Did Father Lose Custody of Children Because of his Agnosticism?

If the order listed is the order of importance the “justice” places on the issues, then there’s a serious problem with his priorities. Religion should play NO part in the decision. The anger management issue I can see being a valid reason – though surely some arrangements could be made. As for the “numerous text messages” sent, that really depends on the content of the messages. As for swearing in front of the kids – again depends how often and the circumstances. You could excuse swearing if you hurt yourself, for example.

Sexual discrimination was probably more of an issue than religious discrimination. Women typically win custody of children (of an age where this is not biologically necessary) around 90% of the time.

Simply find a judge with a brain and point out that the judge made his ruling based on religious preferences, which are of course protected and not something the father can be punished for.
He gets a new hearing where the case is tried on its merits and the other judge gets a lesson in how the law really works.

Not that any of this will actually happen.

No offense, infophile, but that train, while once was true, is getting derailed across the country. See, there was this series of studies done which proved that children who were raised by mom alone, with dad being only a check, created more problems than previously thought… hence, the courts are now drifting into the bizarre idea of equal/shared custody as the default.

Now, in reference to the specifics in this case, I note that the ONLY issue that would be a strike against him is #13… since anger issues are considered endangerment to the children. #9 and #11 cancel each other out. The big kicker here for me is that #8– which is NEGLECT, and hence, child abuse, is ignored in favor of focusing on his religious beliefs.

I see this judge being removed from the bench for even entering the religious notes as some factor in this case… especially since he gave sole custody to someone who left her 3 children, ages 7, 6, and 4 unsupervised on more than one occasion.

For those of you who don’t know, full legal custody is rarely awarded to any woman, even if her ex is a convicted felon. Something is definitely wrong with this scenario. Legal custody only refers to the right have to a say in the basics: school, geographical location, etc. I have partial legal custody of my daughter, even after I made it clear I didn’t want her attending church while in open court. Even if I had gone to prison for robbery, I would still maintain partial legal custody. This is way different than physical custody, which defines the living arrangements of the child.

If this judge took away both his legal custody and his physical custody, then it was almost definitely a bad decision, especially if his religion played any part of it. Unless he had a history of abuse, sexual molestation, or something else very nefarious.

It’s inappropriate for the religious affiliation of the father to be one of those factors. I can’t see why the judge would do it. #12 and #10 just smack of improper judicial bias. He just has to win on appeal. (Right?)

I just don’t understand how everything was fine between them, UNTIL he became agnostic. That is what tells me that the ruling is unconstitutional.

I hope he wins his appeal. No child should be denied time with their father over his agnosticism.

Yes! That’s exactly why I use this name. So one day someone would end up writing “Jesus is right” or “Jesus is a total idiot with no idea what he’s talking about”.

Because either of those would make me laugh.

And I can attest to the fact that I’m right because it was a judge who told me these things to my face. My ex was fighting for full legal custody and the judge basically said “Practically nobody gets full legal custody. Not even convicted felons who are currently incarcerated lose all legal custody. Unless someone presents a danger to the children and communication between father and mother is simply impossible.. those are the only cases where anyone gets full legal custody.”

So apparently this judge feels that these two will never communicate properly and that he presents a greater threat to the children since he is agnostic and sends too many text messages to the mother. Sounds like he was cheated.

I think he needs to contact the ACLU. My brother is fighting for custody and struggling depsite the fact that she is the one who yells and screams at her kids. The courts are definitely biased against men and it appears against non-christians too.

As a lawyer who practices family law, there is most assuredly more to this story. First it is apparent that they have been in court multiple times before, probably before the same Judge. This shows a continuous problem between the parties.

The most telling portion of the order is the inability of the parties to communicate after he became an agnostic. No telling what he was saying but it had to be in relation to the children’s religious upbringing because the judge ties the two issues together.

I would assume that he took away legal custody to stop the fights between them so that she would have the only say.

“God bless you and science heals you.”

There’s another case of belief-based discrimination on the books:

Subgenius mother loses custody of sun for wearing papier-mache goat mask”

At trial the Judge was most concerned with why it was a goat mask – perhaps suspecting devil worship and completely misunderstanding the Subgenius religion. This story starts over 4 years ago but Rachel fought for custody of her son and won, and the doorway of appeals from her ex-boyfriend (who initially won custody) finally closed on September 22nd, 2010.

Legal decisions are lacking in detail and it’s hard to draw a conclusion based on them. There is more to this story than is reflected in what is published here.

I think the most telling part of it is “…Petitioner/Father…failed to control and manage his anger.” That can mean so much in so few words.

I agree with others that there is more to this story. And, at risk of being made into a pariah, I’d like to add that I wonder if he’s publicized the agnostic aspect of things in order to garner sympathy and draw attention away from his anger management issues and his texting (stalking?).

Whatever the case his agnosticism (or any other religious or not beliefs) should not be considered at all.

The reference to “fathers’ rights” is a big red flag. I quit practicing family law several years ago, but unless the situation has changed substantially, fathers who contest (ask for) custody will receive it in a significant percentage of cases. Many “fathers rights” organizations just cite the statistics about mothers having custody, without mentioning that the fathers didn’t seek it! Very dishonest.
Custody decisions have always been based on some nonscientific notion of which parent is the most suitable. There was a time when the father was the default custodian. Determining the best interests of the child is an incredibly difficult task, and rarely are both parents happy with the outcome!

First off, I have great sympathy for people who loose custody of their kids, I can only imagine that it’s the most horrible thing the legal system can do do someone.

To answer the question at the bottom of your post directly, I think you *are* missing something, but not something obvious. Psychologists often look to changes in interests, eating habits or energy levels to indicate depression or other psychological difficulties. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for judges to use similar heuristics. Essentially, since the judge was able to see a person give up something that had previously been important to him, I suspect the judge saw it as an indication of potential mental or emotional problems. That, combined with other warning signs (failure to control temper, use of profanity, etc) and the fact that men *ALMOST* never get custody of children makes this ruling unsurprising.