Wife's "anti-American sentiments" (and perhaps anti-Semitic sentiments) help lead to giving husband temporary physical custody of children

[Robert Sheridan]

In addition to the cultural, religious conflict, and other issues  
nicely parsed by guayiya, isn't h-Ahmed suggesting that w-Haroun has  
shown signs of having become mentally unbalanced to the point of  
becoming unable to care properly for the children?

She seems to have gone off the deep end in recently adopting extreme  
religiosity, which is often seen either as a symptom of or a  mask  
for psychotic thought disorder, i.e. is both unreasonable and  
impervious to reason.  Recent adoption of the religious head-scarf,  
the list on the fridge, neglecting the house, the new volatile  
behavior towards Ahmed AND the children, etc., seem to suggest this.

My guess is that the court-appointed evaluator recommends that W  
submit to a psychological evaluation as part of the workup, or should.

rs
sfls


On Aug 15, 2007, at 5:06 PM, guayiya wrote:

> Just a few points.
> 1. The "best interests of the child" standard is not  
> unconstitutional on its face.
> 2. Under Oregon v. Smith, if a litigant alleges religious  
> discrimination, the standard is rational basis, not strict scrutiny.
> 3. The issue here is not that the woman is Muslim, but that her  
> specific actions and beliefs are not in the child's interest.
> 4. Even her alien status might provide a rational basis for  
> awarding custody to the father, at least where her actions and  
> statements provide a possible basis for deportation.
> Daniel Hoffman.
>
> Volokh, Eugene wrote:
>
>> Wife's "anti-American sentiments" (and perhaps anti-Semitic  
>> sentiments)
>> help lead to giving husband temporary physical custody of children:
>>
>> 	Here's an excerpt from the temporary order in Ahmed v. Haroun
>> (Minn. Dist. Ct. Sept. 7, 2005) (http://volokh.com/files/ahmed.pdf)
>> granting the husband physical custody. The order was later  
>> superseded by
>> a permanent order allowing joint physical custody based on a
>> court-appointed custody evaluator's recommendation (see the appellate
>> decision in this case,
>> http://www.minnlawyer.com/decisions.cfm?casenum=A06-1773).
>>
>> 	"c. Neither party alleges domestic abuse by the other party.
>> Assuming Husband's assertions regarding Wife's conduct in  
>> practicing her
>> Muslim religion, this Court has grave concern that she would not  
>> be an
>> appropriate parent or role model for the children. In the same light,
>> the Court has concern about Wife's volatile behaviors not just  
>> towards
>> Husband, but towards the minor children and in front of the minor
>> children.
>>
>> 	"d. In considering that Husband has lived almost his entire life
>> in the Twin Cities area and has become a U.S. citizen, while Wife has
>> not acclimated well to her relocation to the United States or  
>> American
>> culture, has not sought US citizenship until after these proceedings
>> commenced, voiced her anti-American sentiments, it is in the best
>> interests of the parties' minor children to be under Husband's  
>> temporary
>> physical custody."
>>
>> Here is the passage from the husband's affidavit that contains  
>> what seem
>> like the relevant "Husband's assertions regarding Wife's conduct in
>> practicing her Muslim religion":
>>
>> 	"4. In Respondent's mind, the 9/11 tragedy was justified; she
>> believes that America deserved it for being pro-Israeli and because
>> America is standing by watching Israel "slaughter" Palestine. She
>> supports the terrorists' action; she supports and believes in the
>> extremism and Respondent supports Osama Bin Ladin and believes he  
>> is a
>> "hero," and a role model to aspiring extreme Muslims.
>>
>> 	"Shortly after the 9/11 tragedy, we went to Egypt on vacation.
>> It was then when Respondent became so obsessed with the Muslim  
>> religion;
>> her brother has become and extremist. Respondent from this point  
>> on was
>> consumed by watching every religious program and surfing the net  
>> on 9/11
>> propaganda that Respondent began neglecting the household. Respondent
>> has since been unstable and does not deal with day-to-day issues with
>> reason.
>>
>> 	"When I met Respondent she did not wear a Hejab. After 9/11,
>> Respondent first started wearing a Hejab. Respondent believes  
>> (according
>> to her belief and her interpretation of the Koran), that women who  
>> don't
>> cover their hair "will be hung by their hair in hell," which is  
>> not true
>> at all. Respondent claims to be a practicing Muslim. If that were  
>> true
>> we would be going through the Islamic Jurisprudence of Minnesota
>> Committee in resolving our divorce and she would not sympathize  
>> with the
>> 9/11 terrorists. I, on numerous occasions, tried to tell  
>> Respondent that
>> we are living in a great country: America where sky is the limit,  
>> where
>> we can be more open-minded, and be open to learning from all that is
>> around us. She is not willing to adjust to the American culture and
>> instead, she has significantly gone the other way towards anti- 
>> America
>> sentiment. After 9/11, Respondent posted on the refrigerator a  
>> list of
>> Jewish owned businesses which she vowed to "boycott". I do not  
>> want her
>> to teach the boys such racism and prejudice.
>>
>> 	"As our sons' father, I have been a positive role model by
>> teaching them good ethics and values. Respondent claims that I  
>> have not
>> provided any care for the boys. This is not true! I have fed the
>> children, bathed, changed, shopped, taken them on bike rides, read to
>> them, said prayers with them, swam with them, have gone to almost  
>> all of
>> their doctor appointments, taken them to a mosque and Sunday  
>> school. I
>> know that I can provide the kids with love and the exposure to the
>> day-to-day life experiences. This is why I ask the Court to grant me
>> physical custody. I am concerned that if Respondent has sole  
>> custody of
>> the boys, then she will teach the boys the extreme beliefs she is
>> following. I want the boys to live the "American life" and not  
>> grow up
>> being taught and to believe anti-American sentiments that  
>> Respondent is
>> following.
>>
>> 	"Respondent has not liked being this country and does not
>> believe in what it stands for. Respondent has asked me many times to
>> transfer to RE/MAX franchise in the Middle East. During discussions
>> regarding our divorce, she has asked me to buy her an apartment in
>> Egypt."
>>
>> 	The wife denied the husband's accusations, though the court
>> seemed to believe the husband when deciding on the temporary  
>> order. One
>> of husband's friends and coworkers also filed an affidavit saying  
>> that
>> "while at their house for dinner, I was struck to see a list ... of
>> Jewish businesses to avoid, posted on the refrigerator" (a list  
>> that he
>> was sure wouldn't be the husband's doing, based on what he knew of  
>> the
>> husband's views). The affidavit also reported on the husband's
>> pre-divorce complaints about the wife's "attitude towards her  
>> faith, her
>> new country, and her predilection for surfing the internet and  
>> watching
>> Islamic satellite programming that was anti-American and extremist in
>> tone," the wife's "fundamentalism and Anti-Sem[i]tic views," and the
>> husband's "concer[] with the type of message and values that extreme
>> Islamic fundamentalism would have on their children."
>>
>> 	The husband also alleged various other misbehavior by the wife;
>> the judge seemed to be referring to this when he talked of "Wife's
>> volatile behaviors not just towards Husband, but towards the minor
>> children and in front of the minor children." But it seems pretty  
>> clear
>> that the judge relied fairly substantially on the wife's anti- 
>> American
>> sentiments, and her "conduct practicing her Muslim religion," which
>> seems to refer to the pro-jihadist and anti-Semitic views. The  
>> court of
>> appeals likewise seemed to think the wife's views were important  
>> to the
>> trial court's temporary decision; its summary of that decision read,
>>
>> "Ahmed initiated a marital-dissolution proceeding in 2005. He filed a
>> number of affidavits accusing Haroun of sympathizing with  
>> terrorists and
>> engaging in anti-Jewish activity. The district court issued a  
>> temporary
>> relief order granting Ahmed sole physical custody of the couple's  
>> three
>> young children. The district court noted that because of Ahmed's  
>> claims
>> about Haroun's "conduct in practicing her Muslim religion, this Court
>> has grave concern that she would not be an appropriate parent or role
>> model for the children." The district court, among other factors,  
>> based
>> its decision on Haroun's failure to seek U.S. citizenship until after
>> the proceedings commenced and Ahmed's allegations about Haroun's  
>> voicing
>> anti-American sentiments."
>>
>> 	Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> 	Eugene
>> _______________________________________________
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
>> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
>> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
>> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list  
>> members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>
>>
>> <guayiya.vcf>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see  
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed  
> as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages  
> that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members  
> can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.