(Cross-posted at Silence Isn't Golden)
Several weeks ago, I wrote about Judge W. Dale Young, a Circuit Court judge in Blount County (near Knoxville in East Tennessee). In a clear display of conservative "family values", he told a LEGAL immigrant who had come into his court to get an order of protection against her abusive estranged husband to "go back to Nicaragua." For that, he was put under judicial conduct review, but is still on the bench.
Well guess what? Young is at it again, this time deciding against a mother in a child custody hearing because her religious beliefs were--wait for it--different!
From the Daily Times
A Maryville woman who went to court on Aug. 14 for a child custody hearing says she was persecuted because of her religious beliefs at the hands of the Blount County judicial system.
According to Jo Anne White, what was supposed to be a standard child custody hearing turned into an almost hourlong "Bible study" in the courtroom in spite of the repeated protests of her attorney, Kevin W. Shepherd.
After a detailed discussion of her religious beliefs — documented in court reporter transcripts obtained by The Daily Times — and a brief recess to chambers, Blount County Circuit Court Judge W. Dale Young awarded temporary custody of White’s two children to her ex-husband. The custody will be reviewed again in Circuit Court on Dec. 11.
While Young questioned White about one specific aspect of her religion, attorney Craig Garrett, who represented White’s ex-husband, asked numerous probing questions about her faith. Of the 65 pages of court transcripts reviewed by The Daily Times, 41 pages deal directly with White’s religious beliefs.
That is an awfully long time to discuss someone's religious beliefs. The judge must have thought that her religious beliefs could somehow harm the children, for it to be relevant to a custody case. So what weird cult does Ms. White belong to?
White is a Seventh-day Adventist who married her now ex-husband 17 years ago in a Seventh-day Adventist Church.
I know several Seventh-day Adventists. There is NO real difference between them and your standard evangelical Protestant, except that they, like we Jews, observe the Sabbath on Saturday rather than on Sunday.
I'm not saying that a parent's religion is necessarily irrelevant in a custody case. But:
While discussions about religion are permitted in child custody cases, most states prohibit religion from being a deciding factor unless there is evidence of potential or present harm to the child, such as if the parent engages in unusual cult activities or has an unorthodox lifestyle that endangers children, according to Nihara K. Choudhri’s book "Complete Guide to Divorce Law — Divorce Law for All Fifty States."
There's a very clear legal standard--the parent's religious beliefs cannot be a deciding factor in the case unless there's proof that it harms the child.
Here is a partial transcript of the hearing, obtained by The Daily Times. Seven pages, talking about nothing but "the mark of the beast". Only one word about how this is relevant to the child, with a reference to a question earlier in the hearing. Read through the transcript, and you can see that the whole line of questioning has nothing to do with whether or not she's a good mother, but the judge trying to find something damning about Seventh-day Adventism (on one level though, it was kind of interesting...I always thought that the mark of the beast was the "666" on Damien's neck in the movie "The Omen").
You may be thinking now that this doesn't necessarily prove that the decision was based solely on the religious beliefs. However:
"At one point, I told the judge, ‘I didn’t write the Bible — so why are we discussing this?’
"He just wouldn’t stop, and I thought I would go to jail if I didn’t respond to his questions — so I went along with it even though I knew they were inappropriate questions.
"We talked about my religion for so long that I wasn’t even allowed to bring my witnesses to the stand."
This is the kind of atmosphere that's being created in this courtroom. One of fear, one where evidence to help your case isn't allowed if it goes against what the judge already believes. I don't understand how you can forbid someone from bringing their witnesses to the stand. Judge Young made up his mind about the verdict after he had a problem with some of her religious beliefs. This is, dare I say...conservative judicial activism!
Clearly, the only crime committed here is that this guy is still on the bench.