Dad: Court took my kids because I'm agnostic

Dad: Court took my kids because I'm agnostic

www.rawstory.com

A divorced Indiana father says he lost custody of his kids because he's agnostic.

Craig Scarberry had joint 50-50 custody of his three children with his ex-wife for four years, until a judge ruled last month that he was to be limited to four hours' visitation time per week and custody once every second weekend.

Scarberry says the only thing he can find in the ruling to justify the change is a superior court commissioner's comment that "the father did not participate in the same religious t

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is hardly surprising, though angering it surely it is. Fathers already have an extremely hard up-hill battle in family court and now add on top of that, this. You know, although I sure feel this guy, he shouldn't have been stupid enough to buck the system like that.

For anyone who has gone through family court, you know that your rights are the first thing to go and you are basically held hostage to the court. The only winner in family court, is the court itself and the majority of lawyers who prey on people (some actually do it for the benefit of the children, so they all aren't bad).

Although I certainly believe that this guy was in the right and the court is in the wrong, I do think it was stupid of him to relay his beliefs to the court, as he should have known to try to elimate any excuse for the court to take your children away, especially for a father. Sadly, this guy has now lost his child and no amount of activism is worth that, IMO. The judge is going to justify this ruling as they always do, by spewing that he is looking for the best interest of the child and not that this guy was agnostic, but because he couldn't agree with the mother. I call BS.

Unfortunately, the biggest loser in this whole thing, is the child and sadly it isn't just this case.


--airspoon

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

My husband was almost thrust into a custody battle over his son, by his insane ex-girlfriend, because of something I said. I'm agnostic (I was raised atheist) but my friends were from a Christian school, so I grew up learning many different perspectives. So my stepson asked me one day if Noah's ark was real and if they have it somewhere in the world like in a museum, and I paused for a moment to get my wording right (because I specifically did not want to offend any belief in religion). And I ended up saying something like, it's very possible that it happened and that there is an ark, but no one can know for certain unless someone finds it and no, it hasn't been found.

Well somehow this turned up in her conversation with her son not too long after, and she called us all irate because I'm "spreading my heretic tendencies to her child". Keep in mind, she is one of those like...fake religious people...who tout their religion but don't ever implement it into daily life (treats people like crap, treats her kids like crap, has 3 kids by 3 different men, never been married, lives off welfare and spends it all on herself, I help her kids with homework all the time and she has never lifted a finger to do it, school called social services on her, etc, etc, ETC!). Yet I'm the bad one, only because I don't follow her religion, even though I have a much better sense of ethics and morals and common decency compared to her. And excuse me for trying to accurately educate her son. Am I supposed to lie when I'm asked questions? That isn't my idea of parenting, and when he is in our house he's going to be parented the way we believe is right.

Adults can be extremely petty and irrational, and I feel bad for anyone who loses contact with their children over anything having to do with religion. Maybe if she was actually serious about her religion, I wouldn't have answered the way I did, but because it's all a farce in relation to her, I decided to answer the "right" way.

And just to clarify, I have never, ever said anything about my beliefs in relation to god, or anything about agnosticism to her children. All I did was honestly answer a historical question in my eyes. If that's enough to set someone off, then I can imagine stuff like this might happen a lot more than we realize in the court system.

Originally posted by airspoon

Dad: Court took my kids because I'm agnostic

www.rawstory.com

A divorced Indiana father says he lost custody of his kids because he's agnostic.

Craig Scarberry had joint 50-50 custody of his three children with his ex-wife for four years, until a judge ruled last month that he was to be limited to four hours' visitation time per week and custody once every second weekend.

Scarberry says the only thing he can find in the ruling to justify the change is a superior court commissioner's comment that "the father did not participate in the same religious t

(visit the link for the full news article)

Too bad that's not really why they did it...

This is his own sense of being attacked for his beliefs which is informing his blindspot as to why this could of happened.

But unless the judge says thats why... then its just fantasy.

For example, he could have pointed This youth minister who was just arrested for molesting a 15YO

I agree with you here 100%. Fathers face a huge burden when it comes to custody and visitation.
I will relay this story to you about my best friend since we were toddlers (who also happens to 10th mountain coincidence huh!)

He served in the Navy for 8 years before enlisted in the Army. In between he spent once year as a civilian.
Shortly before his Navy service was complete, he became a father and shortly thereafter the mother decided that she didnt want to be with him anymore.

A few tense weeks and a few court dates later, they were granted open visitation where she would be the custodial parent. For those unfamiliar with that term, it means there is no court ordered schedule or restriction on father's visitation.

Within the first few weeks it became clear that she would not let him see his child. Every phone call was ignored. Every visit was answered by the brother at the door who would say they were not home. His child support is paid on time every cycle. He has followed the law to a 'T' but she still will not let him see the child.

Now this man has served his country faithfully for 12 years now, both in the Navy and currently in the Army. He is currently on a different continent not to return for at least a year. Do you think that when he gets home he will be able to have a tearfelt greeting from child. No. This child barely even knows who he is, and its because he followed what the court order said.

And now this porr guy loses his custody for his religious belief.

Sigh.

As a father being taken threw the system in Canada I came to realize its not about justice ...In my case it came down to a candy bar ....can you believe that it is legally acceptable to make a porno graphic movie with your children but also not acceptable to give them a candy bar ...I know that context is needed to understand these issues and in my case I was unaware that my X or any other person would try and separate a parents love for their children . but in a court of law some people hire better layers than others ...and yes we do say things that can and would be used against us ... peace

reply to post by HunkaHunka

But unless the judge says thats why... then its just fantasy

Apparently, the judge did say that's why in the ruling. Didn't you read the article?


--airspoon

reply to post by youdidntseeme


I'm a woman and I totally agree that the courts are biased against men in custody issues, for sure. My husband has worked the same job for over a decade, never had a lapse in employment, never been on welfare or aide of any sort, pays his taxes, believes in god but doesn't go to church, and was faithful to his ex for 7 years (she cheated on him and left). Not only that, but when he first got together with her she had a baby from another person, and my husband raised not only his child with her, but the baby she had when he met her, for ALL those years.

When she first left him, she would leave the kids with him all the time, or her family, and distanced herself from the kids. Then she married the guy she left him for, and took the kids back (too bad her husband was abusive to all the kids) and she stayed with him until she realized HE was cheating on her (lol). So once she moved out she started leaving the kids with us all the time again, and if they weren't with us then they were with someone else or allowed to run the street (both kids were under 10 years old then). Because her life centers on finding a guy, not on her children.

So then she met a new guy who also has a kid, and they all move in together in an apartment too small to fit them all, kids don't even have their own beds, and she starts taking the kids away AGAIN. And it's been that way for the past year now, ignoring our phone calls, setting up dates to pick up the kids and then the kids aren't there when we go to get them, or she says she doesn't know where they are (!?), she never helps in dropping off and picking up, not letting my husband speak to his son on the phone, bad mouthing us to the kids, etc. She got social services called on her at the end school this past year, right before summer break, and ever since she's been keeping his son away from us even more. And to make the situation even more messed up, we just found out she's pregnant again with this new guy (let's see how easy it is to fit 3 kids, 2 adults, and a newborn in a 2 bedroom apartment?!) She hasn't let him come over here in 4 months, only will let my husband see him during the day (very sporadically).

And she spends all her child support and welfare money on herself, and I am in no way exaggerating. She's got her nice car, her nice clothes, jewelry, make up, hair done, nails done, yet the kids don't have their own mattresses to sleep on and fight over the couch.

My point, I'm pretty sure we are taking her to court soon. And I'm afraid of the outcome over the bias against fathers in custody cases. Keep your fingers crossed for me, anyone who reads this.

I just hate seeing my husband go through this, knowing all he has done for those kids over the years. I know it really hurts him. And he's a good dad, he should be able to see those kids. He's never missed child support, and was originally paying two payments (one for the kid who isn't even his!). She doesn't even care that he still wants to be the other boy's dad, too. He raised him for 10 years. He was the only "dad" that boy knew. It's so unfair to the kids.

reply to post by airspoon


Why do I think there is more to this than what the father claims is the reason for this court decision? Maybe because the mother was not interviewed for this article?????

But I agree that feminists have "progressed" to redesign family law to basically enslave fathers to the mothers of their children. In the end, it appears fathers are of no more value than human ATM machines. The important role good fathers play in the psychological and social development of their kids is largely mute in humanism.

Yet again proving religion is absolutely useless and has no place in public.

Only when religion is finally eradicated can mankind truly have freedom.

reply to post by sara123123


I starred you because I completey agree. It's almost as if fathers have been devalued, past the financials and a father is just as important as mother and the two together are far more important than any one single.

I think that there are a lot of reasons why the courts are slanted towards women and not just because of the femenist movement either, though I do believe that plays a big part. If you think about, a lot of people go into the feild of children and families because they either have something to prove or they have been abused, often by the father. In this, they get back at fathers through the court. It happened to my father and this was a long time ago, just as femenism was taking hold. He basically got screwed and all due to my mother, who was milking the bias of the court to make him pay. My mother just wanted to hurt my father and sadly, she used me and my siblings as a tool to do just that. I won't go into the details as it makes my blood boil, though I don't blame her as much as I blame the court for giving her the ability to do that. My father was completely broken by that situation, emotionally speaking, for the rest of his life.


--airspoon

reply to post by airspoon


From your article:

""Craig, you're a lot more understanding of this than I am," Uygur said later in the interview. "If I was you I'd demand, in return, 'Hey, are you going to bring them to agnostic camp?' Have you made any demands for your beliefs? Isn't this is a giant constitutional issue? Don't you have the same rights as your wife?"


I literally loled reading the last sentence. The first thing I learned in divorce court years ago is the father by no means whatsoever has the same rights to his own children as the mother does.

Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
Yet again proving religion is absolutely useless and has no place in public.

Only when religion is finally eradicated can mankind truly have freedom.

Star for you, couldn't agree more.

"Religion" is the most disgusting human creation in the history of the world and has destroyed more lives than all the wars combined.

I think this case has just as much to do with the injustices of the family court system, as it does religion. You know, if this guy didn't have his children taken away for being agnostic, it would have been some other benign reason, such as the fact that he is a male. Also, you can bet your bottom dollar that his religion hasn't affected how much he is forced to dole out, not only for the child, but also for the mother. Yes... That's right, child support also includes paying for the mother's expenses too.

In fact, a good way to curb teen pregnancy, is to curb the benefit to young ladies, who think by getting pregnant, not only will they get to have a baby, but they also won't be responsible for that child, financially speaking and they can even get some poor sap to pay their expesnes too. You know it happens. I bet it happens a lot more than we think.


--airspoon

Sadly, getting married today puts the honorable man that simply wants to establish a family in a great risk.

It is not about creating a family anymore, I see it just as a business today.Odds are that you will simply get scammed in the end, lose everything YOU worked for and end up in a state of depression and withouth your kids when your wife decides life is actually boring and she needs some "emotion" in her life....

I don't like to generalize, but I think the quantity of women today that actually understand the concepts of honor and valor are just too few and hard to find to actually be worth risking your life for.

If you ever manage to find one, and I mean you are 900% sure, by all means go ahead and marry her because you are one lucky man.


If the guy in the article was not agnostic, he would lose custody because he wears blue jeans, or because he likes mexican food, or because he is a trekkie , or whatever other excuse they could find to use.

This is what happens you bring financial and social incentives to be married and to have a child.

It gets abused, and all the other parties involved are harmed by the abuse. Especially the child.

It may or may not have been for religious reasons.

My guess is that the wife asked for this, and since men, now days, are considered not important or needed in kids lives then who cares.

85% of women win child custody battles, Fathers have very little rights except to pay child support.

Having been through Indiana's divorce court myself with children involved I know all too well of the injustice it serves. I was actually offered more time with my children if I agreed to an increase in my child support obligation. The judge also happened to be a former prosecuting attorney that prosecuted a case against me when I was a minor.
I do feel for the guy, but honestly they will almost certainly find a way to "retaliate". You know, a child support modification, surprise CPS visits, etc.
Personally I think there should be an emphasis put on who wants the divorce and/or why when there are children involved when it comes to child support and custodial/visitation rules, especially in no fault divorce states (which Indiana is). It should be limited to just that though.
I myself have been asked by my children about religious issues and even what they should believe (I am agnostic). I do believe in them making their own choice about it and told them that what they believe is their decision, for them to decide and that they shouldn't believe in something I do, just because I do. For the court system to make that decision for them is absurd.

reply to post by dbledged


I agree that no fault divorce is not ideal. It has created a system of no truth and justice divorce.

Confidentiality laws are extremely strict when one works with children.

I once knew a woman who called a local radio station talk show to report that CPS had removed her children because they made bad grades. The entire town was in an uproar.

Unfortunately, the Social Worker couldn't call the radio show and say "Did she tell you she immersed her 18 month old twins in a pot of boiling turnip greens?"

Nope. She didn't tell them that, and the Social Worker couldn't.

That's the way it is. There is more to this than is being revealed.