Polygamy at heart of custody dispute

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Quote

A Utah woman is fighting a temporary court order barring her from talking to her children about her fundamentalist Mormon beliefs, including polygamy.

 

The order, issued in October by a 3rd District Court divorce commissioner as part of a custody dispute, also prevents the mother of three from talking about politics or about any faith other than the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

sltrib.com/news/1928839-155/religion-polygamy-at-heart-of-utah

 

 

Quote

"He doesn’t want [the children] to go to join a polygamous church," she said of the father, who currently has sole custody of the children.

 

The woman’s brother also told The Tribune that he and her parents were specifically asked by the father to support his effort to "take custody of the children in order to keep them away from a polygamous church."

 

 

Quote

The children’s mother, who was a stay-at-home parent and home-schooled her elder children before being court-ordered to move out of the family home, insists she too is working in her children’s best interests. She told the Tribune she’s a good mother who has never abused or neglected her children

 

 

Quote

Among the order’s conditions: The children are to be allowed to continue attending LDS church services. It also says the prohibition on the mother’s discussion of other churches, including the AUB, can be lifted if she "decides to join another religious group."

 

"This court order is about religion," the woman told The Tribune. "And it’s in place to prohibit me from discussing any religion with my children and it’s anti-constitutional."

 

The case mirrors a 2002 Pennsylvania divorce case, in which a state court barred fundamentalist Mormon from sharing his beliefs, including polygamy, with his 13-year-old daughter until she reached the age of 18. The man’s religion was his wife’s primary reason for seeking a divorce. In 2006, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the man could teach his daughter about polygamy over his wife’s objections.

[Mama Mia]

I'd want to know more of the background ---- but a bar from even discussing a particular religious practice? That sounds like a huge overstep to me.

Unless she's trying to convince her daughter to become a 12 year old child bride to her Uncle Grandpa, I would think the mom should be able to discuss whatever religious beliefs she likes with her children.

Unless maybe the rationale is that polygamy is illegal, so it would be promoting illegal activity?

[anjulibai]

As part of my parents divorce decree, they put in a clause saying neither of them could teach me about religion or take me to a church. This was because my mom wanted me to be raised both Catholic and Presbyterian and my dad did not want me exposed to Catholicism.

Religion is often an aspect of custody cases, so this doesn't surprise me. I'm also guessing there is more to this case than the woman is saying.

[BrownieMomma]

Thought for a minute that might be Robin Brown, do the not-exactly-legal-sister-wives take the last name of the husband? But she has custody of her kids and I think her first marriage was within polygamy although it was monogamous. I think.

It is my opinion that each parent has a right to teach their child about their faith. This comes from several years of studying over issues such as Catholic/Jew - these things that people think don't mean much when they want to get married, then they get married, have kids, want to return to faith of origin and end up divorced. The parents then wrangle over who gets religious custody.

I can't see how it is constitutional to bar someone from discussing their religious beliefs, even with a minor child. Who also happens to be their own child because I am dead set against proselytizing other people's children and have had many arguments over that issue.

[Howl]

I'm trying to process this. The mother believes in polygamy but was not in a polygamous marriage? This is a beyond sticky situation and yet is very common with divorced couples of different religious beliefs, i.e., synagogue vs cathedral vs mosque vs blue sky church vs temple vs whatever. This issue has been hashed out a bazillion times in divorce court; there are numerous precedents on how to deal with this, as posters have noted above from their own experiences.

Or perhaps the judge made this ruling because polygamy remains a hugely sensitive issue in Mormon areas, although polygamy has recently been made legal (or, I should say, is no longer illegal -- an important distinction) in Utah.

Would really like more information on why the dad received sole custody; that is fairly unusual, isn't it?

If the parents are sane and rational, they use a big tent approach & let the kids be exposed to both religious views without enforcing the dogma of either. I'm sure some poor kid somewhere had to take both Cathechism and Hebrew classes after school.

The other end of the spectrum is parental alienation issues and the worst scenario, kidnapping. I'm thinking of the lesbian couple who had a child and divorced when one mom converted to fundamentalist Christianity and kidnapped the daughter to Nicaragua where they were harbored by Mennonites and other fundamentalist groups (Miller - Jenkins case). The very nature of the rigid fundamentalist belief system precludes the reconciliation of views. Sadly, if you are caught up in a religion where doctrinal missteps will have you burning in a Lake o' Fire for all eternity, it's a no brainer that you take extreme action.

Unless she's trying to convince her daughter to become a 12 year old child bride to her Uncle Grandpa...

Ahhhh, MamaMia, There is so much brilliance in this snippet of sentence, I'm still laughing. Just, thank you. It made me start to think of the old, old song, I'm My Own Grandpa, which has been covered by the likes of Willie Nelson, Ray Stevens and (wait for it!) Jerry Garcia/David Grisman

[BrownieMomma]

I wonder if the mother went into polygamy after the divorce, and if that had anything to do with the father obtaining sole custody. Nowadays sole custody itself is unusual, it is generally some variation of joint custody.

Polygamy is not illegal anymore? I wonder if it is the illegality aspect, although if the mother is not actually doing anything illegal, just espousing a belief system, how can that be held against someone?

idk it sure does sound like someone's rights are being violated, but these cases are indeed sticky and difficult and so highly emotionally charged.

Not too long ago I read a divorce document that was so egregiously unfair, I was amazed a judge approved it. It seemed evident to me that the mother had an attorney and the father just rolled over. She got sole custody, all the rights to determine education, religion, medical, etc.

Then a few years later she is pissed off at the dad because he's withdrawing from the kids. Well he is definitely marginalized as a parent, sorry he doesn't follow your fundie belief system but he has an equal right to have parenting time with the children and to not take them to church as he sees fit.

It's his right. Damn. It's just horrifying how one parent can basically be pushed out of a child's life. Legally.

[2xx1xy1JD]

From the article:

Divorce Commissioner Kim Luhn eased the restriction on speech to a degree during a court hearing on Tuesday, amending the order to allow for age-appropriate conversation about faith. Her decision followed arguments from the woman’s attorney, Laura Fuller, who said the order’s prohibitions violate her client’s First Amendment and constitutional rights.

"My problem is not with [the woman’s] religion. I don’t care if her conduct is a result of her belief in the UAB," Luhn said, after acknowledging the order may have been too broad. "I care that her conduct is creating chaos for the children and in essence rising to the level of emotional abuse."

So yes, the original restrictions went too far. You can't ban all religious talk, nor can you single out one religion for special treatment, good or bad.

Cases involving religion tend to the really tricky in family law. It can be of HUGE importance to the parties, but officially the courts can't prefer one religion over another. The most that they can do is make custody orders, make findings about what the child's religion currently is, or try to prevent parents from pulling the kids in different directions to the extent that it creates an impossible situation for the children (for example, it's pretty hard to have each parent teach that the other is going to hell). Even that, however, is extremely difficult to do.

[karismanic]

This case reminds me of one from my small hometown several years back. A husband and wide were divorcing, largely brought about by his going charismatic/fundie. The wife fought for restrictions on when their son could attend the father's new church. This church met 5 nights per week and until 11pm at night. I believe the courts sided with the mother since the church/cult posed a threat to her son getting adequate sleep and doing well with schoolwork when with his dad.

[DGayle]

As long as the kids aren't being told they MUST join polygamous marriages, this seems to be an overstep. I know a lot of people don't like the Browns, but they've been very open about how their kids DON'T have to follow their footsteps, and so far, none of the kids that I've noticed have been interested in that path, and it's okay with everyone. So it's possible to be part of something kind of extreme, without the kids being forced into it.

[acheronbeach]

Polygamy is illegal - that is, thing to have multiple officially recognized wives (licenses). The Utah cohabitation law was struck down for overbreadth.

I don't see what's wrong with this ruling. The mother is telling her child that a criminal offense is a good thing, a tenet of faith. Prosecution of polygamy is Satan' way of persecuting the Saints.

If a religion counseled drug use, or ritual bodily harm, I don't think mom should talk to her kids about it either.

[Mama Mia]

Polygamy is illegal - that is, thing to have multiple officially recognized wives (licenses). The Utah cohabitation law was struck down for overbreadth.

I don't see what's wrong with this ruling. The mother is telling her child that a criminal offense is a good thing, a tenet of faith. Prosecution of polygamy is Satan' way of persecuting the Saints.

If a religion counseled drug use, or ritual bodily harm, I don't think mom should talk to her kids about it either.

I can sort of see your point if they were advocating for attempting to obtain multiple marriage licenses illegally. But my understanding is that generally there is one legal wife, with all of the legal paperwork involved, and any additional marriages are purely spiritual, with no legal standing. So there wouldn't seem to be illegal activity involved. Right?

Use of psychoactive substances can actually be part of some religious groups form of worship. I would assume body modification would be also. I think there is a big difference between a parent talking to her minor child about tenets of her faith, and requiring /allowing the child to participate if it is something that is illegal in their jurisdiction.

I actually had an interesting experience with this with a client who was in recovery for substance abuse ( heroin iirc) , and was involved with CPS and who was Rastifarian. Generally a CPS plan will call for sobriety from all non-prescribed psychoactive substances, but she and her CPS worker came up with a plan that allowed her to use cannabis as part of her spiritual path. (This was before it was legal for medical purposes in my state) . The child didn't use cannabis, but the mother included the child in her worship services. Which obviously included advocacy of cannabis use for spiritual reasons.

[DGayle]

Polygamy is illegal - that is, thing to have multiple officially recognized wives (licenses). The Utah cohabitation law was struck down for overbreadth.

I don't see what's wrong with this ruling. The mother is telling her child that a criminal offense is a good thing, a tenet of faith. Prosecution of polygamy is Satan' way of persecuting the Saints.

If a religion counseled drug use, or ritual bodily harm, I don't think mom should talk to her kids about it either.

The Brown family practices polygamy. I have polygamous friends too (3 men and 4 women!). It's a single license per person. It's not any person getting multiple licenses. Kody Brown and one of the wives are legal, and the rest aren't. In that group of my friend, a man and woman have a license, and a couple women have a license, and the other 3 don't, but they are emotionally all spouses. And both families have kids. And in my friends' family, one of the moms has a son with an ex-husband who was never poly, and they split because she didn't feel monogamy was for her, and guess what. Son's non-poly dad, who was hurt because he loved his wife, accepts her different lifestyle, and doesn't try to take the son away, and they both think it's good for the son to be exposed to different lifestyles without being pressured to follow either.

Unless the boy in the dispute was being told that he HAS to be in a polygamous, then is there harm in him learning that different people CHOOSE differently for themselves when they're adults?

[acheronbeach]

Polygamy is a requirement of their faith (and one aggressively indoctrinated into young women because of the simple numerical shortage of potential plural wives), so I would assume that as a requirement of the faith that mom wants her kid to practice, she will be teaching daughter that she has to be polygamist unless she wants to spend her life in the Telestial Kingdom.

I do not in any way believe that the Browns are as OK with their kids being monogamists as they appear on TV, particularly Robyn, Kody and Christine. Their family is sanitized for television; and they bear no resemblance to nearly all the polygamist branches of Mormonism. Even more mainstream polygamist groups like Centennial Park groom their daughters to believe that Celestial Marriage is the only way to the Celestial Kingdom, and that they should strive for early marriage to a godly husband, whom they are to serve on earth and eternity once their husband becomes a God. Combined with the isolationist persecution complex that Mormon polygamists have ascribed to since the Woodruff declaration, it's an incredibly dangerous subculture for a young woman. LDS polygamist daughters are far less likely to get an education, 6 to 10 times more likely to become pregnant while in their teens, more likely to be physically and sexually abused, and more likely to be diagnosed with mental health problems.

Polygamy is but one aspect of the mom's religion. Talking about the misogynistic religious dictum of polygamy to a 7, 5 and 1 year old is not age appropriate - I'd go so far as to say it's harmful.

[BrownieMomma]

The Brown kids do get an education? idk they have been quite vocal about letting their children choose the lifestyle, but with these shows who really knows what is real and what is made for TV.

[browncoatslytherin]

Polygamy is a requirement of their faith (and one aggressively indoctrinated into young women because of the simple numerical shortage of potential plural wives), so I would assume that as a requirement of the faith that mom wants her kid to practice, she will be teaching daughter that she has to be polygamist unless she wants to spend her life in the Telestial Kingdom.

Polygamy is but one aspect of the mom's religion. Talking about the misogynistic religious dictum of polygamy to a 7, 5 and 1 year old is not age appropriate - I'd go so far as to say it's harmful.

i get what you're saying, and i agree with it. i think it's pretty unhealthy to present misogynistic, discriminatory, and otherwise fucked-up belief systems to children in general, whether the religion is mormon, baptist, catholic, islam, hassidic judaism, what have you.

the thing is, is this is happening all the time with different families. the only thing here is the court is involved because of a divorce. so, now it has to make a decision of where the line is drawn, and that can potentially affect many other families of many other faiths that may not even necessarily be related to this at all. this court ruling could set precedence that has ripple effects that shape policy that no one would have thought it could. the hobby lobby ruling has certainly proved that already, and that was just this year. i just hope that the court chooses wisely, keeping in mind not just this case but potential future cases.

[acheronbeach]

I know all the Brown kids get an education. They are far more mainstream than most of the plyg groups in Utah.

That said, I think Janelle is over it, as is Meri to some extent. I think Christine and Robyn are still steeped in the kool aid - they've said pretty overtly fundie-LDS things on the show, and if they believe that strongly, then they still on some level must (IMHO) believe in D&C 132.

As for where to draw the line, I'm not - and the court's not - saying that Mom can't talk about her religion at all. They said that she could not talk about one aspect which is unabashedly hateful and known to have harmful outcomes for children. I'd have no issue - similarly - with the court saying that she could not discuss the fundamentalist LDS views of black people.

[Jana814]

I've only seen a few episodes of the Brown family's show. But I also seem to remember them saying they don't care if their kids follow Polygamy.

[BrownieMomma]

I know all the Brown kids get an education. They are far more mainstream than most of the plyg groups in Utah.

That said, I think Janelle is over it, as is Meri to some extent. I think Christine and Robyn are still steeped in the kool aid - they've said pretty overtly fundie-LDS things on the show, and if they believe that strongly, then they still on some level must (IMHO) believe in D&C 132.

As for where to draw the line, I'm not - and the court's not - saying that Mom can't talk about her religion at all. They said that she could not talk about one aspect which is unabashedly hateful and known to have harmful outcomes for children. I'd have no issue - similarly - with the court saying that she could not discuss the fundamentalist LDS views of black people.

Maybe I am not understanding the OP correctly. According to the OP, the mother cannot talk to her children about politics. She can talk to them about the modern Church of Latter Day Saints but she cannot talk about fundamentalist Mormon or polygamy.

The father has custody in order to keep them from a polygamous church.

It sounds to me like she cannot talk about her religion, if her religion is fundamentalist Mormon practicing polygamy.

But she can if she joins a group? So she is not actually practicing this or participating in a church/cult/group that does?

Twitching hard at the thought that the court is actually telling a parent what they can and cannot discuss with their child. Part of the problem here is that often court is won simply by outspending the other party.

Like I said, I personally know a mother who won the right to direct everything about the children. A few short years later the father is disappearing from the scene. He's literally nothing to his children but a wallet because he cannot direct any aspect of their upbringing.

I am not an MRA'er but IMO this is just wrong. And now she's slamming and dissing him publicly because he's fading out of the kid's lives. What did she expect when she castrated him as a father?

[Mama Mia]

They said that she could not talk about one aspect which is unabashedly hateful and known to have harmful outcomes for children. .

Thats a very, very subjective statement though. And one I'd be very concerned with the court determining. Especially if we are just talking about discussion.

Yes, children in that particular sect are much, much more likely to give birth as teens. So are teens in Mississippi compared to Vermont. Should mom be restricted from discussing various states?

There are just so, so, so many restrictions that could be placed on conversation based on things like statistical outcomes--- that seems like a very scary door to open, to me.

[acheronbeach]

What makes you think that plural marriage as a harmful scenario is very subjective? That was generally my point about the peer-reviewed journal articles - not that statistics should be used to determine individual cases, but that plural marriage in general is harmful. I think misogyny is inherently very harmful - some may not agree.

I think the benefit to the child outweighs the mother's freedom of speech when it comes to talking about polygamy. I cannot see any way to prevent the mom from trying to inculcate those beliefs into her daughter without the court order; and with a carefully crafted court order I don't really understand why it would be difficult to avoid topics solely related to theology and the "benefits" of plural marriage until the children are more mature.

Every novel argument in every court could be a "slippery slope." The job of a good judge is define the limits of that slope for future precedent.

[DGayle]

What makes you think that plural marriage as a harmful scenario is very subjective? That was generally my point about the peer-reviewed journal articles - not that statistics should be used to determine individual cases, but that plural marriage in general is harmful. I think misogyny is inherently very harmful - some may not agree.

I think the benefit to the child outweighs the mother's freedom of speech when it comes to talking about polygamy. I cannot see any way to prevent the mom from trying to inculcate those beliefs into her daughter without the court order; and with a carefully crafted court order I don't really understand why it would be difficult to avoid topics solely related to theology and the "benefits" of plural marriage until the children are more mature.

Every novel argument in every court could be a "slippery slope." The job of a good judge is define the limits of that slope for future precedent.

Not everyone in plural marriages are in them because they think they have to be. Calling them all dangerous and harmful is wrong. What's dangerous and harmful is telling kids they MUST get into plural marriages, and that they must do it as teens.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Polygamy is illegal - that is, thing to have multiple officially recognized wives (licenses). The Utah cohabitation law was struck down for overbreadth.

I don't see what's wrong with this ruling. The mother is telling her child that a criminal offense is a good thing, a tenet of faith. Prosecution of polygamy is Satan' way of persecuting the Saints.

If a religion counseled drug use, or ritual bodily harm, I don't think mom should talk to her kids about it either.

I'm really wary of the "but it's illegal" argument.

Gay marriage isn't legal yet in all states. Would we argue that it's ok for a family court judge to ban any discussion of a same-sex partner, or even of a liberal religion that accepts gay marriage?

I'm also aware of religious social activists who engage in civil disobedience and other non-violence activities that are illegal. See http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update ... test-video and http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c ... /43259.htm

Should a court be permitted to prevent parents from discussing those religious beliefs as well?

[ILoveJellybeans]

I don't see what is wrong with polygamy. The issues about the FLDS polygamy are arranged marriage (illegal), child marriage (also illegal) and incest (illegal). I don't see a problem with three people who all love eachother choosing to get married, or one person marrying two others as long as all parties are consenting and aware that the other(s) exist, and are adults...just like all other marriages.

[mirele]

I wonder if polygamy is at the heart of the divorce? It sounds like the mom got really deep into the "mysteries" and decided that she believes polygamy should be practiced and has moved on to the Apostolic United Brethren. When I lived in Utah, the AUB was like the "gateway" polygamist group. It's like Mormonism in the 1930s (which is when the founders of the AUB split from the LDS Church). I knew of people who would join the AUB, then, as the AUB proved to not really be getting all into the "mysteries," would head out on their own or join another smaller group.

The article doesn't mention whether the mother is now in a polygamous marriage to an AUB member. If that's the case, that might explain why the father has sole custody. I have a friend who was a guardian ad litem for several minor children of two mothers whose father had been tossed out of the FLDS. He was requesting sole custody of the kids. To everyone's surprise (even to my friend), the judge granted the request because the mothers could not guarantee that the minor daughters would be married off in illegal underage marriages and the minor sons wouldn't be thrown out of the community. In fact, the judge insisted that the custody handoff take place on the day he issued his order.

One thing to keep in mind about Utah is that the whole discussion of polygamy in the Intermountain West is fraught with all sorts of issues. On the one hand, the LDS Church worked with the state to prosecute polygamists from the 1940s to the 1970s (ish), breaking up families, removing kids from homes, etc. Arizona even raided the FLDS in 1953 (with results similar to Texas' YFZ ranch raid). On the other hand, pretty much everyone who is anyone in Utah is descended from or related to a polygamist. So prosecuting polygamists is like prosecuting Great-Grandpa. It causes a lot of cognitive dissonance. I think we might be seeing some of that play out here.

[DGayle]

I'm really wary of the "but it's illegal" argument.

Gay marriage isn't legal yet in all states. Would we argue that it's ok for a family court judge to ban any discussion of a same-sex partner, or even of a liberal religion that accepts gay marriage?

I'm also aware of religious social activists who engage in civil disobedience and other non-violence activities that are illegal. See http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update ... test-video and http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c ... /43259.htm

Should a court be permitted to prevent parents from discussing those religious beliefs as well?

The bolded. I think that wins this argument. We don't argue same-sex marriages are bad because of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). We argue that NAMBLA is man, and don't treat it like it represents all same-sex partners.

Poly-marriage* itself isn't a problem, not anymore than an opposite-sex marriages. Monogamous relationships between a man and a woman aren't guaranteed to be perfect, even tough conservatives like to claim that only allowing this is how to "save" marriages. The problems come in when people are forced into it. We don't argue against M/F marriages because of underage child brides forced into it, right?

If the mom is in a sect that would try forcefully marrying the kids, it doesn't matter if it's to a single spouse instead of plural, same or opposite sex, or whatever. The forced marriage aspect is the danger.

*I do think that there should be a limit if 1 spouse from a legal standpoint because last thing anyone needs is a dispute between a couple spouses or more with spouse-standing when it comes to removing life support, and if there's no limit, what's to stop someone from marrying for money to get people in his or her kickass medical insurance? People already marry for that reason, and for money. So a limit is fine for legal spouses. But having more spiritually shouldn't be a crime.