- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
New York Post: How a confederate flag painted on a rock could cost a mom her kid
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:35 am
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:35 am
LINK
quote:
A New York mom is caught between a rock and an appellate court.
The upstate woman has been told she needs to ditch a driveway decoration painted with a confederate flag or risk losing custody of her mixed race child — even though a family court judge didn’t consider it to be an issue when it was raised during trial.
“Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child’s best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance,” judges with the Appellate Division’s Third Department in Albany wrote in a ruling released Thursday
The “presence of the confederate flag,” when “viewed pragmatically,” “is a symbol inflaming the already strained relationship between the parties,” the judges said.
They ruled if the rock is not removed by June 1, “its continued presence shall constitute a change in circumstances,” meaning the parents’ custody agreement could be revisited, and “Family Court shall factor this into any future best interests analysis.”
The parents — identified only as Christie and Isaiah in the documents — have long had joint legal custody of the girl, born in 2014, but the mother wants the dad to only see his daughter every other weekend, and the father wants sole custody.
While he raised the issue of the rock previously during their custody trial, the father made a broader argument to the court that his home was more suitable for the girl.
The case made its way to the appellate court, which brought the rock to the forefront of the dispute.
“Although not addressed by Family Court or the attorney for the child, the mother’s testimony at the hearing, as well as an exhibit admitted into evidence, reveal that she has a small confederate flag painted on a rock near her driveway,” the judges wrote in the ruling.
Jason Leifer, the lawyer representing the child, said it was like the appellate judges “pulled something out of a hat” because the rock was never the subject of the parents’ disagreements.
“Bringing politics into the family court is probably the worst possible thing you could do, and it seems like that’s what the appellate division has opened the door to,” Leifer told The Post by phone.
“Hopefully it’ll be fixed by the Court of Appeals.”
Regardless of its symbolism, Michael Stutman, an attorney specializing in matrimonial law and the current chair of the New York City Bar Association’s Matrimonial Law Committee, told The Post he thinks the judges made “a very dangerous statement.”
“I think that it is a rather astonishing extension of wokeness in now that the door seems to be opening that someone’s political viewpoint reflects on their fitness as a parent,” Stutman said.
“It is one of the clearest infringements on someone’s free speech by the state to have a court threaten to restrict a parents’ rights to their child based upon … the propriety of a person’s political beliefs.
“I don’t think that such a decision would ever stand constitutional challenge,” he said.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:38 am to LSUDVM1999
So as long as your view matches the current mob. You are good.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:44 am to LSUDVM1999
Huh. Seems that woman would have a pretty good free speech argument if she were to lose her child.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:44 am to GeauxWrek
The state has been telling parents who is fit and who is not for years. However, child abuse and neglect is more rampant than ever. I’m just curious if the mom feeds, clothes,protects, supports, loves the kid. That should be what the courts care about. Same with the dad. If so, leave it be and get out of the way.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:44 am to LSUDVM1999
quote:
“I don’t think that such a decision would ever stand constitutional challenge,” he said
Luckily for the Roberts court, they'll never have to accept the case, just ignore it and move on.
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:46 am to imjustafatkid
I think that went out the door with hate speech. If you label it hate speech, it’s violence, ergo take the child away.
The courts will only protect us in innocuous ways at this point.
The courts will only protect us in innocuous ways at this point.
This post was edited on 5/8/21 at 7:47 am
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:51 am to LSUDVM1999
Northeast suburban women be like:
ETA- I'm actually like this over her garden of weeds.
This post was edited on 5/8/21 at 7:53 am
Posted on 5/8/21 at 7:56 am to PhDoogan
I wouldn’t remove it, then sue the shite out of them
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News