Should a mother go to jail for baptizing kids against the dad’s wishes?
A Tennessee mom is facing contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without her ex-husband’s consent.
The parents are both Christians but disagreed on the proper age to baptize the children.
So here is the question: Is this a private family matter for the parents to work out or does it become contempt of court because the court had ordered that major decisions regarding the religious upbringing should be made jointly? Here’s the whole story. See what you think.
“This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children’s father.”
“… Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she’s a Presbyterian.”
“The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn’t agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.”
“The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.”
“Legal experts disagree on whether the appellate court decision is treading into the forbidden territory of deciding spiritual doctrine or is just upholding the law when a parent is accused of flagrantly violating a court order.”
“One of the mother’s lawyers maintains that the Tennessee parenting plan, which requires parents to agree on religious upbringing, is unconstitutional. There has been no decision made on whether the mother will appeal the ruling to the Tennessee Supreme Court.”
” ‘It’s still our position that the courts should not interfere with religious disputes between parents, and that a divorced parent has the constitutional right to influence their children with their personal religion for so long as there is no showing of personal harm to the children,’ Mary Morgan Whitfield, one of the mother’s attorneys said.”
“Civil contempt is reserved for people who can do something, like pay their back child support, to purge themselves of the charges. The mother is facing criminal contempt charges, Whitfield said, because the baptisms can’t be undone.”
” ‘So she’s facing jail time for exercising her constitutional rights.’ ”
“If the mother is convicted of two counts of criminal contempt, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.”
“The father’s attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment.”
“He has maintained in court documents that the mother violated a court order requiring the couple to seek mediation if they could not agree on major decisions involving the children’s religious upbringing. The father had argued that if a mediator ruled against him, he would have at least gotten the opportunity to be present at his children’s baptisms instead of finding out about it later.”
” ‘Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him,” Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. “She violated the court order.’ ”
“A lower court in Shelby County has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate.”
“The mother had argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt because it was tantamount to preferring the father’s religious views on baptism over hers.”
“But the Court of Appeals disagreed.”
” ‘Mother is correct that courts ‘must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents’ and they may not ‘prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent’s religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child,” Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. “However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute.” Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.”
“Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.”
” ‘How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist — or a Catholic?” Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the language in the standard parenting plan in Tennessee ultimately gives courts the authority to decide if they can’t come to agreement.”
“The bigger kind of global look at this is should religious decision-making be a private matter or should it be something that a court orders to begin with,” Rogers asked.
“Amundsen, however, said the courts are only following the wishes of the legislature, which passed a law that said courts will considering religious upbringing when it comes to parental decision-making.”
Well if the mother’s lawyers look up any precedents, they will find that in 2010 a Chicago judge ruled that a divorced Christian father could baptize his child and take his child to church despite the Jewish mother’s wishes.
“The parents divorced. The mother is Jewish. The father returned to his Catholic roots after his divorce and started taking his 3-year-old daughter to church with him. He even had the 3-year-old baptized in the Catholic Church without his wife’s permission.”
“The mother, Rebecca Reyes, was upset about him taking the daughter to church because she said they had an agreement to raise her in the Jewish faith. She had a judge issue a restraining order to keep him from taking the daughter to church with him.”
“The father, Joseph Reyes, said they never agreed to raise their daughter in the Jewish faith, they didn’t keep a kosher home and rarely observed Sabbath. He was facing fines and/or jail time if he violated the restraining order.”
Here is the original story with the background.
So yesterday, a judge removed the restraining order and said the father could take his daughter to church with him despite the mother’s wishes.
From the Huffington Post:
“But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to “church services during his visitation time if he so chooses,” she wrote in the divorce decree. “This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter.” The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on ‘the best interest of the child.’
“The judge said she found “no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph’s visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible.”
Hmm. So what do you think? Is this a criminal matter that should involve a fine and possible jail time? Is this the mom and dad just trying to get at each other through the kids? Should this even be going before a judge?
How have religious decision been made about your kids if you’re divorced?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
52 comments Add your comment
T.S.
April 2nd, 2012
5:53 am
A very sad story indeed. Everyone on here likes to jump in and tell THEIR story. Attack me for saying this if you want. However, maybe there is something to the old wisdom about two people getting on the same page with religion BEFORE getting married in the first place.
djm_NC
April 2nd, 2012
6:38 am
i believe that people of any age shouldnt be baptized until they fully understand what i means….i also believe that this is just another way of the government taking control of things they should leave alone. if the kids dont understand what they are doing-hopefully when they get older they will study and make their own decisions. being baptized doesnt mean you are saved so imo it really doesnt matter. the issue to me is the court interference.
K's Mom
April 2nd, 2012
6:58 am
This is a case of two selfish people using kids to make jabs at an ex spouse. The religious part does not matter, it could be about school choice of medical decisions. Being married to someone who was previously married and has a child from that union, I get why the court is now involved, but it is a shame for these kids. They will not learn to solve problems, only to use people annd courts to get what they want as both of their parents are doing now. The story just makes me sad that two adults will act so selfishly and the people who will be hurt the most are the kids.
K's Mom
April 2nd, 2012
7:02 am
@djm_nc. The reason the court is involved is because the parents got them involved, however if family courts would stop hearing every argument and actually make divorced couples work through some of this stuff on their own, this chess game that happens in most divorces would likely cease.
shaggy
April 2nd, 2012
7:19 am
This is only in the press because it has that sensationalistic ring that increases circulation and webpage hits. That’s right folks. It boils down to advertising.
Otherwise, it is just a parental fight, using the kids as weapons…so common today.
The kids will probably turn out atheist anyway, after all of the hoopla, the taunting at school, and overheard, “parents screaming at each other”, conversations.
Jeff
April 2nd, 2012
7:27 am
Dads go to jail all the time for violating court orders regarding family law. It sounds like we’re starting to move toward equality in family court. My ex has violated almost every part of our divorce agreement, yet nothing is ever done. I don’t want her thrown in jail, but there has to be an alternative.
Progress
April 2nd, 2012
7:38 am
It should be illegal to indoctrinate your children into any myth or cult- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. That’s just sentencing them to a life of ignorance and bigotry.
homeschooler
April 2nd, 2012
7:57 am
Okay, first of all, I thought Methodist and Presbyterians both baptized as babies. If dad truly wants to make this arguement, he needs to say he is Baptist.
But anyway, I agree this has nothing to do with religion. It is all about control. Obviously, if the mother violated a court order, she can be found in contempt. However, I question why religion would be in the order anyway. It should be as simple as each parent practicing his/her religion with the kids when he/she has them. If that includes being baptized the other parent will just have to get over it.
I’ve worked with families for years and years and there is nothing more sickening than parents who use their kids to get back at eachother. Imagine him being upset about something as simple and wholesome as a baptism. You can’t get more similar religions than Presbyterian and Methodist. This is just stupid.
catlady
April 2nd, 2012
8:05 am
This is a private family matter. The court should tell the parent to get a grip and stop wasting the court’s time. You cannot unring the bell; his children can later renounce or affirm their baptism. I have a feeling this “family” won’t be a family for much longer.
nelson
April 2nd, 2012
8:14 am
You have pretty well covered it. Nothing left to comment on that has not been said. The father should be grateful that the children are beginning the long close relationship with the heavenly father, and that original sin has been cleansed. An unappreciated former spouse wants to hurt the other party in everyway[sometimes]. It certainly is not the provence of the court to get involved. It is how government is evolving. Government is systematically taking individual initiative away and replacing it with what government thinks is good for the citizen. As the U.S. Supreme Court said about the new health care, if the “individual mandate’ that every person will have health insurance is approved, what is next, an order that everyone will exercise so they will be healthy?” Those should be individual decisions.
TXMom
April 2nd, 2012
8:22 am
I don’t get why, if the dad is a member of the UMC, he’s upset about them being baptized early? I grew up in the UMC and was baptized as an infant, and then was confirmed when I was 13. It’s standard church doctrine.
DB
April 2nd, 2012
8:34 am
@djm_NC: That may be your belief, and I respect that. At the same time, please understand that there are many religious traditions that embrace infant baptism as a way of welcoming the child into the religious community, and those are equally valid. Your opinion in the “rightness” or “wrongness” of those traditions are irrelevant, just as the judge’s personal beliefs are irrelevant. In those traditions, the child has an opportunity at a later age to “confirm” their baptism by participating in a rite of “confirmation”, where they publicly confirm their beliefs in a ceremony very similar to adult baptism before they can take part in the meaningful rituals of the church, such as communion.
From previous stories on this matter, it would appear that the husband and wife didn’t agree on this issue even before they were married (which begs the question — why did they get married with such a fundamental disagreement that they each felt so strongly about?) Obviously, there were other issues, too, or else they wouldn’t have been divorced,but this is not a religious issue. This is a legal issue. As part of the terms of the divorce, the parents agreed that all religious decisions would be made jointly. The mother broke the agreement when she presented their child for baptism without consulting the father. It’s as simple as that. People are getting distracted because it was over a religious matter, but this is a matter of two people who broke a contractual agreement. Mom broke the agreement, and dad is angry. I don’t blame him, I’d be angry, too, if my child was part of a meaningful religious ceremony without my knowledge and consent. They can’t agree, so the divorce decree provides for a method for coming to an agreement. I don’t envy the judge — I mean, what can be done now? A decent mediator would probably be able to help the father realize that the traditions of the mother’s church also require confirmation, that there are many kids who choose not to go through confirmation, and there are many young adults who ultimately decide to embrace a different faith tradition than their parents, regardless of when and how they were baptized. Right now, the father is furious and angry — and I doubt it’s simply because of a baptism, but it certainly makes for a convenient focus, doesn’t it? I find it interesting that the father gets his boxers in a wad over a ceremony he doesn’t believe in in the first place. If he doesn’t believe in it — what’s the problem? The child has not been harmed.
When my child was 12, they sometimes attended church with their best friend. It was very different from our own Episcopal church (thus the allure :-)). One day, caught up in excitement, my child came to me and declared that they wanted to be baptized. They were surprised when I told them that they had already been baptized, and tongue-in-cheek, reminded them of something that they recited every week in church, “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins . . “, etc., and explained that since they had been baptized, for them, it would be a matter of confirmation in the church of their choosing. A couple of weeks went by, they went to church again with their friend, and then, troubled, came back to me with news that the friend’s pastor had declared that their baptism “didn’t count” because they weren’t “old enough.” At that point, I put a stop to them going to church with their friend, and when the friend’s mother tried to argue with me, I made it very clear that she was out of line passing judgments on another family’s religious traditions, and I didn’t appreciate the lack of respect.
This is what it all boils down to — a complete lack of respect between the father and the mother.
Roberta Higginbotham
April 2nd, 2012
8:41 am
She violated a court order. Let the chips fall where they may.
BlondeHoney
April 2nd, 2012
9:02 am
DB is correct; this is not about religion, it’s about one parent violating a court order saying that major decisions must be jointly agreed upon. And it is also not about the government getting involved in people’s lives unasked for; that’s ludicrous because the parents have gotten the government involved, not vice versa.
homeschooler
April 2nd, 2012
9:03 am
Great post DB. The reasons for baptism are very different in different churches. Those that baptize as babies beleive it is a way to cleanse the soul and for the parents to pledge that the child will be raised in a Christian manner. The Baptist and other churches who baptize later believe that a person must be older and make his/her own decision. They also believe that, since there were no children baptized in the bible it should be done when one is older.
I was also baptized as a baby (in the Catholic church). Growing up many of my friends were Baptist. As a teenager I would attend revivals, church services etc.. and was constantly encouraged to be “saved” or baptized. Several of my friends’ parents literally preached to me that I would not go to heaven. I would always say “I’ve already been baptized” but they had absolutely no respect for my beliefs or religious customs. To this day I don’t attend church. My kids actually have very strong Christian surroundings (Christian homeschool co-op, VBS, Upward sports, church with grandparents). As a teenager, being told time and time again by adults that I was going to hell just because my family was Catholic (most of the ignorant people who did this actually believed that Catholics were not Christian) had a profound effect on me and I now choose not to get involved with any specific organized religion.
You were right to remove you child from that situation.
I agree with you about the contractual agreement between mom and dad. I still think the dad is just being a jerk as either he has no strong religious beliefs or he is supposedly Methodist in which case he should have been okay with them being baptized in the first place.
cm
April 2nd, 2012
9:15 am
I agree that the wife should be prosecuted. Religious belief is not relevant, the fact that she violated a direct court order is the key factor. While age at baptism seems like a minor disagreement, what if one former spouse was a completely different religion than the other. What if the father was Jewish and the mother Christian, and had the kids baptized after a legal agreement to let the children decide when they are older? Or on the other side of it, what if a Jewish parent decided, after an agreement to do otherwise, to have a male child circumcised? In such a case it is easier to see that the violation of the agreement is serious. If one gives religious decisions a pass due to family privacy considerations, then all of them have to receive the same consideration. The right to decide things privately ends when spouses submit their personal issues to family court.
Augusta
April 2nd, 2012
9:36 am
Not one of my children has ever been baptized. We are not religious and see no need for it.
But the court’s don’t need to be involved. It’s just silly. It’s each parent using the children as weapons. Such a shame. These kids will grow up resenting both parents, and they will NOT have healthy relationships because of this.
People can be so freaking selfish. Think about what your actions are doing to your children. Think of the message you are sending. Each and every day. Everything you do is seen by your children. We HAVE to make good decisions!
Denise
April 2nd, 2012
10:09 am
@DB – well said!
I agree this issue has nothing to do with religion however it will have consequences with the children’s religious beliefs I believe. I am sure they will have a bad taste in their mouths for either denomination because of their parents antics, which, to me, is sad.
I do agree that the mother is dead wrong for what she did, legally and for how it will impact the children…and because she did it out of spite (can’t tell me she didn’t do it to stick it to her ex). Jail? I am not sure about jail but there needs to be something for punishment for not following the divorce decree. If it was a man that didn’t follow his portion of the decree he’d be punished immediately.
This is a legal issue and I do believe it is right for the courts to be involved because it is included in the divorce decree. Why it is in there…well, obviously the parents have such strong opinions that they need an outside person to help make the final decisions. Again, this is sad. This is another reason people should be on the same page with respect to religion before marriage. It obviously matters.
HB
April 2nd, 2012
10:44 am
Yes, what DB said!
“he is supposedly Methodist in which case he should have been okay with them being baptized in the first place”
Homeschooler, while the UMC does practice infant baptism, to my knowledge, there is nothing in Methodist doctrine that says every parent must choose that (and not all do for whatever reason — almost half the kids in my class, including me, were baptized at our UMC confirmation when we were 10 or 11 rather than as infants). As you wrote, infant baptism is a pledge by the parents. If parents feel it is best to wait until the child can answer the questions asked for himself, there is no reason why simply being Methodist would invalidate that belief/opinion.
JOD
April 2nd, 2012
12:55 pm
This is very sad, since there apparently aren’t any adults involved in these kids’ lives. They are definitely trying to spite each other, and the poor kids are caught in the middle. These two need to grow up and act in the best interest of the kids.
@homeschooler – Hahaha on those who don’t think Catholics are Christian. I’ve heard that before, but not for a very long time. Maybe you should visit your current Parish? Ours is exploding because so many people are ‘coming home.’
redhousecat
April 2nd, 2012
1:14 pm
probably shouldn’t take the bible literally. This would have been avoided.
Fred ™
April 2nd, 2012
1:31 pm
It all depends. Was the little brat sprinkled or dipped?
El Sombrero
April 2nd, 2012
1:50 pm
If she baptized them in Tenneessee sipping whiskey then she should not be prosecuted.
olive
April 2nd, 2012
1:52 pm
Since she is jewish I feel a baptism in Matza Ball Soup would be appropriate.
The Warden
April 2nd, 2012
1:56 pm
As a form of preventive maintenance, its the children that should go to jail.
Mrs Butterworth
April 2nd, 2012
2:00 pm
At The First Church of ButterWorth we baptize everyone in maple syrup. It tends to make them much sweeter.
Kat
April 2nd, 2012
2:04 pm
Religions differ based on church, not by affiliation from what I’ve seen. Some churches allow third-graders to take the sacrament (bread and wine) even if they don’t have a clue what is going on. This is just one of the sacraments, including baptism, that kids probably don’t get, but a lot of parents say it is “time to do it.” So they do.
Penguinmom
April 2nd, 2012
2:10 pm
This is just sad. I am disappointed in the pastor who did the baptism. Obviously, he/she should have stepped up and suggested that the father be involved in the decision. Anyone with a little bit of sense would see that allowing the baptism to happen without the father’s involvement was going to cause problems. I’m not sure what her rush was, it was not going to harm the children to wait a little longer since they had already passed the infant baptism stage.
I don’t see where the Bible requires baptism for salvation. Yes, there are verses that include it, but there are also verses that don’t. It is considered a very good thing and should be done if possible but it is mainly symbolic and so isn’t required (ex. thief on the cross wasn’t baptized as far as we know.)
I think she should have some sort of punishment for violating the terms of their agreement. It was not a surprise to her that her husband wanted to wait so she knowingly did something with the children that was going to bother him. There needs to be some penalty for that so that she thinks twice before doing something else.
I don’t really believe this is a religious rights case. She had already allowed them to pass up infant baptism so had given up that ‘early baptism’ stance and can’t just jump back into it without any mediation.
Stinky McCracken
April 2nd, 2012
2:20 pm
Agreed Penguin. The mother should be forced to eat pork on Friday.
Gwinnett Mom
April 2nd, 2012
2:27 pm
Im at a loss as 2 how baptizing children at any age is wrong.
Gwinnett Mom
April 2nd, 2012
2:31 pm
This is what is wrong with our contry. 2 many people turning there backs on God. We need more God in schools. U see what happnes when we take God out of schools. Thugs and shootings.
Real American
April 2nd, 2012
2:38 pm
And when was God taken out the schools Gwinnett Mom? When was that great time before the “thugs and shootings”??
Fulton Mom
April 2nd, 2012
3:06 pm
I’m at a loss WHY anyone would baptise a child at all?
Frank
April 2nd, 2012
3:07 pm
Gwinnett Mom, the problem here isn’t having God in or out of schools. This issue is about two adults who can’t put their differences aside for the sake of their children. The schools have nothing to do with it. And I have no idea what your’e talking about with regard to thugs and shootings. Who was shot? Which parent do you consider to be a thug? And by the way, God can never be “taken out of the schools” because any child can pray at any time or place with or without being lead by the school principal or teacher. As for “turning their backs on God” – how is baptizing two children an act of turning away from God? I think you misread the article.
Fulton Mom
April 2nd, 2012
3:12 pm
Anyone who FORCES this on a child should be shot. It’s child abuse plain and simple. FORCING them to believe in something that doesn’t exist. And 9 out of 10 times the child is crying and screaming. They know better, even at that age. And you wonder why they are out of control when they are teenagers…..cuz you forced them to do something!
Penguinmom
April 2nd, 2012
3:29 pm
@stinky – Not sure being forced to consume yummy bacon would be a punishment. :-) Personally, I am more likely to eat pork (pepperoni on my pizza) on Friday than most other nights.
@fulton – I never forced any of my kids to be baptized. They all made the decision based on their understanding of their faith when they were ready. Currently my youngest wants to be baptized but I don’t think he truly understands since he mainly mentioned that it sounds like fun. So we’re waiting a little while longer to be sure he actually knows what he is doing and what the significance is.
RationalOne
April 2nd, 2012
3:34 pm
Aren’t we missing the point that it should be the KIDS choice when (and IF) they get baptized. Child Indoctrination has to stop, let them choose!
Parolee
April 2nd, 2012
3:43 pm
I can see the conversation in the jail now……
Thug 1: Hey beyotch, Y U B in here?
Mom – I baptised my child.
Thug 1: – dayummmmm…….I’m only in for murder….
Gwinnett Mom
April 2nd, 2012
3:53 pm
So many of U have loss UR way. The ONLY choice should be Jesus or savior and the word of God.
Dan
April 2nd, 2012
4:07 pm
She isn’t in contempt for baptizing the kids, she is in contempt for breaking the terms of child custody she should have taken the dispute to mediation. The decision is pretty straight forward and objective, the validity of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, don’t even need to be considered.
Mommie Dearest
April 2nd, 2012
4:15 pm
Fulton Mom, while we’re at it, I’m not so sure that literacy is all that important, so let’s stop forcing children to read when maybe they just aren’t book people! And what about teaching them good dietary habits? Maybe they want to be fat slobs. Making their bed? Please. Many people never make their bed as adults and their world hasn’t come crashing down. I’m also really intrigued by your idea of SHOOTING people who involve their children in the family’s religious life. You clearly have a great appreciation of for how ethical behavior can serve a greater good than mere religious belief. Your children must be real darlings having been raised in such a free thinking household.
ahsoisee
April 2nd, 2012
4:54 pm
Both parents are off base regardng baptism. Baptism saves no person, it is only a voluntary rite by the person who accepts Jesus as their savior. A person should only be baptized after they have been saved (accepted Jesus as their Savior and Lord). The baptism then is nothing more than a voluntary act by the saved person that they have already entered into an agreement with God that they would lay down their personal lives in preference to letting the Spirit of Christ live through them.
They are saying to the world, It is not I, but Christ who lives in me. This is my statement to the world that I no longer consider myself Number 1, Christ is Number 1, and my personal honor has died to the higher honor of God. It is strictly a voluntary ritual that takes place after one has been saved.
The actions between the mother and father have nothing to do with the childs’s salvation. That child, in time, must make up their own mind as to their intentions of following God or their own selfish ways. Both the father and the mother may think they are acting in the child’s best interest, but neither understands the scripture.
One respondent stated that no person should interfere with a familys religioius traditions. Religious traditions are worthless. Truth is all that matters and can only be found in God’s Word, the Holy Bible. Too many people follow traditions and will go to hell following false traditions.
Rodney Kent
FCM
April 2nd, 2012
5:37 pm
In my decree it says we make the decsions jointly but if an amicable solution cannot be had/disagreement, then the primary custodian gets final say.
My ex and I both agree it is the Child’s decision, not mine or his, if they are going to give their life to God. He has told both children that they should do it when it felt right to them regardless of whether not he/I can attend.
In this case did the mother force the bapitism? Is it just she did not inform him so he could be there?
FCM
April 2nd, 2012
5:50 pm
@DB Your children’s baptisms are every bit as real as the ones my children will one day have, they were just done at different ages is all.
Heck I pointed out my minister that Jesus was supposedly 30 when he got baptized. I wondered why we do it so early (about 10). He said honestly he could not give me any biblical answer, but traditionally our doctorine had found that the age of reason/consent.
I said, I think I was about 25-28 when I realized that my own human decisions had “tainted” me (I was baptized at 10 or 11), and that I probably should have an adult baptism….He laughed and said, we can put up front again if you want. I said no I think it was year or so later that I worked out that was when remorse, repent, and grace got spoken. I also admited that knowing I was baptized and thus, had given my life to God, I probably made less mistakes and felt more good old guilt than if I had not done that….so that probably did save me from really bad sin.
Jeff
April 2nd, 2012
7:06 pm
FCM, you know I love you right :)? I completely disagree with the idea that the custodial parent breaks the tie when there is a stalemate. The end result becomes that no matter what, the custodial parent does what they want. That is hardly making joint decisions. I’m not saying you do this, but my ex does it. It has the end result of me not even being included in any decision making that goes on with our child, because if I disagree, she makes the final decision anyway. Now, she doesn’t even consult me regarding health and educational issues. It’s a recipe for conflict, resentment and revenge between the parents. The gist of this story is that the mother didn’t go to mediaton like she was ordered to in the court order.
Fred ™
April 2nd, 2012
7:15 pm
The real question is, should a paid blogger getting paid for a blog in the AJC live in Arizona still get paid for just phoning in crap? I’ll be honest. I’ll happily cash the check that the AJC sends her for the crap she has phoned in since she left…………….
Can I have the job? Theresa? I’ll write the crap and split the check with you. No one needs to know……..
FCM
April 2nd, 2012
7:50 pm
Jeff…I love you right back and from what you shared your ex is what gives 1st wives a bad name. :)
I said that is what my decree had in it. It could say that in when we cannot agree we consult a Magic 8 Ball or cast Dungen and Dragon dice. Whatever it says is what you have to go by. (For the record I did not even realize that was what my decree said until my ex pointed it out to me 1.5 years after we divorced).
You are right, I do at least consider what he has to say in all the matters say consider because he really feels that ADHD daughter does not meds. #1 He does not live with her, and rarely ses her. #2 when he does have her he asks for the meds and gives them to her, because they do work.
Justsayn'
April 2nd, 2012
7:51 pm
I have never heard of a Christian suing the Christian Mother of his children with the hopes she will spend some time in jail. Not my place to judge anyone, but this man is a piece of work!! I know cause I know him. This man from the beginning was a wolf in sheeps clothing! Just my opinion!
Justsayn'
April 2nd, 2012
7:53 pm
Trust me Blake is only one using kids as weapons! Controlling man is an understatement!
FCM
April 2nd, 2012
7:59 pm
oops that should say he feels that DD #2 does not need meds.