Indiana man loses joint custody due to being agnostic

[Drachasor]

Technically not if they are christian.

I think in the vast majority of cases, people are better parents than christians in this regard, but I'll grant that would be a tricky claim to prove.

 

[kerikiwi]

people are better parents than christians in this regard, but I'll grant that would be a tricky claim to prove.

You mean christians are not people? I agree. That would be extremely tricky to prove.

 

[Brattus]

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.

But if God does exist that means God will only babysit if the parent believes in God?
So a God believing parent who is solely in charge of children but leave them alone to go out and do whatever can call God to babysit?

While a unbelieving parent of the same children can not use God as a babysitter and if the house catches fire while said parent is gone God will watch the kiddies burn because the parent does not believe in God?

The God is watching the children statement has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum.

 

[mutile]

I think in the vast majority of cases, people are better parents than christians in this regard, but I'll grant that would be a tricky claim to prove.

I agree that is probably true, but I think it just demonstrates that they don't really believe. One would not risk having their children eternally damned if they really believed.

 

[timhau]

You missed the details of the father harrassing the mother at her place of work and speaking abusively in front of the children.

You missed the word 'allegedly'. That's what the mother claims; she's not a neutral party.

The 'attack' by the boyfriend seems to be not as straightforward as that: the father was really pushing it.

How so? From Godless Dave's link:

Scarberry [=the father] said he was saying goodbye to the children when Porcaro’s boyfriend, Brandon Galbraith, 23, told Scarberry that he didn’t need to get so close to their minivan. Scarberry said he told Galbraith that he was just saying goodbye. He said Galbraith got out of the vehicle and shoved him. Scarberry shoved back and a fight ensued.

...

“I advised (Galbraith) that he was the aggressor and that he needed to let his fiance and (Scarberry) handle the child custody matter,” the officer’s case report says.

 

[kerikiwi]

You missed the word 'allegedly'. That's what the mother claims; she's not a neutral party.

'Allegedly' would apply to the claims of both parties, would it not?

 

[kerikiwi]

How so? From Godless Dave's link:

Exactly as I suggested: the father was really pushing it.

 

[timhau]

'Allegedly' would apply to the claims of both parties, would it not?

Yeah. The piece does mention that the father has evidence disputing the mother's claims, but I wouldn't take either party's word at face value.

Exactly as I suggested: the father was really pushing it.

Care to elaborate? If the incident went down as reported in the piece, what constitutes 'really pushing it'?

 

[ThunderChunky]

Exactly as I suggested: the father was really pushing it.

How dare he say goodbye to his children!

 

[Aepervius]

Exactly as I suggested: the father was really pushing it.

"I advised (Galbraith) that he was the aggressor and that he needed to let his fiance and (Scarberry) handle the child custody matter,” the officer’s case report says. "


read again. Carefully this time.

 

[Dancing David]

Anderson University, one of the prime Thumper institutions in the state, is located in Anderson, Indiana.

Um, Indiana is what it is, like Illinois but lower populations in general, such Xian beleifs are common through out the Midwest, as I am sure you experience as well. Indidan is just less diverse than Illinois.

Without reading the court order one can not say that religion is the actual factor.

 

[Dancing David]

This is very important:

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.

So an order of protection was granted, that means there is likely evidence that the father was using his time to harrass the mother.

Whoopee the dad allegedly presented evidence, that means nothing.

My guess is that third parties, and maybe even police officers testified or had affidavits that the father was belligerent and confrontational. This is never good in extened joint custody. And the crucial part is if the times are met for exchanges and child support is paid.

BUT without the actual order we can't say.

 

[Apology]

While a unbelieving parent of the same children can not use God as a babysitter and if the house catches fire while said parent is gone God will watch the kiddies burn because the parent does not believe in God?

No, no no, you've got it all wrong! With unbelieving parents, God starts the fire, so the little angels can be safe in heaven with Him and away from the heretical demon parent.

 

[roger]

Except if the mother is correct, abandoning the child for a majority of its existence.

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.

I'm going by what the Judge said, not the allegations of the mother. IANAL, but I believe the judge is supposed to rule on what can be proven, not what is alleged. The detail' of harassing the mother was dismissed by the court.

And, the ruling clearly calls out the father's religion. It is not disingenuous to claim that was part of the reason. Now we have the ruling linked we can see the full list of the judge's points. It specifically says there is evidence that the father *did* participate in his children's life.

Neither of these people strike me as ideal, but I just don't see how the father's religion enters into it. I'm not privy to the details, but we have swearing/anger/texting vs not feeding the children and abandoning them alone. Without the details it is impossible to say, but on the face of it the mother doesn't sound fit. OTOH, the anger issues could have been enough to indicate the father was very unsafe - who can say from this order?


In any case, the inclusion of the man's religion in the order is mind boggling to me.

 

[Apology]

Upon further research, I've found that religious discrimination of this type is not illegal in some states. As a matter of fact, in some states, it's not required to show that the religious dispute is causing the child actual harm. Sometimes the custodial parent gets to decide, and the non-custodial parent must abide by that decision if they wish to retain their visitation. I suspect that Indiana might be such a state

Reference: NOLO Legal Encyclopedia

 

[Puppycow]

I think religion should be an influencing factor in custody decisions.

Personally I consider religious indoctrination of a child to be a mild form of child abuse (although not always mild).

So, if one one considers that a child abuser should not have custody of a child, it would follow that religion should be considered if the person with custody tries to indoctrinate the child, or denies proper medical care for religious reasons.

 

[caniswalensis]

Personally I consider religious indoctrination of a child to be a mild form of child abuse (although not always mild).

So, if one one considers that a child abuser should not have custody of a child, it would follow that religion should be considered if the person with custody tries to indoctrinate the child, or denies proper medical care for religious reasons.

I understand what you are saying and have had similar thoughts myself at times. It is a purely subjective point of view, though.

Many religious people would likewise consider it abusive NOT to teach a child about their faith. They could make the same argument that Atheists are abusing their kids and should not have custody of them.

We clearly can not be making decisions that affect people's lives so deeply on such subjective criteria.

Of course, if a parent endangers a child in any way or denies them adequate care, that is an objective criteria that can and should affect custody decisions.

 

[Dancing David]

there is a distinction often made by judges in cases, they must determine the difference between bad parebting and abuse.

Abuse has very specific qualifiers that vary state by state.

Ergo one can engage in bad parenting but not be an abuser.

 

[Puppycow]

I understand what you are saying and have had similar thoughts myself at times. It is a purely subjective point of view, though.

Many religious people would likewise consider it abusive NOT to teach a child about their faith. They could make the same argument that Atheists are abusing their kids and should not have custody of them.

We clearly can not be making decisions that affect people's lives so deeply on such subjective criteria.

Of course, if a parent endangers a child in any way or denies them adequate care, that is an objective criteria that can and should affect custody decisions.

I agree that it is purely a subjective POV, which is why I would not actually advocate that as public policy. And it would be impractical.