• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Indiana man loses joint custody due to being agnostic

Apology

This title intentionally left blank
Apology
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,126
Herald Bulletin Online said:
Craig Scarberry of Anderson lost joint custody of his three children this month after Madison County Superior Court 3 Commissioner George C. Pancol issued an order that included court evidence that Scarberry, formerly a Christian, had become agnostic. The order was affirmed by Superior Court 3 Judge Thomas Newman.
Click to expand...

Full story here: http://heraldbulletin.com/breakingnews/x1293919477/Custody-ruling-raises-legal-concerns

It's hard to believe that this man's custody was cut from 50/50 to every other weekend plus four hours a week solely because he isn't a Christian. However, Judge Pancol mentioned Scarberry's religious affiliation not once, but twice, in his ruling. Even if it turns out that the court had other reasons for reducing Scarberry's custody other than his lack of religion, it was foolish of the court to mention Scarberry's religious affiliation in the ruling in such a manner. The courts in Indiana have left themselves open for a heck of a fight by doing so.

If Scarberry had been Jewish and his ex-wife Christian, would the courts have ruled in her favor because Christianity is the majority in Indiana? Or would they have mentioned religion at all? What if Scarberry were Muslim, would that make him less qualified as a parent?

I can't help but hope that the courts had another underlying reason for reducing Scarberry's custody. Otherwise, it's a clear and obvious violation of his 1st amendment rights.
 
Without seeing the full text of the ruling, I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

“I have read the order and am really concerned about why (Pancol) twice mentioned (Scarberry’s) religious beliefs,” Drobac wrote. “Such discretion would be clearly unconstitutional unless the parent’s religious practices were actually harming or posed a substantial threat of harm to the children.”
Click to expand...
It just says "mentioned" not "cited as a reason or basis for the decision."
 
I think religion should be an influencing factor in custody decisions.
 
mutile said:
I think religion should be an influencing factor in custody decisions.
Click to expand...

I'll bite, care to explain why?

I tend to think the other way, that this is unconstitutional if that is what they did here, but I am interested in hearing the other viewpoint. :)

Regards, Canis
 
if religious beliefs put children in danger they should not be given a free pass.
 
Well if you can demonstrate that certain religious beliefs lead to increased risk then the parents should be judged on those beliefs, whether the danger is immediate or not.
 
According to another article, there is more to it:

http://heraldbulletin.com/crime/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody/print

Earlier, Percaro had obtained a protective order against Scarberry, which he objected to. She alleged that Scarberry “attempts to harrass and intimidate me at my place of employment with abusive language and profanity” and accused him of “randomly and unexpectedly stopping by my house at different hours of the day and night.”

A protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations. A month later, both parties renewed an agreement that extended joint custody.

Pancol’s order also included evidence that the mother “had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time(s) buckle them in their car seats.”

The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.”
Click to expand...

Something still seems off, especially that last sentence. So far I haven't been able to find the full text of the court order online.
 
mutile said:
Well if you can demonstrate that certain religious beliefs lead to increased risk then the parents should be judged on those beliefs, whether the danger is immediate or not.
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that it is unconstitutional to make a law that says "All Jehovah's witnesses will lose custody of their children."

...but, it is fine to make a law that says "People who will not allow their children to get proper medical treatment like blood transfusions will lose custody of them."

It needs to be about specific beliefs and behaviors, not religion in general, I think. Otherwise you could end up with a situation where some judge is allowed to say: "Agnostics are not as likely to teach their children good values, so they will lose custody of them"
 
Yeah, I could see a Judge deciding to remove custody from a parent who was part of a snake handling sect or something similar. Especially if the parent was trying to get the kids to handle snakes or drink poison. I wonder if there are any cases where a Christian Scientist lost custody due to not providing proper medical care.
 
From the quote, it sounds like the Christian/agnostic stuff is related to how well the two parents communicate, not a judgment for or against any particular belief. This makes sense, since the relationship is one of the considerations in family court.
 
In a custody hearing if a child has a medical condition that is likely to require blood transfusions and one parent is a Jehovah's witness why can it not be assumed that they will act in a manner that they consider to be in the best interest of the child and refuse a blood transfusion.

There is no behaviour that has occurred only a belief that makes the behaviour likely to happen in the future.

The judge should be able to consider this in making a decision together with the other factors.
 
So, the father has done nothing wrong, his wife has neglected the children in several different ways, the wife's new boyfriend attacked the father, and the father loses custody because he is agnostic????
 
mutile said:
In a custody hearing if a child has a medical condition that is likely to require blood transfusions and one parent is a Jehovah's witness why can it not be assumed that they will act in a manner that they consider to be in the best interest of the child and refuse a blood transfusion.

There is no behaviour that has occurred only a belief that makes the behaviour likely to happen in the future.

The judge should be able to consider this in making a decision together with the other factors.
Click to expand...

Yes, Agreed!

Only it is not because the parent is a JW, it is because they are likely to refuse a blood transfusion if needed. There would need to be evidence that the parent would likely refuse the medical care. It is not enough to say that they are a JW and leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom