Ship of Fools: Kidnapping for Jesus

Thread: Kidnapping for Jesus Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028528

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

There's been an unpleasant turn of events in the Miller-Jenkins case. For those unfamiliar with the situation it's essentially a messy family dispute aggravated by the involvement of evangelicals.

Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins were a lesbian couple civilly unionized (or whatever the proper verb is) in Vermont. During the course of this union Ms. Miller became pregnant with the aid of artificial insemination and produced a daughter, Isabella. When Isabella was about a year and a half old Miller and Jenkins dissolved their union. Primary custody of Isabella was granted to Ms. Miller, and Ms. Jenkins was granted visitation rights and required to pay child support.

So far it's all pretty mundane, like any number of other divorces we're all familiar with aside from the same sex element. Ms. Miller returned to her birth state of Virginia and at some later point converted to evangelical Christianity. At this point she decided that her homosexual past was a shameful blot and took steps to erase any evidence, including the parental visitations by her former partner, Ms. Jenkins. Such disputes usually end up in court, and that happened here. Miller argued that since she was now a resident of Virginia, which recently passed a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage or any other similar arrangement being enforced by the state, her prior child custody agreement from Vermont was null and void. The Virginia Court of Appeals disagreed with this assessment and ruled that, consistent with existing law, disputing parents aren't allowed to shop around for a jurisdiction with more favorable laws to get out of child custody agreements they may find onerous.

Despite the ruling Ms. Miller apparently still did not feel bound by the custody agreement and started to withhold or interfere with Ms. Jenkins visitations. While courts are fairly indulgent about listening to various legal claims, they're absolutely humorless about having their decrees, once issued, ignored. Last November the courts ruled Ms. Miller in contempt and transferred custody of Isabella to Ms. Jenkins, effective January 1, 2010. Ms. Miller decided to make a run for it and both she and Isabella are still missing. Her attorneys claim not to know her whereabouts.

So, to what degree can or should a Christian feel free to break laws she feels conflict with her religious beliefs? Is child kidnap an appropriate response if you really, really don't like homosexuality?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, to what degree can or should a Christian feel free to break laws she feels conflict with her religious beliefs? Is child kidnap an appropriate response if you really, really don't like homosexuality?

We are free to break any laws we like if they are in conflict with our beliefs, but at the same time the government is also free to arrest us, try us, find us guilty and incarcerate us for doing so.

I happen to think she's wrong to do this, but if she genuinely feels it's the best way to keep her daughter in the Light of Christ (as opposed to that just being a convenient excuse for wanting to erase her former partner from her life completely) then that's between her and God.

I hope they find her though.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Apparently it is common for Christians to feel that they do not need to obey the laws of which ever place they inhabit. As one example, one Scott Roeder is pleading "not guilty" to murder, on the grounds that an abortionist must be stopped, even when the killing is against those Ten Commandments that are so holy to Christians, let alone any laws published in any state of the Union.

And one hears all sorts of complaints from Christians that certain laws go against their beliefs and should not be obeyed. Usually, those laws are the ones that involve the Second Great Commandment, but that's never stopped a Christian before, at least, not the vocal version!

"Loving one's neighbour" apparently does not include allowing him/her to live by the Constitution (written by Christians) if the Christian speaking happens not to like the specific behaviour, whether that behaviour is dangerous to society or not.

Certain forms of Christianity simply do not allow for people who don't think in exactly the same way as the speaker. The lessons of the Thrity Years' War and the Holocaust have not actually entered the consciousness of too many people.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

I read the whole thing and all I can think is, "Poor kid."

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

No kidding.

Sidebar: Having just gotten done reading some hagiographies for the past week I saw this topic thread title and thought it was alluding to St. John Chrysostom's kidnapping by the Princess Eudoxia for purposes of being appointed bishop. Another crazy *****.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, to what degree can or should a Christian feel free to break laws she feels conflict with her religious beliefs?

Rosa Parks.
The Plowshares Movement/ Trident Ploughshares.

For that matter, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson etc.

All human beings should feel free to break laws that they feel conflict with their moral beliefs, whether secular or religious. Morality should be the basis of law; law is not the basis of morality.

That's a bit of an oversimplication: there are practical reasons to obey laws, even if they are unjust, in cases where the injustice of following the law doesn't outweigh the evils attendant on people taking the law into their own hands. But the principle of the thing is that the law only binds where it is just.

There is also a requirement, before setting about a course of civil disobedience, of having an informed conscience. If you feel a law conflicts with your moral beliefs, you ought to first think through whether the law in fact does conflict with justice and whether in fact your beliefs about justice are as well-grounded as they can be.

In the case in the OP, I do not know all the facts about the case in real life. Taking it as a hypothetical case accurately matching the description, I don't personally think the mother's desire to exclude access is just.

[ 30. January 2010, 00:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Horseman Bree:

quote:
Apparently it is common for Christians to feel that they do not need to obey the laws of which ever place they inhabit. As one example, one Scott Roeder is pleading "not guilty" to murder, on the grounds that an abortionist must be stopped, even when the killing is against those Ten Commandments that are so holy to Christians, let alone any laws published in any state of the Union.

Scott Roeder, having testified that he had in fact killed the doctor in cold blood and threatened two other people which his gun, was convicted today after the jury deliberated for forty minutes. A little lengthy one might say, but there were three counts and it would be unseemly to scoot out of there in ten minutes. That would hardly be time to elect a jury foreman.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Morality should be the basis of law; law is not the basis of morality.

Why?

Any lawyer can tell you that law is not about morality.

It may be immoral of you to lie in bed half the day and do nothing. It is one of the seven deadly sins called "sloth". However, it is not at all illegal. And telling lies is only illegal when you do so in the context of a legal document or process (e.g. perjury, false or misleading statement on a government form, etc). Lying to your partner about where you were last night is not illegal, even if it is immoral (it may or may not be).

Envy and jealousy are not at all illegal - nor is coveting. Yet coveting is prohibited by one of the vaunted ten commandments on which supposedly the law is based (it isn't - it is based on Anglo-Saxon customary law, as modified by the Normans and several hundred years of legislation and case law).

Morality governs much personal behaviour that is of no concern to the law. And the law proscribes behaviour that is perfectly moral: it is against the law to drive through a red light, even when there is not a single other car on the road anywhere in view. It is not inherently immoral driving through the red light - there is no danger to any other car, but you may still be fined. Likewise pedestrians crossing the road against "Don't walk" signs when there are no cars coming.

Laws are not morality; and morality is not the law. And while morality may be one of the criteria for developing law, it is not the only one. Laws implement social and economic policy - is it legal to build a two-story house and paint it white? That depends on what our policy goals are for housing where you live. On the foreshores a tall white house might be undesirable (it can be where I live).

Actions maybe socially undesirable without them being immoral. It might not be immoral for you to sleep on the streets (you may be fleeing abuse). But it may also be desirable for the government to provide alternative accommodation for you and "move you along". This is all a matter of social policy, not morality.

Law is law; morality is morality; don't confuse them. They solve different problems. Think of law as a kind of "wisdom" rather than "morality": it often tries to provide a sensible and objective way of resolving disputes, in which case its goal is social cohesion, not morality.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
All human beings should feel free to break laws that they feel conflict with their moral beliefs, whether secular or religious.

But, as Marvin pointed out, they should then be prepared to face the designated punishment. Too many seem to feel that their beliefs put them above the law and allow them to break it with impunity.

Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on :

Didn't Pius IX kidnap a boy for Jesus? Must be okay, then.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Too many seem to feel that their beliefs put them above the law and allow them to break it with impunity.

Surely the whole point of protesting that the law is wrong and immoral is that you don't think that you should be punished.
Now if you think that everyone else should be punished when they break the law but you shouldn't be because your beliefs make you special then that is unreasonable.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Morality should be the basis of law; law is not the basis of morality.
Why?

Any lawyer can tell you that law is not about morality.

Laws are not morality; and morality is not the law.

I agree that morality is not the same as law. But the justification for law is the common good, and claims about the common good are part of morality.

Yes - many things that are immoral should not be made illegal, either because justice requires that people should have liberty to act wrongly, or because trying to enforce a law would be more inconvenient and lead to greater evils than the law would prevent. And yes, sometimes the law forbids things that would otherwise be moral because the common good is served by this kind of collective action. But the common good has to be the justification in both cases.

quote:
Law is law; morality is morality; don't confuse them. They solve different problems. Think of law as a kind of "wisdom" rather than "morality": it often tries to provide a sensible and objective way of resolving disputes, in which case its goal is social cohesion, not morality.

Wisdom is a part of morality. In so far as social cohesion is intrinsically desirable, that too is part of morality.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I was a kid in a nasty custody situation. I wasn't kidnapped, but people tried. Great deal of stress for years. Don't put a kid in that situation unless they are in serious danger, and there's no other way to resolve the situation. It *will* scar the kid...and you may not be able to stop running, ever, unless you're willing to risk jail and having the child taken away from you for good.

If the abducting mom really and truly has come to believe that homosexuality is evil, and being around a lesbian mom will damage Isabel, then I can understand her frustration. But she had the opportunity to balance the other mom's influence with her own, and save Isabel a lot of grief and confusion and notoriety. IMHO, the abducting mom blew it big time.

BTW, the church in question is Jerry Fallwell's.

[Votive]

for all concerned.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I agree that morality is not the same as law. But the justification for law is the common good, and claims about the common good are part of morality.

You assert that the common good is the justification for law, but give no evidence for it. Many would disagree. Glory, the unity of the state, prosperity - any of these or other grounds might be regarded as the purpose of the state and its laws, rather than "the common good".

quote:
Wisdom is a part of morality. In so far as social cohesion is intrinsically desirable, that too is part of morality.

A band of thieves may have its own laws. It is wise for them to govern themselves to achieve their goals, but that has nothing to do with the morality of their goals. I would sooner think of morality as one of the parts of wisdom. Wisdom also includes knowledge and logic, which are not morality. Moral philosophy is only one of the branches of philosophy.

Also, there is a difference between love and justice. Resolving disputes may be easier if both parties behave morally. However, the law must resolve disputes where one or both parties lack good will.

An example: the existence of divorce in the law of Moses was not a matter of morality, but "because of the hardness of people's hearts", as Christ pointed out. The moral thing was marriage for life. Repentance and forgiveness could even save a marriage where there had been adultery. However, where these were lacking, the law still had to find a way to resolve the situation of one partner being unfaithful. Divorce is a pragmatic, legal solution when one or both parties are intent on behaving immorally. It is not a moral good at all.

As I pointed out, morality and law solve different problems. The fact that you don't give up morality when considering legal questions does not mean that law is simply morality. We don't give up morality when making medical decisions, and we always hope that doctors practise medicine morally, but medicine is not morality.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I agree that morality is not the same as law. But the justification for law is the common good, and claims about the common good are part of morality.
You assert that the common good is the justification for law, but give no evidence for it. Many would disagree. Glory, the unity of the state, prosperity - any of these or other grounds might be regarded as the purpose of the state and its laws, rather than "the common good".

Those grounds might be regarded as the purpose of law by the legislators. None of them offer any reason to the populace to obey the law. Apart of course from 'do what I say or suffer'. If the justification for the law is other than the common good then there is no actual difference between law and the dictates of a protection racket.

Prosperity is a special case since it's a possible candidate for the common good.

Also, there is no question that morality takes precedence above all of the other proposed grounds.

quote:
but give no evidence for it

It's true I only provided one step in the argument. I'm working backwards a step at a time until I get to a principle that we agree on. This is a post on a bulletin board, not a textbook of systematic political philosophy.
('Evidence'? For a philosophical position? A category mistake surely?)

quote:

quote:
Wisdom is a part of morality. In so far as social cohesion is intrinsically desirable, that too is part of morality.
A band of thieves may have its own laws. It is wise for them to govern themselves to achieve their goals, but that has nothing to do with the morality of their goals. I would sooner think of morality as one of the parts of wisdom. Wisdom also includes knowledge and logic, which are not morality. Moral philosophy is only one of the branches of philosophy.

Usually, I'd have thought, 'wisdom' is used as a contrast term with 'knowledge'. (The OED gives 'knowledge' as a derived sense, but says it's historical.) I assumed that by wisdom you meant something like sound judgement in choice of means and ends, and matters of conduct generally - which I take to be part of morality. Perhaps the most important part, but still anything falling under the category of wisdom is a moral matter. (You might think that morality can be derived from reason generally - but that would be a controversial position. I doubt you can make any attempt to get laws from non-legal first principles without also deriving at least some parts of morality.)

I've already said that I regard the gang of thieves as a counterargument. The rules passed by a gang of thieves (surely one distinguishes between laws and rules made by non-state actors?) are not binding on non-members. Moreover, there is again no reason for a member to obey the rules other than the penalties for being caught.

quote:
Also, there is a difference between love and justice. Resolving disputes may be easier if both parties behave morally. However, the law must resolve disputes where one or both parties lack good will.

I think your reasoning there is compressed to the point of unintelligibility. Are you including love or justice under morality? (You should be including both.) I don't think you meant to imply that resolving disputes is easier when the law is applied for the self-interest of the judge.

It seems to me that we apply to the law to resolve a dispute when we are either or both us not acting morally because we hope that the law will provide the solution that we would have agreed on had we both been acting morally. (Forgiveness is here considered as supererogatory.)

quote:
The moral thing was marriage for life. ...Divorce is a pragmatic, legal solution when one or both parties are intent on behaving immorally. It is not a moral good at all.

I don't agree with your analysis because I don't agree with two of your assumptions.
One: you write "the moral thing". I don't think morality is black and white like that. There is such a thing as supererogation; there are imperfect duties; there is the choice of the lesser evil.
Two: you seem to be implying that if one person is intent on behaving immorally, the behaviour of the other partner cannot be governed by morality. But morality surely covers one's behaviour to other people even when they aren't behaving morally.
For that matter, I'm having trouble with the idea that divorce is a purely legal good, while marriage is a moral good. Marriage is surely as much a legal or customary arrangement as a moral arrangement in a way that's rather difficult to disentangle. It rather fouls up any attempt to say that morality and law solve different problems.

quote:
As I pointed out, morality and law solve different problems. The fact that you don't give up morality when considering legal questions does not mean that law is simply morality. We don't give up morality when making medical decisions, and we always hope that doctors practise medicine morally, but medicine is not morality.

That would be relevant if I hadn't specifically denied that the law is morality.
Further, medicine makes reference to the natural science of biology (and biochemistry, perhaps psychology, etc). At the moment it seems to me that in so far as it is not part of the natural sciences, that is because it includes medical ethics. (I'm not saying that it is two distinct subjects that can be disentangled from one another.) Law does not make reference to any natural science in that way.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

As an interesting side note, I ran across some comments by a representative of Liberty Counsel, the same group that provided legal representation to the now-fugitive Lisa Miller. When commenting on a gay adoption case, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel stated:

quote:
Staver says the Florida judge decided on her own to grant a same-gender adoption when she wrote an opinion that has no basis in law -- and her ruling, he adds, should not be respected as though it does.

This makes me wonder if similar legal advice was offered to Ms. Miller, saying that she was not obligated to comply with court-ordered visitations. Or, even worse, that she was not obligated to comply with the court order transferring guardianship of Isabella to Ms. Jenkins.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I saw this topic thread title and thought it was alluding to St. John Chrysostom's kidnapping by the Princess Eudoxia for purposes of being appointed bishop. Another crazy *****.

And I thought it must be about the Baptist missionaries who illegally absconded over the border with some Haitian children a week or two ago. In this case, I wouldn't doubt that they meant well, and they claim to have obtained the permission of the children's parents. But in the eyes of the law it's still kidnapping, or something very similar.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

From my experience with Baptists (and other evangelical types) in Idaho, I suspect they thought they were rescuing the kids from being raised as heathens--they probably figured Catholicism and Voodoo were essentially equivalent.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I saw this topic thread title and thought it was alluding to St. John Chrysostom's kidnapping by the Princess Eudoxia for purposes of being appointed bishop. Another crazy *****.
And I thought it must be about the Baptist missionaries who illegally absconded over the border with some Haitian children a week or two ago. In this case, I wouldn't doubt that they meant well, and they claim to have obtained the permission of the children's parents. But in the eyes of the law it's still kidnapping, or something very similar.

But if they did obtain permission from the kids' parents, I think it is a bit ridiculous that it's still kidnapping.

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

Is this thread really a dead horse? Homosexuality and abortion have been mentioned, but they're not really the focus.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Gay marriage and adoption have always historically been Dead Horses, though the OP could have tried, if he liked, starting it in Purg and seeing if people could discuss kidnapping in general terms without dragging the rights and wrongs of gay marriage/adoption into it. As it happens the topic has been non-controversial enough that that hasn't happened, even down here.

If it continues to be about general kidnapping then I may ask if the Purg hosts want it, but it would need to be more than a couple of posts on Haiti for me to do that, lest the thread get pinged up to Purgatory, then start addressing gay adoption/marriage and get pinged right back down here again.

L.

Dead Horses Host

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Is this thread really a dead horse? Homosexuality and abortion have been mentioned, but they're not really the focus.

There was a thread in the Styx a while back on this very question. The site consensus was that "all aspects of homosexuality per se are Dead Horse topics".

In this particular case, Ms. Miller's legal argument hinged on Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (or anything legally approximating it) nullifying her child custody agreement from Vermont, so the whole homosexual angle was unavoidable.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
Is this thread really a dead horse? Homosexuality and abortion have been mentioned, but they're not really the focus.
There was a thread in the Styx a while back on this very question. The site consensus was that "all aspects of homosexuality per se are Dead Horse topics".

In this particular case, Ms. Miller's legal argument hinged on Virginia's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage (or anything legally approximating it) nullifying her child custody agreement from Vermont, so the whole homosexual angle was unavoidable.

Well, that was HER argument. From what you've said, the court's tactic was very much to ignore that argument and focus on a different principle, that you can't forum shop to get out of your legal obligations in family law.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Surely the whole point of protesting that the law is wrong and immoral is that you don't think that you should be punished.

If we can just stick to 'wrong' rather than 'immoral'... I would have thought the main point of protesting that the law is wrong is that you want to get the law changed.

I can think of examples of civil disobedience campaigns where the protesters were perfectly WILLING to be punished in the meantime, while the law stood. They knew that was the consequence of their actions and they accepted it.

That has as much to do with respect for the rule of law as a principle as anything else. Campaigning to have a law changed does not necessarily go hand in hand with the view that, in the meantime, you can ignore the law as it currently stands and get away with it.

[ 09. February 2010, 12:10: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As an interesting side note, I ran across some comments by a representative of Liberty Counsel, the same group that provided legal representation to the now-fugitive Lisa Miller. When commenting on a gay adoption case, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel stated:

quote:
Staver says the Florida judge decided on her own to grant a same-gender adoption when she wrote an opinion that has no basis in law -- and her ruling, he adds, should not be respected as though it does.
This makes me wonder if similar legal advice was offered to Ms. Miller, saying that she was not obligated to comply with court-ordered visitations. Or, even worse, that she was not obligated to comply with the court order transferring guardianship of Isabella to Ms. Jenkins.

This is definitely one of the most worrying things here. This Liberty Counsel group are unravelling the rule of law.

If you don't like a judge's ruling, appeal. That's the route provided. Picking and choosing which judge's rulings are to be obeyed isn't rule of law, it's anarchy.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Surely the whole point of protesting that the law is wrong and immoral is that you don't think that you should be punished.
That has as much to do with respect for the rule of law as a principle as anything else. Campaigning to have a law changed does not necessarily go hand in hand with the view that, in the meantime, you can ignore the law as it currently stands and get away with it.

That depends. Consider the proposed law in Uganda that would have required anyone to report any same-sex sexual activity that they know about to the authorities. It would defeat the purpose of civil disobedience in that case to accept the punishment for breaking the law (by not shopping people to the authorities).
Martin Luther King knew he was going to be arrested and got himself arrested publically to make a point. And in that instance, that was effective. I don't think we can erect that into a general principle. In particular, I don't think that, where one's reason for disobeying the law is the harm and injustice visited on someone else the principle of respect for law takes precedence over one's obligation to the person affected. For example, if the law requires a woman to hand over her child to an abusive husband, I don't think the woman ought to do so and then campaign against the law. I don't even think that she should accept the punishment for not doing so as a method of protest. She owes a duty of care to the child, so long as she can get away with it without causing greater harm to the child. (I take into account Golden Key's remarks about why going on the run from the law might not be the best thing for the child.)

Having said that, I don't approve of the actions of the woman in the case in the OP as described in the OP. In this case, where the law is on our side, the principle 'you should always obey the law even if you think it is unjust' is seductive. But actually we don't want to accept all the consequences of that principle. We have to go the hard way round.

[ 09. February 2010, 12:11: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Surely the whole point of protesting that the law is wrong and immoral is that you don't think that you should be punished.
That has as much to do with respect for the rule of law as a principle as anything else. Campaigning to have a law changed does not necessarily go hand in hand with the view that, in the meantime, you can ignore the law as it currently stands and get away with it.
That depends. Consider the proposed law in Uganda that would have required anyone to report any same-sex sexual activity that they know about to the authorities. It would defeat the purpose of civil disobedience in that case to accept the punishment for breaking the law (by not shopping people to the authorities).
Martin Luther King knew he was going to be arrested and got himself arrested publically to make a point. And in that instance, that was effective. I don't think we can erect that into a general principle. In particular, I don't think that, where one's reason for disobeying the law is the harm and injustice visited on someone else the principle of respect for law takes precedence over one's obligation to the person affected. For example, if the law requires a woman to hand over her child to an abusive husband, I don't think the woman ought to do so and then campaign against the law. I don't even think that she should accept the punishment for not doing so as a method of protest. She owes a duty of care to the child, so long as she can get away with it without causing greater harm to the child. (I take into account Golden Key's remarks about why going on the run from the law might not be the best thing for the child.)

Having said that, I don't approve of the actions of the woman in the case in the OP as described in the OP. In this case, where the law is on our side, the principle 'you should always obey the law even if you think it is unjust' is seductive. But actually we don't want to accept all the consequences of that principle. We have to go the hard way round.

You seem a bit confused about what I said. You've brought up examples of people deciding to OBEY the law while campaigning against it. That doesn't even qualify as civil disobedience - it's not disobedience!

What I said was that if you DON'T obey the law, it doesn't follow that you also think you should get away with there not being consequences.

I think perhaps what you're really trying to distinguish is between people deliberately getting caught in their disobedience, versus people who aren't jumping and down and saying "hey, look at me, I'm disobeying this law".

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What I said was that if you DON'T obey the law, it doesn't follow that you also think you should get away with there not being consequences.

I think perhaps what you're really trying to distinguish is between people deliberately getting caught in their disobedience, versus people who aren't jumping and down and saying "hey, look at me, I'm disobeying this law".

You're right: I am a bit confused about what you've said.

Let's consider six cases:
1) A campaigns against a law while obeying it.
2) A campaigns against a law by obviously disobeying it and getting publically arrested.
3) A campaigns against the law by obviously disobeying it believing that the authorities can't afford to arrest A.
4) A campaigns against the law; meanwhile ignoring the law without drawing attention to the fact. If they're caught they accept that.
5) A campaigns against the law; not only breaking the law but going into hiding to avoid being arrested if necessary.
6) A campaigns against the law believing that the Power of Sincerity will protect A from prosecution, or that otherwise nothing will happen.

2 is civil disobedience of the Martin Luther King style. 3 would be most common with mass civil disobedience where there isn't an identifiable ringleader that the authorities can arrest, so that arresting everyone would paralyze the justice system. Alternatively, the ringleader has enough support from the people, army, or international community, that the authorities just can't arrest them. If A manages a full-scale case of 3, then the law is brought into disrepute and there's not much choice but to repeal it. Most people who do 2 would rather do 3.
Here in the UK, the fox-hunting lobby are doing something between 3 and 4. Fox-hunting is illegal, but everyone knows it's still happening. Nobody is jumping up and down saying that they're doing it, but the police wouldn't have to try hard to find evidence.
I hope 4 and 5 are self-explanatory.

All of 2 to 5 disobey the law and think that their actions shouldn't have consequences for them. 3 has the well-founded hope that their actions not only shouldn't but won't have consequences. 2, 4 and 5 accept that their actions will have consequences for them, even though they shouldn't.

6 thinks that their actions shouldn't have consequences and also has the ill-grounded expectation that their actions won't have consequences for them. 6 doesn't realize that the world just doesn't work that way. But 6 isn't any different from the other cases in what they think should happen. 6 is wrong in thinking about what will actually happen. There's a fine line between a case of 6 and a misjudged case of 3.

Now I'm not sure which of the above cases you take yourself to be arguing against, and what your objection to them is. It might be that you're objecting to 6, but if so you're phrasing your objection rather badly.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
2, 4 and 5 accept that their actions will have consequences for them, even though they shouldn't.

This is the sentence that I think you really need to look at and unpack. It doesn't actually make much sense, and clouds the distinction between to quite different viewpoints.

One viewpoint is that being punished for disobeying a law you don't agree with is also something you don't agree with.

The other is that you accept the authority of the court system to impose punishment for breach of a law that is on the statute books and was validly made by the legislature.

The existence of this second view was pretty much what I was getting at.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
2, 4 and 5 accept that their actions will have consequences for them, even though they shouldn't.
This is the sentence that I think you really need to look at and unpack. It doesn't actually make much sense, and clouds the distinction between to quite different viewpoints.

One viewpoint is that being punished for disobeying a law you don't agree with is also something you don't agree with.

The other is that you accept the authority of the court system to impose punishment for breach of a law that is on the statute books and was validly made by the legislature.

The existence of this second view was pretty much what I was getting at.

I did allude to the rule of law in my first post. There's something in the second point of view. Martin Luther King said something like it. And it is true that there's an important difference between an authorized agent of the state who arrests you for breaking an unjust law but otherwise treats you with respect for your rights, and someone who does not do so.

But if you come down to it, the second viewpoint does not accept the authority of the court system to impose punishment.

An analogy. Consider the difference between:
a) you may not park in a restricted parking zone without a resident's permit. £5 fine.
b) you may park in a restricted parking zone if you pay £5 or have a resident's permit.
These are different cases. A fine is not the same as a payment for exemption. A person who continually treats a) as b) - say he or she is rich enough to afford to pay the fines regularly - is not respecting rule a).

Now the second viewpoint takes it that accepting the punishment is accepting the authority of the law. It isn't. No more than paying a fine is respecting the rule. You only respect the authority of the court by obeying the law in the first place. If you've decided that you are morally obliged to disobey the law at all, you've already decided to ignore the authority of the courts.

I'm not rejecting your second viewpoint entirely. But it's worth remembering that the law is created by people, and its authority is entirely the authority of the people on behalf of whom it is created. And I would be much happier with a way of phrasing the viewpoint which doesn't imply that there is an intrinsic additional authority in the courts, the statute books, or the legislature.

Just a thought: it seems to me that suspicion of the state's coercive aspect is much more common in the US right than in the US left, and it is more likely to be the other way around in the UK and Europe. That may explain why we're arguing past each other. (Also, the US left is pretty centrist from a UK perspective.)

[ 11. February 2010, 22:49: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
2, 4 and 5 accept that their actions will have consequences for them, even though they shouldn't.
This is the sentence that I think you really need to look at and unpack. It doesn't actually make much sense, and clouds the distinction between to quite different viewpoints.

One viewpoint is that being punished for disobeying a law you don't agree with is also something you don't agree with.

The other is that you accept the authority of the court system to impose punishment for breach of a law that is on the statute books and was validly made by the legislature.

The existence of this second view was pretty much what I was getting at.
I did allude to the rule of law in my first post. There's something in the second point of view. Martin Luther King said something like it. And it is true that there's an important difference between an authorized agent of the state who arrests you for breaking an unjust law but otherwise treats you with respect for your rights, and someone who does not do so.

But if you come down to it, the second viewpoint does not accept the authority of the court system to impose punishment.

An analogy. Consider the difference between:
a) you may not park in a restricted parking zone without a resident's permit. £5 fine.
b) you may park in a restricted parking zone if you pay £5 or have a resident's permit.
These are different cases. A fine is not the same as a payment for exemption. A person who continually treats a) as b) - say he or she is rich enough to afford to pay the fines regularly - is not respecting rule a).

Now the second viewpoint takes it that accepting the punishment is accepting the authority of the law. It isn't. No more than paying a fine is respecting the rule. You only respect the authority of the court by obeying the law in the first place. If you've decided that you are morally obliged to disobey the law at all, you've already decided to ignore the authority of the courts.

I'm not rejecting your second viewpoint entirely. But it's worth remembering that the law is created by people, and its authority is entirely the authority of the people on behalf of whom it is created. And I would be much happier with a way of phrasing the viewpoint which doesn't imply that there is an intrinsic additional authority in the courts, the statute books, or the legislature.

Just a thought: it seems to me that suspicion of the state's coercive aspect is much more common in the US right than in the US left, and it is more likely to be the other way around in the UK and Europe. That may explain why we're arguing past each other. (Also, the US left is pretty centrist from a UK perspective.)

I see your point here, but you're getting into more complex concepts of what 'respect', and perhaps 'obedience', mean than I had really intended. Paying the 5 pound fine on each occasion is, in ONE sense, respecting the authority of the legal system - but it's clearly not the behaviour the law is intending to require of you.

I do tend to see the question of what I think of a particular law as VERY distinct from the question of what I think of the legitimacy of the entire system of law enforcement, of which the courts are a significant part.

You are entirely right about the authority of the law coming from the people - we could get into also sorts of discussions that would remind me of parts of law school about 'grundnorms' and so forth. But again, I think that the way people behave when they are challenging a particular law and the way people behave when they are challenging 'the system' are quite different and raise different questions.

On reflection, we have a real problem here when we use the term 'the law'. We can be talking about a particular law on a particular issue. But the same term is equally apt to be used to describe the entire body of material that derives its legitimacy from its acceptance by the people.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

In an update on the original example, an arrest warrant was issued on Tuesday for Lisa Miller. Isabella is now considered a "missing person".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Bumping this thread because an update has been published in the New York Times. Click through if you're a NYT subscriber or are willing to use one of your "get through the Times' ridiculous paywall" tokens. You get ten per month.

At any rate, Lisa Miller and Isabella are apparently still living like fugitives in Nicaragua with the aid of some Mennonites. Prosecution is being pursued against a Mennonite pastor for aiding and abetting kidnapping.

quote:
MANAGUA, Nicaragua — Lisa A. Miller and her daughter, Isabella, started their fugitive lives here in the fall of 2009, disguised in the white scarves and long blue dresses of the Mennonites who spirited them out of the United States and adopting the aliases Sarah and Lydia.

Now 10, Isabella Miller-Jenkins has spent her last three birthdays on the run, “bouncing around the barrios of Nicaragua,” as one federal agent put it, a lively blond girl and her mother trying to blend in and elude the United States marshals who have traveled to the country in pursuit.

She can now chatter in Spanish, but her time in Nicaragua has often been lonely, those who have met her say, long on prayer but isolated. She has been told that she could be wrenched from her mother if they are caught. She has also been told that the other woman she once called “Mama,” Ms. Miller’s former partner from a civil union in Vermont that she has since renounced, cannot go to heaven because she lives in sin with women.

<snip>

Everything changed on April 18, 2011, a year after the birthday party, when Timo Miller, returning for a vacation in the United States with his family, was arrested at Dulles Airport and charged with aiding a kidnapping. Ms. Miller and Isabella quickly disappeared from their house in Jinotega, and there have been no reported sightings since, but federal agents believe the pair remain in Nicaragua.

In December 2011, federal prosecutors dropped the charges against Timo Miller in return for his testimony and filed charges against Kenneth Miller for what they allege was his more central role in the flight from the United States.

Up to Timo Miller’s arrest, the missionaries in Nicaragua said, they had not realized they could be prosecuted.

Read the whole sad thing if you can stand it. Kenneth Miller's trial is set to start on August 7 in Vermont. It was noted in the Times article that Lisa Miller, Timo Miller, and Kenneth Miller are all apparently unrelated to each other. Must be a shortage of surnames somewhere.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I assumed that by wisdom you meant something like sound judgement in choice of means and ends, and matters of conduct generally - which I take to be part of morality.

I think at best there's an overlap, like a Venn diagram. It may be wise to buy one pair of expensive shoes rather than successive pairs of cheap ones. But that is not arguably a moral decision.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think at best there's an overlap, like a Venn diagram. It may be wise to buy one pair of expensive shoes rather than successive pairs of cheap ones. But that is not arguably a moral decision.

I'm pretty sure this was intended for a different thread.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think at best there's an overlap, like a Venn diagram. It may be wise to buy one pair of expensive shoes rather than successive pairs of cheap ones. But that is not arguably a moral decision.
I'm pretty sure this was intended for a different thread.

I wonder why, since the quote I quoted was from this thread.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, to what degree can or should a Christian feel free to break laws she feels conflict with her religious beliefs?
Rosa Parks.
The Plowshares Movement/ Trident Ploughshares.

For that matter, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson etc.

Rosa Parks (and others) protested the unequal application of law*, Ms. Miller did the opposite.
Mrs. Parks actions were detrimental to no one but herself, Ms. Miller has potentially done much damage to her child.

*I believe this was also a justification for the Colonial Rebellion, though its accuracy is debatable.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

What always gets ignored in cases of legal shenanigans is the child's wishes. Isabella has been living with her biological mother for 9 years and now she's being hunted by the feds who want to arrest her mother and send Isabella to live with a woman who's all but a complete stranger to her - who's only connection is that when she was a baby her mother was in a (deteriorating) relationship with her.

Unfortunately the law is acting as a blunt object in this situation - so obsessed with defending its own honour and punishing Miller for daring to defy its will, that it's going to ruin an innocent child's life - if it hasn't already done so.

Theoretically, Miller is disobeying the law. IMO she should have continued giving visitation rights to Jenkins - if only for a quiet life. The fact that she refused to do so and decided to drag her daughter through an unfeeling court system on a matter of principle only reflects poorly on her. She obviously thought she was going to win - which is why she took it so far.

However what's done is done, and the courts have built on the bad faith of Miller by escalating it and making it worse. There can be absolutely no moral case for tearing a child away from her mother, after 9 years of living with her, over a dispute over visitation rights. Yet this is what the courts have ruled, in what appears to be an episode of peevishness.

In addition, as a legal argument, it's not nearly as clear-cut as Croesus likes to make out. Vermont had no law giving parenthood rights to the spouse of a woman who is artificially inseminated - the spouse had to adopt the child. This is the case for both same-sex unions or standard married couples. Yet, Jenkins never adopted Isabella. To get around this, a Judge in Vermont created a new law - decreeing in court that Jenkins was Isabella's mother - despite there being no precedent or Act in law for a non-biological spouse to be given parental rights by court decree. The argument then turns over whether a Virginia court is allowed to alter the visitation order of a previous Vermont court - even though visitation orders are altered all the time.

The current visitation order was traumatic for Isabella - demanding that this young child make repeated trips back and forth from Vermont to Virginia throughout the school year, disrupting her life and causing psychological distress - sa seen in sworn affadavits to the courts from clinical therapist Sylvia Haydash and social worker Gwen Corley Yet despite this Judge William Cohen concluded that it was in the best interests of Isabella to do the extreme step of transfering custody completely to Jenkins!! Jenkins didn't even want custody - she was arguing for visitation rights only. How can this be right?

So after a court demanded that she hand over her daughter to someone else forever - (someone she saw as being a harmful and traumatic influence on Isabella) Miller took her daughter and fled Judge Cohen's will. Personally I sympathise - even though I think Miller has made foolish and extreme decisions throughout.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

However what's done is done, and the courts have built on the bad faith of Miller by escalating it and making it worse. There can be absolutely no moral case for tearing a child away from her mother, after 9 years of living with her, over a dispute over visitation rights. Yet this is what the courts have ruled, in what appears to be an episode of peevishness.

So, we can all disobey orders of the court when it comes to child custody and then claim "oh well, what's done is done, why bother setting things to right." Do you know how many parents have done just what this mother has and taken the children to other countries? By your statement this is a perfectly acceptable route as eventually it means you get your way no matter what. The other person has a right to a relationship with their daughter. It's not their fault the biological mother chose to break the law and abscond with their daughter. Sorry, but the child has been mentally and emotionally damaged by the biological mother's actions and constant paranoia. Perhaps what is in the best interest of the child is to be with the rational parent who has obeyed the law.

[ 08. August 2012, 10:12: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
However what's done is done, and the courts have built on the bad faith of Miller by escalating it and making it worse. There can be absolutely no moral case for tearing a child away from her mother, after 9 years of living with her, over a dispute over visitation rights. Yet this is what the courts have ruled, in what appears to be an episode of peevishness.

By your statement this is a perfectly acceptable route as eventually it means you get your way no matter what.

That's not what I said. I said the mother's actions are foolish and extreme. I'd also add that they are damaging to the child as well. Transfering Isabelle to Nicaragua to a life on the run is even more damaging IMO than transfering her to Vermont, to live with Jenkins.

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The other person has a right to a relationship with their daughter. It's not their fault the biological mother chose to break the law and abscond with their daughter.

I agree, I think Jenkins is possibly the cleanest party in the whole sorry saga. Though I'm sure she's not wholly innocent.

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Sorry, but the child has been mentally and emotionally damaged by the biological mother's actions and constant paranoia. Perhaps what is in the best interest of the child is to be with the rational parent who has obeyed the law.

She has been damaged by the divorce, by the protracted court case, by the disruptive visiatation order, and yes, now by her mother's flight from the law. Whoever wins in this case, Isabella has already lost.

I disagree with the court trying to take Isabella away from her mother in 2010. And I'm not convinced that continuing to hunt her mother down to jail her and taking Isabella away is in the best interests of Isabella either. That would just be another kick in the teeth for the poor child - to have her mother in jail, and be forced to live under someone elses custody. IMO the best solution at this point would be if the courts gave Miller immunity from prosecution, allowed her to remain in custody of her daughter, and invited her back in return for renewing negotiations over visitation rights. However its gone far too far for this to happen now. This has turned into a religious and legal battle and the child is just a pawn as people argue over points of principle.

[ 08. August 2012, 13:07: Message edited by: Hawk ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

I disagree with the court trying to take Isabella away from her mother in 2010. And I'm not convinced that continuing to hunt her mother down to jail her and taking Isabella away is in the best interests of Isabella either. That would just be another kick in the teeth for the poor child - to have her mother in jail, and be forced to live under someone elses custody. IMO the best solution at this point would be if the courts gave Miller immunity from prosecution, allowed her to remain in custody of her daughter, and invited her back in return for renewing negotiations over visitation rights. However its gone far too far for this to happen now. This has turned into a religious and legal battle and the child is just a pawn as people argue over points of principle.

We agree on everything but this. The court ordered visitation with Miller having primary custody was totally reasonable and I do think Miller has to face the consequences of her actions, otherwise you'll see way too many other parents pulling the same crap. There are too many as it is and it's the kids who suffer. There are consequences to disobeying a court order and adding kidnapping and flight to another country on top needs a jail term of some kind. Miller lost any rights in this matter when she fled the country and subjected her child to a life on the run filled with paranoia. I do believe she should have supervised visitation with the child until she earns the trust of the court again.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, to what degree can or should a Christian feel free to break laws she feels conflict with her religious beliefs?
Rosa Parks.
The Plowshares Movement/ Trident Ploughshares.

For that matter, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson etc.

Rosa Parks (and others) protested the unequal application of law*, Ms. Miller did the opposite.
Mrs. Parks actions were detrimental to no one but herself, Ms. Miller has potentially done much damage to her child.

*I believe this was also a justification for the Colonial Rebellion, though its accuracy is debatable.

Christians refusing to sacrifice to Caesar (eg: Diocletian persecution)?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Evidently the American Family Association (also named as a hate group by the SPLC) has decided to set up an "Underground Railroad" to "save" innocent children from the clutches of the ebil same sex couples.

Bryan Fischer: Children Of Same-Sex Couples Must Be Saved Through ‘Underground Railroad’ Kidnapping

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Evidently the American Family Association (also named as a hate group by the SPLC) has decided to set up an "Underground Railroad" to "save" innocent children from the clutches of the ebil same sex couples.

Bryan Fischer: Children Of Same-Sex Couples Must Be Saved Through ‘Underground Railroad’ Kidnapping

y
If they choose to violate court orders and deny parental rights granted by the court they deserve whatever the consequences are based on what laws they violate. The AFA apparently feels they can play God and decide who is or isn't a worthy parent and deny anyone they think isn't. Wonder if they've thought this through as it can be used just as easily against them.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What always gets ignored in cases of legal shenanigans is the child's wishes.

The child's welfare is more important. It is not possible for the child to have a balanced view at this point.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Unfortunately the law is acting as a blunt object in this situation - so obsessed with defending its own honour and punishing Miller for daring to defy its will, that it's going to ruin an innocent child's life - if it hasn't already done so.

What would you have the court do? "Oh well, we tried, but she is not cooperating. Might as well just leave it be now?" Yeah, law works very well that way.

Milleris ruining the child's life. Miller is punishing the child. Miller became the sole cause of harm when she fled.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Christians refusing to sacrifice to Caesar (eg: Diocletian persecution)?

If you mean unequal application of law? Yes.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There are consequences to disobeying a court order and adding kidnapping and flight to another country on top needs a jail term of some kind. Miller lost any rights in this matter when she fled the country and subjected her child to a life on the run filled with paranoia. I do believe she should have supervised visitation with the child until she earns the trust of the court again.

Except how does that help Isabella? Being dragged away from her mother and locking her mother up. That doesn't help anyone - it's just the law flexing its muscles. You might want to punish Miller for daring to defy a judge's will. But that won't help anyone - it'll just make things worse.

And the idea that a mother has to earn the trust of an impersonal beauracracy before she's allowed to see her daughter turns my stomach. I think the Judge has overstepped his bounds on this occasion. It has no business in this affair doing anything but negotiating visitation.

The court considers this 'kidnap' - but this is a legal fiction IMO. Who is Miller kidnapping Isabella from? She had custody and has had custody for all her daughter's life. She is Isabella's mother. The only one trying to kidnap here is the court - trying to kidnap a girl from her mother.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Milleris ruining the child's life. Miller is punishing the child. Miller became the sole cause of harm when she fled.

That's too simplistic. Miller is the most obvious cause of harm at the moment but certainly not the sole cause. I'd say the Judge's decision was the prime cause of harm. He decided that both Miller and Jenkins were equally to be considered as Isabella's custodial parent, but Jenkins won because she was more willing to negotiate over visitation. That failed to take into account that Miller had been caring for Isabella almost entirely on her own since she was a baby, and in Isabella's perspective, Miller was her mother. He was blind to this vital fact and decreed that the child should be ripped away from everyone and everything she knows and loves and sent away to another state to live with her mother's ex-partner, just because of the blind legal status of Jenkins. That was stupidity - and if Miller had gone along with it, Isabella would have suffered and Miller would have the moral high ground. Miller didn't want to be in the right while her daughter suffered though and decided that she'd protect her daughter even if it meant breaking the law. (In her opinion - personally I think she was an idiot - it wasn't as life-or-death as she treated it to be)

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
There are consequences to disobeying a court order and adding kidnapping and flight to another country on top needs a jail term of some kind. Miller lost any rights in this matter when she fled the country and subjected her child to a life on the run filled with paranoia. I do believe she should have supervised visitation with the child until she earns the trust of the court again.
Except how does that help Isabella? Being dragged away from her mother and locking her mother up. That doesn't help anyone - it's just the law flexing its muscles. You might want to punish Miller for daring to defy a judge's will. But that won't help anyone - it'll just make things worse.

And the idea that a mother has to earn the trust of an impersonal beauracracy before she's allowed to see her daughter turns my stomach. I think the Judge has overstepped his bounds on this occasion. It has no business in this affair doing anything but negotiating visitation.

The court considers this 'kidnap' - but this is a legal fiction IMO. Who is Miller kidnapping Isabella from? She had custody and has had custody for all her daughter's life. She is Isabella's mother. The only one trying to kidnap here is the court - trying to kidnap a girl from her mother.

It will give the opportunity to Isabella to know the parent she was torn away from, understand what her mother did was wrong and heal from the trauma of the experience. It will also help countless other children whose parents may think twice about doing something similar and decide in the best interests of the child. Sorry, but kidnapping does apply here. Custody agreements place parents under the jurisdiction of the family law system. The mother was under court order to turn Isabella over to her other parent for visitation and custody agreements generally have orders not to leave the country without the court's permission, especially if the purpose is to defy court orders. You seem to be forgetting the rights of the non custodial parent. In just about every other instance of heterosexual parents doing the same thing (and there are way too many of them) has resulted in similar charges and the loss of custody. Why should this case be different? As to earning the trust of the court? Any parent whose actions harm a child, be it mentally, emotionally or physically must re-earn that trust as the legal system must ensure the well being of the child. What Miller did was tantamount to child abuse, even if there was no physical abuse involved. Often emotional/mental abuse is worse, if not every bit as bad as physical abuse.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
What Miller did was tantamount to child abuse, even if there was no physical abuse involved. Often emotional/mental abuse is worse, if not every bit as bad as physical abuse.

Before fleeing the country, the only 'abuse' that the Judge had to justify his decision to revoke Miller's custody and force her to give up her child, was that of the ongoing 'alienation' of the non-custodial parent - in that Miller was alienating Isabella from Jenkins. Yes, that is a probem, but IMO it isn't severe enough to justify the extreme step of transferring custody. IMO existing and long-standing custody should only be revoked in cases where the child is in danger - and alienation is not enough to justify it.

I think legally, your argument is correct. But I think this, and other custodial arrangements that the courts get their noses stuck into, are unethical and wrong. Where a child is not in danger of harm custody is often used as a legal measure to balance the rights of the parents, and IMO that's the wrong way of looking at it. When courts get involved in such personal domestic matters and consider it their right and privilege to adjust existing family arrangements on a Judge's demand, they unfortunately often cause more harm than good.

I don't agree with Miller and others like her but I can see how someone could feel themselves driven to extreme and foolish measures like fleeing a court's authority, because they see the actions of the court as harmful in themselves.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Before fleeing the country, the only 'abuse' that the Judge had to justify his decision to revoke Miller's custody and force her to give up her child, was that of the ongoing 'alienation' of the non-custodial parent - in that Miller was alienating Isabella from Jenkins. Yes, that is a probem, but IMO it isn't severe enough to justify the extreme step of transferring custody. IMO existing and long-standing custody should only be revoked in cases where the child is in danger - and alienation is not enough to justify it.

We have a heterosexual member of our family doing that right now - working hard to alienate her children from their father - and the damage to the kids from her selfish and wicked behaviour is appalling.

I have to keep reminding myself that I'm not posting in Hell to avoid telling you what I think of your argument in terms which would break the rules. Deliberate alienation of children towards a harmless parent/carer is a form of malicious and damaging child abuse.

People who are targeted in this evil way rely on the courts to protect them and their children from this ugly, and sadly common, sort of malice. My partner and I both know people whose lives were ruined and their children scarred by a partner behaving like this.

Add to it someone teaching a child to hate/despise/fear the other parent as part of a whole category of harmless people - schooling a child to be a little racist or anti-semite or sectarian bigot or homophobe as part of that - and you have something additional which is both vile and harmful to the child for the rest of its life.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
What Miller did was tantamount to child abuse, even if there was no physical abuse involved. Often emotional/mental abuse is worse, if not every bit as bad as physical abuse.
Before fleeing the country, the only 'abuse' that the Judge had to justify his decision to revoke Miller's custody and force her to give up her child, was that of the ongoing 'alienation' of the non-custodial parent - in that Miller was alienating Isabella from Jenkins. Yes, that is a probem, but IMO it isn't severe enough to justify the extreme step of transferring custody. IMO existing and long-standing custody should only be revoked in cases where the child is in danger - and alienation is not enough to justify it.

The judge's decision prior to her fleeing the country had nothing to do with revoking custody. The court was, however, enforcing the parental rights of visitation of the other parent. Something done in family court in every case where one parent is doing their best to screw the other parent at the expense of the child. Parental rights of both parties must be respected. Where criminal charges come in are AFTER Miller fled the country, that is where the abuse occurred and that is what the quoted sentence refers to.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

I think legally, your argument is correct. But I think this, and other custodial arrangements that the courts get their noses stuck into, are unethical and wrong. Where a child is not in danger of harm custody is often used as a legal measure to balance the rights of the parents, and IMO that's the wrong way of looking at it. When courts get involved in such personal domestic matters and consider it their right and privilege to adjust existing family arrangements on a Judge's demand, they unfortunately often cause more harm than good.

Sorry, but when one parent's rights are being violated the only recourse for that parent is through the court - which is as it should be. When relationships break up for any reason and there are children involved reasonableness and putting the children first often goes out the window. During the decade plus of my working life I worked in family law offices. The first time I had a choice, the second time it was the only job available. I saw more crap done by parents who only wanted to get at the other parent or deny them any access to their children. It's one reason I haven't worked in a law office since. Courts are necessary to protect parental rights and the well being of the children.

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

I don't agree with Miller and others like her but I can see how someone could feel themselves driven to extreme and foolish measures like fleeing a court's authority, because they see the actions of the court as harmful in themselves.

One can sympathize, but that doesn't mean they get license to do as they please, violate the parental rights of the other party and harm their child in any way.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Before fleeing the country, the only 'abuse' that the Judge had to justify his decision to revoke Miller's custody and force her to give up her child, was that of the ongoing 'alienation' of the non-custodial parent - in that Miller was alienating Isabella from Jenkins. Yes, that is a probem, but IMO it isn't severe enough to justify the extreme step of transferring custody. ...

Isabella has a RIGHT to know BOTH her parents, and that right is guaranteed by a court order. Ms. Miller is violating that order and her child's rights. It may not be physical abuse, but it is abuse. Thus, the court transferred custody to the parent who can be trusted to ensure Isabella continues to enjoy that, and all her other rights. It's as simple as that. Miller broke a promise she made to her own daughter, not just to the court and her former partner. Unless Jenkins hires a bunch of mercs and kidnaps her back, Isabella's only recourse to enforce her rights is the justice system. OliviaG

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Except how does that help Isabella? Being dragged away from her mother and locking her mother up. That doesn't help anyone - it's just the law flexing its muscles. You might want to punish Miller for daring to defy a judge's will. But that won't help anyone - it'll just make things worse.

This is, unfortunately, going to be true in all custody cases. The parent who denies the other parent access can always say that punishing them would be bad for the child. And they're right.

So the solution is never to enforce a Court order? Make all visitation rights whatever conditional on the whim on the one (possibly aggrieved) party who controls access? How is that either fair or in the best interests of children?

The solution is to give the Court power to enforce its orders, because it isn't just about Isabella. It's about all those other children whose parents split up and who benefit from staying in contact with both of them, because the overwhelming majority of parents, even if they are mutually hostile, will obey Court orders if the alternative is going to jail.

I don't know how it is in the US, but in E&W it is standard practice that an order that might be enforced with commital to prison is personally served endorsed with a penal notice (a statement in clear bold type prominently displayed on the front saying that if you disobey you can be sent to prison or fined) so that there is no doubt that the party knew of the consequences. If a parent would rather go to jail than play fair by a former partner, that's their choice, and it is that choice which hurts the child.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Except how does that help Isabella? Being dragged away from her mother and locking her mother up. That doesn't help anyone - it's just the law flexing its muscles. You might want to punish Miller for daring to defy a judge's will. But that won't help anyone - it'll just make things worse.
This is, unfortunately, going to be true in all custody cases.

Yup. Ugly custody cases are ugly. They're bad for children. And the threat of jail, or the threat of having your own contact with the child terminated, or both, is enough to keep most parents, even the most aggrieved, from misbehaving too badly. The threat is therefore good for children. But for that threat to have any value at all, the threat has to be credible. Which means that court orders have to be enforced.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

It's rather fascinating seeing this thread revived now, because Australia has been having its own high-profile custody case with an Australian mother who refused to obey a court order to return her children to Italy (and their Italian father).

When she didn't get her way in court she ran to the media for sympathy. And her daughters were put into hiding.

The interesting thing was she didn't GET much sympathy. The media often took the tack that we frequently benefit here from the Hague Convention, and we can't go around ignoring the Convention just because this time it was an Aussie who broke the rules rather than an Aussie who was the victim.

Last week, the highest court in Australia also rejected the notion that the children ought to be able to have direct representation in the custody battle. They pretty much agreed with lilBuddha re the difference between a child's wishes and the best interests of a child.

The entire point of having a court system decide these issues is to deal with the situations where the parents have too much self-interest to sort it out between themselves. A system where people go "I'll abide by a court decision so long as I agree with it" is completely unworkable.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

In a further update, Pastor Kenneth Miller has been convicted of abetting kidnapping. An interesting snippet on his defense:

quote:
His lawyer argued that the pastor did not know he was flouting a custody ruling. Prosecutors, however, pointed out that the pastor took pains to hide some of his actions.

A rather brazen approach, given the facts as known. No date yet for sentencing.

I'm wondering if some intense sentence reduction negotiations are going on right now.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0