Mom may face jail for kids' baptisms

[luckytxn 2,264]

I'm not religious and don't believe that baptism means anything in the grand scheme so if my spouse were religious and I prevented the baptism it would be out of spite.

In this case though both are religious. It's obvious that during mediation or even in some other agreement they mentioned this baptism issue and it was a point of contention that they wanted written down which is why the court had it put in the Order. It's also obvious given the OP that they had agreed to wait but just couldn't agree on how long and had sought a ministers advice. Given they had agreed to wait some period (yet didn't know how long) it looks like the mother baptised out of spite. That certainly sounds like the way this "special" ceremony should have been conducted.

Someone makes an argument about her being methodist and how her religion states baptism by a certain age and how waiting is against it or something. Well then why was she previously okay with waiting and suddenly during the divorce not okay? Because she wanted to get back at her ex.

The simple truth is she violated a court order. We haven't seen the court order, we weren't involved in how the court order came about, but it was there and she broke the law and needs to be punished for it. It just sucks that people are turning this into a religious debate. Again it's not about religion, it would be just like she moved out of state when the court order said she couldn't (another civil liberty right? Able to live wherever you want to or whatever). She broke the law, she pays the price. That simple. If she's willing to violate this what else will she violate? The father did the right thing reporting her.

She can't violate a court order that is unlawful. No court can tell this woman if she can perform her religious duties. These are sacred.

The baptism at a young age is a washing away of the original sin. Often a Methodist will have a second baptism when they are of age. I also know that Baptists will do this but prefer a person to be of age.

Edited April 4, 2012 by luckytxn

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

I barely understand what the hell you said here.

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

[luckytxn 2,264]

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

Yes I know.

[Dan and Judy 614]

She can't violate a court order that is unlawful. No court can tell this woman if she can perform her religious duties. These are sacred.

So any court order granting sole legal custody to either parent would be unlawful.

[luckytxn 2,264]

So any court order granting sole legal custody to either parent would be unlawful.

No

[Dan and Judy 614]

No

do you agree that sole legal custody also means the sole right to make religious decisions?

[luckytxn 2,264]

do you agree that sole legal custody also means the sole right to make religious decisions?

No

[Dan and Judy 614]

http://www.divorcehouston.biz/about_sole_custody.html

Sole custody is the right of one parent to either physical or legal custody (or both) of his or her child. Sole legal custody occurs when one parent is given the right to make decisions about the child’s upbringing, including decisions about the child’s medical treatment, education and religious upbringing. Sole physical custody refers to an arrangement where the child lives with only one parent and that parent is responsible for the physical well-being of the child.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter208/Section31

“Sole legal custody”, one parent shall have the right and responsibility to make major decisions regarding the child’s welfare including matters of education, medical care and emotional, moral and religious development

http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?statelaw_name=Custody&state_code=CA#content-10169

Sole legal custody is when only one of the parents has the right and responsibility to make major decisions concerning the child (relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child).** You do not have to discuss your decisions with the other parent.

just thought I'd go through the motions

[luckytxn 2,264]

http://www.divorceho...le_custody.html

Sole custody is the right of one parent to either physical or legal custody (or both) of his or her child. Sole legal custody occurs when one parent is given the right to make decisions about the child's upbringing, including decisions about the child's medical treatment, education and religious upbringing. Sole physical custody refers to an arrangement where the child lives with only one parent and that parent is responsible for the physical well-being of the child.

http://www.malegisla...er208/Section31

"Sole legal custody", one parent shall have the right and responsibility to make major decisions regarding the child's welfare including matters of education, medical care and emotional, moral and religious development

http://www.womenslaw...A#content-10169

Sole legal custody is when only one of the parents has the right and responsibility to make major decisions concerning the child (relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child).** You do not have to discuss your decisions with the other parent.

just thought I'd go through the motions

Nice of you to try.

"A" for the effort.

Edited April 5, 2012 by luckytxn

[james&olya 1,121]

She can't violate a court order that is unlawful. No court can tell this woman if she can perform her religious duties. These are sacred.

The baptism at a young age is a washing away of the original sin. Often a Methodist will have a second baptism when they are of age. I also know that Baptists will do this but prefer a person to be of age.

You advocating an American, Christian version of Shariah law?!

Edited April 5, 2012 by james&olya

[luckytxn 2,264]

You advocating an American, Christian version of Shariah law?!

No

[james&olya 1,121]

No

Good! I was afraid based on the wording of your post that you might be one of those who advocate putting their own version of 'God's laws' above the accepted law of the land!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Good! I was afraid based on the wording of your post that you might be one of those who advocate putting their own version of 'God's laws' above the accepted law of the land!

Not me.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You advocating an American, Christian version of Shariah law?!

If you look back at my post, I did.

There is nothing wrong with a religious court arbitrating religious decisions if both parties agree.

Unfortunately, here you have an ill-equipped secular court interpreting the effects and nature of a religious ceremony to determine the fate of the mother.

I have no problem with the woman being in civil contempt. Take away her custody rights for a 6 months or similar, but to interpret theology and then determine she is a criminal because of that theology is an over step of the court.

[luckytxn 2,264]

If you look back at my post, I did.

There is nothing wrong with a religious court arbitrating religious decisions if both parties agree.

Unfortunately, here you have an ill-equipped secular court interpreting the effects and nature of a religious ceremony to determine the fate of the mother.

I have no problem with the woman being in civil contempt. Take away her custody rights for a 6 months or similar, but to interpret theology and then determine she is a criminal because of that theology is an over step of the court.