N.Y. Court to Mom: Remove Rock Painted With Confederate Flag Or It Will Be Considered In Custody Hearing

[TomC]

Does anyone else find it interesting how conservative media is choosing to report on this from the mother's perspective as a victim?

Remember the baker thread. What would be the analogy here, if reporting it from the daughter's perspective?

Should bi-racial girl be forced to idolize racist flag every day?

I also can't help but notice you describing a rock by the driveway as "forced to idolize racist flag everyday".
Tom

 

[James Madison]

However, the mom has a constitutionally protected right to choose what kind of political, religious, moral, and economic belief system to raise her child in.

As does the father.

The court has the job to determine which of the two offers a healthier environment for the child.

We are moving away from the precise legal language and I want to be clear. I think I understand what you mean by “healthier environment” but the standard is “best interest” of the child. And generally, the political, economic, and religious ideology of the parent isn’t to be considered in the “best interest of the child” analysis. Parents have a 1st amendment right to free speech, and that right isn’t surrendered upon being a parent, and it isn’t surrendered upon involvement in a custody dispute.

The free speech clause keeps courts from considering a parent’s expressive message or literal speech as a factor in the best interest of the child analysis on the basis the court dislikes or disapproves of the speech. More is needed than mere dislike of the message to factor the message into the a analysis of the best interests of the child.

There’s nothing reported here to justify factoring mom’s expressive message into the analysis of the best interest of the child. The intermediate court infers the rock to be detrimental to the best interest of the child but there’s no evidence for this inference. It could be. It might not be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

However, the mom has a constitutionally protected right to choose what kind of political, religious, moral, and economic belief system to raise her child in.

As does the father.

The court has the job to determine which of the two offers a healthier environment for the child.

We are moving away from the precise legal language and I want to be clear. I think I understand what you mean by “healthier environment” but the standard is “best interest” of the child. And generally, the political, economic, and religious ideology of the parent isn’t to be considered in the “best interest of the child” analysis. Parents have a 1st amendment right to free speech, and that right isn’t surrendered upon being a parent, and it isn’t surrendered upon involvement in a custody dispute.

The free speech clause keeps courts from considering a parent’s expressive message or literal speech as a factor in the best interest of the child analysis on the basis the court dislikes or disapproves of the speech. More is needed than mere dislike of the message to factor the message into the a analysis of the best interests of the child.

There’s nothing reported here to justify factoring mom’s expressive message into the analysis of the best interest of the child. The intermediate court infers the rock to be detrimental to the best interest of the child but there’s no evidence for this inference. It could be. It might not be.

Speech and the expression of that speech (whether a painted rock or repeatedly abusive and demeaning shout downs) are wholly relevant, if it affects the child.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Does anyone else find it interesting how conservative media is choosing to report on this from the mother's perspective as a victim?

Remember the baker thread. What would be the analogy here, if reporting it from the daughter's perspective?

Should bi-racial girl be forced to idolize racist flag every day?

I also can't help but notice you describing a rock by the driveway as "forced to idolize racist flag everyday".
Tom

Actually, I gave a hypothetical thread title analogous to how the baker is covered so that it has the same level of imperfection and hyperbole. I know you actually agree with the hyperbole in the other instance and so this was hard for you to decipher and I won't be able to clarify this for you further since I'd have to seriously derail the thread by discussing the other case, but suffice to say there are some elements here that have some similarity.

Calling something force that is not quite force. Okay, the girl must go to school Monday to Friday and so she is de facto forced to view the rock in her driveway. Likewise, when her father comes to pick her up on Saturday and drop her off on Sunday, again she is de facto forced to view the rock. Now, upon walking to the bus at the end of her driveway or walking out of the bus at the end of her driveway, she could in theory close her eyes and trip and fall, and so I'm calling this de facto forced to look upon it. Next, what else is there? Note she was born in 2014 and therefore only 6 or 7. She is at an impressionable age where disagreeing with parent's political or religious views isn't yet a thing. The parent's message is one of revisionist history where the white supremacist terrorist confederacy was a good thing, like knights in shining armor and it's there in a racist flag painted on a rock to make it part of Nature in an uplifted view.

And so that's my imperfect argument and it's directly analogous to the title of the baker thread and its imperfections as well.

BUT you've completely missed the point because you are looking at deliberately imperfect trees in spite of the larger forest that was mentioned. That's what happens when you quotemine and take out of context, I guess.

The forest was the PERSPECTIVE. The Reich wing articles normalize the white mother's perspective and engage in Victimhood. There's no Black Father's Perspective. There's no Bi-Racial Girl's Perspective. So we can re-frame the discussion completely in terms of the girl's best interest, for example, which is LOGICALLY what the court case is about. The free speech argument is a strawman fallacy and red herring that was debunked in post#2. Yet, the WHITE mother PERSPECTIVE continues on and on and on. The girl's best interest are the PRIMARY consideration of a custody battle and therefore ought to be the primary perspective of discussion.

That it isn't possible to change this should be enlightening, but it won't be.

 

[TomC]

Okay, the girl must go to school Monday to Friday and so she is de facto forced to view the rock in her driveway. Likewise, when her father comes to pick her up on Saturday and drop her off on Sunday, again she is de facto forced to view the rock. Now, upon walking to the bus at the end of her driveway or walking out of the bus at the end of her driveway, she could in theory close her eyes and trip and fall, and so I'm calling this de facto forced to look upon it.

While you're busy making unsupported assertions and doing your mind reading tricks, I'll ask you a question.

Next, what else is there?

How do you know that the daughter didn't paint that symbol on a rock herself?

It doesn't match your ideological world view, but it's entirely possible that she doesn't like her sperm donor showing up and making life difficult. Maybe daughter likes that symbol of "go away!".

I'm not claiming to know what anybody thinks or why anything happens in such domestic disputes or family problems. You are.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, the girl must go to school Monday to Friday and so she is de facto forced to view the rock in her driveway. Likewise, when her father comes to pick her up on Saturday and drop her off on Sunday, again she is de facto forced to view the rock. Now, upon walking to the bus at the end of her driveway or walking out of the bus at the end of her driveway, she could in theory close her eyes and trip and fall, and so I'm calling this de facto forced to look upon it.

While you're busy making unsupported assertions and doing your mind reading tricks, I'll ask you a question.

Next, what else is there?

How do you know that the daughter didn't paint that symbol on a rock herself?

It is a reasonable assumption that the child did not because the lawyer assigned to represent the interests of the child was fine with the appellate decision.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So umm... how many child custody cases in New York reach the New York Supreme Court?

The child’s parents, who never married, were ordered to have joint custody of their daughter by a court in July 2017, according to the six-page ruling obtained by The Washington Post. When an attorney for the child recommended that the mother’s home be the primary residence for schooling purposes, the father appealed.

The girl, who is not named in the ruling, was born in 2014 and attends school in the Dryden Central School District near Ithaca, N.Y.
At a fact-finding hearing, Christie BB acknowledged that “she had a rock with a Confederate flag painted on it at her home.” The appeals court noted that the Confederate flag-decorated rock was not addressed by the child’s law guardian or the family court.

“In response to questioning, the mother testified that she has never used any racial slurs in front of the child or at all,” the decision said.

The court added that the Confederate flag was “a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship” between the girl’s parents.

The woman testified that the girl’s father “does not communicate well,” while the man told the court his daughter’s mother has frequently moved residences over the years. They shared concern for what they described as the young girl’s behavioral issues, including “kicking, spitting, hitting and swearing a lot.”

Really, the child has behavioral problems and there is a custody battle for the child since the kid was born? No way!

The lawyer (Guardian ad Litem?) for the child said to have the child be in the school district of the mother. So that carries some weight.

Neither is there any evidence to justify the decision by the court to threaten a lower court to take into consideration the mother’s exercising her free speech rights in a specific expressive manner.

Based on the crumbs provided for the custody issues, who should have custody seems like it is on a knife's edge. And a mother's judgement of having the symbol for a rebellion to institutionalize black slavery for good in the yard is certainly up for grabs in a 'which parent is apparently less bad' award ceremony. It could be very likely neither parent is worthy of custody to provide a heathy home for the child.

And the child is clearly the loser in all this.

Well, if it can be substantiated that the child does have bruises and other injuries each time the father goes to pick up the child and that the mother is a significant factor in creation of those injuries, then I think the whole racist rock thing is probably relatively negligible. Is the mother beating her kid? Is the mother neglecting to properly supervise her kid because she is ignorant of how she should do that for not taking the parenting classes she was ordered to? Is the father making up injuries or exaggerating?

On the other hand, are the young girl and perhaps her white siblings engaging in mutual rough-housing where the injuries are not serious but typical scrapes and bruises from wrestling around and the mother is supervising her children taking care they continue to not have serious injuries, then perhaps the racist rock could conceivably be a tie-breaker kind of issue.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, the girl must go to school Monday to Friday and so she is de facto forced to view the rock in her driveway. Likewise, when her father comes to pick her up on Saturday and drop her off on Sunday, again she is de facto forced to view the rock. Now, upon walking to the bus at the end of her driveway or walking out of the bus at the end of her driveway, she could in theory close her eyes and trip and fall, and so I'm calling this de facto forced to look upon it.

While you're busy making unsupported assertions and doing your mind reading tricks, I'll ask you a question.

WOW, more taking out of context. You are still looking at the trees, still focusing on a good analogy to another imperfectly described case.

Next, what else is there?

How do you know that the daughter didn't paint that symbol on a rock herself?

It doesn't match your ideological world view, but it's entirely possible that she doesn't like her sperm donor showing up and making life difficult. Maybe daughter likes that symbol of "go away!".

I'm not claiming to know what anybody thinks or why anything happens in such domestic disputes or family problems. You are.
Tom

If the mother wasn't responsible in some way, she'd say so in court.

Duh!

Also....where would a 6 year old learn that a Confederate flag means Go Away to a Black man? If that is knowledge to a 6 year old, then why aren't you considering it to be knowledge of an adult?

 

[zorq]

As an ethnic minority, with brown skin, I’m not thrilled by the mom’s act of a confederate flag painted onto a rock on her property. However, the mom has a constitutionally protected right to choose what kind of political, religious, moral, and economic belief system to raise her child in.

Sure,... AND the court has the right to choose the BETTER option for the child when there is a choice that must be made.

A parent has the constitutionally protected right to tell a child that they are "a worthless sacks of shit" on the hour, every hour of the day, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't affect the child or shouldn't be considered as a factor when picking the better home for a child.

Well, you’re assuming there’s a “better option.” However, the facts here do not support the assumption. You’re also assuming a “better home” but again, the facts do not support this assumption.

No, I'm not assuming any home in THIS case is better. I'm asserting that the court's mandate is to make the decision that is in the best interest of the child. The speech of the parents constitute evidence when making this decision.

You may dislike a painted confederate rock, but your dislike doesn’t establish the mother as a harmful to the child and it doesn’t establish the mother’s home as harmful to the child.

True, but then there is no reason to discard perfectly good evidence just because it happens to be produced legally.

Neither is there any evidence to justify the decision by the court to threaten a lower court to take into consideration the mother’s exercising her free speech rights in a specific expressive manner.

The expressive free speech IS evidence. It's the court's job to interpret the evidence.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow... So reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm really hoping a lot of the posters here are NOT parents. Especially James.

The fact is, no, you cannot legally abuse children. It is child abuse to teach them to harass and hate their peers. It is child abuse to present to them a symbol that relegates them to "second class", as the Confederate Jack does.

Now, most such situations never see such scrutiny. Rarely does such a matter of the law ever actually get brought up where a judge may see it, and rarer still are actions against parents seeing as the state may often end up a worse option still.

It is not "mere speech"; it is, in fact, child abuse.

So of course it should be considered in determining matters of custody.

If I was in a Harassment trial, it does not matter if the harassment takes the form of "speech". Similarly, in a custody hearing, it doesn't matter if the abuse takes the form of a rock in the driveway or a fist. Both are abuse.

At any rate, these are not criminal proceedings, but rather is a civil matter. First amendment rights don't strictly enter into it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Wow... So reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm really hoping a lot of the posters here are NOT parents. Especially James.

The discussion seems to be along the lines of deciding what is in the best interests of the child vs what is in the best interests of being legal. Seems the court is legally bound to decide what is in the best interests of the child. That makes sense.

As an ethnic minority, with brown skin, I’m not thrilled by the mom’s act of a confederate flag painted onto a rock on her property. However, the mom has a constitutionally protected right to choose what kind of political, religious, moral, and economic belief system to raise her child in.

So the mom can choose, what, anything? Really? I can think of lots of shit the court would not perceive as being in the child's best interests but is nevertheless all quite legal.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Wow... So reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm really hoping a lot of the posters here are NOT parents. Especially James.

The discussion seems to be along the lines of deciding what is in the best interests of the child vs what is in the best interests of being legal. Seems the court is legally bound to decide what is in the best interests of the child. That makes sense.

The court is legally bound what is in the best interest of the child within certain legal (including constitutional) limits. It's not anything in the interest of the child, no matter what. That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to NYP this was not a point of contention between the parents. Then it should not be a factor for the court to consider. The court is concerned the child embrace her racial diversity. And if as a teen the child denied her white heritage “ because it’s not cool to be white”, should the court intervene? Force the parent to move to a whiter neighborhood? Shop at REI? Teva and Patagonia anyone?
As parents we limit our right to speak freely around our children. At least we good parents do. Few children in intact homes are raised under ideal conditions. It seems the court is placing an unreasonable burden upon separated parents not demanded of parents of intact homes.

Huh?

My understanding of this case is that the original judge said it wasn't relevant, not that the parents agreed it wasn't relevant. This is the appeal of the original ruling.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the mother wasn't responsible in some way, she'd say so in court.

Duh!

Also....where would a 6 year old learn that a Confederate flag means Go Away to a Black man? If that is knowledge to a 6 year old, then why aren't you considering it to be knowledge of an adult?

Exactly. The fact that it is even an issue says to me she's clearly unsuitable as a parent. If it wasn't important to her why didn't she just get rid of it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow... So reading some of the posts in this thread, I'm really hoping a lot of the posters here are NOT parents. Especially James.

The discussion seems to be along the lines of deciding what is in the best interests of the child vs what is in the best interests of being legal. Seems the court is legally bound to decide what is in the best interests of the child. That makes sense.

The court is legally bound what is in the best interest of the child within certain legal (including constitutional) limits. It's not anything in the interest of the child, no matter what. That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

It isn't a ritual, it is an "expression" of her belief. Whether it bothers the child is entirely unknown. Based on how long this has lasted, it appears to be parents arguing and bickering. Otherwise, the woman would have gotten rid of the darn thing. I think she is doing it just to piss off the father. If she was doing it to harm the child, I'd imagine the child's legal rep would have raised the issue.

Why James Madison would choose a NY Post article about an appellate case of two parents squabbling over a child's custody, when the appellate justices note the clear right for the mother to believe what she wants to believe and only indicate that the expression of the belief (as its direct effect on the child) should be taken into account when determining the suitability of her as providing a home for the child, is really a mystery. JM isn't usually tabloid driven.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As a society we routinely pass judgement on a person's ideological position. We all do it. Courts do it whether they think they do or not. If any person thinks he or she is immune to such behavior, legally or otherwise, then such a person is merely contemplating angels on pinheads regardless whether they are a judge or a sanitation engineer.

 

[laughing dog]

That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

The fact that this question is even a legal issue in a custody is revealing because it should be effing obvious that the answer to YES. Really, it is like asking if that a judge should rule whether a parent's starvation of a child may legally count in a custody battle.

 

[TomC]

That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

The fact that this question is even a legal issue in a custody is revealing because it should be effing obvious that the answer to YES. Really, it is like asking if that a judge should rule whether a parent's starvation of a child may legally count in a custody battle.

You're really comparing a driveway rock, of unknown origin, to starving a child?
Seriously?

SMH

Tom

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

The fact that this question is even a legal issue in a custody is revealing because it should be effing obvious that the answer to YES. Really, it is like asking if that a judge should rule whether a parent's starvation of a child may legally count in a custody battle.

How is that even similar?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That goes without saying. A question here is whether the court may legally count a parent's ideological rituals when it comes to assessing the best interest of the child.

The fact that this question is even a legal issue in a custody is revealing because it should be effing obvious that the answer to YES. Really, it is like asking if that a judge should rule whether a parent's starvation of a child may legally count in a custody battle.

How is that even similar?

Both involve the observed (by third parties) impact on the child.