With the new policy, parents of children who can't be baptized have solid grounds for obtaining sole custody of their minor children.

I am basing this on the fact that the discriminated against children still have to be in a world in which their friends (some of them anyway) ARE baptized etc.

The fact that they are being discriminated against hurts the children. If the straight parent deliberately exposes his/her kids to discriminatory behavior/treatment, the other parent should receive sole custody. What parent who loves their children wants them to be discriminated against by some CULT?

This applies to this horrible policy of course, but it could apply to many issues as well. For example, if either parent exposes the children to behaviors/treatments by organizations which are detrimental to the children, the other parent should receive sole custody. Take this scenario: a white parent who has a child of mixed race (black and white) decides to be in a white supremacy group like the KKK. Their mixed race child will be discriminated against and exposed to bad treatment by the KKK simply because they are of mixed race. In this case, the non white supremacist parent must get sole custody of the child in order to protect the child from discrimination. I'm sure there are other examples I could use, but I hope I have made the point.

Given the higher rate of suicides by children and young people because they don't live up to the CULT's rules should be cited at the custody hearing. Parents who don't want their kids committing suicide need to keep them away from the CULT (and the behavior of the CULT) at all costs.

Parents, if your children fall under this horrible policy, go to court and obtain sole custody and include in the wording of agreements that the children won't be subjected to any of the CULT's discriminatory behaviors when they visit the non-custodial (TBM) parent. IN other words, NO CULT under any circumstances until the child turns 18 years old.

Children are not stupid. They know when they are NOT welcome or wanted. This policy will have a very negative impact on their mental health. Get a non-Mo judge. If you are in Utah, request a change of venue away from the CULT's secure reign. You can't have this kind of hearing in Utah probably since the CULT runs Utah with an iron fist.

When they are 18, they can decide but in the meantime parents please keep your children away from the CULT.

What makes you think such an argument would work with a judge?
You cant just demand sole custody. Most judges would not see the LDS church as a cult. And if a parent tried to prove to a judge that it was, in an effort to obtain sole custody, most likely that effort would backfire and the judge would grant custody to the TBM parent.

This would only work on a Judge outside of Utah. Inside of Utah any hint that you are not in 100% compliance with the the one true church means you are going to get screwed over.

You could always tell the court about how the church used to teach institutionalized racism up until 1978, how until 1990 they routinely threatened to cut open the throats of anyone who went through the temple and later revealed those secrets, and how even now, the cult is trying to teach your child unhealthy values about their sexuality (fostering shame and secracy instead of honest education and self responsibility).

"Most judges would not see the LDS church as a cult." - this is true. The judge may not see the LDS church as a cult. BUT, unless they are a brain-dead brainwashed MO judge, they are likely to see that the policy is discriminatory toward the children. BY what I have been hearing this past week, many people including TBMs are admitting that this is open discrimination for no good reason. This discrimination will hurt the children, and the children should not have to endure that kind of treatment.

Like I said, most of the MORON judges in Utah are going to act like the one who took the foster child away from the lesbian couple for no good reason at all.
So, I am not saying that the parent needs to prove that the CULT is a CULT. They just need to prove that this policy discriminates against the child which is obvious and that the discrimination is bad for the child. They are punishing the children because of something their parents did or something they think the parents did.

May I also add that the CULT is saying that they don't want the child's homelife to contradict the CULT's teachings. Has the CULT installed hidden cameras in these people's homes? They are assuming that their home life is terrible and not good for the child. The fact is that this policy is terrible and discriminatory and it is going to come back to bite the CULT hard.

I do know that parents have to do whatever it takes to keep their children away from this evil cult. The CULT has proven to be very bad on many children. The CULT has done electric shock treatments and other things that are very detrimental to children. IMO, the CULT should be liable for the damage they did to these poor children. And don't even get me started on the ones who committed suicide because of the CULT. If every parent whose child committed suicide because of the CULT's guilt trip which was laid on them had the balls to sue the CULT, it would be broke overnight. Too bad many of these parents had that attitude (same as the CULT's) - "better off dead than gay."

Horrible slimy EVIL CULT. Please disappear from the earth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2015 12:37AM by verilyverily.

Doubt a judge would go for that, either. A parent most likely would have to demonstrate that the other parent was unfit to share custody.

As much as you would like a judge to rule custody based on Mormonism, it wouldn't fly.

I am not saying that it should be based on Mormonism. I am saying that it should be based in discrimination toward the child which is detrimental to the child's mental health.

If a parent continually showed a child very scary (age inappropriate) films that could/and likely would be considered detrimental to the child's mental health. A child psychologist would need to testify to that in order for it to be believed.
I'm not saying that the judge should just believe that being discriminated against is detrimental to the child's mental health. I think a psychologist would have to testify in this case too.

It is not about Mormonism per se. It is about the child's mental health. Whatever organization or individual is contributing to the child's mental illness or mental instability must be kept away from the child. It could be a parent, a church, a school or school teacher etc. I know that when a teacher or parent/uncle etc. shows porno films to a child, that perpetrator is prevented from being around the child again and that is as it should be. It does not matter what religion or non-religion the perpetrator is.

Let me use a different example since for some reason you are getting hung up on the Mormonism issue.
At Cindy's (the child) private school, all of the kids have been playing a game from 10 am - 11 am every day. It is an activity for all of the children to participate in. Suddenly the teacher is given a handbook that says Cindy and 3 other children in the class can't be in this activity because their parents are bankers at a bank the school doesn't have their money in and the school therefore hates that bank. This is discriminating against Cindy and the 3 other students because of something their parents did.
The Mormon Cult is the discriminating party in this case with this policy.

If you understand the gist of my argument, it could be a school, a store, a camping organization, an uncle, etc.

Please get off the Mormonism as a CULT as the only possible culprit. I do believe that Mormonism is an EVIL CULT, but that is not the point of the argument here. It just happens to be that the CULT is the perpetrator of the discrimination. The parent that insists on having the child be in an organization that discriminates against that child should have the sole parenting responsibility of the child taken away from them and given to the other parent who will agree to protect the child from that discrimination.

I hope this makes sense now.

Yes, I hear what you are saying now.

Rather than focusing on Mormonism, the focus would be on discrimination and mental health issues.

I think it would be an uphill battle, even with a psychologist, because discrimination is part and parcel of life in many ways (think of kids on the playground) but it's a better argument than making the argument against Mormonism.

Not sure if it's worth that kind of battle. If anything, it could make the child resent the parent who was seeking sole custody if they felt that that parent was trying to prevent them from seein the other parent

(I say this as the offspring of divorced parents. Divorce is never easy, even under the best of circumstance. The best thing for a child is for a divorce and custody to be as civil and as amicable as possible. Custody battles in and of themselve are very detrimental to children)

I do think children are worth the fight. And I am not saying that the children should not see the other parent, just that no parent should expose the child to that discrimination. In other words, activities with both parents don't involve the CULT.

I agree that divorce in general is detrimental for the kids. But when an organization (such as the CULT) deliberately discriminates , it makes everything worse. So both parents have to avoid that organization when dealing with their kids. AND both parents should explain to the kids why they avoid the organization.

You are also right that discrimination is part and parcel in life (kids on the playground), but that discrimination is not formal policy by kids on the playground. This policy is actual formal policy.

Do you think that a judge would rule in favor of your argument? Do you know of any presedents in the law that could be used to persuade a judge to grant sole custody to one parent over joint custody by both based on the concerns of discrimination?

I am no lawyer and I wonder if the argument you are making would have any legal teeth to it in a court of law before a judge.

I have sole legal and physical custody of my minor-age child--not because I asked for it, but because *my ex* asked for it...and angered the judge.

After a 20-year verbally/emotionally/financially/some physically abusive marriage (during which I was convinced, as he reiterated over and over again, that I was the problem and got what I deserved), he started commuting to a job out-of-state, met someone else, and left me. He didn't want a long court battle, so he gave me custody and a decent settlement (I could have sought more legally, but I was content to move on.) He thought that he would still be able to control me like he did during the marriage...he was surprised that (thanks to an incredible attorney and therapist), I suddenly grew a backbone and didn't tolerate him yelling at me, insulting me, ignoring the parenting plan etc. He immediately went to work on the kids--after all, he couldn't let them think he left me for another woman, but that I was dangerous and mentally ill and had taken all his money in the divorce and was hiding their child support...and wouldn't they like to come live with him and the rich new wife he married? Four months after the divorce he was remarried, and a week after that he filed for some custody, alleging I was mentally ill, dangerous, that my house was filled with animal urine, feces, and fleas, that I was a hoarder, that I "allowed" my oldest daughter to be raped, that I wasn't able to help the kids with school stuff, etc. My oldest turned 18 two months later and moved in with him, AND he brought her to court to testify against me, claiming I abused her so she had to leave...the abuse, upon being pressed by both the judge and my attorney, was that I "yelled" at her to take care of her dog and sometimes left food on the kitchen counter, so she believed her father that I was dangerous and mentally unstable.

Not only did he NOT get the sole custody he wanted...the judge gave ME sole legal and physical custody, and I didn't even ask for it. (I just said there was no change in circumstance for a change in custody and there was parental alienation. My fantastic attorney, after my husband filed, immediately pushed for not one, but two Psyc evals, as she figured my ex would claim the first one was "wrong" and figured if two said the same thing, my ex couldn't win. Both psychologists confirmed parental alienation, said my ex was narcissistic and passive aggressive, and that I was NOT mentally ill.)

It did not help my ex that he brought my oldest daughter to testify against me, even though he thought he would win because he had the "victim" of my "abuse" as a "witness." (He also went through five attorneys, all of whom believed him at first that I was nuts...until they saw the psyc evals and that there was no evidence. So he represented himself. And his only evidence at trial were pictures of him doing things with the kids and telling the judge "You have to believe me." I had 24 witnesses--the psychologists, the pediatrician, teachers, a minister, in-home tutors who were mandated reporters, etc.--and 43 documents including emails and texts he sent, proof that he rarely showed up for visitation, that he moved 3 times in 9 months, that I was a stay-at-home homeschoing mom until the divorce with whom he left his children as he commuted out-of-state, etc.)

Two months after getting the verdict of sole custody to me, my second child, a few months away from turning 18 and who was angry with me for telling her not to speak to me disrespectfully, went with her dad to court claiming I tried to run over her with a car, and all the custody papers were refiled. Not only did that not work with the judge--he immediately threw the case out and took away more visitation with the youngest from the father--but this time her law guardian really worked hard to show her what her dad said was not believable, that she was facing repercussions for her false allegations, and ran interference between her and her dad. My other daughter's law guardian stated my youngest was complaining that her older sisters and her father were trying to get her to say mean things about her mom.

So what does my sordid tale have to do with this topic and TSCC? A few things...

For one, the church is a cult, and is harmful...but just saying the church is harmful, or that children attending a church that teaches one parent is bad is alienating so the other should have sole custody, is not enough. The courts are reluctant to change custody/grant sole custody, or limit visitation, as the courts in all states consistently hold that the best interest of the child is to have a relationship with *both* parents, even majorly flawed parents, and mentally ill parents, etc. Even incarcerated parents get visitation. Parents who are abusers often still get supervised visitation. And, often, judges get very angry with the parent asking to limit custody and visitation, because judges view that as parental interference or one parent trying to push the other parent out. Judges don't like that. The reason my judge stated he gave me sole custody was because he said it was obvious I was the parent who would encourage a relationship with the alienating father. Yup--I didn't get sole custody because my ex is nutty, but because I am the stable one who will see to it that my daughter has a relationship with her nutty dad, whereas nutty dad made it apparent he wants the new wife to be the new mom and wants me completely out of the picture. So, even with glaring evidence that one parent is not the best parent, that parent still gets to be a parent.

A judge is not likely to give sole custody to a parent who is not in the church just based on church doctrine--there has to be provable, concrete, repeated *actions* by the other parent which demonstrate parental interference, AND there has to be a lot of them. Without this, a judge is not going to look favorably on the petitioning parent.

Second, parental alienation, while difficult to prove, does exist. Usually it is the custodial parent (often the mom) doing the alienating, and not the non-custodial father--my case is pretty unusual. At any rate, the children of alienating parents side with the brainwashing alienator, at least when they are younger, regardless of how nutty the alienator's claims are. So, in the case of the cult (whose beliefs are definitely on the nutty side), you are going to have a child angry at the parent who wants to separate him/her from his/her "faith" (indoctrination) and it will push the child closer to the alienator, thus backfiring. Sometimes, when the kids are older, they "get" it, and sometimes get angry with the alienator...but with TSCC, the child is facing two things to overcome--the parental alienation of the parent AND the indoctrination of TSCC. If the child doesn't leave the church, the child is going to continue to reject the other parent...which is completely wrong.

Sadly, I doubt, at least in Utah, you're going to find a judge who believes the church policy is alienating and is sufficient reason for sole custody, or get a law guardian who will advocate for the true well-being/best interest of the child, or that a therapist well-versed in alienation/Mormonism will be allowed to work with the child. I think the only way you'd have a shot is if the alienating/church parent self-represents so that the parent behaves like an alienator in court so the judge can see it. That's how I prevailed--my attorney kept telling me that the burden of proof was on my ex, and our "strategy" was to just shut up and let my ex do his thing in court and show the judge who he really was. It worked. Had my ex had an attorney, that attorney would not have allowed my ex to say a lot of the things my ex said--of course, my ex thought he was helping his own case, not hurting.)

Just because justice *should* prevail, doesn't mean it always does. I ache for all the families who are going to suffer even more under this policy. Children will indeed suffer. I don't think the courts are going to help.

In Utah, it will work just the opposite way. A Utah judge is allowed to consider religious affiliation of the child in deciding custody. There will be tremendous pressure from TBM family on the gay parent to give sole custody to the hetero parent so that the child won't be excluded from the milestones of LDS religious traditions and treated as a less than by the prevailing culture.

Evil and devious, but I think this is the motivation behind the policy. Keep the child in the TBM fold. So what if it alienates the child from the non-custodial parent. We all know they don't give a fig about tearing families apart if it keeps them in control.

You have to base it on parental alienation. It is talked about it this podcast:

http://athoughtfulfaith.org/church-policy-changes-and-their-legal-contexts-james-ord/

and I'm so glad I never did get my divorce. There was never any battle over child visitation. My ex had access to our children, but I had primary custody. He didn't want custody of them at the time anyway, and he will admit it. I called the shots and he is glad I did. Otherwise, he wouldn't be living downstairs.

It is too bad the divorce has to be like this, that custody has to be like this, and now the lds church has just made it that much more difficult for gay/straight marriages to break up and have some semblance of decency.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2015 11:01AM by cl2.