Father Loses Custody of His Children for Being Agnostic

[draco664]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ww1AilSJ3U

Admittedly, the one source for this story is a 60 second clip on Fox, but reading the quotes from the judgement had me saying...

Double Yew. Tee. Eff.

[Andara Bledin]

Based on the transcript of the ruling, it is the father's anger issues that are most responsible for the children being given into the mother's sole custody.

His agnosticism seems to be merely one line on the form.

Comments #1-#7 are almost entirely regarding the facts of their marriage, divorce, and subsequent relationship.

Comment #8 about the mother having left the children alone (I don't think any of the three is even 10, yet), not fed them breakfast, and not buckled them into their car seats.

Comment #10 indicates that he is agnostic.

Comment's #9, #10, and #11 are regarding the father's participation in medical (she claims he didn't), religious (it seems both agree he didn't), and other activities (the record states that he evidently did).

Comment #13 is about his anger management issues and a large number of text messages sent to the mother. I suspect that the content of said text messages was likely a deciding factor.

This is one of those cases where we have only part of the information, and the father and news station are spinning it for maximum outrage.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

It doesn't sound to me like he lost custody for being agnostic. In a 13-part decision, only one part is regarding whether or not he's religious.

I think that the last part PROBABLY was what determined it, not whether or not he was agnostic. That part to me reads more like the judge is commenting on a part of the evidence entered. If that was an issue brought up, the judge (I believe) is required to mention it in his decision. It certainly doesn't read like "Father was agnostic, therefore, he cannot raise children."

[Hyena Dandy]

Because I can't edit comments immediately after posting, as I am rightfully under moderation, I will make another post. Reading through the comments seems to me that the mention of being agnostic lends content to comment 12, the implication being that the parents could not communicate effectively after he changed his religious beliefs. If that was part of what contributed to the divorce, it should be addressed in the ruling.

If I felt that he lost custody of his children for being agnostic, that would offend me as much as anyone else. I do not believe that people who don't share my religion deserve fewer rights than I do.

I do not, however, feel that that this is a case of religious discrimination.