The Court Order says we have to take the child to church on our Sundays?

Forums:

How is this legal? Why would BM request we that her ex take their son to church on his Sunday. It doesn't even specify any type of religion, it just says "shall take child to church on Sundays" I'm confused. He could take him to a satanic church and would be following the court order? BM knows her ex is an atheist...

It's your DH's court order,

It's your DH's court order, why not ask him why it's in there? Court orders are agreements. Meaning both parents agreed to this or BM fought for it in court and the judge allowed it. Do the parents have joint legal decisions or is it only BM?

If the child's church he attends with BM is near your home, take him there. You don't mention age. Drop off and pick up only may be possible.

It was awarded in court. I

It was awarded in court. I just think it's silly. I wanted to see if anyone else has the same thing or something similar. We go out of town to see MIL most of our weekends with SS so honestly we've never even taken him to church.

He is four but this court

He is four but this court order happened when he was two.

So the order has not been

So the order has not been followed for two years now and BM hasn't whined about it?

If that' right and continues, Dad may be able to get it taken out eventually.

Just honestly wondering why a

Just honestly wondering why a judge would throw something so vague into a court order especially for a two year old.

Because they could not

Because they could not reasonably right in "you will take the child to x church every Sunday by x hour and pick him up by x time."

Yes you could try taking him to a Satanic Church but this is where "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" comes into play..

For example if your told your child to "put your shoes up" and they put them on the counter they are technically doing what you said according to the "letter of the law" but you know your intent was for them to put their shoes in the closet "spirit of the law".

Your attempt to circumvent by taking them to a Satanic "Church" would be met with hostility since your partner knows very well the meaning is for him to go a Christian Church of some kind. Most likely he is expected and it is understood that if at all possible he is taken to the same church the mother takes him to. They would give leeway for it not being the correct denomination if it were to put an undo burden on your partner.

We never have attempted to

We never have attempted to take him to a satanic church LOL. I was just using it as an example.

I didn't think that was your

I didn't think that was your intent. Simply an example. CO's have to balance between being vague enough to be functional and detailed enough to ensure their intent is followed.

More than a few people have intentionally violated them using the leeway provided and some have been hit back pretty hard.
It wouldn't be a reach for her to try and remove his Sunday visitation if he were to try and take the child to a Satanic Church and given the right amount of crazy a judge might grant it.

I understand it's frustrating and it might be a control factor for her or it might honestly be she feels it's best for the child. Honestly there are a lot bigger battles to fight. If it is an issue take the kid, drop him off, and leave. The court can not legally require you guys go and attend with him and it's not worth fighting with her over. Many children benefit from church environments.

This coming from someone who personally HATES it I still recognize where I grew up it was one of the only 'positive' things to do in our town. I actually hated that I couldn't get on board with it because ALL the kids were going. Some of them admitted the only reason they did was because of the social benefits.... You know basketball before 'service', pot lucks, low cost trips to amusement parks. Hell I got to go out of state on a mission trip which included 90% fun stuff and about 2 hours of painting a wall.

Yes its manipulation BUT this is why you respectfully and politely share with him your views. As I said the kids here know their dad's views but he doesn't do it in a way to disrespect them. I've even taken them to different "religious" programs at the library to show them that their are other views. They've had a blast and asked if we can do Hanukkah cause kids love that Dreidel game. I respect that people see things different and if they find comfort in "God" then so be it. As long as they learn that its not ok to put other's down for their personal views.

We never have attempted to

We never have attempted to take him to a satanic church LOL. I was just using it as an example.

Religious education is

Religious education is something that parents fight about. If BM knew that BD is atheist then it was smart of her to push for this to go through the courts. It's annoying as hell yes but it's in the order and yes it is legal.

SO and I are not exactly church friendly but we have to respect that the children are. We respect that it is their choice to attend church and should they request to go on our time we would ensure it happens. That does not mean WE have to go or that we even have to encourage it. The children know their father follows more 'alternative' beliefs but we will respectfully drop them off and pick them up at the door.

Now should it ever be BM demanding it and the children did not wish we would protect their choice and rights. This is what you need to do. Right now the child is 4 and so honestly the court will refer to the parents and in turn the order but as he grows it will become more his choice. When he is old enough and makes request to not go you can speak to your lawyer about requesting for that part of the order to be adjusted.

Basically in terms of legality the court did not enforce religion but support the mothers request. The court respected her rights as the parent to raise the child in a religious environment. If the mother was and is already taking the child to church then they see it as something that should continue. Even if it was written in when the child was 2. In a way she could argue that the church impeded her rights to freedom of religion if they went any other route. Basically the court will look at what was happening before the divorce. If mom was taking the child and dad 'allowed' it then in their mind it's not his right to interfere now.

Thanks for your answer.

All my guy wanted was 50/50

All my guy wanted was 50/50 and she wanted him out of the picture. The schedule the BM proposed was silly. I think it was every other Saturday night. He had a horrible attorney as well. He walked away $5000 poorer and with the same schedule the mediator proposed.

Not necessarily. Asshat

Not necessarily. Asshat didn't want the Things in religious education and filed a motion to remove them. He lost. He certainly didn't agree to it, but the judge ordered that the Things stay in religious education.

Happens a lot...

If you get forced into

If you get forced into compliance take the child to a Unitarian Church. You can be an atheist or agnostic and still be a part of that group. It fosters a belief in "doing right within your own moral borders".

It's not my thing - but I like many of its principles.

Noeven12: One of two things

Noeven12:

One of two things happened during negotiations of this court order.
1. DH agreed to take his child to church WHEN he had the child. Maybe to get it over with /?? That does happen and often.

2. The order was typed UP by BM's attorney and not read by DH's lawyer and the Judged just signed off on it. Trust me it happens too.

IF my dh was in your DH's shoes, I firmly believe this is what would have gone down.
Twenty years ago DH would have RUSHED the child to church, scared 1/2 to death bm would take him to court "AGAIN" IF he did not follow her rules. So he did everything she told him to. He just wanted to see his child.

After a year or two of that ---dh would have HAD it and told bm HE will bring the child back early so sheeee, can go to church with the child. See how that works? OR drop the child off in the church parking lot physically handing over the child to BM. NOT just drop the child. HE would say, YOU PICK BM since it is all about church right? And of course she might say YOU CANT DO THAT BUDDY...my dh would say ,,,watch me I DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE visitation and from now on I surrender Saturday night visitation so YOU can take pumpkin to church "just the way your use to".

Personally we would have made sure the child was physically at Bm's house OR forgo visitation all together IF she was saying she wasn't going to be at home.

I am not suggesting giving up important time with child and parent, what I am suggesting is let her take the child to church.

Worse case is dh goes back to court and dh agrees to have Friday nights thru Sunday 8am best option or option 2, Friday night drop Saturday 8pm. DH can try to argue his religious convictions but it is better to offer bm to have the right to take the child TO church since that is what she wants. I bet 10cents BM doesn't always go to church.

So many people hide behind a bible it makes me ill.

PS I am Catholic by the way. Everyone is given the right to practice what ever faith they believe in. Traditional or otherwise.

Run that by your lawyer...easy fix. Since it appears you live close to bm (sorta?) offer to take child Thursday, Friday nights. Expect BM to explode at that idea

Remember visitation is not a requirement but Custodials are required to have child ready FOR visitation if non custodial wants to exercise it.
That little tidbit is seldom told to non custodials.

GoodLuck