Father Ordered to Keep Daughter from His Catholic Faith

A family law court in Chicago recently ordered Joseph Reyes not to expose his three-year-old daughter to his Catholic faith. He and his ex-wife decided to raise their three-year-old daughter in the mother’s Jewish faith. The mother asked for a temporary restraining order against Reyes that went beyond; the order kept the father from exposing his daughter to any other faith except the mother’s faith. Before the court order, Reyes had already had his daughter baptized.

As an attorney who specializes in family law, this order is quite unusual. However, when a family court, or any other court for that matter, issues an order, it should be strictly followed. But in the first place, family law courts should not issue orders based on the religious upbringings of children, or from preventing the non-custodial parent from exposing his child to the non-custodial parent’s faith.

The court’s order creates problems, due to the fact that it is based on two different religions that are extremely complex in their own ways. This order is too black-and-white for a situation that is too vague and complicated.

'Til death do us part. By Law. Unless you really screw up.

There's something called a "No Fault" divorce. This basically means what it sounds like. A married couple can have a dissolution of the marriage without any particular evidence of wrongdoing by any party.

No adultery, no beatings, no child abuse...sometimes things just don't work. Understandable, right?

State Senate Michelle McManus of Michigan wants to put an end to No Fault divorce in Michigan. She explains that it's hurting the economy, because only couples can generate enough income to start their own businesses (there's no citation or sources to what she's saying, so who knows if that's true), and that it would have a positive impact on marriages to come. She claims the current laws allows people to be irresponsible, and cause situations where fathers get their rights to see their children revoked merely because the mother fears physical abuse when no physical abuse is apparent.

Obviously, there is an exception for every rule, but I, for one, am an advocate of the "No Fault" divorce. And here's my reasoning for it:

If a couple is going to get married, and there are going to be extremely strict rules regarding what makes them eligible for a divorce (which, according to McManus are as follows: "specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.") then shouldn't there be extremely strict rules regarding marriage itself?

How do you go about testing whether someone is responsible enough or not for marriage? It's not a driver's test. Driving is the same from the beginning to the end. Cars and the rules of the road don't change throughout the course of your life (not to an extent that a person would). People, on the other hand, change. Things happen that we can't predict. Therefore, there is no way to test if two people who absolutely love each other and are devoted to one another at this point, and also happen to be extremely responsible human beings, aren't going to change or experience hardship down the line and decide this marriage isn't right for them.

Then what's the guy got to do to get out of it? Beat his wife or copulate with a horse?

Marriage and divorce are big decisions. I know this. And yes, marriage is sacred and divorce is horrible, so we want to preserve it. But life's tough. The laws governing both these actions should work for the couples, not against them.

What you don't know actually CAN hurt you.

In previous posts I've mentioned mothers who have been beaten by their own sons and still had to pay the court costs. I've mentioned the process of mediation and how it's a process separate from that of a family lawyer. Today's topic brings the two together in a fashion that may help a lot of families that are struggling with domestic violence. The reason I bring these two previous posts up is because The Chief Justice of the Family Court wants to go into current regulations, play with the pipes a little, and make sure there is little to no chance of them exploding when a deteriorating family is brought to court due to violence.

Lots of things can go wrong when a marriage goes sour. There are discrepancies over money, over children, over time and possessions, there are intense emotions to be dealt with, but when violence gets involved, those cases tend to take precedence. Marriage is sacred, yes, but so is the value of a human life, and no separation should result, or should be the result of, violence.

The process is as follows: When families see mediators, they are often trying to settle the divorce without the presence of the courts. But when the mediators fail, the court is their only resort. The problem is, what's said within mediation is confidential. This creates problems and it creates solutions. The solutions it creates allows families to be more open and honest, knowing that whatever they say is confidential, and this honesty can lead to an easier solved dissolution. However, the problems are created when the mediation fails and they must go to court...all the information that was presented in mediation is now confidential and unavailable to the courts.

And people are a lot less likely to say exactly what's on their mind or exactly what went down when they're standing in front of a judge.

The Chief Justice of the family court seeks to end the confidentiality among mediators in order to make court cases run a little bit smoother, and to protect partners and children who have been the victims of abuse, or may be potential victims.

You have much to learn young Padawan---er, Special Master.

There are a lot of funny legal words that a lot of laymen don't quite understand, but we've got our fun, epic names too. Judge isn't all that epic...unless you're the Supreme Court Justice. That's epic. Attorney, Lawyer, stuff like that though, they don't really strike fear into the hearts of men and women. Unless the world knows for damn SURE you're guilty.

So what's to save this facet of government from boring titles? Enter Special Master!

What they do isn't exactly as cool as it sounds, but I'm kind of a Star Wars guy myself, so I can imagine something cool going down when these characters get together. You might be asking "What the hell is a Special Master?"

Teach you, I will. (Yes, Yoda reference, forgive me).

Special Masters are experts in the field of Family Law, and they are the "go to folks" when shit gets hairy. They're the old man (or woman) at the top of the mountain that has all the answers. When a third party opinion is necessary, and the Family Law attorney can't seem to get matters settled on his own, he gets in line with all the other questioning Family Law Attorneys to meet these gurus.

Family Attorneys and their parties meet (and this is where I imagine cool things going down) once a month at "Special Master Sessions", where they are given the opportunity to present their case to one male and one female Special Master. It's like they're entering some majestic temple where they will be bestowed with the wisdom required to carry about their grand journey...through the legal system.

It seems a bit extraneous, but a staggering eighty percent of cases that are presented to Special Masters are being settled without a trial, which makes the parties (and the Judges) very happy.

Maybe one day I could be a Special Master...

A young Family Law Attorney can dream, can't he?