Atheists & Agnostics
In reply to the discussion: Atheist Mom Forced Into Court-Ordered Christian Counseling [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)Domestic Relations court issue order for counseling all the time. The courts have found out the best are the ones BOTH parents agree to. The problem is when such parents do not agree, then the court has to decide which counselor the couple should go to. The Courts options are limited often to different counselors picked by both sides or a third party if it is clear both side suggestions are unworkable for the other side.
Domestic Relations Courts have found such counseling as a way to minimize conflict in child custody cases, thus the Courts will ORDER parties to attend counseling session. If someone dislikes the session or the counselor, they can always ask the court for a different counselor, but that cost will be put on the party that asked for it AND it must be completed within roughly the time period of the Court Order counseling (And the duty of finding such a counselor will be on the party asking for a different counselor).
The woman's refusal to go to the counseling session is like Kim Davis refusal to issue marriage licenses, both disobeyed DIRECT COURT ORDERS. The proper procedure is to APPEAL such orders NOT to disobey them. The Courts will uphold any sanction of any judge who issue a Court Order that was disobeyed, even if the order was later found to be unconstitutional or illegal (You must obey Court Orders, if you believe they are illegal or unconstitutional you appeal such orders, you do NOT disobey them).
The Classic case is the Case of Martin Luther King in Birmingham Alabama. He was court orders NOT to attend a Civil Rights Rally, he attended the Rally anyway and was arrested for disobeying the Court Order. He had also appealed that Court Order and that Order had been dismissed as unconstitutional on appeal, but that was AFTER he had disobeyed the Court Order and sentenced to Jail for disobeying the Court Order. Martin Luther King's sentence for disobeying a court order (that had been held to be unconstitutional) was UPHELD on appeal up to and including the US Supreme Court. In that set of appeals, the issue was NOT the Court Order itself, but the failure to obey it. The courts will punish anyone who disobeys an order, even if the order is illegal. The Courts position is you should APPEAL the court order NOT disobey it.
What this woman should have done was file a motion with the trial judge that the sessions were harmful and violating her first amendment rights of freedom of religion and if that failed, to appeal that decision. That is the proper procedure and most trial judges do NOT want to be reversed on appeal will consider providing a different counselor, if the woman would suggested one. Refusing to go to the COURT ORDER session was NOT an option, but asking the court to appoint someone else was.
Sorry, the more I look into this case, this woman took it on herself to DISOBEY a court order and then was shocked when the Judge did what a Judge can do when someone disobeys his orders, took her kids away. The Woman DID not tell the Judge that the sessions were NOT working out for she was uncomfortable with them. The Woman did not suggest another counselor. Instead the woman refused to go till the Judge took her kids away. Then the woman did finish the sessions, again NOT asking the Judge to appoint someone else and taped them to show their religious content. I suspect she wanted to show the Judge the Religious nature of the Counseling, but the Judge then said what alternatives the woman was offering, she was silent. The Woman did not really want to go to ANY counseling sessions and used religion as a prop to attack being ordered to go to such sessions.
Sorry, my experience as a practicing Domestic Relations Lawyer is this has NOTHING to do with religion but someone who disliked the idea of having to go to counseling sessions in the first place (and paying for them). This was confirmed when the woman objected to going to the public library for such sessions (I have had some counselors do this, for it saves them the cost of setting up an office or renting a motel room for the session).
Now, doing this at the library would have been grounds to ask for another counselor but again NOT asked for, I suspect for all of the other counselors charged more for their services. I suspect the woman did NOT want to pay more then what this Counselor was charging but then complained when it included religion. You get what you are willing to pay for and if you want a discounted service be prepared for any costs involved.
Now, for the argument, why have this counselor on any list of counselors? She is probably the chearpest and thus most popular on the list. No one is being forced to go to this counselor unless they select her personally. I suspect the counselor was selected by both sides attorneys for this counselor is the cheapest on the list. I suspect this woman's attorney told her to go to the 10 sessions and get it over with. The Judge issued his ordered based on what both sides had agreed to. Thus this woman "picked" this counselor and hated having to go to such sessions and picked apart anything the counselor suggested that her attorney told her was NOT essential to the sessions (Thus we hear of Religion and use of the Public Library but NOT how to handle problems that comes up with children being divided between two children).
Sorry, based on my experiences I suspect the problem is this woman did not like going to ANY counseling sessions and just attack the parts that she believed would get her good press. She did NOT take the option of filing an appeal or offering some other counselor, instead complained to the ACLU and the local news. I am sorry, this woman had options but refused to take them for I suspect her attorney told her go to the sessions, get it done and it be over with. I suspect her attorney told her if she disliked this counselor, go to someone else but be prepared to pay their higher fees, fees she objected to paying for she did not believe she needed this counseling.