Posted on 02/16/2010 9:26:07 AM PST by OldDeckHand
Joseph Reyes Baptized Daughter Without Informing Estranged Wife
A veteran of the war in Afghanistan could find out today if he'll get jail time for taking his daughter to church in defiance of a Chicago family court order obtained by his estranged wife.
The two are in a bitter divorce battle, and the question of what faith their child should be raised in is pushing the boundaries of child custody arrangements.
Reyes' decision to baptize his daughter without his wife's permission resulted in what some are calling an extraordinary court order: The Hon. Edward R. Jordan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding Joseph Reyes from, according to the document, "exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion. …"
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
In a crap-filled selfish world; children are pawns for the adults games, and the child be damned. THAT is what is wrogn with the world today.
Why didn’t he just wait until the divorce was over?
So why does the mother get to decide? So sad... not that being Jewish is wrong, or being Christian is wrong. But that one parent doesn’t get a say (that could go either way) in what life their child is raised in. By saying he can’t take his daughter to church, they are saying HE can’t go to church if he has visitation with her.
Wow. My parents were bitterly divorced, and definitely had issues, but I have to commend them for being adults throughout the process. My dad could have been an a-hole and skipped town but he paid his child support and got me every chance he could. Even picking me up from school when sick or needing a ride places. My mom never balked about his involvement and encouraged me to have a relationship.
Divorced parenting sucks, but it doesn’t have to be devastating to everyone involved.
What a mess...No wonder people say that family court is the most dangerous. Emotions run high and people will do crazy things for their Children.
This happened to my brother...took his kids to get them baptised....his psycho ex wife actually called the church and ordered the priest to un-baptise them!!!!!
I agree with you. This guy wasn’t being true to Catholicism. He was simply using their child to irk his wife.
It's hard to know without the details, but, typically after a separation but before trial the judge is attempting to keep everything smooth until in fact there is a trial. So, cars loans keep getting paid, kid stays in same school, etc.
A major change in religion is reasonably one such area where the judge is going to say "no changes" for now.
It sounds to me like the father deserves to be punished for violating the judges order. That is, for those of us who prefer to live in a secular State.
Years ago, when I first started working as a legal secretary, I worked for attorneys who practiced that type of law (divorce, child custody, support, etc.). It was always so sad to see how parents could use their children as weapons against each other. Even in my own family, when a cousin and his wife split, things became so bad that at one point the wife had my cousin arrested for child abuse/molestation. My cousin was pulled out of a business meeting and in front of the entire office, handcuffed and led away. The charges of course turned out to be bogus, but that’s an example of how bitter people can become — they have no thought of what is best for their children.
Shades of Edgardo Mortara.
This is a reminder why mixed marriages are a bad idea, for many reasons.
Or the judge, for that matter. There are no winners here. The mother's being petty. It's not entirely clear that the father is taking his child to church for purely altruistic reasons. There's a reasonable chance he's doing it just to spite the mother, although it's possible he's sincere in his renewed Catholic faith.
And, the judge has NO BUSINESS poking his head into the religious business of either parent. There's a 1st Amendment issue at play here. What if the mother was a devout Democrat? Would the judge have ordered the father to remove all Republican signage or literature from his home?
Divorce means a family divided. IMHO, the court can't take sides with respect to how the respective parents spend time with their children on their days of visitation, so long as those activities aren't physically dangerous to the child. He's not taking the kid skydiving, he's taking her to church.
“I’m not sure how the state - even in the case of a divorce - can order a person not to practice their religion in the company of their children.”
Of course, the flip side of this is the father violated the mother’s religion by his actions.
As stated before, shades of Edgardo Mortara, and a reminder against mixed marriages.
This is a divorce case. Take nothing at face value.
Religious upbringing is a revenge tool used by BOTH parents.
We should not be suckered into this one because there are far older cases with this issue and this is not as cutting edge as the author implies.
As I said to another poster, why stop at religion? Perhaps the mother has entirely different political views than the father. Is it within the judges Constitutional authority to order the father not to take the child to a Sarah Palin speech? I think not.
It sounds to me like the father deserves to be punished for violating the judges order. That is, for those of us who prefer to live in a secular State. "
Respectfully, I think this is precisely the opposite of "a secular state". This is a judge endorsing - perhaps only for the purposes of continuity, perhaps not - one religion over another. That's anything but secular.
I know a couple of different religions. The wife was originally a Catholic, but she converted to Judaism at the request of her husband and his family. Their children are being raised Jewish, but they also are being educated in certain Catholic traditions (such as Christmas). When the children grow up, they can then decide which faith they wish to follow....or maybe no faith at all.
Do many people even have political signage in their homes?
What if he were a Hindu or Muslim? Would it still be OK for him to take the kid with him?
You are wrong on both counts. It is not an issue of the child choosing to be baptized. It is one parent making a decision on religious instruction that goes counter to what the other parent wants. Just like the school the kid goes to, it is a matter of contention that needs to be resolved. During a separation the goal is to keep things “as is” until resolved.
On your second point, the judge was not endorsing any religion, except saying that the kids should stay the same religion as he was when the parents separated until it is all sorted out, just like judges rule that kids should stay in the same school, etc.
During campaign/election season they sure do, at least we do in our home.
"What if he were a Hindu or Muslim? Would it still be OK for him to take the kid with him?"
I don't see why not. It's not the business of the state to select the primacy of one parent's religion over another's. This is precisely what the judge is doing, albeit perhaps only temporarily. Again, what that father (or mother) choose to do with the child during the periods of visitation, assuming of course the child's safety isn't at risk, is none of the business of the state.
I see you've glossed over my question about political influence. Does the mother, or the judge, get to dictate to the father what political rhetoric or literature is discussed in front of the child? The 1st Amendment protects both political and religious speech. If you're comfortable with the judge violating the father's 1st Amendment rights with respect to religion, you must not have any problem with limitation on the father's right to political speech as well.
Good for you, I agree...except for the signage stuff. No one in my neighborhood puts up political signs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.