I would have understood if, say, a Wiccan and a Christian got divorced, that the one might request that the child not be exposed to the religion of the other. (It wouldn't be okay, but I'd at least understand why a court might even mention the subject).
But if both parents are Wiccan, who the hell asked the court to interfere in the first place?
Nailed it in one. Here's the original story (http://tinyurl.com/8pvyn). Basically, the fuckhe- er, judge brought it into the proceedings on his own whim, over the fierce objections of both parents.
I note that, according to this article, "The order does not define a mainstream religion." Aha! Let's raise him as a Klingon. That's got billions of followers.
Oh, no, I'm referring to the general principle, not this individual case. In cases where it *doesn't* violate freedom of religion, it's perfectly okay for a judge to randomly decide parents can't do X or Y without provocation?
No, its not. The Judge did something wrong. The point is that the system is setup with the understanding that people mess up, and there is a way to fix it. A working court system has to assume that judges make mistakes (this one was maybe more stupid that the average) and that there is a way to fix problems.
In this case the system as a whole worked because it violated religious freedom. But obviously the first judge's ruling followed some principle of allowable judicial interference. Based solely on what he thought he was allowed to do, what's to stop a judge forbidding parents from giving their children cheese? It doesn't violate the first amendment...
Well I think the appeals court did a Sandra Day Oconnor and didn't touch that issue, but I think it's reasonable to say he probably would have been slapped down for that reason too.
In this case, I bet the first judge thought Wiccanism probably *did* do the child harm. Wrong as wrong can be, but, still.
There's a little more useful detail in the follow-up article here.
Bottom line: to the extent that there was deliberate intolerance at work here, it appears to have come not from the judge himself but from support staff. The social-services agency that reviewed the case gave an errant recommendation (see the original coverage of the first ruling), and the judge relied on some combination of that recommendation and his own staff's assessment of it; the new article isn't completely clear on that point.
In a court system as busy as ours is, it isn't greatly surprising that a judge relies on these kinds of reports to make rulings in many seemingly everyday cases. It's to this judge's credit that he looked more deeply into the record after the fireworks started and is now willing to admit that he goofed. As I argued the first time around, the target for reform here ought to be the social-service agency, which should not have made the recommendation it did.
Given that my daughter is allergic to cow's milk (not lactose intolerant - ahhhh-choooooo!) that might have been specified if Nicolai and I had done something silly like break up when she was 4. Which as djonn comments below is presumably the principle involved at the judicial level. And yeah, it seems to require all or at least most involved to be dealing honestly. The judge hasn't got the option of doing all his own investigation, even in something as simple as a doctor's report.
Heck, even if everybody IS being honest, the law is like an old workhorse of a program that's been patched and re-patched and re-re-patched and the wonder is that we don't get more unintended consequences out of the thing.
Read the original as well. Sounds like a judge with a problem of world veiw. Hopefully he\she gets something more than a slap on the writst for being such an ingoramus.
I'd love to read the original - but the link appears to have busted. Most likely timed out- anybody got a copy you can email me? (if so let me know and I'll give you the address to send it to.)
Hmmm went back and looked but the link I clicked to is gone. After a search I found several articles dealing with this case but they want me to pay for them.
A completey irrelevant comment on your userpic: My dance of the Brave Little Toaster is quite different. Toaster was playing in the ER waiting room when I was writhing in pain for hours with kidney stones many years ago. So the happy face of the woman in the flashing images seems totally and freakishly incongruous to me in the context of the caption.
it's willow, from "buffy the vampire slayer." she's a little trooper, overcoming shyness and a near-total lack of social skills to become comfortable in her skin and not care what other people think of her. and she gets dealt some crap hands in the game of life, too, and doesn't let it slow her down. erm...i guess mostly it's my girly "don't let 'em get you down" icon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
no subject
I would have understood if, say, a Wiccan and a Christian got divorced, that the one might request that the child not be exposed to the religion of the other. (It wouldn't be okay, but I'd at least understand why a court might even mention the subject).
But if both parents are Wiccan, who the hell asked the court to interfere in the first place?
no subject
no subject
I note that, according to this article, "The order does not define a mainstream religion." Aha! Let's raise him as a Klingon. That's got billions of followers.
no subject
no subject
That's frelled up.
no subject
In this case the system as a whole worked.
no subject
no subject
In this case, I bet the first judge thought Wiccanism probably *did* do the child harm. Wrong as wrong can be, but, still.
no subject
Bottom line: to the extent that there was deliberate intolerance at work here, it appears to have come not from the judge himself but from support staff. The social-services agency that reviewed the case gave an errant recommendation (see the original coverage of the first ruling), and the judge relied on some combination of that recommendation and his own staff's assessment of it; the new article isn't completely clear on that point.
In a court system as busy as ours is, it isn't greatly surprising that a judge relies on these kinds of reports to make rulings in many seemingly everyday cases. It's to this judge's credit that he looked more deeply into the record after the fireworks started and is now willing to admit that he goofed. As I argued the first time around, the target for reform here ought to be the social-service agency, which should not have made the recommendation it did.
no subject
Heck, even if everybody IS being honest, the law is like an old workhorse of a program that's been patched and re-patched and re-re-patched and the wonder is that we don't get more unintended consequences out of the thing.
no subject
Kudos to the people who got it ove turned.
no subject
no subject
no subject
OTOH, thank goodness the Appeals Court actually does know the law.
no subject
no subject
Heck, I won't be surprised if Bush promotes the Marion judge to the Federal bench because of this case.
no subject
no subject
But hurrah for idiocy being overturned.
no subject
erm...i guess mostly it's my girly "don't let 'em get you down" icon.