The father’s religious rights are in that agreement too.
He had a different religious view and they AGREED to abide by it. She had to respect his rights and that was the written, signed, and court ratified agreement.
This is nothing about the constitution. There are two equally important religious rights here. Father and Mother. The Mother contumaciously chose to ignore the court ratified agreement she signed and the father’s constitutional right, in that order.
>This is nothing about the constitution.
It is; but the court will likely not mention that detail.
>There are two equally important religious rights here. Father and Mother.
They may be equally important, but what of the SON’S?
Or do you mean to assert that o “contract” involving HIS mode of worship is binding upon him?
>The Mother contumaciously chose to ignore the court ratified agreement she signed and the father’s constitutional right, in that order.
Ah, so if a parent signed their children into slavery then “tough-shit kid, there’s a contract. Suck it up!”?
No, the agreement CANNOT be construed to do so without violating the State’s Constitution; if my assertion is incorrect, then prove it.