It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A british man has been barred from exposing his son to Christianity because ex wife is Muslim

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
TextWell, the father is quoted as saying his son thinks he has a black heart for being an apostate to Islam so it seems he has been safely indoctrinated into organized religion and enjoys the s*** that his Mosque is shoveling.


That could be considered parental alienation. He needs a better lawyer.
edit on 27-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.


It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.
well here in the ststes even if say the mother has full custody the father would still retain parental rights. That is a seperate issue here.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.


It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.
well here in the ststes even if say the mother has full custody the father would still retain parental rights. That is a seperate issue here.



Oh there's a difference here too.

Having custody doesn't equal full parental rights.

Having full custodial rights, however, does.

It's more of how things are worded.

ETA: It's basically semantics with the way they word things.
edit on 2732016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.


It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.
well here in the ststes even if say the mother has full custody the father would still retain parental rights. That is a seperate issue here.



Oh there's a difference here too.

Having custody doesn't equal full parental rights.

Having full custodial rights, however, does.

It's more of how things are worded.

ETA: It's basically semantics with the way they word things.


Also. Visitation is considered a right. One of the biggest. If a custodial parent (including sole custody) messes with visitation rights that is also contempt of court.
edit on 27-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.


It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.
well here in the ststes even if say the mother has full custody the father would still retain parental rights. That is a seperate issue here.



Oh there's a difference here too.

Having custody doesn't equal full parental rights.

Having full custodial rights, however, does.

It's more of how things are worded.

ETA: It's basically semantics with the way they word things.


Also. Visitation is considered a right. One of the biggest. If a custodial parent messes with visitation rights that is also contempt of court.


Yep. And when/if the father takes the child away from the mother as part of the visitation he has temporary gardianship, but still has to follow the rules of the custodian.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.


It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.
well here in the ststes even if say the mother has full custody the father would still retain parental rights. That is a seperate issue here.



Oh there's a difference here too.

Having custody doesn't equal full parental rights.

Having full custodial rights, however, does.

It's more of how things are worded.

ETA: It's basically semantics with the way they word things.


Also. Visitation is considered a right. One of the biggest. If a custodial parent messes with visitation rights that is also contempt of court.


Yep. And when/if the father takes the child away from the mother as part of the visitation he has temporary gardianship, but still has to follow the rules of the custodian.


True though it depends on the court order.

What a crap show it is if socio/psychopaths or scorned lovers are involved.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults.


It's their child, but she has full parental rights as she has sole custody.

He has no parental rights whatsoever.
well here in the ststes even if say the mother has full custody the father would still retain parental rights. That is a seperate issue here.



Oh there's a difference here too.

Having custody doesn't equal full parental rights.

Having full custodial rights, however, does.

It's more of how things are worded.

ETA: It's basically semantics with the way they word things.


Also. Visitation is considered a right. One of the biggest. If a custodial parent messes with visitation rights that is also contempt of court.


Yep. And when/if the father takes the child away from the mother as part of the visitation he has temporary gardianship, but still has to follow the rules of the custodian.


True though it depends on the court order.

What a crap show it is if socio/psychopaths or scorned lovers are involved.


Oh it's definitely flawed and, as I said before, it should be a decision made by peers, not a single person.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's true. So sad. I think the default should be 50/50 until the court needs to intervene as well. Even then they should encourage it as much as possible.

No due process no legal apointed if you can't afford it. What a joke.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
While it might be confusing or even cruel to have a child reared within different religions by different parents I fail to see how it is the responsibility or even the power of the state to decide anything about the child's religious upbringing. Governmental overreach and intrusion in personal matters is all I see here. This is a throwback to hundreds of years ago when the state decided what church you would attend.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's true. So sad. I think the default should be 50/50 until the court needs to intervene as well. Even then they should encourage it as much as possible.

No due process no legal apointed if you can't afford it. What a joke.


50/50 is the standard over here, unless it's contested by one of the parties, but normally one of them ends up taking it to court for something petty.

We can get legal aid here and it's actually pretty common.

My wife is currently using legal aid through citizens advice.

Her previous job fired her (she's off sick with a bad back) because the doctor wrote a letter saying she was faking. Yet she was prescribing tramadol, dyhydrocodeine(sp?) and sleeping tablets. The lawyer first got the reason changed to "not being able to come back to work for the foreseeable future and probable inability to work due to injury". Not a massive result, but means she can look for a job and not have the "she was faking it" from her past employer.

The same lawyer is also in the process of getting owed sick pay paid as they are withholding.

Another is forming a complaint to the medical board for defamation of character and malpractice for the letter and issuing of prescription drugs under the belief of her faking it.

All costing us nothing but time.

Sorry that was so long, but it was just to clarify that legal aid is actually easily found (citizens advice did it for her) and used.

(I'd also like to clarify I'm in the uk lol)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
While it might be confusing or even cruel to have a child reared within different religions by different parents I fail to see how it is the responsibility or even the power of the state to decide anything about the child's religious upbringing. Governmental overreach and intrusion in personal matters is all I see here. This is a throwback to hundreds of years ago when the state decided what church you would attend.


It's disgusting IMO. It's not new however. It's been like this since there have been family courts



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

We have that for criminal court in the US and some civil. In family court it's not standard and usually only one side can use legal aide if it is available.


I had a friend with an ex who eventually was diagnosed a psychopath (through court psych eval). She first filed he was abusive which got her aide and then made up all kinds of claims, tried to take the kids to India to a cult and eventually the court had her evaluated after several years of crazy behaviour and 100k on his part in lawyers across several states. He got her rights terminated but it destroyed his life for a while. He was diagnosed with PTSD from the whole affair.

It came out she planned the whole thing including getting pregnant (she was gay) to get alimony and child support. Her brother found emails when fixing her computer and gave then to my friend because he felt bad for him.

Like a bad movie.
edit on 27-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

That's not good then. I thought everyone over there was entitled to free representation?

Over here it doesn't matter what you've done or what the case is, you're entitled to free representation. And some of them are damn good lawyers/solicitors.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Family court too? Thats great. The whole thing gets crazy here. He went from a bleeding heart liberal to a libertarian over the whole thing.

You can get legal aide for things like renters rights when or some lawyers in civil will work for part of settlements. Usually the city or town has one organization doing it which means only one client can use the service. It's really messed up in the US as far as family court.
edit on 27-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79

Family court too? Thats great. The whole thing gets crazy here. He went from a bleeding heart liberal to a libertarian over the whole thing.


Yep. Doesn't matter if it's small claims (that's where my wife will be heading if her last employer doesn't pay) or the high court. Sometimes it can be difficult to get (let's say you killed someone. It would be difficult, but someone would take your case), but it's still done.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Here if you kill someone you automatically get a free lawyer if you can't afford one. But not for civil law. It needs to be an advocacy group of your lucky.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79

Here if you kill someone you automatically get a free lawyer if you can't afford one. But not for civil law. It needs to be an advocacy group of your lucky.


I always thought you never got a free lawyer for small courts here. Until I met my current wife, that is.

We lost custody of our daughter due to some bad decisions and lies from some supposed friends. We tried battling the system by ourselves and got nowhere. She was bounced around in foster care and we had supervised contact (social workers breathing down your neck) for an hour a week. We found out that we could get legal aid so we did. She is now with my wife's parents, we see her a lot more, but we can't have full custody because the system is screwed up.

So now we are in the process of making her parents the legal guardian and full parental rights. If we don't she gets put into foster care god knows where and we would get to see her once a week for an hour.

I know the systems screwed from first hand knowledge, but the law is the law and I can't change it.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I am sorry to hear that. The social workers here are so overburdened they are useless. They are called guardian ad litems here.

I hope you guys find a way to get your rights back. My friend ended up using a lawyer who was 500 an hour. That and moms crazytown acts with cult religion made the situation move in his favor.

I have a sister in law in the field so I have talked about this stuff a lot. It's very hard but diligence seems to pay off eventually if the heart ache doesn't kill you first.
edit on 27-3-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

We won't get her back. She just turned 11 so in 2 years, if she wants, she can come home by her own choice, legally. But her being with her grandparents is better than foster care and we get to see her a lot more.

Not exactly win win, but best of a bad situation.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chuck258

The parents are divorced and she has custody so I would think it would be her choice on what religious indoctrination she wished to inflict on her child.



Oh so she has custody so its "her"" child? Not "their" child?

I think it's a bunch of BS. The father has just as much right as the mother to teach the child what he wants.

This is something the parents need to work out. They need to stop tattle taling to big pappa government like children and act like adults. The government has no place in matters such as these.


Ideally, people would be able to do that, but people have emotions and can act irrationally and stupidly. If the father is a violent deadbeat (for example) then why should have any say in the child's upbringing?


That's part of the point. I'd this kids father was a "violent deadbeat" as you so eloquently put it, he wouldn't be seeing his kid in any way shape or form. It's obvious he has regular contact and is thus not a threat. What I say then stands: This father should have a say in what his child is exposed to. Otherwise he is simply a financial slave at the whim of the mother which is wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join