Shielding child whose mother is A from father's B lifestyle/i deology/religion?

[Vance R. Koven]

I agree with the distinction, and I agree that a judge should base a
decision on more than generalized hypothetical injury. However, where there
is credible evidence of a serious risk of injury, which survives rebuttal,
that to me justifies some level of restriction, even on a conventional
free-speech analysis.

However, the father's speech is not being totally restricted, it is only
certain aspects of religious practice that were restricted. The father was
not, if I recall, prevented from discussing Wicca or its beliefs; and it was
the visual/aural stimuli that seemed to cause the child problems. Thus, this
would be much more like a TPM restriction in the interest of the highly
impressionable child. The state has *lots* more leeway in restricting speech
to which children are exposed than it has with respect to older adolescents
and adults.

On Jan 24, 2008 4:27 PM, Judith Baer <JBAER at politics.tamu.edu> wrote:

>  At a practical level, of course, what parent would come out in open court
> and say "we're racists here, you can't let my child consort with other
> races"?
> (Vance Koven)
>
> No, but the present case reminds me of Palmore v. Sidoti. The father
> argued for, and initially got, custody on the grounds that his daughter
> would be subject to social stigmativation because she lived in an
> interracial household. This judge has justified his ruling by pointing to
> the child's fear of certain Wiccan practices. Actually, the present argument
> is the stronger, since the child has exhibited fear, whereas Melanie
> Sidoti's "stigmatization" was hypothetical.
>
> Judy Baer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080124/bee5459e/attachment.htm