November 5, 2003

THE TYRANNY OF THE JUDICIARY:

Mother appeals ruling on gays (Valerie Richardson, 11/05/03, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

A Christian mother is appealing a judge's decision that prohibits her from teaching her daughter that homosexuality is wrong.

Cheryl Clark, who left a lesbian relationship in 2000 after converting to Christianity, was ordered by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."

Dr. Clark filed her appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals last week. Her former lover, Elsey McLeod, was awarded joint custody of the child, an 8-year-old girl who is Dr. Clark's daughter by adoption.


Presumably, if Ms McLeod was a murderess, the Judge would bar Dr. Clark from teaching the child to be homicidophobic.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 5, 2003 3:03 PM
Comments

Not an exact parallel.

However, both should be prosecuted for child abuse for bringing a child into the world without a father.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 5, 2003 3:10 PM

Another troubling aspect of this case is the awarding of custody rights to a party who has no blood or legal ties to the child.

Posted by: Buttercup at November 5, 2003 7:56 PM

Is Ms. McLeod likewise barred from exposing the child to any negative statements about Christians?

Posted by: pj at November 5, 2003 8:37 PM

Although I agree that this is judicial overreach, isn't it a good thing if neither guardian bad-mouths the other ?

In the end, if the girl remains the co-ward of these two women, she'll develop her own opinions about Mother A's lesbianism, and Mother B's Christianity.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 6, 2003 8:31 AM

Michael:

Parents have no more important purpose than to raise moral children. No court should be able to require a parent's silence on a moral teaching.

Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 8:55 AM

We had a similar case here in Nebraska. There was a hispanic man and he had a child with a caucasian woman, I don't believe they were married. He is a U.S. citizen, not a legal or illegal alien. He was involved in a life of crime and was subsequently caught, convicted and spent several years in prison for a drug offense. The mother never wanted nor received child support from the father. Obviously, he was never really in the child's life. After he gets out of the state pen, he wanted visitation rights with his daughter.

The court granted supervised visitation at first. It progresses in a very short time to unsupervised visitation. Mom doesn't like this for a whole host of reasons and they are back in court. Mom claims that dad is immersing child into hispanic culture too quickly. Mom claims that the daughter (who doesn't speak spainish) does not understand what is going on when she goes to these places where everyone is speaking spainish.

Court then orders dad to refrain from speaking spainish. This hits the newspaper and the airwaves. The thing is spun as the court being insensitive to hispanics because the judge won't allow the dad to teach his daughter his/her culture. The dad becomes a minor celebrity and the judge recuses himself because this thing has become a public relations nightmare and the judge (Judge Ronald Regan) has become so demonized. The judge claimed he was merely protecting the child by temporarily prohibiting the dad from speaking a language the 6 or 7 year old child didn't understand.

Posted by: pchuck at November 6, 2003 11:48 AM

pchuck:

I can see barring the father from visitation because of his life of crime, but not barring his teaching Spanish once you grant visitation.

Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 12:12 PM

oj:

And if the mother now thought that it was moral to lynch blacks, and the other guardian was black, what then would you say ?

Can't the woman raise a moral child, without having to explicitly point out the supposed failings of the other mother ?

Sounds more like standard ex-spouse demonization to me.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 6, 2003 2:14 PM

November 6.

I think the court in Nebraska did the correct and legal thing by temporarily prohibiting the spainish speaking in front of the daughter. This is in the best interests of the child until she learns spainish or is at least comfortable with it. I don't think the judge intended it to be permanent; although that is how it was portrayed by the media and activists.

Posted by: pchuck at November 6, 2003 2:45 PM

Michael:

Why should a court be able to tell the mother what to teach her child, even if it's racist?

Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 5:35 PM

Because she was such an incompetent that the state had to intervene in her family.

Would you close the Family Courts? (Not rhetorical; would you? If you would, then what?)

I don't see how the girl would ever learn Spanish if it can't be spoken around her, so that looks like a dead end.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 6, 2003 5:54 PM

Harry,

I think child should be slowly introduced to Spainish. Total immersion is probably not the best way in this case because the child barely knows her father. She has the one-two punch of barely knowing this man that is her father and then being thrust into the situation where everyone is literally speaking a different language. The judge was looking at the best interests of the child.

It is an interesting case in that the media angle of it blew a lot of it out of proportion.

Posted by: pchuck at November 7, 2003 10:12 AM

Hmmm. And, given the mom's attitude, what do you think are the chances this child is going to be gradually introduced to Spanish?

I'm not advocating for the father.

I run up against these kinds of things all the time at work, and most of them are beyond the wisdom of Solomon. There are things that can be broken beyond repair, and kids are one of them.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 7, 2003 11:53 PM
« WIMP OUT: | Main | HAWKEYE CAN FINALLY COME HOME: »