Free speech, teaching of jihad, parental rights, and children's best interests

[Vance R. Koven]

I have to take issue with one statement in your op-ed, Eugene: you say,
"...children are immature and less able to resist their parents' ideological
excesses." You're probably not far enough along in your parenting, but trust
me, children have remarkable defenses (and offenses) of their own.

More seriously, I'm troubled also by the lack of constitutional restraint
exercised by family law judges in these cases. "Best interests of the child"
as a legal standard probably would, on close analysis, fail all the
vagueness tests. Where exposure to unconventional views are not producing
*observable* psychological damage to the children, the state shouldn't
bother --or be allowed--to impose a more conventional lifestyle on divorced
families than it does (which is to say, barely at all) on intact ones. In
fact, the existence of a disagreement between the parents on philosophical,
religious and similar value points (what about political affiliation?)
should do more to insulate children from undue influence than in, say,
two-jihadist households.

Vance

On 2/7/07, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>         I ran across a fascinating -- and unpublished and
> computer-inaccessible -- new parent-child speech decision; I've posted
> the text at
> http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_04-2007_02_10.shtml#117074166
> 6, and written it up in an L.A. Times op-ed available at
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-volokh6feb06,0,7797695.story?c
> oll=la-opinion-rightrail, but here are some excerpts from the trial
> court decision (which was generally upheld on appeal, except that the
> visitation was changed to supervised visitation, starting after the
> father finishes his federal probation):
>
>         "The history of the relationship between the petitioner and
> respondent, and their conduct and beliefs, prior to their ultimate
> separation and divorce, may be considered "extreme" or non-conventional,
> especially in today's, post "9-11" world. The petitioner has not seen
> his children since 1997, although he has maintained consistent contact
> with the children, through cards and letters and speaks with them
> regularly by telephone.
>
>         "It is uncontroverted that the petitioner is a repeat felony
> offender, having been convicted of, among other things, making terrorist
> threats and weapons possession. In fact, both the petitioner and
> respondent testified that they amassed a large quantity of weapons
> during their marriage, which in turn, resulted in the petitioner's most
> recent felony conviction for weapons possession. The petitioner was
> incarcerated at the time of the parties' divorce and it is
> uncontroverted that his incarceration and current alleged inability to
> travel, is the direct result of his criminal conduct.
>
>         "During their marriage, both parties followed a quasi Muslim
> philosophy, including the naming of the two children born during their
> marriage, Mujahid Daniel and Mujahid David[.] ...
>
>         "The respondent contends that due to the petitioner's violent
> felony conviction record, the domestic violence exhibited during the
> course of their marriage, his extremist views regarding religion,
> including his belief regarding Jihad; and the letters written to the
> children while he was incarcerated, lecturing about religion and
> reminding the children that their names are MUJAHID, that visitation
> should be denied....
>
>         "[T]he issue before the Court is what visitation would be in the
> children's best interest ....  [T]he children shall have visitation with
> their father .... The petitioner/father shall not discuss any issues
> pertaining to his religion or philosophy with respect to same, during
> any unsupervised visitation time with the children."
>
>         Any thoughts on this?
>
>         Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> 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.
>



-- 
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrkoven at world.std.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070208/521e7e09/attachment.html