The Jawa Report posts what appears to be a copy of the motion:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND JUVENILE BRANCHIN THE MATTER OF:
FATHIMA RIFQA BARY,
AN ALLEGED DEPENDENT CHILD
Case No. 09 JU 11 14895
Judge: GILL
Magistrate: GOODRICH
MOTION TO ENJOIN COUNSEL FROM PASSING MESSAGES OF THIRD PARTIES DIRECTLY TO THE MINOR CHILD
Wherefore, now come Mohamed Bary and Aysha Risana Bary, the parents of Fathima Rifqa Bary, by and through counsel, Omar Tarazi, and move the Court to enjoin Fathima Rifqa Bary’s attorneys from passing messages of third parties directly to the minor child without the approval and supervision of Franklin County Children Services; Petitioner moves the court to order Fathima Rifqa Bary and her attorneys to turn over all such communications in their possession or control to FCCS; that third party adults are not to be allowed to communicate with Fathima Rifqa Bary until an approved list is determined by FCCS after consultation with all parties. This motion is supported by the attached memorandum of law.
Omar Tarazi (0084165)
[Address and phone numbers removed]MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
1- Certain hate filled sites for bigotry and propaganda are advertising Fathima Rifqa Bary’s attorney, Angela Lloyd address as the approved mean for the readers of the sites to get messages delivered to Fathima Rifqa Bary under the guise of sending her “Christmas Cards.” http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
2- The particular sites involved have been inciting hatred regarding the current case with such posts as, “Strickland is demented. He knows the fatal record of his Child Services department. Why did he insist that Rifqa be returned? She was perfectly safe and perfectly happy in Florida. Why did this tool of jihad force the hand of Florida? Strickland says a killer is innocent, but Rifqa is guilty of not submitting to the religion of misogyny, gender apartheid and slavery. There is a level of corruption and Islamic influence all the way up to Strickland’s office that is deeply troubling. He’s on their payroll…Are they medicating her [Rifqa Bary] under the “psychiatric evaluation” findings? Who knows? Do the Islamic apologists in the Ohio media even so much as question this fascism? Not a peep.” http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/
3- Allowing the readers of such sites to have a channel of communication to Fathima Rifqa Bary is dangerous to her health and safety. It also undermines the ability of Franklin County Children Services to do its job in supervising and protecting Fathima Rifqa Bary. The GAL for Fathima Rifqa Bary, FCCS and the parents of the minor child have a right to know when third parties are communicating to the minor child particularly when the third parties might endanger the health and safety of the minor child.
4- Therefore, for the safety and security of Fathima Rifqa Bary we ask the court to enjoin Fathima Rifqa Bary’s attorneys from passing messages to their client from third parties and order them to deliver all such communications in their possession or control for Fathima Rifqa Bary that have come from third parties to this action to FCCS and order Fathima Rifqa Bary to turn over any communications in her possession or control she has already received from third parties through her attorneys to FCCS; that third party adults are not to be allowed to communicate with Fathima Rifqa Bary until an approved list is determined by FCCS in consultation with all parties.
Omar Tarazi (0084165)
[Address and phone number removed]
For more on the case, see here. The Atlas Shrugs posting referred to by the motion appears to be this one.
Now custodial parents are indeed entitled to try to restrict speech to their minor children, and may have the law’s support to do that: For instance, if a child goes to some political event without the parent’s permission, the parents could forcibly bring the child back, and could even have the help of the police in doing so. Likewise, I take it that parents could seize letters directed to their child, if they get their hands on them first.
At the same time, this power is in practice extremely limited when it comes to 17-year-olds, and it’s not clear to me that it should extend to cases where a 17-year-old child is already outside the parents’ physical custody. (The constitutional question, I take it, would have to do with the degree to which the First Amendment rights of counsel to pass along messages to Bary, the First Amendment rights of third parties to speak to Bary without governmental interference with the delivery of their messages, and possibly Bary’s First Amendment right as a listener not to have the government interfere with speech to her are limited by any residual rights the parents might have to control communication to a 17-year-old child who is no longer in their physical custody.) And if the test under state law is indeed whether the speech is “dangerous to [the minor's] health and safety,” it’s hard to see how such speech, however critical it might be of government officials, of Islamic groups, or of Bary’s own parents, is indeed a danger to the 17-year-old girl.
Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer.
SueSimp says:
Is it really that hard to imagine a possible danger to the health and safety of a 17 year old resulting from the receipt of unsolicited mass mailings from people who were called to action by an internet posting? There are crazy people on the internet. And a child that already clearly has considerable family issues doesn’t need a couple hundred strangers writing her to tell her that her parents want to kill her for converting, or that her parents will burn in hell, or that the religion she was raised in believes in murder and misogyny.
I’d be willing to bet a significant number of the cards she’s receiving say something more than a benign “Merry Christmas, new fellow Christian!” Telling the internet mob that they have a Constitutional right to target any minor (or at least almost-not-a-minor) for a mass mailing campaign doesn’t seem like a good precedent to be setting. Easy thought experiment: If an online Muslim group were targeting individual 17 year old Christian girls with letters urging them to convert to Islam or to continue in their rebellion against their infidel parents, would it be hard to see what the potential “danger to health and safety” was?
December 16, 2009, 2:28 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
If Children’s Services is the wardholder over the child, then they should get to vet how she lives her life, including who she has contact with.
If that agency is not doing its job, then this motion is probably well-founded. Note that the parents are not asking that they review the materials, but that others charged with acting in her best interests do so.
The situation is complicated by the fact that she has her own attorney–something very few minor wards have. The court does not want to hamstring counsel’s ability to act on her behalf.
Also I question, given that the child has counsel, why a GAL is needed.
December 16, 2009, 2:37 pmscattergood says:
Couldn’t this request interfere with her right to counsel / ability to aid in her defense? I mean what if a lawyer from volokh.com or religionclause.blogspot.com submitted information to her to help her in her legal actions? That’s 3rd party communication that the motion describes, but clearly it might impact her defense.
December 16, 2009, 2:38 pmwolfefan says:
IANAL, but wouldn’t something like scattergood describes typically be directed to the girl’s lawyer as opposed to the girl herself?
December 16, 2009, 2:41 pmscattergood says:
Maybe, but if it were and the lawyer decided to discuss it with her wouldn’t he be breaking ‘no 3rd party communication’ restriction?
December 16, 2009, 2:56 pmCrunchy Frog says:
The parents want veto power over any anti-Islam message that poor impressionable Fathima Rifqa Bary may come across, for her safety of course.
If allowed to think for herself, the poor dear might do something drastic – like convert to Christianity or something.
December 16, 2009, 2:57 pmNickM says:
The parents are asking that the girl’s lawyers not be allowed to communicate as they see fit with their client.
This looks like a good case for sanctioning the parents and their lawyers.
Nick
December 16, 2009, 3:01 pmcurious reader says:
Professor V., if you’re reading comments, or anyone else -
Can you point to any good summary of cases/discussion of when parents or children invoke the State’s help over gaining/restricting physical access re the child’s speech, communication, attendance at events, etc., but outside any custodial setting?
That is, it seems to me that EV is right that the “practical” question is the dominant one in most settings. If there’s no custody dispute between parents, or between parent and government social services agency, then any normal parent-child dispute usually comes down to old-fashioned physical control. Easy with 7-year-olds, not so easy with 17-year-old.
So if it’s a physical tug-of-war over intercepting the mail, or restraining someone from leaving the house, it seems to me that apart from abuse charges, one side or the other could ask the cops/courts to “help retrieve my child” or “help me bypass mom’s veto.”
Anything out there? After all, if a minor has a right to get a judicial bypass to exercise her abortion rights, shouldn’t she be able to bypass Mom’s veto over seeing that movie, going to that rally, etc? Or is it never litigated because sneaking around is easier?
December 16, 2009, 3:06 pmtroll_dc2 says:
This fact pattern would make for a great law-school examination question.
December 16, 2009, 3:14 pmPatHMV says:
Well, what is the proper role of an attorney for a minor in cases like this? The attorney is not the child’s legal guardian. Stripped of its invective against the Atlas Shrugged commenters, the complaint basically asks that the minor’s legal guardian, child services, determine what communications she should be allowed to receive from the outside world.
It would seem to me that in fact the legal guardian is the proper party to make that determination. If suit was filed in the name of a minor by her parents, then the lawyer would properly take orders from the parents, who are the child’s legal representatives, rather than from the child herself. What changes when the child is a legal guardian of the state?
Eugene, do you think the First Amendment constrains the government in a significant way when the government is acting as the legal guardian of a child? For example, if a child in the custody of the state started hanging out with a skin-head crowd, could the state take steps to limit the child’s interaction with his skin-head friends, on the grounds that becoming a skin-head would not be in the child’s best interests? Or would that be prohibited as view-point based discrimination?
December 16, 2009, 3:18 pmPer Son says:
Going slightly of topic. So many folks have a knee jerk reaction to support Fathima for reasons I believe have more to do with the fact that she converted from Islam to Christianity regardless of the validity of her concerns about her folks.
Where is all the knee jerk compassion for children whose parents force them to go to those camps where they get un-gayed and the like and try to run away? Is it not the same thing?
December 16, 2009, 3:25 pmADF Alliance Alert » Rifqa Bary’s Parents Ask Court to Order Bary’s Lawyers Not To Give Her Messages from Third Parties says:
[...] who she claimed might kill her. She ran away to Florida from Ohio. Eugene Volokh reports at the Volokh Conspiracy on the latest round in this litigation and includes excerpts from the text of the motion in [...]
December 16, 2009, 4:03 pmleo marvin says:
Are parental rights generally recognized as constant until majority, or does the law recognize a decline over the course of childhood, or at least over the later portions thereof?
December 16, 2009, 4:03 pmKen Arromdee says:
Is there some reason you think commentors here wouldn’t think the kid has a right to run away from those too?
December 16, 2009, 4:16 pmArthurKirkland says:
In the assessment of whether religion causes more good or harm in our world, this case seems squarely in the “harm” column.
What is it about a reported Islam-to-Christian conversion that causes so many adults to act like children?
December 16, 2009, 4:20 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
EV, I mentioned a few times in the last post on Ms. Bary that this case is a Rorschach Test for commenters. So far, there is only a little of that here. But even with my announcement to people not to project their fantasies onto this set of data, I think you will see it get crazy pretty quickly.
People, we don’t know a great deal here. I do this sort of thing for a living. My advice is to assume either A) that everyone involved is an asshat who you wouldn’t want to see win an important moral victory; or B) these are all well-meaning people who happen to see things differently. Then see what rises up out of either neutrality.
December 16, 2009, 4:50 pmgeokstr says:
Uh, maybe because apostasy can be a death sentence under Islam and the poor kid fears for her life? I can get you links to a freakin’ ton of stories of those stoned, hung and otherwise deprived of life and limb for it, from all over the world, but you wouldn’t read them anyway.
And that doesn’t even include those killed, mutilated, beaten, flogged for much lesser transgressions, like wearing Western clothes, or refusing to wear a tent, or dating a non-Muslim, etc. Sometimes it’s just for being rumored to, or accused of, having done those things. Or those 6-12 year old girls married off against their will to old men, often relatives, sometimes after being kidnapped from Xtian families and “converted” to Islam under duress first.
But gosh, a thousand years ago, an Xtian did something, so it’s all cool that Muslims be allowed to get their revenge now.
December 16, 2009, 4:54 pmDidacticus says:
As far as I know all the calls to send Rifqa Christmas cards used the address of her Guardian Ad Litem. Indeed many posters implored everyone to stay away from overtly religious or political messages, so as not to give an excuse for censure.
So something does not add up here.
And note the motion asks that Rifqa be ENTIRELY cut off from communication from any “third party” adults until a list is approved by her parents. In other words normal Christmas cards from strangers could never get to her. That’s just ludicrous, given she’s 17.
December 16, 2009, 4:54 pmDidacticus says:
Good question. I do not know the legal answer, but I will say this: any parent who treats a teenager like a 7-year-old until she turns 18 is by definition guilty of child abuse, since such a child will enter adulthood utterly unprepared. So at least from this angle some kind of increasing independence with age is necessary for children.
December 16, 2009, 5:00 pmgeokstr says:
There’s no third option, like one of the parties is legitimately in fear for her life, and the other is the aforementioned asshat or worse?
If she is forced back to her parents, and something happens to her, is there anyone besides the killers that can be held responsible? Any judges, social workers, attorneys?
December 16, 2009, 5:12 pmPer Son says:
I’ll take some troll bait.
The interesting thing is that her attorney is a pretty far lefty, but more than that, she is a strong children’s rights advocate and would of course advance her client’s interests as opposed to the best interests of the child (something left to a guardian ad litem or similiar person).
geokstr:
Do you live at the Bary residence r have bugs there? Because you seem to have the evidence that she is in imminent danger of death. You demonstrate your extreme prejudice of Moslems when you post such comments. Have we any evidence that Bary’s parents are anything remotely like what you discuss. I can give you tons of storys where gay children have been abandoned and thrown out of the home for being gay – should those children automatically be able to divorce themselves from their parents without any proof that their parents will mistreat them? There is plenty of evidence that shows that the abused often become abusers, so should children of parents who were abused as children be able to automatically divorce themselves for their parents.
Looks like you have invented a new rule for children of Moslems who want to leave his/her home? Convert to Christianty and get your leave the folks card.
As for being forced back and something happening – judges have absolute immunity, and the others have almost absolute immunity. First, you would need to show that the social workers and states attorneys actually did something wrong as opposed to doing their job.
December 16, 2009, 5:46 pmDidacticus says:
Per Son you’re quite a demagogue; geokstr simply asked 2 questions and you pretend he made accusations against the parents and Islam.
You also pretend this is merely about converting from Islam to Christianity and has nothing to do with Rifqa testifying under oath that her father said he’ll kill her and came close to smashing her with a laptop out of anger; and that she is truly afraid, and that she has been physically, mentally, and sexually abused while in the “care” of her family.
Any kid who alleges such serious abuse and who is so afraid that she’d rather stay in foster care (hardly paradise) MUST be allowed to stay away from her parents. The state has no right to force or threaten such a child under these circumstances into living in fear with her parents. Doing so amounts to child abuse and possibly murder. And it does not matter if her parents are Muslim or Christian or worship the Great Spaghetti Monster.
December 16, 2009, 6:03 pmPer Son says:
Didacticus:
You must not read most of geokstr’s postings. S/he has relied almost entirely on the great evils of Islam in the case of Ms. Bary rather than any specifics. S/he typically goes off about the evils of Islam as justification for believing she is at any risk. Cut the coyness.
Two judges have ruled against Ms. Bary. Could it possibly be because they believe the parents more? I see the parents are not being cut any slack, and I believe conservatives in large part are knee-jerk supprting Bary because her parents are Moslem, and would not give so much support for other children who fit outside the narrative.
December 16, 2009, 6:12 pmjosh says:
I’m not sure this is the correct analysis. Despite being raised on a motion by the parents, this is really a dispute between the guardians of the child (the State a la Child Services) and the child’s attorney, a guardian ad litem. I’m not familiar with the procedural posture of the case, but presumably a goal has been set (terminate parental rights or return home). In the meantime, while the general standard in these cases is “best interest of the child,” I think that applies generally to the terminate/return home question. This dispute, it seems to me, does not necessarily fall under that standard. This seems like a dispute between a minor party’s counsel and a service provider. I find it hard to believe that a lawyer can be barred from passing information to his/her client for the same reasons parental rights can or cannot be terminated.
Signed,
The husband of a GAL (who is somewhat talking out of his ear)
December 16, 2009, 6:37 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Rifqa Bary’s Parents Ask Court to Order Bary’s Lawyers Not To Give Her Messages from Third Parties -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Rifqa Bary’s Parents Ask Court to Order Bary’s Lawyers Not To Give Her Messages from Third Parties: The Jawa Re.. http://bit.ly/7Lbhbz [...]
December 16, 2009, 6:52 pmArthurKirkland says:
Does anyone know whether the authorities in Florida have arrested the preacher who hid the child from her parents and from the police?
Or, if not, why not?
December 16, 2009, 7:09 pmPer Son says:
Arthur:
That is pointless – it won’t it the conservative narrative.
December 16, 2009, 8:46 pmreadery says:
If they’re her parents, they’re entitled to make these decisions whether I or a judge think them wise or not. And if they win their case, they’ve always been her parents and custody was never legitimately removed.
This idea Florida law has of treating adulthood as a bright line — treating a child as a newborn unpotty-trained infant until age 17 and 364 days who magically loses the diapers and becomes a complete adult at 18 sharp — may not be the wisest idea either. But bright lines do have some advantages and Florida is entitled to decide they outweigh the disadvandtages.
December 16, 2009, 9:19 pmDidacticus says:
Yeah right. The Florida judge was OBLIGATED to transfer the case to Ohio once everything there was set, per the interstate compact on juvenile justice. He had no choice. Even if he was certain that Rifqa is a saint and her father a spawn from hell, he would have to send her to Ohio.
And what “second” judge ruled against Rifqa?
And from what I’ve seen the parents have been given all the slack and Rifqa hardly any in the media and from various officials.
And just because some people may be hypocrites in their support for Rifqa does not say one iota about Rifqa being right or wrong.
December 16, 2009, 9:31 pmDidacticus says:
Per Son, some of what you write is pretty whacked; to wit:
“I can give you tons of storys where gay children have been abandoned and thrown out of the home for being gay — should those children automatically be able to divorce themselves from their parents without any proof that their parents will mistreat them?”
So getting abandoned or thrown out is not proof of abuse? Oh wait, you want proof of FUTURE abuse. I guess like hire fortune tellers and palm readers? Hey, if dad rapes daughter once it’s no proof he’ll do it again! Let’s call the psychics to let us know for sure! Anything except listen to the child and treat her like a human being.
You’re not just an apologist for Islam, you’re also an apologist for child-abusing parents. You should have DANGEROUS TO CHILDREN stamped on your forehead. If you were running things, kids would be dying from abuse at ten times the rate they do now.
December 16, 2009, 9:38 pmRifqa Bary’s Parents Ask Court to Order Bary’s Lawyers Not To Give Her Messages from Third Parties | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] the original post: Rifqa Bary’s Parents Ask Court to Order Bary’s Lawyers Not To Give Her Messages from Third Parti… Share this [...]
December 17, 2009, 12:02 amRicardo says:
I’m glad to see a consistent defense of this principle. Still, I understand there have been nasty divorce cases before where one parent has allegedly coerced or enticed a child to make false accusations of physical or sexual abuse against the spouse in order to cut the other spouse off from custody.
If we follow your principle consistently, a parent who engages in this manipulative behavior would ordinarily be rewarded if all that is needed to deny custody is an accusation. Of course, such a parent could theoretically be sued for slander or prosecuted for perjury but neither remedy does much to redress the denial of custody issue. I think there ought to be some burden of proof to satisfy before such accusations are given notice by courts. In this case, whatever burden of proof Florida uses, it was not met here.
December 17, 2009, 12:08 amRicardo says:
You seem to be arguing that proof is not necessary: all that’s apparently needed under your system is an accusation. If your standard were embraced universally, I bet there would be a fair number of gay teenagers who would see this as a viable option for getting out under the thumb of their strict parents. If you are OK with that result, I suppose you have to agree to disagree with others who want some burden of proof imposed on allegations.
December 17, 2009, 12:14 amPer Son says:
Didacticus – are you on the wack?
I never said anything about supporting abusive parents. I asked if because there is a history of some parents doing X when their kids are gay, then should all gay children get to leave the home and get emancipated. That is the logic I see put forth in support of Bary’s situation. That is, she made an accusation and geokstr’s posts referred to a history of some Moslem’s doing X to support the removal of Bary, even though there was no proof of prior, current, or future abuse.
Read my man, simply read.
December 17, 2009, 10:40 amAssistant Village Idiot says:
geokstr, third, fourth, and twenty-seventh possibilities arise out of starting at neutrality and considering what things could possibly go wrong, how likely each of those are, and taking steps to reduce those risks.
Many things are possible explanations in this scenario.
December 17, 2009, 10:45 amOhioan says:
I think that what is being overlooked here is the actual danger that can possibly arise from this widespread, though intentionally innocuously cloaked mail-in campaign. I would suggest that two facts may be accepted with little dispute. One is that Rifqa has reiterated repeatedly a terror of dire consequences at the hands of her parents (in fact her specifics in this regard have frequently been vague–with perhaps a growing tendancy to cite murder as a specific as time has gone forward). The second is that several agencies of government in two states have been unable to substantiate these fears.
Even taking Per Son’s suggested neutrality position that all parties have the best interests of this child at heart–it is clear that a message of terror has been fomented by many who claim to be “pro-Rifqa” and act on this by demanding that she never again be in contact with her parents. At the same time, such terror messages have been conspicuously absent from the communication of the Bary family–and the Noor Islamic Community Center–although there is abundant evidence from other parts of the world of terror messages aimed at non-Muslims, Americans, women, various other groups.
If the factual evidence is to be believed–that Rifqa’s claims of physical abuse at the hands of her parents and known to school officials cannot be substantiated; and that Rifqa has spent considerable time in online and illicit contact with various religious groups (including The Call, International House of Prayer, certain campus ministries); and that her time at Noor was very limited according to their documentation–it is reasonable to begin to ask questions with regard to the source of the information that her life is in danger. We know that persecution of Christian converts at the hand of Muslims is a theme in Jamal Jivanjee’s ministry–and that he has been demanding his right to “counsel” Rifqa as a pastor, and has stated publicly that Ohio is a den of evil. We can read that Pam Geller’s conspiracy theories go far beyond the Bary family and Noor and now seeks to implicate the Governor of Ohio in the conspiracy to off Rifqa.
I would suggest that the fears of the Bary family with regard to their daughter’s continued contact with this group of self-appointed stakeholders (a number of whom were actively involved in Rifqa’s out of state travel and seclusion) are reasonable and valid. Further, many of this same gaggle have declared themselves to be in active opposition with the case plan filed with the court, which includes family dialogue on the subject of individual religious beliefs.
While it is true that within a limited number of months, ready or not, she will be legally empowered to make such decisions for herself, and it is regrettable that so much time was wasted by the Florida court holding up on a return to Ohio’s jurisdiction, it seems far wiser to put as much effort as possible into providing Rifqa with the tools that she will need to move forward as an adult. This is not likely to aided by the groups who are urging world-wide submission of communication.
December 17, 2009, 11:44 amDidacticus says:
Stop lying. Again, what you actually wrote is this:
“I can give you tons of storys where gay children have been abandoned and thrown out of the home for being gay — should those children automatically be able to divorce themselves from their parents without any proof that their parents will mistreat them?”
If you don’t think that parents who abandoned and have thrown out their kid are abusive, you should join the Child Abusers Union, I hear they have great benefits.
If you mis-wrote, just admit it. If you really believe that parents should be able to abandon or throw out their kids without risking any possible repercussions to their parental rights, then it’s clear where you’re coming from and I have nothing but contempt for you.
December 17, 2009, 1:13 pmOhioan says:
You are quibbling about an unclear antecedent to the pronoun “those.” You took it to mean children whose parents have abandoned them or thrown them out of the home. While I understood it to refer to all children who are gay. And since the writer has clarified his intent, what is your purpose in harping on this?
December 17, 2009, 1:34 pmPer Son says:
Thank you Ohioan, you are indeed correct. You and I call it a vague statement or unclear antecedent. Didacticus considers it an outright lie.
December 17, 2009, 3:33 pmDidacticus says:
You two will pretend yes means no and black is white rather than admit a simple mistake.
That’s if it was a mistake. Per Son never stated that any parents who abandon or throw out their kid should have their parental rights restricted if the kid desires so.
So why not state your positions clearly?
December 17, 2009, 4:11 pmChris Travers says:
Hmmm… Thinking about it, my thinking is that it might be reasonable to request that the Christmas cards be forwarded to FCCS. On the other hand this seems to be very overreaching as a motion goes.
December 17, 2009, 4:15 pmDidacticus says:
And Ohioan, I never seen anyone demanding that Rifqa be prevented from seeing her parents ever again. You just make up conspiracy theories out of your hat.
Some people, including me, demand that the state does not force Rifqa by violent means to return to her parents.
Because that’s all this charade comes down to: will the state decide to use violence, if necessary, to try to force Rifqa to live with her parents?
I do not want state power to be used in such oppressive and violent ways against a scared child; you and Per Son apparently do. I call that child abuse.
December 17, 2009, 4:23 pmDidacticus says:
To get back to the Christmas cards topic, here’s one of the Atlas Shrugs calls to send Rifqa cards and gifts:
——
A number of readers have asked about sending Rifqa gifts while child services wrestles with sending her back to a devout Muslim home.
Atlas reader Danielle in New Mexico made inquiries — here’s the deal:
just spoke w/ Franklin County Child Services Foster Care division. I asked if I could send a gift to a specific child in care. I was asked if I was a family member. I said no. I was a concerned individual. I did not identify the child by name.
I was told that I could send a gift. Just to be sure to leave it unwrapped. All gifts and mail sent to the guardian ad litem will be given to the case worker. She/he will then open and review them before giving them to the child to ensure they are appropriate. They will pass on gift cards and small gifts. There are no gift restrictions, but it’s at the case worker’s discresition on whether or not they pass it on to the child. I’m willing to bet that Rifqa will not be given any overtly religious materials given the sensitivity of the case. However, a crochet blanket or classic book, etc would be appreciated.
The case worker highly recommend gift cards for Target, Walmart, JCPenny’s, Khols, Macy’s or other big box stores for a teenager. Gift cards are not allowed to be withheld. She says that the case worker will ensure that the child is given an opportunity to spend them. Her case worker will also wrap any appropriate gifts sent for her.
The case worker thanked me for my support and told me that they would not be able to provide Christmas for foster children w/o caring people like me.
I hope you will post this information. It would be great to make Rifqa’s first Christmas on her own memorable. I’m hoping she will recieve a couple hundred dollars in cards so she can use it for clothing, etc. Gift cards could also help her if she is able to get into the emancipation program. She will need money to set up her own space.
Rifqa Bary c/o Angela Lloyd 255C Drinko Hall 55 West 12th Avenue Columbus, OH 43210.
—–
I will let the readers decide what evil lurks behind such requests.
Let me point out several issues, though:
1) Is Angela Lloyd Rifqa’s attorney or her Guardian Ad Litem? Until the Tarazi motion, I’ve only seen her referred to as her GAL. Indeed posters typically assumed she would be checking the cards before giving them to Rifqa and may return those overly religious or political.
2) Why does Tarazi insist that FCCS and Rifqa’s parents, not just her Guardian, inspect all her communication? It is up to the Guardian to look after Rifqa’s best interests. The interests of FCCS administrators or her parents are not necessarily the same as Rifqa’s own best interest. That’s the entire point of a court-appointed GAL I thought.
3) Given that Rifqa believes her dad is capable of killing her if she does not come back to Islam, how prudent is it to give the dad any and all communication this girl has until she turns 18? It will make it nearly impossible once she turns 18 to hide from her dad, as he will have all her contacts and could track her down a lot easier.
4) The very last demand, “that third party adults are not to be allowed to communicate with Fathima Rifqa Bary until an approved list is determined by FCCS in consultation with all parties”, amounts to de facto isolation of Rifqa. If taken seriously, she could not visit a bookstore and talk to a salesperson about some books until that salesperson is approved by FCCS (and Rifqa’s parents?) for communication with her.
December 17, 2009, 5:51 pmPer Son says:
Didacticus:
I admitted that it was vague, but shored it up and Ohioan did that too.
You stated:
“Per Son never stated that any parents who abandon or throw out their kid should have their parental rights restricted if the kid desires so.
So why not state your positions clearly?”
Read very carefully and slowly: I think those who abuse their children are abusers, and am not opposed to having their parental rights terminated regardless if the child wants those rights terminated or not. I am against a kid without any proof of danger or abuse (past/present/future) being able to run away, and be illegally hidden from authorities in another state.
Where are you going with using violence as means to force her to live with her parents? On the flip side, should children be able to run away and get emancipated without any proof that their parents have harmed, harm, or will harm them? You seem to want a situation where kids can run away, allege abuse and then when the parents want to see their kid – the cops can say piss off.
So go ahead and start takin my comments and twisting them to fit your narrative that I think child abuse rocks.
Lastly, I think that legally speaking the parent’s have no right to censor what she sees and/or reads until and unless they are granted full custody. It is a vexing issue depending on what Angela Lloyd is. If she is her attorney, her duty is protect her client’s interests as articulated by the client, which may be 100% opposed to what the state or others feel is in the best interests of the child. The GAL, on the other hand, goes not with the child’s wishes, but her best interests. So, it looks like we have something in common.
December 17, 2009, 7:32 pmDidacticus says:
Per Son, you still manage NOT to answer my question. Everyone and his cousin is against child abuse, but the question is how they define it. Imams who approve of marrying 8-year-olds and beheading “adulterous” 9-year-olds will tell you they are against child abuse.
My question was do you consider abandoning or throwing out kids (for whatever reason) to be child abuse that justifies restriction of parental rights?
December 18, 2009, 12:18 amDidacticus says:
Per Son, you wrote: “I am against a kid without any proof of danger or abuse (past/present/future) being able to run away, and be illegally hidden from authorities in another state.”
That entirely evades the issue here.
The real question is this: Should kids who were abused by their parents but are unable to prove the abuse be ALLOWED to stay in foster care?
You also ask: “Where are you going with using violence as means to force her to live with her parents?”
How else would you want Ohio to force Rifqa to return to her parents? The only effective means I know of available to Ohio is the threat of incarceration, which is by definition violence.
You wrote: “On the flip side, should children be able to run away and get emancipated without any proof that their parents have harmed, harm, or will harm them?”
Emancipation is a red herring here; no child can be emancipated just because she has been abused, and I never proposed anything so absurd.
And any child who was abused must be able to find protection in foster care, even if the child is unable to prove the abuse. Anything less amounts to condemning scores of innocent children to abuse, even death.
You say: “You seem to want a situation where kids can run away, allege abuse and then when the parents want to see their kid — the cops can say piss off.”
Please try to ask (imply) a little more serious questions. First, any cop can tell such a parent to piss off if the kid alleges, say, sexual abuse. So can any judge, if the case moves to court.
In general, what should happen in my opinion, is that the GAL should decide based on the child’s best interest. If Rifqa’s GAL tells her to communicate with her father, I have no objections as long as reasonable safety precautions are taken (given the death threat allegation). I would not even object to some mild (non-violent) punishment should Rifqa refuse, if the GAL truly believes communication is in Rifqa’s best interest.
December 18, 2009, 12:43 amPeter Chamberlain says:
The laws of both states, andpractically all others,req
December 18, 2009, 1:13 amPer Son says:
Didacticus:
Ok, I’ll appease you and state the obvious – I do think abandoning or throwing out kids is child abuse. Absent some grammatical vagueness, nothing I wrote in my original or subsequent postings contradict that. I also think the world is not flat, and the moon is not made out of green cheese.
Anymore questions, or just more aspersions?
December 18, 2009, 9:11 amOhioan says:
If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? Should children who make unsupportable charges of abuse against their parents be granted a choice to become wards of the state? I think that the answer would be now. You throw in an unknowable condition by asking if children who are ACTUALLY abused by their parents make an unsupportable claim of abuse, should they be granted state custody. As there is no means of making this distinction (between kids who may actually have been abused despite evidence and kids who were not abused, who therefore have no evidence), the only question that can reasonably be answered is whether any child who alleges abuse should be granted custody by the state. Certainly this would save considerably in the costs of investigation–to be outweighed of course by an increased cost of foster care for any and all children who request custody. Now–would you advocate that these children be granted ongoing custody until age 18, or should they be considered to be adoptable. Might there ever be opportunities for families to be made whole again? Would you take into account the age of the child or any intervening factors (other adults who might coach children into making such accusations)?
There is a hugh problem here in many people seeming to take a stand that policies should be crafted and applied to meet their understanding of this particular case–and that such policies, while they may in fact discriminate against this particular family might be justified due to the possible harm that they perceive. These people are apparently unable to see themselves ever being placed in a similar situation facing policies that put aside any rational understanding of known facts due to the weight of the accusation at hand.
December 18, 2009, 11:59 amOhioan says:
Well, I confess, it is difficult to determine what some of the shouters (especially Pam Geller) do in fact WANT, other than a fair amount of attention directed towards themselves. But they have stood firmly opposed to Rifqa’s return to the state of Ohio (Jamal Jivanjee has declared the state to be evil and Pam Geller points to a conspiracy between Hamas and the Governor); opposed to the plan for dialogue between Rifqa and her parents regarding religion (and I understand that Rifqa has refused to attend sessions–based on Jawa Report); opposed to included in the case plan a possible goal of reunification; opposed in fact to so many things that it is hard to sort out what in fact they favor.
December 18, 2009, 1:00 pmChris Travers says:
No. I have watched a couple of kids who are cousins of mine threaten parents with accusations of child abuse. No point adding weight to mere accusations.
YOU may want to destroy the family as a strong institution in our society, but I think that is the first step to an end to all liberty.
December 18, 2009, 7:01 pmDidacticus says:
I believe your answer is sincere but I think you’re naive if you wished to imply our view of this is shared by nearly everyone in the states. Fundamentalist Mormons have been kicking out minor teen boys for decades, it’s been well known, yet as far as I know not a single such parent has been charged with child abuse for that by the authorities.
December 19, 2009, 2:15 amPer Son says:
And that is a huge problem regarding the Fundamentalist Mormons. Lets end this thread on where we agree.
December 19, 2009, 11:05 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Lawyer for Rifqa Bary’s Family Withdraws Motion to Block Rifqa From Getting Messages from Third Parties says:
[...] Christian Science Monitor so reports; I had blogged about the motion here. Thanks to Religion Clause for the pointer. Categories: [...]
December 25, 2009, 4:22 pmMiami Bus Ads Ask Ex-Muslims: “Fatwa on Your Head?” « Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion says:
[...] a deluge of letters from strangers that might contain all kinds of ravings, and they asserted through their lawyers that the cards should be intercepted because “the [Guardian ad Litem] for Fathima Rifqa [...]
April 15, 2010, 3:40 amMiami Bus Ads Ask Ex-Muslims: “Fatwa on Your Head?” » » Trending North News Copy says:
[...] a deluge of letters from strangers that might contain all kinds of ravings, and they asserted through their lawyers that the cards should be intercepted because “the [Guardian ad Litem] for Fathima Rifqa [...]
April 17, 2010, 6:30 pm