For some perspective on an article that I’m writing — thankfully, the purpose is purely theoretical — I’d like to talk to some family lawyers who specialize in child custody. Any state will do. If you’re inclined to chat briefly with me, either on the record or off the record, please drop me an e-mail and let me know.
I’d like a sense of how often you’ve come across cases where
-
the judge considers a parent’s political or religious ideology, and thus what the parent is likely to say in the future to the child, in making the “best interests” decision,
-
the judge considers other speech that the parent has engaged in (or exposed the child to),
-
(3) the judge issues an order barring one parent from saying certain things in the future.
I’ve seen quite a few published cases in which this happens, whether the order is “don’t say bad things about the other parent,” “don’t teach religious views contrary to the custodial parent’s” (such orders are allowed in some states but not in others), or something else. But I wanted to get a practitioner’s sense of how these things may arise in ways that don’t recorded in published decisions, what twists I should be looking for, how common these things tend to be, and so on. This is naturally not an attempt at a scientific survey — I just want to see what factors I might be missing. Thanks!
Comments are closed.