Court: Dad can teach kid about polygamy

[deadparrot]

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A father may teach his young daughter about his religious belief in polygamy despite his ex-wife's objections, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Thursday.

The 5-1 decision by the state's highest court said Stanley M. Shepp has a constitutional right to express his beliefs about plural marriages and multiple wives even though bigamy is illegal. Shepp considers himself a fundamentalist Mormon, though the Mormon church officially renounces polygamy.

"Where, as in the instant matter, there is no finding that discussing such matters constitutes a grave threat of harm to the child, there is insufficient basis for the court to infringe on a parent's constitutionally protected right to speak to a child about religion as he or she sees fit," Justice Sandra Schultz Newman wrote.

The girl's mother, Tracey L. Roberts, testified that Shepp's interest in polygamy broke up their marriage, and expressed concern that he may introduce the girl to men in preparation for marriage at age 13, according to the court opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_us/polygamy_appeal

[Warpy]

1. That's a reasonable fear on the mother's part

since polygamous marriages often take place for brides between 13-16. Her father could arrange such a marriage for her in hopes of being repaid with his own arranged child brides.

Let's hope Mom is able to convince her daughter otherwise or to bring charges against the old goat who "marries" her.

[Triana]

6. Frankly.....

....I wouldn't want him NEAR my daughter for the same reasons the mother states. I'd at least seek something restricting him from 'marrying' her off until she was 21 (ie: attempting to influence her into it). Probably not possible, but I'd try.

[Demeter]

2. Sounds Like Prima Facie Child Abuse to Me

What are these people thinking?

[hughee99]

3. Much as I'm not a very big fan of polygamy, Mormons, or for that matter

organized religion in general, I just don't see how the father has done anything illegal, or anything that would constitute "child endangerment" by merely sharing his views with his daughter.

[pnwmom]

4. It would depend on whether he was "merely sharing his views"

or attempting to pressure her.

[hughee99]

5. According to the article...

It seems like even the mother isn't claiming that he's doing more than discussing his views, just that he might.

"The girl's mother, Tracey L. Roberts, testified that Shepp's interest in polygamy broke up their marriage, and expressed concern that he may introduce the girl to men in preparation for marriage at age 13, according to the court opinion."

[stanwyck]

8. Would you want your daughter spending

time with this man? He's advocating a lifestyle which is not only illegal, but has a history of subjecting very young girls to forced marriage to much older men.
Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" about fundamentalist Mormonism. Jon Krakauer is the author. You might not be quite so concilatory toward this father just "teaching his beliefs".

[hughee99]

9. Personally,

I wouldn't want my daughter to spend time with the man, but I don't see this as much different then a parent who is in favor of legalizing marijuana sharing his beliefs with his daughter. Both are currently illegal. Should the courts step in to all of those situations and prevent parents from even discussing their beliefs with their children? Sure, if the parents are trying to marry off their 13 year old daughters, or providing them with marijuana, that's something for the courts, but I wouldn't feel good about the precedent it would set for the courts to decide what a parent can and can't talk about with their child.

[stanwyck]

10. You don't see the difference between

smoking weed and practicing a religion which routinely marries off girls younger than 16 to middle-aged men? Who already have wives?
Those are the same to you?
Have you read about Mormon fundamentalism? Do you know what you're endorsing?

[hughee99]

11. Actually,

I don't see the difference between TALKING about smoking weed and TALKING about bigamy. Are you suggesting that anyone should be prohibited by law from discussing their religion? Polygamy is also not uncommon in Islamic countries, should we also prohibit those parents from discussing their views with their children? They're not Mormon fundamentalists. Are you suggesting that because SOME people who practice polygamy marry off their daughters before they're even 16, that a simple discussion of the subject should be prohibited because they MIGHT do it?

I know EXACTLY what I'm endorsing, and it's not Mormonism, Islam, or the legalization of marijuana, it's FREE SPEECH!

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Don't forget to teach the part about it being illegal.

Considering how virtually all major religions treat women like dirt, this is just a logical extension to the approach.

[happyslug]

12. Here is the Opinion:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-97-2004mo.pdf

The Concurring Opinion:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-97-2004co.pdf

And the dissenting opinion:
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-97-2004do.pdf

The Court basically ruled without a finding of "Harm" to the child, just talking to a child about an illegal act (In this case bigamy) can NOT be used in a Custody case to deny a parent from discussing that illegal act with the child. Thus when this case is re-heard the Trial Court, all the Judge has to do is find "Harm" to the Child when it comes to the Father talking to the Child about this subject and the Mother will get the Order she requested (Which was just for the Father NOT to discuss having more than one wife with the Child).

I re-read the opinion after reading the Concurring opinion and Dissent. The dissent and the Majority Decision seems to split on the issue of harm, the Dissent states his reading of the Decision of the Trial Judge was the Judge FOUND Harm to the Child when the child was being taught the doctrine of plural marriage (And this is supported by the Trial Judge giving full credibility to the mother's older daughter who testified that the Father asked her to marry him to establish a plural marriage, the older daughter was NOT the daughter of the Father).

The Majority on the other hand basically discounted the older daughter's testimony (Which they can do in Custody cases, but rarely in other cases) and said all Father was doing was TALKING to both children and such discussions are protected under the First Amendment. The Concurring decision did not think you needed to use the first amendment and its strict security rule as to this type of speech, but other wise agreed with the Majority.

The majority based their decision on the free speech right of the Father, i.e. the Father had the right to say what he wants to say to these minors. Since Free Speech trumps other rights Father wins without clear and convincing evidence that the Speech is causing Great harm to the Children.

Normally the First Amendment indicates leave both sides talk it out, but here the trial Judge found that the father did more than spoke, he proposed (Through that was denied by the Father and the Majority rejected that finding by the Trial Judge).

I am sorry, in a dispute like this if the parties can NOT agree, I generally lean to leave the parent who has custody make the decision (i.e. leave him speak to the Child when he has Custody, and Mother against the position when she has the child). On the other hand, once the Trial Judge found something more than speak had occurred, i.e. a PROPOSAL TO THE OLDER DAUGHTER TO ENTERED INTO SUCH A MARRIAGE WITH FATHER, you are out of the First amendment and into criminal solicitation. That is what disturbs me and I would not be surprised if the Trial Court in a new hearing makes a further finding that a harm is occurring to the child by clearly stating a finding that the older daughter's statement is true and is indications of great harm to the child in question.

[wickerwoman]

13. Couldn't the mother sue for sole custody?

It seems to me that this should be a custody issue, not a free speech issue.

Being around this man is clearly dangerous for the girl and she should be able to get custody without visitation without bringing in what he can and can't say to her.

[crim son]

14. That sounds like a plan.

I disapprove of a lot of what parents teach their kids. I'd like every parent to inform their children that "God" is very likely a myth, and I wish they'd present all the world's religions and gods instead of just the one/two/ten they believe in. I wish parents would teach their kids to be respectful of others' feelings; many haven't a clue. I wish parents would teach their kids to vote Democratic, and to think like a Democrat. BUT, my wish won't come true and it's not my place, nor the government's to influence what a parent may or may not say to their kids. I remember a while back when we were all up in arms because a court decided that a set of parents could not raise their child to have Wiccan beliefs. This is no different in principle although, of course, it is substantially different in the impact it might have on the child. Cuts both ways. You know that.