Well, great, because I’ve come across a truly bizarre case of judicial activism. It would seem that Cale J. Bradford, chief judge of the Marion County Superior Courts has decided he needed to prohibit exposure to the Wicca faith to a nine year old boy, whose parents are divorcing. After learning that Thomas Jones Jr. and his ex-wife, Tammie Bristol were Wiccans that sent their child to a Catholic school – according to the judge:
There is a discrepancy between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones’ lifestyle and the belief system adhered to by the parochial school. . . . Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon (the boy) as he ages.
Both parents protested the decision heavily, but the court has kept the provision regardless. Now the Indiana Civil Liberties Union is helping out with an appeal, that as the reporter of the article states is a ‘slam dunk’ of a case. Lets hope so – I’m personally stunned that it got this far.
I don’t even think I can come up with anything intelligent to say about that. I mean… it’s a blatant disregard for freedom of religion. How the judge thought for a split second that it was all right for him to do that, I can’t possibly imagine.
I’m just… dumbstruck.
That’s an absolute slam-dunk on appeal. The ruling is nothing but revolting and the judge needs to be officially sanctioned in some manner for seeking to overrule the feelings of both of this child’s parents in favor of his elementary school. I attended Catholic school at that age as a non-Christian. The simple fact is that many families do not trust public schools, often with good cause. Private options are limited and Catholic schools often the best option. I’d hate to think a judge could have ordered me to not be agnostic because I attended a Jesuit University. (thankfully, I suspect the Jesuits would be just outraged) This ruling is completely insane and I hope his father can get it quickly overturned.
IANAL but it’s my impression from past cases that the judge is on sound legal ground. He thinks it’s in the best interests of the child; it’s his case; the end. Family law can get very controlling and family law courts have a lot more power over the intimate details of our lives than ordinary courts and ordinary governmental action. Fathers who have been told that they can’t take their kids hunting and mothers who have been ordered to stay in a particular town or region can attest that ordinary Constitutional freedoms are out the window once the family court is involved.
I’ve ranted about this already, so I’ll just mention three things.
One, someone needs to tattoo the words “First Amendment” backward on the judge’s forehead so that he is reminded of it whenever he looks in a mirror, and
Two, the cited problem (the kid’s potential confusion about the conflicts between the teachings of his Catholic school and those of his Wiccan parents) could be eliminated by taking him out of the Catholic school and putting him in a public or nonreligious private school.
Three, I hope the judge has an encounter with a large seagull who’s just swiped and eaten a candied laxative. (Assuming, of course, that candied laxatives are not harmful to seagulls, in which case one which is incontinent due to natural causes will do.)
PS: What about the boy’s right (as a person and a US citizen) to not be denied free exercise of the religion HE chooses? (I know. Notl likely to be a consideration. That really sucks.)
I was under the impression that the above examples tend to occur when there is conflict between the parents. That is, the mother doesn’t want Dad to take the kid hunting, and the judge takes her side.
That isn’t the situation in this case. Both parents are perfectly fine with teaching the child this religion. Neither one asked the judge to consider this. It would be akin to a judge telling divorcing Christian parents that they can no longer expose their son to Christanity, just because the judge dislikes Christanity.
The parents lose control of the situation the minute it hits family court. It doesn’t matter that the parents agree if the judge doesn’t.
Or so I am given to understand.
I could expect some judges to think they get the right to parent a child, Robert, but I trust they have no legal ground to impose their religious beliefs on two parents who have no dispute over a child’s religious upbringing. A divorce cannot be an opening for this kind of government intrusion. It would be different if the parents were at odds as to the child’s upbringing, but even then deference goes to the parent with custody. The notion that non-Christians must not be allowed in a “Christian society” is offensive to our entire nation and is explicitly unconstitutional. The requirement for a judge to sign off on a divorce decree doesn’t afford them the right to create a dispute where none existed and decide it in defiance of the parents’ shared beliefs. If this ruling stands, we really do need to fear a judicial theocracy. Our Constitution provides us all protection from those in power who seek to imposed religion on us. If it fails to protect this family, then we all will need to be very afraid.
I trust they have no legal ground to impose their religious beliefs on two parents who have no dispute over a child’s religious upbringing.
Take it up with the legislatures that created family courts and the judicial system which has (thus far) permitted their usurpation of these parental rights.
I agree with you that they should not have legal grounds to do this sort of thing. Of course, the concomitant of that is that they are weakened in their ability to make good impositions on families, as well.
It’s true that divorce law gives courts an amazing amount of power to intrude into parenting issues, but it’s usually for purposes of resolving disputes between the divorcing parties and establishing financial responsibilities — not for purposes of allowing the judge to impose his religious views in the absence of any dispute between the parents as to what belief system the child should be raised in. That kind of intrusion usually comes from child services ;)
. . . that was a joke. But the kernel of truth behind it is that unilateral state action with respect to child welfare issues isn’t part of the divorce court’s normal bailiwick — it’s normally left to government agencies that are charged with protecting child welfare. And even then, child welfare agencies don’t have the power to stick their noses into religious issues like these.
Robert, this isn’t about people who dislike the court’s decision to side with one parent or another on child-rearing decisions. This is a judge throwing out the wishes of both parents.
Yes, Amanda, I understand that. And the judge has that power, because s/he has been granted it.
Nolo, that this is not what the people who granted that power MEANT to happen is immaterial. All that is relevant is whether the judge has the power.
Robert, from what I’ve read, these kinds of powers have NOT been granted to the judge. Assuming they have been simply because the judge claimed those powers is not entirely appropriate. What powers may be granted a judge to safeguard a child in a divorce cannot extend to revoking constitituonal rights to the free excercise of religion. Especially not on the grounds that the child may be confused at not being Christian. The judge may have powers in a divorce proceeding, but I simply think you are making a mistake if you assume those powers extend into eliminating one of the most sacred first ammendment rights.
Indiana may well afford a judge to settle a dispute over faith between divorcing parents. And they may have the right to prohibit activities shown to be harmful to the child. Neither standard applies in this case, however. You are wrong to assume the power of the judge extends this far.
What do the lawyers think?
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think he has the power and I’m certain it will be resolved in the favor of the parents. Judges’ scope of authority is examined constantly in courtrooms all over the country- just look at the recent Blakley case about sentencing guidelines. In other words- it doesn’t matter if he “had” the authority if the parents can sucessfully demonstrate that their civil rights were violated, and it seems obvious that they were.
Well, I can definitely vouch personally for one thing: Confusion in childhood about not being Christian in a Christian-dominated environment isn’t automatically harmful or fatal to a child’s well-being.
The parents themselves show no particular confusion. Even if divorced, they are still practicing Wiccans and are still in agreement that the Wiccan religion is the one that their son should be raised in. The judge is an asshole.
I am a lawyer — though I don’t practice in the area of domestic relations. With that caveat, I agree with the folks who’ve been saying that a judge presiding over a divorce proceeding is not empowered to impose his will in this manner. While divorce laws give judges a fair amount of discretion, it would be flabbergasting indeed to find that the divorce laws of the state of Indiana actually provided the trial court with “discretion” to select, in the absence of a dispute between the parents, the religious instruction the child should receive. If the laws of Indiana actually *do* purport to give such discretion to the judge, then they run afoul of the First Amendment. I’d also bet that they present state constitutional issues as well.
Either way, I agree with the lawyers who’ve said this is going to be a slam-dunk on appeal.
I’m not too upset about the ruling, because I’m fairly confident that it’ll be overruled in about 3 seconds, but I am a bit mystified as to why this judge has his job if he falls so short of any reasonable standard of competence in his practice.
This piece has already been around the blogosphere (to mostly-unanimous condemnation), but this recap of the case misses a couple of points (which, to be fair, are not even immediately apparent even in the Indianapolis Star article in the link).
First, this “decision” is several months old: the Star‘s piece recapping the issue in the case seems to have been prompted by the impending hearing of the father’s appeal of Judge Bradford’s ruling, filed in January. So it’s not as if this just popped up out of the blue.
Secondly (and in IMO, more importantly) the article points out that the “non-exposure to non-mainstream religion” proviso in the divorce/custody agreement was not the Judge’s decision on his own, but was the recommendation from the “Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau”, an (presumably official State) outside agency, who had “reviewed” the Jones/Bristol divorce agreement, and inserted the Wicca-bashing bit themselves. Not that that excuses the judge for going along with this nonsense, of course – but it is. I think, an important point overlooked. It is not just “Family Court” that can get embroiled in disputes of this kind, but also the “Family Bureaucracy” – the main difference being that a Judge, typically, has someone (if only, at a remove, the voters) watching them.
Jay, thanks for the background. It’s fascinating, though, that the judge adopted the recommendations of the “Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau” over both parents’ strong objections. It’s one thing for social worker busybodies to insert crap like that in a confidential report, but it is quite another for a judge to make it into an order binding upon the parents.
In response to Robert’s comment in message 14, I agree with nolo’s message 17.
I don’t practice in family court, but one of my former officemates does. What Judge Bradford did in this case is not only unconstitutional, but horrible court procedure. Family courts encourage divorcing couples and their attorneys to make dissolution, not quibble with the agreements themselves unless the agreement is egregiously unfair to one party, or the children are being abused.
What Judge Bradford did will be instantly overturned by the appeals court, and a judicial fitness complaint is in order for him blatantly ignoring the litigants’ First Amendment rights. It’s the equivalent of an attorney filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Pingback: The Metropolis Times