First a note: This is not meant to be a debate on the Newdow Pledge of Allegiance case, it is instead one on the consequences of what the Supreme Court--likely unintentionally--did.

Ellen Goodman writes (http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/good0617.htm):


BOSTON -- I confess that I was a teensy bit relieved when the Supreme Court found a way to avoid ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance. Having pledged before and after the God clause was added, I didn't think those two words were any big deal. But I did suspect they were unconstitutional.

So I figured that the court dodged a bullet in the culture wars. But now I'm afraid they only provided arms for the custody wars.

The court dismissed the case on the grounds that Michael Newdow, the biological father, didn't have the standing to bring the case to court. His kind of father -- without full physical custody -- didn't have the parental right to speak for his child.

As one wag put it, the justices found it easier to separate parent and child than to separate church and state.

Allow me to remind you about Michael Newdow, doctor, lawyer, atheist and general pain in the neck. Newdow is living proof that litigious life begins at conception. From the beginning, he claimed to be the victim of a "date rape" that produced his daughter. He signs his child support checks with the motto "under protest."

After Michael came around to fatherhood, however, he did it with gusto. Custody suits became such a fixture of his life that one judge sentenced him to co-parenting classes. Indeed, on the day that Newdow lost in the Supreme Court, he also lost an attempt to overturn the law that made him responsible for the legal fees -- $362,000 worth -- of the mother, an at-home secretary.

When his daughter reached kindergarten in Sacramento, Newdow claimed that his right to influence her religious -- or anti-religious -- views was being infringed on by the teacher-led pledge to her country "under God."

In some ways, this case was part of the endless custody disputes. The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian who approves of the God clause. The atheist and the born-again wrangle over their daughter. But it was Newdow who took on the Constitution.

Catherine Ross, a family law professor at George Washington University, drops her professorial mien long enough to call Newdow "a litigious idiot." But she too wonders if the court, in its desire to find an "exit strategy" to an explosive case, "thought through the possible implications" of finding that parental rights depended on custody.

"What does it mean," asks Ross, "if you are a biological parent who pays support, has a relationship with the child, not someone who ran off? Does this mean you still have nothing to say about the values, the choices and the manner of raising your child? Does it mean you can't turn to the courts?"

If a father like Newdow who lives with his daughter 10 days a month has no standing, says Ross, "it sends a message that if you are getting divorced or have a child out of marriage, you better fight for joint custody."

Both the courts and the culture have been encouraging the greater involvement of two parents -- even estranged parents -- in their children's lives. In Newdow's case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court ruled that he retained a parental right to bring the case to court. In another highly controversial case, the California Supreme Court ruled recently that the custodial parent couldn't unilaterally move the kids out of the state.

I can't help feeling sympathy for Sandra Banning, who is living every split-up mom's nightmare. The culturally approved ideal of unattached but equally attentive parents produces as much conflict as compromise. Breakups are often accompanied by a struggle over values and religion.

And when co-parents aren't co-ing, who makes the decisions? I can only imagine a disaster if every parental disagreement -- sex ed? creationism? -- got fought out in the schools or the courts.

As for the much touted 'best interests of the child,' who decides that? Newdow's daughter apparently had no objection to the God clause. Do her attitudes matter? Now 10 years old, she's just relieved the whole thing is over.

Still, this cautious detour around the thorny issue of the Pledge of Allegiance hit a different social issue head-on. The Supreme Court ruled that the parent without full legal custody was without any legal standing. But if we want parents involved in the kids' lives, how can we remove them in the court?

This ruling was, in the words of three justices, "like the proverbial excursion ticket -- good for this day only." The pledge will rise again. In the meantime we may see an accidental impetus for a bitter series of custody battles over children. God -- if that's not against the Constitution -- help them.

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.

Wow this is actually kind of a tough one, being that I feel both parents should have legal rights to their childs upbringing, however it also a little tricky considering one guardian may have much more time with the child, so should they be practicing the other parent's views too? I doubt that.

I also believe that more parents may actually step up to take responsibility for their children, given the opportunity to do so. However, what of the parents who choose to reappear back in the childs life years later? Should they be given the same rights as the parents who's been struggling for full custody since day one? I don't believe so, which there in lies the problem. We would need to decide at which point do we believe both parents should be given equal rights.

To me, it just makes sense to base each situation on it's own. There are a lot of fathers out there who want to be a part of their child's life, but due to a bad divorce, their rights seem to have been forfeited. The court should be protecting their rights as a parent as well, not single siding the battle with the fact that they are not the sole guardian or have full custody, something that the courts also had a hand in.

There is also Family court, which acts as mediation for parents to go to in terms of divorce. It's a free service, and from the moment you got to them, they council you, draw up a diagram of each parents details such as working schedule, income, family support, ect. From this as well as observations based upon the counsellor, they will then come up with a set of guidlines is set out and brought to court. This takes away all legal disputes, and both parents are to agree or go through a mediator until and agreement has been made. This seems to me like the best option there is out there, and takes a lot of the stress of going the court away.

As far as the father not wanting the child to not be taught christianity, I would have to disagree this time. I don't believe (as seen in the pledge of allegiance debate) that she should have to include "under god" in the pledge, but just as the father should have all rights to teach his daughter what he believe in as far religion or lack of, the mother has in raising her child as a christian. It's also probably confusing as hell for the child

The thing about this debate, is there are way to many legalities in it. First off we would need to take a step back and figure out where exactly we fortified our own rights to the courts. The moment you get married, you in a sense are involving the courts. Even if there is an absence of court involement, the overlying term is that the parent in which the child resides most at, would be considered the sole guardian. As a sole guardian, a parent is then given the full estate of said child, which includes all rights to the child's property and possession. In laymen terms, you have sole propriety of child, but that does not exclude others. So in other words, you are still left to go to court.. and as of right now, the first the the court is going to do is look at the child's current living arrangement and whomever has the child as a day to day basis.

This sounds like a really tricky problem...

I also believe that more parents may actually step up to take responsibility for their children, given the opportunity to do so. However, what of the parents who choose to reappear back in the childs life years later? Should they be given the same rights as the parents who's been struggling for full custody since day one? I don't believe so, which there in lies the problem. We would need to decide at which point do we believe both parents should be given equal rights.
I think that if one of the parents (mother or father) chose beforehand not to be around to help raise the child, then they shouldn't be able to suddenly appear before them and have as many rights as the parent that has put everything into taking care of the child.

In this case, there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, at least not one that can be figured out without both parents deciding on one (through mediation, most likely).

I agree that this is probably very confusing for the girl enough as it is, and with both parents trying to raise her under opposite beliefs, that doesn't help at all. I believe that it may be the best that nothing is changed at all. Her mother should be able to teach her Christian beliefs, but her father may then be able to teach her his beliefs as well (I am not really sure where he stands in her life right now, or if he's ever been there until now, though). There is nothing wrong with talking about beliefs - it becomes another issue if they are both, at the same time, forcing the beliefs on her and reprimanding her if, say, she talks about Christianity to her father or vice versa. That isn't fair to the child at all. Many may not agree with this, but I believe she should grow up with the right to choose her own path...and the right to believe what she believes.

Mr. Newdow is an idiot. This is just an extension of his constant attempt to make the girl's mother's life hell, simply because he doesn't wanna pay the child support he's legally required to pay. I sincerely hope that Newdow does not tell his daughter she was the product of a date rape, and I also hope she doesn't know that he signs his child support checks "in protest." This poor child must be so confused, and I can't even imagine what kind of negative attention and teasing this might have brought to her in school.

As to the Court ruling:

The mother of the child has no issue with the Pledge. She is the custodial parent. She can make all such decisions. In fact, she could take her child out of the country forever and Mr. Newdow still couldn't say a word about it. If something was truly detrimental to a child, both of the parents would (hopefully) be distressed. Unless Mr. Newdow wants to assert that making his daughter say the Pledge is child abuse (although I believe she does it voluntarily if I recall) and contest the custody arrangements, the Court is 100% right that he does not have standing to protest something like this. He's not her legal guardian.

Did the Court chicken out? I think so. But they don't really know what to do at this point. If they say the Pledge is okay, they upset the ACLU and all the activists. If they say it's not okay, the offend the religious. It's better, much better I think, to chicken out whenever possible.

Sangreal: he is with her ten days out of every month and pays child support (albeit under protest, but he does pay it).

If that doesn't entitle him to the ability to sue on his daughter's behalf, that is--simply--very fucked up.

Sangreal: he is with her ten days out of every month and pays child support (albeit under protest, but he does pay it).

If that doesn't entitle him to the ability to sue on his daughter's behalf, that is--simply--very fucked up.

Okay, you're right. But then couldn't the mother sue on the child's behalf, saying that the ruling infringed on her child's religious freedom? Circle...

It is messed up, I agree. But sometimes the law is messed up. Do I think this guy has a right to sue on his daughter's behalf? It depends on the provisions of the custody arrangement. Honestly, if he has no custody rights, he is not entitled to any parental rights except (in some states) visitation.

Also, in further randomness: My sister spends about the equivalent of 10 24-hour days a month with her teacher, and the school system pays for her lunch and her textbooks and uniforms. Does that mean her teacher can sue on her behalf?

There are two types of custody: physical custody and legal custody. If the mother has sole physical AND legal custody, then no, he doesn't have a right to sue on his daughter's behalf, no matter how often he sees her or how much he pays in child support. If they have joint legal custody (which they can have without having joint physical custody), then they both have the right to speak on her behalf, but it's a joint effort. Go figure. Joint legal custody "...means that the parents share the decision-making rights, responsibilities, and authority relating to the health, education and welfare of the children and shall confer with one another in the exercise of the decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority." In my mind, this means that BOTH parents must agree if such action (the lawsuit) is going to take place on the child's behalf.

There are two types of custody: physical custody and legal custody. If the mother has sole physical AND legal custody, then no, he doesn't have a right to sue on his daughter's behalf, no matter how often he sees her or how much he pays in child support. If they have joint legal custody (which they can have without having joint physical custody), then they both have the right to speak on her behalf, but it's a joint effort. Go figure. Joint legal custody "...means that the parents share the decision-making rights, responsibilities, and authority relating to the health, education and welfare of the children and shall confer with one another in the exercise of the decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority." In my mind, this means that BOTH parents must agree if such action (the lawsuit) is going to take place on the child's behalf.
I think what you are talking about here are the different types of custodies, and how they could relate to this specific story? Here is another summary based on family/divorce law which depicts each actual incident: Sole custody (sole guardianship), sole custody with joint guardianship (both have equal rights to her religion, but they must both meet the same end), would be tricky, and joint custody (where each parent assumes full guardianship over child, when in their specific care), even trickier. In the case above, I'd say we're definetly talking about sole custody (full guardianship) to the mother, with the father with "access" rights. As far as the court is concerned, the mother already has full embodied rights as to her child's religion, among other guardianships of the person.

Access is nothing more then granted visitation rights. It's the minimal, and more importantly it's a slap in the face. What ultimately gives one parents superior rights over the other? Why is that even without involving the court at all, the mother is still considered the sole guardian of child, in a specific case like this?

There are two types of custody: physical custody and legal custody. If the mother has sole physical AND legal custody, then no, he doesn't have a right to sue on his daughter's behalf, no matter how often he sees her or how much he pays in child support. If they have joint legal custody (which they can have without having joint physical custody), then they both have the right to speak on her behalf, but it's a joint effort. Go figure. Joint legal custody "...means that the parents share the decision-making rights, responsibilities, and authority relating to the health, education and welfare of the children and shall confer with one another in the exercise of the decision-making rights, responsibilities and authority." In my mind, this means that BOTH parents must agree if such action (the lawsuit) is going to take place on the child's behalf.

In this case, the mother of the child has sole legal custody of the child. The father, through visitation, takes physical custody of the child on the weekends (or 10 days a month). Newdow has repeatedly sued for sole legal custody of the child (to the point where the mother has accrued legal fees in excess of $300,000), but will not settle for joint legal custody (the arrangement my parents had immediately following their divorce). He wants it all. But the courts won't grant it to him, and it's not just because he's a man. We don't know why, but that fact alone suggests that Mr. Newdow may not be the greatest of fathers. I don't know if this is morally right, but it is the law.

PS FallenAngelia, "guardianship" in its purest sense is not a part of custody law here. I forgot you were from Canada. Your system of classification is a vast improvement on ours by separating custody and guardianship.

PS FallenAngelia, "guardianship" in its purest sense is not a part of custody law here. I forgot you were from Canada. Your system of classification is a vast improvement on ours by separating custody and guardianship.
Actually, here in Canada guardianship and custody coincide. Guardianship consists of both ownership of child's possessions, of actual child, and everything in between. Meaning whomever guardianship is given to, will have the rights to the religion of child as well. In the case stated above, mother was already given fully custody guardianship over her daughter.
In this case, the mother of the child has sole legal custody of the child. The father, through visitation, takes physical custody of the child on the weekends (or 10 days a month). Newdow has repeatedly sued for sole legal custody of the child (to the point where the mother has accrued legal fees in excess of $300,000), but will not settle for joint legal custody (the arrangement my parents had immediately following their divorce). He wants it all. But the courts won't grant it to him, and it's not just because he's a man. We don't know why, but that fact alone suggests that Mr. Newdow may not be the greatest of fathers. I don't know if this is morally right, but it is the law.
From what I could see, the father did not lose custody rights due to anything, the problem lies in the fact that the two of them were never married, never lived together as common law, therefore the child was assumed to be in the mother's full custody. Something that is not fair, and personally I do not feel should be taken lightly. More importantly, how do you feel about that?

From a practical standpoint, it makes sense that a mother should automatically get custody rights to her child upon birth. If the father is not there at the birth, who else will take the child home? And when the mother takes the child home, she sets a precedent. She is the child's primary caretaker.

However, I think that this standpoint leaves much to be desired. My personal belief is that a father should have full parental rights from the moment of conception. (This also means that I think a man should be able to stop a woman pregnant with his baby from getting an abortion, provided that the sexual encounter was consensual and her life is not in danger.) It is not a man's fault that the fertilized embryo lies inside the woman and not inside him. I don't think it's appropriate for a man to be penalized in such a way. Furthermore, in some cases I think it is very harmful to the child to automatically be given to the mother, when the father may provide a better raising or a better standard of care. All in all, I think the courts and the general population need to stop judging people on the basis of what's between their legs. Can I get an AMEN?

From a practical standpoint, it makes sense that a mother should automatically get custody rights to her child upon birth. If the father is not there at the birth, who else will take the child home? And when the mother takes the child home, she sets a precedent. She is the child's primary caretaker.
This and the latter part of your post don't really blend well together. :/ While I 100% agree that both parents should have equal parental rights, I don't believe that the father should have full parental rights from conception. Conception is much different, and since alot of people don't believe that a fetus is yet a person, it's hard to put ownership over it, other then as part of the women. Do you see what I am getting at? Like said by me in the abortion thread, fathers should have rights too. I'm just not so sure that they should have a right to ask a women to carry the fetus full term and then deliver it. Btw, I'm extremely bored right now, which is why I'm even bothering to acknowledge the abortion reference. ^_~

It is not the quantity of time a parent spends with the child, it's how much that parent happens to make. This seems to be a growing trend, and the court has actually come out and said they would rather place a child in a more financially secure inviroment, rather then what the they feel would be socially and emotionally better for the child. These things never seem to actually be in the best interest of the child, do they?

I think its important to bring up the idea of rights from conception, though. The man can't make the decision to have an abortion, and he can't stop a woman from doing it against his wishes. I think the way we handle custody/child support/etc. . . leaves much to be desired.

I think that there should be a legally binding option to either sacrifice or retain legal responsibility and authority. By this I mean at conception *either* parent may opt in or out. If you choose in, you are fully responsible for all decisions and parental responsibilities (custody or child suport depending on the situation). If you opt out, you are permanently without legal right to have custody or influence on the child's life, and are without recourse if the other parent makes choices you disagree with, however you are not legally obligated to provide anything once the child is born.

If both parents opt out, should the child be carried to term it would be an adoption case. If religious views permit, that would be the case when an abortion could be performed. I don't like the way the law is structured such that men have little to no say in most states whether or not the child is born, but are given full responsibility for it, possibly against their wishes.

Either provide both parents an equal voice in that decision, or do not pre-determine legal responsibility and custody based on gender.

-PT

This and the latter part of your post don't really blend well together. :/

That's because I didn't take the time to properly elucidate what I was trying to say. Now I will. From a practical standpoint, if the father is not there at the birth, the mother will naturally get to take the child home (since she is generally at the birth by necessity, whereas it is an option for the man). Then it's like the child has already lived with the mother, so something would have to occur to take the child away from the mother and give custody of him/her to the father. I do think that a father has rights from conception, but he forfeits them (or at least shows how little he values them) if he doesn't take an active role in the child's life early on. The same goes for the mother, but she has an advantage. She knows she is pregnant, she knows what hospital she's using, she's there when she gives birth, etc. All because she's a woman. Fair? I think not.

Oh, and I wouldn't have referenced abortion at all, except I didn't feel like someone asking me "wait, does this mean you think a man should be able to...?" So I answered the question in anticipation of it being asked.

It is not the quantity of time a parent spends with the child, it's how much that parent happens to make. This seems to be a growing trend, and the court has actually come out and said they would rather place a child in a more financially secure inviroment, rather then what the they feel would be socially and emotionally better for the child. These things never seem to actually be in the best interest of the child, do they?

Maybe where you're from. In my neck of the woods, the mother almost always gets custody unless the father contests, at which point the father gets visitation rights. Fathers just don't generally get sole custody of their children unless the mother does something neglectful or the children get old enough to decide with whom they wish to reside. Money is not really the issue here. I guess the courts figure they can transfer the money through child support. However, neither way of doing things is really best for the child, but until they find an objective way to evaluate parental fitness, I guess they gotta do what they gotta do. It's unfortunate. But that's gov't for you (no offense to Kaydee of course).