Judge: "As I sat here listening to this I realised that I have 2 screws in my leg because of a motorcycle accident, I have corneas in both eyes, I'd be blind without them, I know that plastic surgery is an accepted part of society, breast augmentation [inaudible]... and what the respondent does or doesn't do with his body is not an issue in this case unless it affects the children negatively, and on a whole I find that it hasn't and it doesn't, and in fact there was some inference that they were kind of proud that their dad had some things that made him kind of cool. Beyond that I've also found some evidence that he's a good dad, he loves his kids,[inaudible...]* he's busy with work, he's busy with biohacking, I don't find that troubling, the biohacking I don't find that troubling."
Closing statement by the mother's attorney (read from a transcript by the podcast host): "Richard has openly rejected not only the idea of personal reality but the very religious tradition upon which western morality is based. He insisted that the children be raised in an atheistic environment, he has openly stated his contempt for religion. With their mother the children receive traditional moral direction."
Judge: "The factors that a court needs to look at is the past conduct and demonstrated moral standards of the parties."
[inaudible]
Judge: "Much was made about the respondent's alleged atheistic lifestyle, and while this court can't take any position on religion, at least the petitioner stated that she would like to give her kids the chance to accept or reject religion. I'm not sure that the respondent would be willing to do that."
Then the dude starts to comment on what the judge was saying.
Judge: "I think it's in the kids best interest not to have a 50/50 custody arrangement. I believe and find that it is in the kid's best interest to have mom be the sole custodial parent. And I so conclude. After the weekend I want the new arrangement to start."
As those are separate quotes in the podcast it's not clear if there was or was not more said in between.
*The biohacker guy is speaking over the audio during these sections that I've marked as inaudible. IT's possible that the judge says something that he doesn't want us to hear, but they are very brief and in the context it doesn't seem likely. Others can form their own opinion by listening to the audio. You may be able to make out the judge's words, but I don't feel like spending the time repeatedly listening to it in order to do so.
