A sad story from the NYT: what happens in custody arrangements when parents get divorced, and then one parent turns into a religious froot-looper?
From the age of 1 month, Mrs. Snider’s daughter had lived with her, and later Mrs. Snider’s new husband, Brian Snider, with occasional visits to her biological father.
But in 2003, when Libby was 6, an Alabama court gave primary custody to her father, William Mashburn, after he and Mrs. Snider’s own family argued that the strict religious upbringing Libby received at her mother’s home, which involved modest dress, teachings about sin and salvation, and limited exposure to popular culture, was damaging her.
…
The Sniders are quietly, unapologetically fundamentalist. They believe that American culture, even conservative denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention, has drifted perilously far from biblical teachings. They attend a large Independent Baptist church in Madison, where the music, the sanctuary and the congregants are unadorned and old-fashioned.
Women wear skirts as a sign of modesty. They do not swim in mixed company. They eschew rock music and nearly all popular culture. They do not drink, smoke or swear.
The Sniders have raised Libby, now 11, in that tradition. But it has put them at odds with Mr. Mashburn and Mrs. Snider’s family. Mr. Mashburn and his lawyer declined to comment .
Mrs. Snider said she understood that Libby might wear pants at her father’s home or go to the movies. But she insisted that Mr. Mashburn not swear or drink in front of Libby or expose her to inappropriate movies and music, which, she said, he has repeatedly done.
I would say that this situation (like most post-divorce situations) can be worked around by not being a jerk, but this advice doesn’t help when one’s religion more or less requires one to be a jerk.
Even when both parents want what’s best for the child, religion throws everything into disarray because the religious froot-loop parent thinks the child will go to hell unless they obey the arcane rules of the religious system.
Just another way in which the non-negotiable absolutism of religious belief harms children. And how’s this for a heart-breaking conclusion:
At the last hearing, Libby, who spends about 40 percent of her time with the Sniders, testified against Mr. Mashburn.
“I’m more of my mom’s religion, and my dad sometimes talks bad about my mom,” she said. “He called it a cult, and it’s definitely not a cult. It kind of makes me mad sometimes. Maybe he thinks her religion may be bad for me, but I think mainly he doesn’t like my mom and is using that as an excuse.”
Will she ever escape fundamentalism and rebuild a good relationship with her father? Sounds like the spilt is only going to grow. But hey, what’s the problem. Didn’t Jesus say:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
It’s a feature, not a bug.
14 February 2008 at 2:47 am
But why shouldn’t the custodial parent be allowed to raise a child in the religious tradition they follow?
14 February 2008 at 2:59 am
Nobody’s arguing they shouldn’t.
But when they do, and when that tradition is toward the extreme end of the religious spectrum, some problems are going to arise with the non-custodial parent. That’s the issue I was trying to comment on.
I think it does a lot to undermine a child’s view of (let’s say) Mom when Dad says she’s lost and/or fallen, going to die in her sins, etc. Normal people of good will can disagree in custody situations, but religion gives parents a reason to do just that kind of undermining.
And so religious belief (yet again) enables good people to do bad things they wouldn’t have.
It’s very sad.
15 July 2012 at 11:49 pm
I think religion and divorce would always be against with each other.
Lawyers Sydney