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 BRANCH
IN 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.