If the court meant that the mother or the church were teaching animosity toward the father, they should have said specifically that and with examples.
Instead they paint this broad-brush, anti-religious statement, able to be useful in other venues, about how negative it is for churches to teach their members TRULY to believe the tenets of their faith (rigidity.)
If the court wants to say something, they shouldn’t beat around the bush.
BTW: It seems that even when all parties have hired lawyers, in the family court cases, the lawyers all belong to the same country club. No lawyer will go up against a judge and mount a ‘real’ challenge. They all want to get along, accomplish nothing, and collect parent fees along the way.
This was not an appellate case, but was nothing more than an interlocutory ruling by a family court judge. The judges generally don't even write the orders, the orders are drafted by the moving party and the judge simply approves or rejects the order that was drafted by the moving party.
It is only on appeal that the reasoning behind the order must be stated. But then only if the appeal has been granted.
I agree, maybe the court did, the article was only a couple paragraphs long. We don't have a lot of detail.
Instead they paint this broad-brush, anti-religious statement, able to be useful in other venues, about how negative it is for churches to teach their members TRULY to believe the tenets of their faith (rigidity.)
I'm only guessing, but the judge is probably not some radical leftist. The judge actually is trying to protect the father's rights. Apparently, the daughter is being turned against the father and he can't be all that bad he does have joint custody.