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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin


​

 

[TomC]

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

SMH

Tom

Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin

View attachment 33509
​

As usual, another argument that's brilliant.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As usual, another argument that's brilliant.
Tom

If it isn't hers, she could have discarded it. She hasn't, nor in the fact finding part of the case did she dispel having said rock.

 

[Jokodo]

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

SMH

Tom

Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin
Unknown Origin

View attachment 33509
​

As usual, another argument that's brilliant.
Tom

If she hadn't put it there, that's literally the first thing she or her attorney would have said when the rock was brought up and the repeal court would be debating whether the evidence she did was sufficient. We aren't reading that article, therefore by exclusion she did put it up.

 

[TomC]

As usual, another argument that's brilliant.
Tom

If it isn't hers, she could have discarded it. She hasn't, nor in the fact finding part of the case did she dispel having said rock.

What if it's her daughter's?

I'm not claiming to know. I'm pointing out that in domestic disputes all kinds of otherwise inexplicable things happen.

Especially dysfunctional family disputes. I've seen enough of those up close to stop thinking I can read their minds.
Tom

 

[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.

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

SMH

Tom

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?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1Nae_EBvQ[/YOUTUBE]

As usual, another argument that's brilliant.
Tom

If it isn't hers, she could have discarded it. She hasn't, nor in the fact finding part of the case did she dispel having said rock.

What if it's her daughter's?

Then said daughter's legal representative in the fact finding case would have said that.

I'm not claiming to know. I'm pointing out that in domestic disputes all kinds of otherwise inexplicable things happen.

Like people asking the same question over and over, even after it has been addressed by others?

 

[TomC]

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

SMH

Tom

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?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

I suppose that since you can't really demonstrate your abilities to mind read the participants in a dysfunctional family drama, you'll resort to insulting people who don't find you a particularly good source of information.
Tom

 

[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.

How is that even similar?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

I suppose that since you can't really demonstrate your abilities to mind read the participants in a dysfunctional family drama, you'll resort to insulting people who don't find you a particularly good source of information.
Tom

You suppose wrong. This has nothing to do about reading minds of anyone. The quality of the information in the newspaper article is irrelevant. Regardless of what the paper is reporting, the judge in this case will have the facts and use them to assess the situation and the relative fitness of both parents in order to come to a decision. It ought to obvious that a judge has the legal authority to factor in the ideology of the parent in making such a custodial decision.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

SMH

Tom

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?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure, in some cases. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual, which would have to be argued. It's not as if the mother was using the confederate flag somehow to punish or hurt the child. And there is no evidence of a negative side effect as far as I can tell.

Moreover, even when there is a direct connection, plenty of times it looks the courts are not allowed to intervene. Teaching a child, say, that Catholicism is true, harms the child. But the courts are not allowed to intervene here.

 

[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.

How is that even similar?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual.

I assume you are taking about a direct connection between the rock and the mother. That is a question of fact for the judge.

 

[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?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual.

I assume you are taking about a direct connection between the rock and the mother. That is a question of fact for the judge.

No, I mean between the rock and the child. A mechanism by which the child is harmed. Moreover, that is often not enough, when it comes to religion. Teaching a child, say, that Catholicism is true, harms the child. But the courts are not allowed to intervene here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure, in some cases. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual, which would have to be argued. It's not as if the mother was using the confederate flag somehow to punish or hurt the child. And there is no evidence of a negative side effect as far as I can tell.

There is no evidence either way. Nor are we privy to any such information.

And all of that is irrelevant to the fact that if the stone impacts the child, it is fair game. If it doesn't, not nearly as much weight if any.

 

[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?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual.

I assume you are taking about a direct connection between the rock and the mother. That is a question of fact for the judge.

No, I mean between the rock and the child. A mechanism by which the child is harmed. Moreover, that is often not enough, when it comes to religion. Teaching a child, say, that Catholicism is true, harms the child. But the courts are not allowed to intervene here.

This is regarding custody, so the courts ARE being asked to intervene!

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure, in some cases. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual, which would have to be argued. It's not as if the mother was using the confederate flag somehow to punish or hurt the child. And there is no evidence of a negative side effect as far as I can tell.

There is no evidence either way. Nor are we privy to any such information.

And all of that is irrelevant to the fact that if the stone impacts the child, it is fair game. If it doesn't, not nearly as much weight if any.

Okay, but if that is the rationale, Catholicism or Islam would be fair game. But they are not.

 

[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?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual.

I assume you are taking about a direct connection between the rock and the mother. That is a question of fact for the judge.

No, I mean between the rock and the child. A mechanism by which the child is harmed. Moreover, that is often not enough, when it comes to religion. Teaching a child, say, that Catholicism is true, harms the child. But the courts are not allowed to intervene here.

This is regarding custody, so the courts ARE being asked to intervene!

What I meant is to intervene against the teaching of Catholicism. The courts are not allowed to do so. Why are then they allowed in the case of the Confederate flag?

 

[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.

How is that even similar?

I do apologize for making the assumption of reading comprehension and minimal thinking ability on the part of the audience. As JH pointed out, it is about the clear 3rd party effect on the child - the fitness of the parent to raise the child.

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual.

I assume you are taking about a direct connection between the rock and the mother. That is a question of fact for the judge.

No, I mean between the rock and the child. A mechanism by which the child is harmed.

You miss the essential point here. The mechanism by which the child is harmed is not the rock in this case, but the potential racism of the mother.

Moreover, that is often not enough, when it comes to religion. Teaching a child, say, that Catholicism is true, harms the child. But the courts are not allowed to intervene here.

Racism is not a religion, so your point is not relevant. And that assumes your point is valid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, if we're talking not about the rituals but their effects - e.g., child sacrifice -, then sure, in some cases. But you would need a direct connection with the ritual, which would have to be argued. It's not as if the mother was using the confederate flag somehow to punish or hurt the child. And there is no evidence of a negative side effect as far as I can tell.

There is no evidence either way. Nor are we privy to any such information.

And all of that is irrelevant to the fact that if the stone impacts the child, it is fair game. If it doesn't, not nearly as much weight if any.

Okay, but if that is the rationale, Catholicism or Islam would be fair game. But they are not.

Because that is a blanket issue and is baseless. You will find it hard to support in court, the claim that raising a child a certain religion is harmful. However, if there was a custody case for a gay child and one of the parents seeking custody was hyper-religious and demeaned their child for being gay, and had crucifixes hanging all over the place, that could be relevant in the custody proceedings.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You miss the essential point here. The mechanism by which the child is harmed is not the rock in this case, but the potential racism of the mother.

My understanding is the mother is allowed to believe whatever she wants. It is the expression of that belief as it impacts the child that matters.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You miss the essential point here. The mechanism by which the child is harmed is not the rock in this case, but the potential racism of the mother.

That is not the essential point, for two reasons:

1. If the child is harmed by the 'potential' racism of the mother, that will remain regardless of whether she removes the flag.

2. My point was about the rationale, namely that if teaching some ideology to the child is harmful, the court may intervene. Teaching the child that Catholicism, Islam or Marxism is true would be harmful, as it would impair the child's ability to understand the world by painting a picture of a world that does not resemble reality (additionally, Catholicism might terrify the child if she manages to realize that given Catholic rules and human behavior, thought mortal sins are committed faster than they can be confessed, so pretty much everyone is hell bound even if priests claim otherwise).