The commentaries are out now on Monday's Supreme Court decision that ultimately left the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Most of the commentary seems to focus not on the Pledge of Allegiance itself (anyone who even addresses that part seems to be of the opinion that the legal arguments of the case were sound and that "under God" will come out eventually), but on the reasoning that led to the decision.
For those who haven't been paying attention, the Supreme Court did not find that "under God" was permissible because it is not an establishment of religion that would be prohibited by the first amendment. They found that the plaintiff, as a non-custodial parent, did not have the legal standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of his child. Basically, the Supreme Court declined to hear an issue because they were compelled to enforce a parenting plan that gave the custodial parent broad veto power over the non-custodial parent.
Michael Newdow, the non-custodial father in question, writes an intriguing piece in Slate (click here) about how custody laws invite conflict between parents during a breakup--intriguing because he is quite apparently bitter about the way he is excluded from his daughter's upbringing, but still manages to make a reasoned argument.
The Christian Science Monitor (click here) accuses the Supreme Court of using the parenting plan issue to duck making a decision on a controversial issue, and in the process setting a dangerous legal precident against non-custodial parents. The Court did weasel out of a tough one, but they made the only decision they could, given that the child's mother has a parenting plan that gives her broad veto power in any disagreement over how the child is raised.
This latest discussion is focused on the many ways that non-custodial parents can get the shaft in family court, which is a discussion that has been a long time in coming. While there are far more opportunities for a non-custodial parent to get the short end of the parenting stick, I've also seen cases where non-custodial parents won't shoulder their part of parenting. Then there are the cases where both parents have forgotten that custody is an entirely separate issue from the divorce and both act like a horse's hindquarters. The only thing I can say is that there must be a better way than this to sort out childrearing when parents are not together.
1 comment:
If anyone finds a better way to sort out childrearing issues, I would love to know. With personal experience in the idiocy of the family court system, I can feel for the father's frustrations of fighting the system. But I've come to see that the children eventually see when their parents are behaving like a horse's patooty and sort these things out for themselves. My "bonus daughters" are currently coming into their own realizations on this subject. It is sad to watch the sufferings of a child who just wants to see her parents...both of them. So if you find the cure to this disease of the family court system, let me know! Ann Onymous
Post a Comment