in sex acts or laws against cruelty to animals. No reason to ban all non-mainstream religions in order to prohibit illegal acts which are already covered under other, exisiting laws.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>what if instead of “love of Mother Earth”, the alternative religion involved exposing the child to sex acts or animal sacrifice?
Then that would be abuse- not a religion
That is like saying that homosexuality is immoral and if homosexuals have equal civil rights, what is to stop persons who practice bestaility or pedophilia from demanding their civil rights.</p>