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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-18 08:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-18 09:30 am (UTC)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)
Date: 2005-08-18 09:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-18 10:10 am (UTC)That's frelled up.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-18 11:31 am (UTC)In this case the system as a whole worked.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-18 12:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-18 12:28 pm (UTC)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)
Date: 2005-08-18 03:57 pm (UTC)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)
Date: 2005-08-18 10:06 pm (UTC)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.