Mom may face jail for kids' baptisms

[Nagishkaw 510]

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20120331/NEWS01/303310011/Mom-may-face-jail-kids-baptisms?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE

NASHVILLE — A Shelby County mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.

This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children’s father.

Both parents are Christian. Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she’s a Presbyterian.

The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn’t agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.

The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.

Legal experts disagree on whether the appellate court decision is treading into the forbidden territory of deciding spiritual doctrine or is just upholding the law when a parent is accused of flagrantly violating a court order.

One of the mother’s lawyers maintains that the Tennessee parenting plan, which requires parents to agree on religious upbringing, is unconstitutional. There has been no decision made on whether the mother will appeal the ruling to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

“It’s still our position that the courts should not interfere with religious disputes between parents, and that a divorced parent has the constitutional right to influence their children with their personal religion for so long as there is no showing of personal harm to the children,” said Mary Morgan Whitfield, one of the mother’s attorneys.

Civil contempt is reserved for people who can do something, such as pay their back child support, to purge themselves of the charges. The mother is facing criminal contempt charges, Whitfield said, because the baptisms can’t be undone.

“So she’s facing jail time for exercising her constitutional rights.”

If the mother is convicted of two counts of criminal contempt, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.

The father’s attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment.

He has maintained in court documents that the mother violated a court order requiring the couple to seek mediation if they could not agree on major decisions involving the children’s religious upbringing. The father had argued that if a mediator ruled against him, he at least would have gotten the opportunity to be present at his children’s baptisms instead of finding out about it later.

“Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him,” Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. “She violated the court order.”

A lower court in Shelby County has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate.

The mother had argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt because it was tantamount to preferring the father’s religious views on baptism over hers.

But the Court of Appeals disagreed.

“Mother is correct that courts ‘must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents’ and they may not ‘prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent’s religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child,” Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. “However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute.” Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.

Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.

“How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist — or a Catholic?” Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the language in the standard parenting plan in Tennessee ultimately gives courts the authority to decide if they can’t come to an agreement.

[luckytxn 2,264]

http://www.jacksonsu...ext%7CFRONTPAGE

NASHVILLE — A Shelby County mother faces contempt-of-court charges and possible jail time for baptizing her two children without the knowledge or consent of her ex-husband.

This week the Tennessee Court of Appeals said Lauren Jarrell must face a criminal contempt hearing for violating a court order that said major decisions regarding the religious upbringing of her two children should be made jointly with the children's father.

Both parents are Christian. Emmett Blake Jarrell, the father, is a member of the United Methodist Church, and she's a Presbyterian.

The father, according to court records, thought the children should be baptized when they are older and better able to understand the significance of the baptismal ceremony. The couple had even consulted a minister when they were married because they couldn't agree what age was best for the kids to be baptized. Records show the children will be 5 and 7 next month.

The Court of Appeals decision sides with the father, who had asked that his ex-wife be convicted of criminal contempt after discovering that she baptized the kids against his wishes.

Legal experts disagree on whether the appellate court decision is treading into the forbidden territory of deciding spiritual doctrine or is just upholding the law when a parent is accused of flagrantly violating a court order.

One of the mother's lawyers maintains that the Tennessee parenting plan, which requires parents to agree on religious upbringing, is unconstitutional. There has been no decision made on whether the mother will appeal the ruling to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

"It's still our position that the courts should not interfere with religious disputes between parents, and that a divorced parent has the constitutional right to influence their children with their personal religion for so long as there is no showing of personal harm to the children," said Mary Morgan Whitfield, one of the mother's attorneys.

Civil contempt is reserved for people who can do something, such as pay their back child support, to purge themselves of the charges. The mother is facing criminal contempt charges, Whitfield said, because the baptisms can't be undone.

"So she's facing jail time for exercising her constitutional rights."

If the mother is convicted of two counts of criminal contempt, she could face up to 20 days in jail and a $100 fine.

The father's attorney did not respond to messages seeking comment.

He has maintained in court documents that the mother violated a court order requiring the couple to seek mediation if they could not agree on major decisions involving the children's religious upbringing. The father had argued that if a mediator ruled against him, he at least would have gotten the opportunity to be present at his children's baptisms instead of finding out about it later.

"Obviously she knew that the father did not want the children baptized at that age and she did that without telling him," Memphis attorney Any Amundsen, who is not involved in the case, said of the mother. "She violated the court order."

A lower court in Shelby County has already found the mother in contempt of court. The appellate court decision overturned that decision and said criminal contempt proceedings are more appropriate.

The mother had argued that it was wrong for the lower court to find her in contempt because it was tantamount to preferring the father's religious views on baptism over hers.

But the Court of Appeals disagreed.

"Mother is correct that courts 'must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents' and they may not 'prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent's religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child," Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. "However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute." Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.

Nashville attorney Helen Rogers says the courts ought to stay away from these kinds of decisions.

"How would a court decide between baptizing a Presbyterian and a Methodist — or a Catholic?" Rogers asked. She wondered whether a court could step in and order the child of a Muslim and a Jew to attend a synagogue or a mosque. The problem, she said, is that the language in the standard parenting plan in Tennessee ultimately gives courts the authority to decide if they can't come to an agreement.

The state can now determine religious disputes it seems.

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

i'm not seeing it as a religious dispute, but as a dispute between one cutting the other completely out of the loop which is in violation of a court order.

[james&olya 1,121]

i'm not seeing it as a religious dispute, but as a dispute between one cutting the other completely out of the loop which is in violation of a court order.

A thoughtful, reasonable contribution to the substance of the issue at hand! Good for you, Charles!

[Dakine10 5,452]

The state can now determine religious disputes it seems.

the Court of Appeals disagreed.

“Mother is correct that courts ‘must maintain strict neutrality in cases involving religious disputes between divorced parents’ and they may not ‘prefer the religious views of one parent over another unless one parent’s religious beliefs and practices threaten the health and well-being of the child,” Judge Alan E. Highers wrote. “However, simply put, this is not a religious dispute.” Highers said the court is only being asked to determine whether the mother can be found in contempt for failing to follow the court order.

Likely they will find her in contempt for failing to file a court order - since that's what happened. There isn't really a religious dispute - both parents are Christian, and neither parent is against baptism, only the timing.

I actually think this was a very poor decision by the mother. Contempt of court in child custody cases can really bring the hammer down.

[luckytxn 2,264]

i'm not seeing it as a religious dispute, but as a dispute between one cutting the other completely out of the loop which is in violation of a court order.

This is a religious dispute between the parents and the court is deciding. No reason the Mom couldn't have them Baptized and the Father again later when they were older. This is nothing more than one parent getting back at one another.

[Ban Hammer 13,403]

This is a religious dispute between the parents and the court is deciding. No reason the Mom couldn't have them Baptized and the Father again later when they were older. This is nothing more than one parent getting back at one another.

all well and wonderful, except that's against the order of the court....

[aaydrian 479]

This is a religious dispute between the parents and the court is deciding. No reason the Mom couldn't have them Baptized and the Father again later when they were older. This is nothing more than one parent getting back at one another.

Yes and its the mother that's guilty. The mother is selfish in not wanting the kids to have a better understanding of each denomination so the children can make a conscientious decision. The father obviously believes in ONE baptism and his ex wife removed their kids choices as to what beliefs they want to be washed in. Look at it like this, you're only a virgin once, no take backs or do overs.

Edited March 31, 2012 by aaydrian

[luckytxn 2,264]

all well and wonderful, except that's against the order of the court....

Then the court is interfering with religious issues.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Yes and its the mother that's guilty. The mother is selfish in not wanting the kids to have a better understanding of each denomination so the children can make a conscientious decision. The father obviously believes in ONE baptism and his ex wife removed their kids choices as to what beliefs they want to be washed in. Look at it like this, you're only a virgin once, no take backs or do overs.

The mother is guilty of performing her religious duties. The father can baptize them again later. The mother did not remove her kids choices. It is not a childs choice until they are adults.

[aaydrian 479]

The mother is guilty of performing her religious duties. The father can baptize them again later. The mother did not remove her kids choices. It is not a childs choice until they are adults.

This is religion your talking about and not something to be taken lightly as under Christianity there is no 'batize them again later'. Said it before and I'll say it again, she's selfish. She's free to perform her religious duties when she is the egg and the sperm or if the father isn't as involved in the kids life as he should be.

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is religion your talking about and not something to be taken lightly as under Christianity there is no 'batize them again later'. Said it before and I'll say it again, she's selfish. She's free to perform her religious duties when she is the egg and the sperm or if the father isn't as involved in the kids life as he should be.

How is she selfish for performing her religious duties? It is her faith we are talking about, not yours. This is the main reason we don't marry outside our faith. Before marrying this has to be discussed between the two. I grew up Methodist and it was common to baptize kids when still kids. I also had to go to Baptist churches often according to which parent or family member I went with. Baptists are very set on waiting for kids to be grown to be Baptized. She as a Methodist would have been wrong not to baptize her kids.

Asking a judge if it was Ok to perform a very important religious ritual is not acceptable in the least. Only the parents can make this decision, no judges can make religious decisions.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I personally wonder whether the first court order was constitutional. For instance, what if a religion dictates that the mother is responsible for religious upbringing. That court order would have interfered with that.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I personally wonder whether the first court order was constitutional. For instance, what if a religion dictates that the mother is responsible for religious upbringing. That court order would have interfered with that.

I agree. Religion should have been not mentioned. No court can rule on religious matters so why even go there? This has to be settled before marrying and having kids.

[aaydrian 479]

How is she selfish for performing her religious duties? It is her faith we are talking about, not yours. This is the main reason we don't marry outside our faith. Before marrying this has to be discussed between the two. I grew up Methodist and it was common to baptize kids when still kids. I also had to go to Baptist churches often according to which parent or family member I went with. Baptists are very set on waiting for kids to be grown to be Baptized. She as a Methodist would have been wrong not to baptize her kids.

Asking a judge if it was Ok to perform a very important religious ritual is not acceptable in the least. Only the parents can make this decision, no judges can make religious decisions.

First of all if you don't want courts involved solve the problem with amicable understanding among yourselves. Because that didn't happen the father was robbed (and contacted law officials) and the mother felt a robbery was in progress so she did what she thought was necessary.

Second it's selfish to perform ones religious duties when it conflicts with a another party that has equal rights as you.

Third where in my response did I ever reflect my religious beliefs?

You are right, religion is something to be discussed before marriage and kids but I guess people think once both are of the same religion everything will work itself out.

Solution: baptize the kids at about 10-12 or earlier if the children want to but its too late now.