Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's Wiccanlifestyle?

[Ed Brayton]

But I hadn't already been exposed to it. For the first 8 years of my life I
was raised with no religion at all. After that, not only did I have a
Pentecostal stepmother, my father agreed that I would go to church with her
every week (and I did, even becoming a Christian for several years). I think
he did the right thing. This problem of "confusion" is vastly overblown, I
think. There is inherent confusion when it comes to religious questions and
it's true for every kid no matter their religion or lack of it. Someone
raised in a Christian household is inevitably going to confront
non-Christian thinking, if not because of a parent's disbelief then
certainly because of encountering those of different beliefs in school or
other settings. This is nothing to fear, it's a good thing that kids are
exposed to a wide variety of beliefs. It certainly should not be the kind of
thing that judges should seek to protect someone from. That's just not their
job. 

 

Ed Brayton

 

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:03 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's
Wiccanlifestyle?

 

In a situation where the child has *already* been exposed to differences in
outlook between the two parents (as in Ed's personal example or in Alan's),
then it seems highly unlikely that anyone could show psychological injury by
the child's continuing to be so exposed following a divorce. 

Nobody here seemed to take great exception to the New York case cited
earlier that required a "lapsed" mother to continue raising her child in
orthodox Judaism. She and her husband had agreed on this before the divorce,
and the evidence showed it was the child's strong preference. Suppose the
mother hadn't just lapsed, but had a "Road to Damascus" conversion and was
now an evangelical Christian. I don't think that would change the result in
the case. If the mother really wanted the child to attend Christian worship,
and the child balked or started wetting the bed or gave other evidence of
trauma, I doubt a court would--or should--have any hesitation in ordering
her not to do it. 

In these cases, with such constraints in place, it becomes the constrained
parent's responsibility to maintain the kind of relationship with the child
that will not traumatize the child. Is there a Jewish or Christian or Wiccan
way to ride a Ferris wheel? This doesn't seem to be such a hard thing to
grasp, though I have no doubt such things are beyond the ken of many a
person. 

On Jan 24, 2008 1:12 PM, Brownstein, Alan <aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu> wrote:

I have no clear answer to this problem - but I think part of what is
troubling to me about the potential scope of these constraints on visitation
orders is that they may make it difficult for the child to have any
meaningful relationship with one parent. A devout individual may make his or
her religious practices a regular part of life. Could the court prohibit one
parent from saying a prayer before a meal if the child was present? If a
Christian parent wants the child to be home on Sunday (to attend Church and
to observe the Sabbath) and the other parent is an observant Jew so that if
the child visited that parent on Saturday the child would necessarily be
exposed to Jewish religious practices, how should a court resolve that
tension. Would it be appropriate for the court to rule that only one parent
could ever be with the child on weekends?

 

Alan Brownstein 

 

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu ] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:52 AM


To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Shielding child whose mother is Catholic from father's
Wiccanlifestyle?

 

I think Steve's message illustrates exactly the point. What's in the best
interests of *the* child is a matter to be decided with reference to the
particular child in question and to his/her family's unique circumstances.
It is not a matter for ideology. 

If a child is raised in a household in which differences are extolled and
exhibited, then being exposed to them post-divorce doesn't in itself seem
likely to harm the child. But where a family has adhered to a particular
framework, and that framework is suddenly jolted, not only by the divorce
but by radical changes in what had been viewed as a fundamental aspect of
child-rearing, then it seems perfectly consistent with the legal standard,
psychology and the still largely accepted role of the family, for a judge to
ascertain whether harm is likely to occur, and take reasonable actions to
prevent harm. 

Imposing a Unitarian world view on, say, a Pentecostal child who had
consistently been reared that way, while it may seem to Steve like a "good
thing," would be the worst kind of judicial bullying, as would an order for
a child raised in a Unitarian household to be sent off to Catholic school,
where in each case the judge reasonably concluded that this would create a
cognitive dissonance that could adversely affect the child's emotional
stability. 

Vance


_______________________________________________
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/20080124/1d56666f/attachment.htm