Atheist Sues To Prevent Son From Attending Catholic School

[Temporal Renegade]

The kid's parents are divorced, he's atheist, and she's Roman Catholic:
http://www.wlky.com/news/14981101/detail.html

 

[Nucular]

So she's a divorced RC?

Sounds like he's got a pretty strong case under that there Kentucky constitution.

 

[danielk]

Hm, eighth grade. How about letting the son decide for himself? No good can possibly come out of this court case.

 

[Nucular]

How old is 8th grade? I was picturing a child just about to start school.

 

[danielk]

About 14 I think.

 

[articulett]

If part of the divorce settlement involves him paying for "private school", I think he has a very good case. It seems that religions have been increasingly overstepping their boundaries, and I think these kinds of cases are necessary. I suspect a 14 year old kid doesn't want to be forced to choose, because it might make him feel like he's choosing between his parents. But I wonder if he has an opinion on the subject. My mom wanted me to go to Catholic school, but my dad didn't think the expense was worth it, and I'm very glad for that.

I'm betting the mother will capitulate rather than have a judge decide the case.

 

[danielk]

If part of the divorce settlement involves him paying for "private school", I think he has a very good case.

Good point, if that's indeed the case.

 

[kallsop]

I don't know about that particular school in Kentucky, but our local Catholic high school accepts children of all religions, or none at all, and children can be scheduled to have no religious classes. Last time I checked, about 1/3 of the children at the local school were not Catholic.

 

[Dogmeat]

Well yeah but the state constitution still reads pretty clear if you ask me. Though I'm not sure if the kid's wishes have been taken into account.

 

[Craig24]

Hi articulett,

If part of the divorce settlement involves him paying for "private school", I think he has a very good case.

Since details of the divorce settlement are unknown, this is pure speculation. The article states: "According to Kagin, when Ryan and his wife got divorced, a judge ordered their son continue attending a Catholic school." What was the legal basis for this judges decision? I would want to know this before I draw any conclusions and form an opinion on the case.

It seems that religions have been increasingly overstepping their boundaries, and I think these kinds of cases are necessary.

This isn't a case of religions overstepping their boundaries. It may be a case of the judge overstepping his legal boundaries but, again, I would require more information concerning the original decision by the judge to order the child to continue attending Catholic school. In any case, you have the interests of two parents and a child to consider as well as the law. These kinds of cases are often unpredictable.

 

[Craig24]

As I read this article, it occurs to me that there is something wrong here. According to the article, the Constitution of the state of Kentucky reads as follows:

Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.

Isn't anyone curious as the why it wasn't amended in this day and age of FEMINISM and EQUAL RIGHTS for WOMEN to read:

Nor shall any parent be compelled to send their child to any school to which they may be conscientiously opposed.

???

 

[Fitter]

Hm, eighth grade. How about letting the son decide for himself? No good can possibly come out of this court case.

At 14 I would have wanted to stay in the same school as my friends. If either one of my parents made me change schools at that age, for their own crusading purposes, they would have some major resentment issues with which to deal.

 

[articulett]

As I read this article, it occurs to me that there is something wrong here. According to the article, the Constitution of the state of Kentucky reads as follows:

Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.

Isn't anyone curious as the why it wasn't amended in this day and age of FEMINISM and EQUAL RIGHTS for WOMEN to read:

Nor shall any parent be compelled to send their child to any school to which they may be conscientiously opposed.

???

Yes... that is sexist. And I don't know if he had to pay for the school. I've known of divorce cases where the parent is required to continue to pay for the private school the kid was going to at the time of the divorce...

The kids I know who went to Catholic School were eager to go to a regular High School after the 8th grade... A lot of parents seem to "make" their kids go up until that time.

And I bet you the school tuition is a part of the disagreement. I think it's an interesting case... I wonder if both parents have joint legal custody and/or joint physical custody? Suppose the mother was a Jehovah Witness and the kid needed a blood transfusion? Because there is no harm that can be anticipated by going to a secular school, and there is a perceived harm of indoctrination if the kid goes to a Catholic school, I think the correct thing to do is to let the kid go to a public school unless he feels strongly that he does not want to. Try and imagine if your child was being sent to a school with a theology you found damaging-- a Madras, for example.

Suppose the father converted to Judiasm... I don't think the judge would allow him to enroll the kid in a Jewish school-- a public school would be the fair alternative. Government is not supposed to show preference for one religion over another nor for religion over lack of religion. This might be an important case if it makes it to court.

 

[Herzblut]

Since details of the divorce settlement are unknown, this is pure speculation. The article states: "According to Kagin, when Ryan and his wife got divorced, a judge ordered their son continue attending a Catholic school." What was the legal basis for this judges decision? I would want to know this before I draw any conclusions and form an opinion on the case.

What would be the legal basis for withdrawing a child from his familiar school surroundings? An ideologically infatuated father isn't. Moreover, this bloke rings hollow because he's obviously accepted his son's school for many years. Why?

 

[hgc]

I don't know about that particular school in Kentucky, but our local Catholic high school accepts children of all religions, or none at all, and children can be scheduled to have no religious classes. Last time I checked, about 1/3 of the children at the local school were not Catholic.

Where I come from, Jewish kids with drug problems were sent to Catholic school.

 

[Damien Evans]

Where I come from, Jewish kids with drug problems were sent to Catholic school.

Having relatively recently graduated a catholic school, I can confirm that kids with drug problems are sent to catholic school, where they quickly set up their own, shall we, agricultural economy...

None of the guys I knew were Jews though.

 

[Nogbad]

Where I come from, Jewish kids with drug problems were sent to Catholic school.

Behave or we set the priests and nuns on you?

Tough love indeed.

 

[PAC]

I was raised Catholic but my father did not want us to go to Catholic school as he had. However I did have to attend religious education. It was the foolishness of the absurd comments from the nuns and priests that began my journey down the road of skepticism. Many of my friends who had attended Cathoilic school seemed to be more skeptical than those in public schools. A Catholic education may provide indoctrination or may be the best argument not to believe.

 

[Mobyseven]

Having relatively recently graduated a catholic school, I can confirm that kids with drug problems are sent to catholic school, where they quickly set up their own, shall we, agricultural economy...

None of the guys I knew were Jews though.

Heh. You should see the Catholic schools where I come from. If you want to see real drug problems, take a look at the private schools though.

 

[Mobyseven]

As I read this article, it occurs to me that there is something wrong here. According to the article, the Constitution of the state of Kentucky reads as follows:

Nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed.

Isn't anyone curious as the why it wasn't amended in this day and age of FEMINISM and EQUAL RIGHTS for WOMEN to read:

Nor shall any parent be compelled to send their child to any school to which they may be conscientiously opposed.

???

When there isn't a need to amend something, it generally doesn't get amended. It may be that this section of the constitution hasn't been invoked in a very long time, and so it slipped past unnoticed.

Here in Victoria, the Wrongs Act 1958 still lists 'seduction' as a tort:

PART II - SEDUCTION​

14. Proof of loss of service in actions of seduction unnecessary

In any action of seduction brought by a parent or person in loco parentis it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff to allege or give evidence of loss of service to the plaintiff by the woman or girl seduced or that between them there was the relation of master and servant but such loss of service and relation shall be conclusively presumed in favour of the plaintiff.​

My bet is that the minute someone actually tries to sue using this part of the Wrongs Act it'll be amended faster than you can say, "By gosh old chap, I think Dr Williamson is engaged in coitus with your daughter!"