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

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Oh so in a divorce he's no longer the father and has no say in the child's upbringing? Where is this? In the UK?

If someone has sole custody then no, they do not have any input. Is this a new concept to you?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh so in a divorce he's no longer the father and has no say in the child's upbringing? Where is this? In the UK?

It's been said a few times. Let me explain again.

They got divorced and it went to court. In court the mother won sole custody. By winning sole custody it means she has full parental rights and he has none.

There must have been a reason they didn't get shared custody, but I can't find it.

It works this way in many countries.

Sole custody=full parental rights to said custodian.

Shared custody=50/50 parental rights.

A lot of people here are trying to claim that just because the mother has full custody at the moment, that it is right and just that he has been barred from exposing his child to another religion. It's not. You are also ignoring the extremely dangerous and ridiculously easily a usable precedent this case would set if it was upheld.

This case sets the stage for parents to abuse the legal system as a means of punishing an ex partner. There was another (sort of) similar case here in the US. A divorced couple had a younger son. The mother (of course, but that's a different topic entirely) had full custody and the son went to see his father every other weekend. The mother got into the Veganism craze and subjected her son to the same dietary restrictions. EVERY time the child went home, he was complaining to his dad how he was hungry and bland and he would take him to fast food or burger joints. The father ended up taking the case to court as he felt the sons development was being adversely effected. In that case, the man won and the judge ordered the mom to feed the child meat 2 or 3 times a week at least. (Score one for the good guys).

The reason I bring that case up is because it highlights what I am talking about. If this ruling were to stand, parents who end up with full custody of children will be able to punish their ex partner, using their own kids as ammunition, and it wouldn't stop with religious preference. I could forsee it getting very petty very quickly. Parents with full or majority custody dictating what the other parent feed the kid (the case I brought up), what movies they can watch, which relatives they can see, etc. The sky is the limit. If that was the case, what the hell is the point of even allowing the kid to visit the other parent? If that parent that only gets weekend custody can't take their kid to a movie because primary parent says no, there is no use in letting that kid see their parent.

Also, a lot of people are claiming that because the mother has full custody this is all ok, that is a ridiculous sentiment. There are a hundred reasons this kid (or any kid for that matter) could be with his mom full time. The father might not be able to finacialky support the kid for the majority of the time. The father may be under employed, he could be disabled and not be able to raise the kid, etc. The fact that he is allowed unsupervised weekend custody proves he is not a danger to the kid: Its just better for him to be with his mother at this time.

So just because he doesn't have full custody doesn't mean he isn't suited st raising his kid.

Also, all that stuff I was talking about how this precedent would allow for parents to hurt each other in split custody cases? When you read the article, it is stated that the boy has already told his father he has a black heart because he does not practice the faith. I think it's safe to assume that the boys mother is ALREADY using her own child to attack this man.

I will also find a link to the Vegan case I talked about, it has been a few years.

That doesn't sound right to me. PR can only be stripped in certain circumstances. A divorce wouldn't strip him of PR, and he obviously has contact.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

you the last person that should talk about pushing agendas thats all your posts seem to do.


I think anyone that take anyone to court is a coward thats why i wont do it, and i despise the ones that have done it to me even though i won

I think religions need to be respected to a certain extent in divorced families, so feeding him only halal food would seem sensible. But to bar a parent from taking a child to church is ridiculous. However the Judge in this case has made dodgy decisions before.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh so in a divorce he's no longer the father and has no say in the child's upbringing? Where is this? In the UK?

It's been said a few times. Let me explain again.

They got divorced and it went to court. In court the mother won sole custody. By winning sole custody it means she has full parental rights and he has none.

There must have been a reason they didn't get shared custody, but I can't find it.

It works this way in many countries.

Sole custody=full parental rights to said custodian.

Shared custody=50/50 parental rights.

Shared custody is very rare. Even joint managing conservatorship is not 50/50 rights. There is still a residents that the child remains where the parent will have more say and the other parent has visation. The decisions like religion will be by both parents though. Joint physical custody is hard to get because judges are concerned about the child bouncing around between houses is not healthy for the child. The parents need to show they are very good at working together and have a well laidbout plan.

The whole thing is a real Sht show if you ask me but it is what it is.

I believe it should be assumed 50/50 and parents should be forced to be adults until one actually makes a significant mistake that disrupts the child. Obviously now a days that's not likely but the weight on the mom having more rights is far too high. I have a friend who had a wife with significant mental illness issues and it took him 100k over 5 years to protect the child. When she tried to take the kids out of the country to join a cult they finally asked for a psych evaluation and then they were like oh my...she now doesn't have any rights.

originally posted by: chuck258
A lot of people here are trying to claim that just because the mother has full custody at the moment, that it is right and just that he has been barred from exposing his child to another religion. It's not. You are also ignoring the extremely dangerous and ridiculously easily a usable precedent this case would set if it was upheld.

Guess you did not bother to read the link I posted earlier which deals with scenarios where the child is in danger.

This is not one of those cases. The mother has every right to choose her religion over another.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Oh so in a divorce he's no longer the father and has no say in the child's upbringing? Where is this? In the UK?

If someone has sole custody then no, they do not have any input. Is this a new concept to you?

Even if you are right (it's arguable), is that something that SOUNDS RIGHT to you? Not every case, hell I would say probably more than half, means that one parent just isn't suited at all at raising kids, there are hundreds of factors that go into these cases. A cheating partner doesn't make someone a bad parent.

a reply to: luthier

You can have sole residential rights, but joint custodial rights.

She has sole custody rights which means the child lives with her and she is the legal guardian. He has visitation rights, but no gardianship and no parental rights.

originally posted by: chuck258
Even if you are right (it's arguable), is that something that SOUNDS RIGHT to you?

Yeah, as long as the child is not being harmed.

a reply to: chuck258

He is right that doesn't mean he agrees with the law.

If you have sole custody you have sole rights for medical, school, and religion.

I cant stand such idiocy. An you know its just the mother being spiteful. Its a shame the judge is such an idiot that they cant even realize that.
Bunch of Godless heathens

originally posted by: Macenroe82
Bunch of Godless heathens

Which ones? The Christians or the Muslims?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chuck258
A lot of people here are trying to claim that just because the mother has full custody at the moment, that it is right and just that he has been barred from exposing his child to another religion. It's not. You are also ignoring the extremely dangerous and ridiculously easily a usable precedent this case would set if it was upheld.

Guess you did not bother to read the link I posted earlier which deals with scenarios where the child is in danger.

This is not one of those cases. The mother has every right to choose her religion over another.

I did read your link and in fact responded to it like 2 pages ago.

The standard that has a child exposed to the sole custodians chosen religion is not universal.

You're also ignoring the fact that law doesn't always have it right. Jim Crow laws were legal, are you saying they were right?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: chuck258
Even if you are right (it's arguable), is that something that SOUNDS RIGHT to you?

Yeah, as long as the child is not being harmed.

The road goes both ways. Can you prove the child would be harmed if he went on an Easter egg hunt with Christian children? As I said, the precedent you continue to bring up is only one, and it is not universally accepted.

originally posted by: chuck258
You're also ignoring the fact that law doesn't always have it right. Jim Crow laws were legal, are you saying they were right?

Apples and turnips.

If he had custody he could have raised the child in his wacky religion.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I said that.

In the US. It's called joint managing conservatorship. You both have rights for school medical and religion but the child lives with one parent.

If you get into issues however the judge will most often side with the custodial parent. The noncustodial parent also has to pay child support.

Joint physcial custody makes both parent custodial parents.

originally posted by: chuck258
Can you prove the child would be harmed if he went on an Easter egg hunt with Christian children?

If that is not what the parent wants then it is irrelevant whether they would be harmed doing pagan stuff on Easter.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I have literally heard cases where a mother is an alcoholic andnhas custody. The father proved this and the judge asked "was she an alcoholic when you married"? The dad says yes. The judge then says " so what has changed"? Wouldn't allow that reason to change custody.

I have heard other cases where a dad smokes medical marijuana and looses all parental rights. Family courts are very much ambiguous and up to the mood of a judge.

God help you if she proclaims "family violence".

No proof necessary.