• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Indiana man loses joint custody due to being agnostic

caniswalensis said:
It is not enough to say that they are a JW and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that law, if you have a delusional belief that is evidence enough but religious belief is protected.

I think if their stated belief is no blood transfusions, it doesn't matter whether or not they will follow this belief, either way they are a terrible parent and this should be considered.
 
roger said:
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????
Click to expand...

You missed the details of the father harrassing the mother at her place of work and speaking abusively in front of the children.
The 'attack' by the boyfriend seems to be not as straightforward as that: the father was really pushing it.
It is disingenuous to say the least to claim that he has lost custody because he is agnostic.
 
IIRC, There was a similar thread on this forum earlier with a guy claiming that he lost custody because of his religious beliefs. In that case, as well, religious beliefs were mentioned in passing along with a slew of other details, and it really came down to the father's bad behavior and nothing else.
 
Okay, I found that other thread.
This seems to me to be a similar situation -- the court makes a ruling based on likely good reasons, but an interested person or group substitutes an inappropriate reason and makes it sound like that's the sole basis for the decision.
 
godless dave said:
Hm. I'm really questioning why the commissioner included points 10 and 12. They have no relevance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The relationship between the father and mother is relevant to the proceedings. The fact that the father originally practiced the same religion as the mother but then changed, is a relevant fact in establishing the nature of the parents' relationship. The father's willingness to continue to participate in things the two of them had agreed upon, like taking the children to church, is also relevant to understanding what agreement the two of them have.
It's not substantially more relevant than if the two were Cubs fans, took their kids to every game, and then later the father decided he hated baseball and refused to go. But it is relevant.
 
AvalonXQ said:
IIRC, There was a similar thread on this forum earlier with a guy claiming that he lost custody because of his religious beliefs. In that case, as well, religious beliefs were mentioned in passing along with a slew of other details, and it really came down to the father's bad behavior and nothing else.
Click to expand...

What you may be thinking of is the case where a guy claimed he had lost custody due to him being a member of the group "The Oathkeepers" but as you said, it was mentioned in passing. While I do think it was highly inappropriate for his membership of Oathkeepers to be mentioned at all, at the end of the day it came down to his other bad behavior.

This may be a similar case. VERY inappropriate to mention his agnosticism, but maybe that wasn't actually the reason he lost custody. And what's more, if the guy legitimately SHOULD lose custody due to his behavior, making mention of such an inappropriate thing could ultimately result in him getting custody returned to him because he'll have a basis of claiming discrimination, just like in the Oathkeepers case.

The court order is pretty vague. Seems to show bad behavior on both the parents parts. States he had anger issues and was texting her a lot...but that could mean a lot of things. Is this some guy who just lost his temper a few times but was never abusive, or someone who was legitimately verbally abuse, harassing the mother, etc? Courts are well known to highly favor the mothers, so it could be this is just some poor guy who lost his temper a few times but never actually did any harm, and still got custody yanked...still wrong, but not as a result of his agnosticism.

I'd need to know a lot more about this case than what's available to form a real opinion on it.
 
Eh, he uses some vulgar language and is clingy and pestery (not good, mind you), but she leaves the children unwatched. One seems a lot worse than me.
 
I agree, so the first thing that needs to be decided, is whether God is real or not, until then everything else is irrelevant.
 
mutile said:
I agree, so the first thing that needs to be decided, is whether God is real or not, until then everything else is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


OK, so God is not real. Can we start from that premise? I don't see why not. Let's argue on from there.
 
AdMan said:
OK, so God is not real. Can we start from that premise? I don't see why not. Let's argue on from there.
Click to expand...

Well if God doesn't exist the mother is not acting in the best interests of the children and this should be considered when determining custody arrangements.
 
mutile said:
Well if God doesn't exist the mother is not acting in the best interests of the children and this should be considered when determining custody arrangements.
Click to expand...

Well, in actuallity, I don't think God's nonexistence can be brought up in the legal case ;), but I do think that neither of the parent's religious beliefs should have an impact on the decision as to who should have custody.
 
AdMan said:
Well, in actuallity, I don't think God's nonexistence can be brought up in the legal case ;), but I do think that neither of the parent's religious beliefs should have an impact on the decision as to who should have custody.
Click to expand...

It is absurd that the most important thing in peoples lives is not relevant, being a terrible parent is not relevant, but we will consider how much money they have.
 
mutile said:
It is absurd that the most important thing in peoples lives is not relevant, being a terrible parent is not relevant, but we will consider how much money they have.
Click to expand...

Well, technically I think the kids are the most important thing in their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom