I have to take issue with one statement in your op-ed, Eugene: you say,
"...children are immature and less able to resist their parents' ideological
excesses." You're probably not far enough along in your parenting, but trust
me, children have remarkable defenses (and offenses) of their own.
More seriously, I'm troubled also by the lack of constitutional restraint
exercised by family law judges in these cases. "Best interests of the child"
as a legal standard probably would, on close analysis, fail all the
vagueness tests. Where exposure to unconventional views are not producing
*observable* psychological damage to the children, the state shouldn't
bother --or be allowed--to impose a more conventional lifestyle on divorced
families than it does (which is to say, barely at all) on intact ones. In
fact, the existence of a disagreement between the parents on philosophical,
religious and similar value points (what about political affiliation?)
should do more to insulate children from undue influence than in, say,
two-jihadist households.
Vance
On 2/7/07, Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I ran across a fascinating -- and unpublished and
computer-inaccessible -- new parent-child speech decision; I've posted
the text at
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_02_04-2007_02_10.shtml#117074166
6, and written it up in an L.A. Times op-ed available at
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-volokh6feb06,0,7797695.story?c
oll=la-opinion-rightrail, but here are some excerpts from the trial
court decision (which was generally upheld on appeal, except that the
visitation was changed to supervised visitation, starting after the
father finishes his federal probation):
"The history of the relationship between the petitioner and
respondent, and their conduct and beliefs, prior to their ultimate
separation and divorce, may be considered "extreme" or non-conventional,
especially in today's, post "9-11" world. The petitioner has not seen
his children since 1997, although he has maintained consistent contact
with the children, through cards and letters and speaks with them
regularly by telephone.
"It is uncontroverted that the petitioner is a repeat felony
offender, having been convicted of, among other things, making terrorist
threats and weapons possession. In fact, both the petitioner and
respondent testified that they amassed a large quantity of weapons
during their marriage, which in turn, resulted in the petitioner's most
recent felony conviction for weapons possession. The petitioner was
incarcerated at the time of the parties' divorce and it is
uncontroverted that his incarceration and current alleged inability to
travel, is the direct result of his criminal conduct.
"During their marriage, both parties followed a quasi Muslim
philosophy, including the naming of the two children born during their
marriage, Mujahid Daniel and Mujahid David[.] ...
"The respondent contends that due to the petitioner's violent
felony conviction record, the domestic violence exhibited during the
course of their marriage, his extremist views regarding religion,
including his belief regarding Jihad; and the letters written to the
children while he was incarcerated, lecturing about religion and
reminding the children that their names are MUJAHID, that visitation
should be denied....
"[T]he issue before the Court is what visitation would be in the
children's best interest .... [T]he children shall have visitation with
their father .... The petitioner/father shall not discuss any issues
pertaining to his religion or philosophy with respect to same, during
any unsupervised visitation time with the children."
Any thoughts on this?
Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
