:confused: Please tell me how this is a violation of the Father's constitutional rights? Isn't he simply trying to force his religious beliefs on his son?

Judge Rules In Mother's Favor In Catholic School Custody Fight (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24113111/)

LaGRANGE, Ky. - A judge ruled in the case involving two parents fighting over whether their son should attend a religious school. Oldham County family court Judge Tim Feeley ruled in Susan Bisig's favor, saying she could send her child to a Catholic high school, partly because that's where he wants to go.

The judge also granted Bisig sole custody when it relates to educational decision-making.

David Ryan, the child's father, argued that because he is an atheist, sending his son to a religious school would be a violation of his constitutional rights. :bugeye:

"This is not what I expected. I expected the judge to follow the constitution," said Edwin Kagin, Ryan's attorney. "I think it's error. I think it's a reversible error."

Kagin said they will likely appeal the judge's decision.

The mother and her attorneys could not be reached for comment.

The old man is not doing atheism any favors.

If they made the father go to catholic school or church that would be a violation of his rights.

So, to play Devil's advocate, if the mother were a member of a cult and were indoctrinating their (willing) son, the father has no right to put a stop to that? The only difference between a cult and a religion, is whether or not the judge hearing the case dislikes it intensely enough.

Suppose, instead, that she wanted to pull the kid out of school entirely, and homeschool him. Suppose the kid loved the idea because for him it amounts to "no school" (since all he has to do is schmooze his mom into "canceling class").

The argument has to be based on the fundamental right to rear your children. That has been recognized by the Supreme Court, in cases like Troxel v. Granville (striking down a law which violated "the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children"). Also others, like Wisconsin v. Yoder (allowing Amish parents to opt out of sending their children to school, despite state laws requiring it).

Here though you have a closer question where it's one parent against the other and whether the other parent's conduct can be so objectionable that it violates the fundamental right.

Surely, if there is a fundamental right to rear children as you see fit, there is some line where that is true. If the other parent is making absolutely awful decisions ("C'mon kids! We're moving in with my sex offender boyfriend!") at some point it might violate that right, even though sending your child to a (mainstream) religious school is probably not that point.

The father obviously does not understand his own constitution; nothing is being violated, the son willingly chose to go there and the mother, as guardian, agreed. The father, on the other hand, is not being forced to do anything.

The father obviously does not understand his own constitution; nothing is being violated, the son willingly chose to go there and the mother, as guardian, agreed. The father, on the other hand, is not being forced to do anything.


Okay, different hypothetical based on what I recall of your posts (on which my recollection may be faulty). What if the mother was encouraging the son to explore his homosexual desires with boys his own age, and the son was happy with that because after a few gay sexual experiences, he was beginning to think that he might be homosexual.

Should the father have no say then? After all, the father's not being forced to do anything, and the son is happy to be gay.

Orleander: It isn't, the father has no idea what he's talking about.

Pandaemoni: Define encouragement by the mother, I'm not sure exactly what the father would try to stop.

Okay, different hypothetical based on what I recall of your posts (on which my recollection may be faulty). What if the mother was encouraging the son to explore his homosexual desires with boys his own age, and the son was happy with that because after a few gay sexual experiences, he was beginning to think that he might be homosexual.

Should the father have no say then? After all, the father's not being forced to do anything, and the son is happy to be gay.

that has absolutely no bearing on this conversation, honestly. We are talking about a mother and son who are catholic and the son WANTS to go to a catholic school. The father, not carring what his son wants, simply wants to block the decision all together. Since Catholic Schools are charter schools they are the equivalent of public schools and may be even better than the ones in that area. The father is in effect saying "I don't want you to go to a school you enjoy." for no reason in particular.

Judge Rules In Mother's Favor In Catholic School Custody Fight (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24113111/)


David Ryan, the child's father, argued that because he is an atheist, sending his son to a religious school would be a violation of his constitutional rights.

This is a grammatically ambiguous sentence.
Who exactly is the atheist - the father, the son, or both of them?
And the violation of whose constitutional rights - the father's or the son's, or both?

Reading that article, I don't know what actually went on in that court case, so I can't give any comments.

i wonder how the court would have ruled if it had been the other way around with the father and son wanting him to go to the catholic school and the mother refusing. Seems to me that this issue is about the rights of the parent and descrimination rather than religious freedom

This is a grammatically ambiguous sentence.
Who exactly is the atheist - the father, the son, or both of them?
And the violation of whose constitutional rights - the father's or the son's, or both?

Reading that article, I don't know what actually went on in that court case, so I can't give any comments.

the dad is the atheist. The son wanted to go to the private Catholic school.

Another reason why i don't understand what it has to do with constitutional right abuse.

Another reason why i don't understand what it has to do with constitutional right abuse.

It has nothing to do with it. The dad's either a liar or ignorant.

that has absolutely no bearing on this conversation, honestly. We are talking about a mother and son who are catholic and the son WANTS to go to a catholic school. The father, not carring what his son wants, simply wants to block the decision all together. Since Catholic Schools are charter schools they are the equivalent of public schools and may be even better than the ones in that area. The father is in effect saying "I don't want you to go to a school you enjoy." for no reason in particular.

On the hypothetical, suppose the mom were lesbian. Then you could say "We are talking about a mother and son who are gay and the son WANTS to go to be gay. The father, not carring what his son wants, simply wants to block the son's ability to engage in homosexual conduct altogether."

The real question is (and I don't disagree that the father should lose in this case): At what point do the fundamental rights as a parent to have a say in child rearing decisions become important enough that the other parent cannot simply dismiss them in favor of their own desires? (Bad news for the allcap "WANTS" above but what the kid wants is irrelevant. The child is not legally allowed to place his wants before those of his parents. If the child wanted to go to catholic school and neither parent wanted that, the kid is SOL.)

It also seems to me that the father is *not* likely arguing "'I don't want him to go to a school he'd enjoy for no reason in particular." The father's argument must be that he does not want his son to attend Catholic school because he fears it will cement his son's crazy belief in an invisible, angry man who lives in the sky and watches you 24 hours a day.

If my son really wanted to go to school in an Afghani madrassah, I'd be concerned, even if I thought he'd really enjoy it. Hell, if he and his mother announced they were merely moving to Afghanistan, with no religious component, I'd be concerned notwithstanding their enjoyment.

Again, I doubt that sending a kid to catholic school amounts to the level where the father has some "inherent" right to intervene, but I do think there is some point at which a right to intervene should exist in theory.

The child is not legally allowed to place his wants before those of his parents.
Actually courts do ask children what they want in custody battles and in a court setting what the kid wants certainly might be part of any decision making process. Not that it is simple to work out what a child wants from how they may be influnced by one or both parents, but there it is. In this case the wants of his parents are outweighed (and least one parent's wants are) whatever happens.

I do however think you were right to raise the
when would we change our minds
boundary pushing.

Okay, different hypothetical based on what I recall of your posts (on which my recollection may be faulty). What if the mother was encouraging the son to explore his homosexual desires with boys his own age, and the son was happy with that because after a few gay sexual experiences, he was beginning to think that he might be homosexual.

Should the father have no say then? After all, the father's not being forced to do anything, and the son is happy to be gay.

That's immoral, that's bringing in the subject of MORALITY now; this has nothing to do with morality, it's purely policy.

That father is very unwilling to listen to what his own child wants. If the judge asked the child where they wanted to go and they told the judge a Catholic school as well as the mother then I'd think that the father should just get some sense about this and let the child go where they want. I don't see anything wrong with the judges decision at all for the well being of the child is whether they should be going to school not what school. :)

Its not like the kid is 5. He's in high school, definitely old enough to decide this issue.

Psych Ep is right. The man is an embarrassment

That's immoral, that's bringing in the subject of MORALITY now; this has nothing to do with morality, it's purely policy.

But would you agree that a parent has a fundamental right to intervene in cases where the other parent is promoting immorality? (If so, whose morals are used to judge that?)

On the hypothetical, suppose the mom were lesbian. Then you could say "We are talking about a mother and son who are gay and the son WANTS to go to be gay. The father, not carring what his son wants, simply wants to block the son's ability to engage in homosexual conduct altogether."

The real question is (and I don't disagree that the father should lose in this case): At what point do the fundamental rights as a parent to have a say in child rearing decisions become important enough that the other parent cannot simply dismiss them in favor of their own desires? (Bad news for the allcap "WANTS" above but what the kid wants is irrelevant. The child is not legally allowed to place his wants before those of his parents. If the child wanted to go to catholic school and neither parent wanted that, the kid is SOL.)

It also seems to me that the father is *not* likely arguing "'I don't want him to go to a school he'd enjoy for no reason in particular." The father's argument must be that he does not want his son to attend Catholic school because he fears it will cement his son's crazy belief in an invisible, angry man who lives in the sky and watches you 24 hours a day.

If my son really wanted to go to school in an Afghani madrassah, I'd be concerned, even if I thought he'd really enjoy it. Hell, if he and his mother announced they were merely moving to Afghanistan, with no religious component, I'd be concerned notwithstanding their enjoyment.

Again, I doubt that sending a kid to catholic school amounts to the level where the father has some "inherent" right to intervene, but I do think there is some point at which a right to intervene should exist in theory.

Here's the point though. The right to practice your own religion has no minimum age on it. The father is in effect saying I don't want my son to attend a school of his religion. Or more to the point I don;t want my son to practice his religion. that is why he lost the case becuase he was asking for the right to restrict someone elses religious practice.

I do agree that in a case where the child has a high probability of being harmed by the intended action then a parent should be able to sue for an injunction. However even in that case it should be hard to actually get the injunction. A parent should have to prove that the child and other parent are completely unaware and un prepared for such situations.

I wonder what the father would have done if he had won, his son went to public school, and then his son said it was his constitutional right to pray at his desk every class.

The father is a moron.

But would you agree that a parent has a fundamental right to intervene in cases where the other parent is promoting immorality? (If so, whose morals are used to judge that?)

It depends on the age of the child involved, firstly. In this case, there should be no debate to begin with, as the kid is more than old enough to decide for himself and he has decided he wants to go: End of discussion.

I do agree with norse here. If the child can understand his decisions (For an exaple to the levels required under the concent to medical treatment act) then he should be able to make that decision. Parents have to much control over there teenage children anyway. They seem to forget that there roll is to make decisions UNTIL THE CHILD CAN DO IT FOR THEMSELF (at whatever age that maybe). Thats what guardianship is all about.

That being said i wonder was there money involved in this
For instance i wonder wether the fees at a public school being zero and as an example the fees at the catholic school at say $1000 a semester. Maybe the real reason the father didnt want the son to go was that he simply couldnt aford to send him there, if this was the case then the mother should bare ALL costs because she overruled him and therefor took full responcability for that decision

...Maybe the real reason the father didnt want the son to go was that he simply couldnt aford to send him there, if this was the case then the mother should bare ALL costs because she overruled him and therefor took full responcability for that decision

So he can't afford Catholic school, but he can afford a long drawn out legal battle. ??

orleander. I am guessing, i never said that WAS the reason. It could well be that his reasons are what he states, that he thinks religion is wrong but there could have been other motives too is all i was saying. Either way good luck getting him to pay for something he has no control over (i wouldnt pay to be honest if the courts told me i had no imput into my childs education).

... (i wouldnt pay to be honest if the courts told me i had no imput into my childs education).

LOL, good luck with that. Here its called "dead-beat dad" and they go to jail.

the court ruled that he has no imput into the education then he has no imput and that includes FINATIAL input. Actually depending on how the ruling was written i think you might be surprised how that case ended

the court ruled that he has no imput into the education then he has no imput and that includes FINATIAL input. Actually depending on how the ruling was written i think you might be surprised how that case ended

Nope. He pays child support. If she takes it back to court, she could easily get it raised because because of the school expense.

possably if thats the law in the US, i cant comment. Though i wonder what would happen if he was to argue the rulling was unfair and he should be able to home school the child. As i said i dont think its an invasion of religious freedom but i DO think it is an example of descrimination as i highly doubt the rulling would have gone that was if the situation was reversed

What, discrimination against atheists? I don't think anyone reads it that way...well, maybe except for you.

no actually i was talking about the courts always ruling in favor of the mother rather than the father.

I just said i dont think it violates any religious freedoms but i do tend to think it violates the fathers right to input into his child

So having the father help pay for his son's education is discrimination. :rolleyes: ok then.

orleander stop trying to twist my words. The inital ruling excluding ANY input from the father into his sons education is discrimintory

no. its not. This is not a male/female thing.
The woman did not say "OK, you can't see your son til you let him go to Catholic school" What you are saying is basically the same thing "I will not send you child support til you send him to public school"

If you are a good parent, you put your child before yourself. This kid wanted to go to private school and this dad wanted to throw a temper tantrum instead.

and as i said if it had been the mother arguing against the other two then the judge STILL would have ruled in her favor.

Im yet to see even one case where in the absance of abuse the father has been awarded primary custody or any other rulings that have gone the way of the father. I find the whole family law system discrimintory ESPECIALLY in the US