Bizarre family court ruling: go to mass

January 20, 2015 • 8:45 am

by Grania Spingies

This story floated to the top of the pile of court news last evening in the UK. The Telegraph reports that Judge James Orrell of Derby County in the Midlands has put a rather bizarre stipulation on a divorce settlement, a stipulation apparently not sought by either party to the case. The ex-wife is Catholic, and the stipulation has apparently not been applied to her:

A judge has ordered a father to take his children to Roman Catholic mass as part of a divorce settlement, even though he is not Catholic.

The man, who can only be identified as “Steve” because of reporting restrictions on the case, faces possible contempt of court and a jail sentence if he fails to go to church when he has custody of the children.

It is not clear why the judge decided to go this route, but it’s not the first time this family court judge has made headlines for strange decisions. Back in 2011, he chose to remove a child from its parents after only 15 minutes of hearing; that case was later overturned by an Appeal Court.

Although the father in the new case appealed the “mass” sentence on the grounds that his human rights were breached under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion, his application was not successful. It seems that it is not only his rights that are being ignored here; as he says;

“My oldest son, who is now 10, has already expressed a clear lack of belief but legally I am required to take him to Roman Catholic mass at Christmas.”

As someone who had countless tedious and frustrating hours of my youth wasted by the never-ending cycle of repetitive prayers and rituals at my local Catholic church, the father and child have all my sympathy. This is a ridiculous, condescending and insulting decision. There is no reason why the religious party to a marriage should get the legal nod and sanction (although in this case she may not have even asked for it) while and the non-believer is relegated to the status of second-class citizen.

One can only speculate as to what judges think they are doing when they decide to force religion on people in a civil case or otherwise. Religion has never been the Great Ennobler of our species, and especially in a secular country it is a private choice. It is not something that any judge has any business forcing on someone—certainly not with the threat of jail-time to back it up. It is the kind of decision you would expect to see handed down by a court in a crazed theocracy.

 

h/t: Coel, Pyers

73 thoughts on “Bizarre family court ruling: go to mass”

  1. How does one get this moron out of office? In the US, it’s very challenging to remove a judge from office, and almost impossible for Federal judges, who have a lifetime tenure.

    1. I have to wonder if U.S. judges have imposed such a religioso requirement on a citizen in at least the last 40 years. Have never heard of such a thing. But what do I know?

  2. This is really wierd. I hope the father does not attend. Maybe the NSS will help defend his case.

    1. The fact that it is not binding on the mother would be grounds for appeal in any sane justice system: she might even join his action to avoid getting stuck with it.

      1. I suspect the mother demanded it. Grania notes she’s Catholic; I reckon this is all the mother’s idea.

        1. I’ve read down further now – looks like I’m wrong. It’s only the judge, not the judge and the mother.

        2. If that is the case then it’s outrageous the obligation is not on both parents. Ironically, if it were the case that both parents are subject to the order, it would be even less just and doubly outrageous!

    2. Also, there are scores of reasons one might not go to church on a specific Sunday despite being a regular attendee.

      What if the child is ill? What if the father is ill? What if the father’s house is burning down? What if there’s some other kind of emergency?

      This decision is beyond ludicrous.

      1. Exactly. For those reasons and others it’s completely unenforceable – the only person who can sue fir noncompliance is the mother, and sounds like she doesn’t really care. He could claim a headache or out of town business or conflicts with the kids’s sport teams every week: what authority would bother challenging him? And if he really tried to comply but the kids refuse to go, what’s he supposed to do? Physically drag them? It’s a frivolous ruling and shame on the court for not vacating it and reprimanding the judge on those grounds alone!

  3. > Although the father in the new case
    > appealed the “mass” sentence on the grounds
    > that his human rights were breached under
    > Article 9 of the European Convention on
    > Human Rights, which protects freedom of
    > thought, conscience and religion, his
    > application was not successful.

    Imho, he cannot appeal to a British court based on an article of the ECHR. He has to exhaust all appeals based on British laws and then he can proceed with moving the case to the European Court of Human Rights (same acronym ECHR for added confusion!). This usually results in the case dragging many years. Too many for many people, sadly.

    1. if you read the article at the end of the link I’ve posted it gives more detail of the legal processes he went through

      1. You summarised the Telegraph article very well as I can’t find significantly more in there than in your post. The one thing I know for sure is that during the 1990s, the Labour Party has incorporated the ECHR provisions directly in British Law. Most importantly the UK Supreme Court is bound by the ECHR decisions, bringing UK to the same standards held in all the other EU countries I can think of.

        There are actually two important questions here: (1) has such a matter already been judged by the ECHR? and (2) what is the procedure in UK to get the ECHR to rule on a matter it has never judged before? If the answer to (1) is “yes”, then the British courts could only have ruled in favour of that poor father, I reckon. So it seems to point toward a “no”, which brings question (2), for which I suggested an answer in my original post. But I do not know British law as well as French laws.

        Mesmerisingly sad story and I can’t begin to imagine the rage of that poor man.

    2. Since the introduction of the Human Rights Act UK courts must take into consideration the ECHR when making a decision. This can involve taking into account any previous rulings, and the working of Convention.

    1. It would be interesting to follow up with that person at the end of the sentence and see what effect forced attendance had on him/her.

  6. This highlights the ridiculous secret nature of these ‘family courts’. The case has been running for years & only now do we get to hear about it! It is only a divorce case, there is nothing particularly bad that requires the people not to be identified – after all, a huge percentage of marriages end in divorce anyway now so that is no stigma. An opinionated judge acting like a dictator…

  7. There is no reason why the religious party to a marriage should get the legal nod and sanction (although in this case she may not have even asked for it)

    That last part is the real sticking point for me. The judge appears to be imposing religion on the child against both parents wishes, not merely siding with one parent over the other. I don’t see how any reasonable court could find that legal.

    Since they are in court in the first place, the parents probably aren’t cooperating very much. But if they are, then the work-around would be for the mother to take the kid on Sunday morningss and the father to take the kid for some equivalent hours during the week in exchange. That way the kid doesn’t have to go to mass, because the judge’s order doesn’t require the mother take him while he’s in her custody, it only specifies the father must.

  10. This is completely mad, and I’ve never heard of anything like it before in Britain.

    It’s so mad I can’t believe it’ll be enforced. Any kind of media scrutiny will bring a shitstorm down on the judge’s head, hopefully anyway.

    I know nothing about law. Is there any chance a big media hullabaloo could result in it being overturned, or at least not enforced(even though the appeals options seem to have been exhausted)?

      1. It is like he his showing his malice. I see no other way to read this. If he doesn’t like the job, I am sure there are openings elsewhere where his like can find employment

        1. I wouldn’t be surprised if he loves his job.

          His actions here sure seem malicious to me too, but I’m also sure he sees them differently.

          1. He may have even had a hearty laugh when he went to his chambers after passing that sentence.

            Even those who do things we find abhorrent, this is one of them, sees their actions differently. I wouldn’t be surprised in this case

  13. Is this kind of decision legal in the UK? Is there a UK analog to the FFRF that can challenge this sort of thing?

    1. Yes, it is called the National Secular Society. I would imagine that they would be very keen to get involved.

  14. So this father is forced to take his child to a place where known child molesters are allowed to roam with impunity? Great.

    1. That’s a parish-by-parish phenomenon. We don’t have any evidence that there are rapists at the appellant’s local. Perhaps a full investigation to rule it out – that could tie things up till his progeny reach majority.

  15. Certainly nothing like this would fly in the American courts…although maybe some counties in Alabama.

    The first amendment would kind of prevent this. And if they were forced to go they would most likely require guns (second amendment).

    All just a joke but if you looked at the picture of this judge in all his dress, no telling what he would do.

    1. Maybe not compelling attendance against his will, but the courts in California do operate on a policy of maintaining “stability” for the children so if Sunday mass for example has been part of the family’s routine and the Catholic spouse could make a showing, I would not be surprised at all if the court would make the non-Catholic spouses’s custody end before or start after regular mass.

      Clearly all divorce lawyers should advise their clients to convert to Islam prior to filing for divorce. The court can’t say shit about that faith.

    2. Stuff like this has flown in US courts, I have no doubt. One example has been mentioned already, upthread. If nobody who both decides that something should be done about it, and is capable of actually causing something to get done about it, it stands.

      I think that things like this often go unnoticed by larger society and are therefore never challenged in a way that has a chance of being effective. In insular communities that can be found in lots of places. For example, as you pointed out “some counties in Alabama.”

    3. Certainly nothing like this would fly in the American courts…although maybe some counties in Alabama.

      Oh, we have our share of transparently religion-promoting court rulings. They usually get stopped at the appelate level though. Here’s hoping (is it too much to say, expecting?) this one gets stopped on appeal too.

      1. Ah, Terry Firma over at Hemant’s page reports that this went to appeal and the higher court refused to hear it. So it was too much to say ‘expecting,’ or even ‘hoping.’ The family appears to have been screwed by the legal system.

  16. If I had the resources I would open a pub slash video arcade in that man’s neighborhood called Roman Catholic Mass. I would be happy to draw him a pint of Eucharist Ale, on the house for his troubles.

      1. Excuse me, barkeep, I need to piss – where’s the Men’s “Confessional” … ?

        And don’t leave before a spirited game of Dominoes Vibiscum. No wagering (and no praying to St. Catejan if you do)!

  17. Hi peoples

    I actually sent Jerry an email about this last night, linking my own blog on Skeptic Ink (A Tippling Philosopher) where you will find far more details and Steve commenting on questions (the Telegraph got hold of me to run the story).

    http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2015/01/18/my-colleague-is-forced-to-go-to-mass-by-the-uk-courts/

    Could you link this in the OP please? Especially since Steve and myself are skeptical segment hosts on the Skepticule Podcast (http://www.skepticule.co.uk/).

    Thanks for running this story as the whole point was to get this all changed.

    Regards
    Jonathan MS Pearce

    1. Wait a minute, you’re not only touting your own piece here (which you can do once) but telling us that it’s GOOD??? And then, here, you mention it again and tell me I should link to it in Grania’s original post. What is with you? Read the Roolz about telling me what to put in my posts.

      You can link to a post of yours once only in a thread, and don’t tout it beyond that, say it’s good, or tell us to link to it in the main post. That’s too entitled for me.

      1. Absolutely. Your blog! I didn’t say it was good, just more details than the Telegraph account which ran with less details (and vitually none in the print format!). As a result, many people have been asking many questions.

        Apologies – do as you will!

  18. I was myself on the losing end of an anti-rationalist family court ruling so this issue is a little too dear to me. Having broached the subject, it’s unfair that I’m not going into the embarrassing details – but Da Rulz say I should make a post on my own blog (and it is definitely a blog not a website) since this is a story that takes well over 600 words to tell.

    Long story short: I lost my share of religious holidays with the children of my first marriage on their mother’s assertion that I did not “believe in organized religion.” The fact that my attorney failed to file my response was not considered valid grounds for reconsideration of the ruling and I was forced to pay the ex’s attorney fees for having to respond to my appeal.

    Atheism is not a religion, but if not observing holidays religiously is sanctionable then a LOT of “believers” should be in big trouble, including the subject’s ex and mine!

    1. Would you be prepared to write this up? Would love to post it on ATP at Skeptic Ink.

      epticink.com/tippling/

      Cheers
      JP

          1. Is that for me? Lack of standing: a motion for reconsideration in CA family court will only be accepted on the basis of “new” evidence, and the fact that the former attorney failed to adequately represent me earned me the judge’s sympathy but he said the rules did not permit him to reopen once he had ruled.

            Shortly thereafter, when I sued the former attorney for malpractice, it was pointed out that the judge did me a favor by beingso rigid in the initial ruling and appeal – it strengthened my case. This is a whole ‘nother story! His insurance company settled for an amount equal to the total fees I paid him so on the whole I am not bitter. I Learned valuable life lessons!

          4. REply from Steve:

            “On the ECHR 9 matter (forced church) he did not respond in any way to the complaint. so no grounds, whatsoever !!”

      2. Sure! Based on the responses I think it would be news to people that this kind of thing goes on in urban California. I’ll send you something in a few hours.

        1. May just as well have been – I was referring to the forced attendance at Catholic mass. The Arby’s people might be upset if a court imposed mandatory McDonald’s attendance, similarly.

  20. I would like to hear more details about the actual ruling. Is Steve required by the ruling to sit through the whole mass each week or just to show up with his son? Could they go, step through the doors, say, “Hey, we went to mass,” and then leave immediately? If they are required to sit through the whole service, are they required to be reverent? Could they bring air horns and vuvuzelas? Are they required to attend a specific church or just a specific type of church? Could they attend the judge’s church with their air horns and vuvuzelas? What would happen if the church told them not to come back?

    I’m semi-serious about these questions. If anyone knows exactly how the court order is worded, I would like to know. (I skimmed the linked articles but didn’t see the detail I was looking for.)

  21. Xmas midnight mass, I remember it…hazily. At 17, several years after dropping the God bit, I would go to midnight mass with my mates. After drinking several pints. The fuggish odour of 100s of Paddy pints incensed the Catholic sanctity.

    The priest would stand at the exit, after the service. My mate, Tony, stumbled towards Father Robertson and exclaimed. “Father! Long time, no see!”

    Sadly, Tony is still a Catholic and a veteran of pilgrimages to Lourdes and the Vatican. But that was his finest moment. x

  22. I had a friend who was in the middle of a divorce custody battle when he was a teenager. His father was an atheist; his mother was a fervent Catholic. He got along well with his father; he did not get on with his mother. He had been living with his father; his mother wanted him to live with her.

    My friend was put on the stand and asked to testify about his own beliefs. He acknowledged that he didn’t believe in God. The judge immediately granted custody to the mother, agreeing that the father was not providing a fit environment. His mother promptly enrolled him in a particularly conservative Catholic high school.

    It did not go well. To say that he resented the judge and the reasons behind his ruling is an understatement.

    1. That is awful. When thoughtless, smarmy, Karen Armstrong types just can’t understand how anyone could take issue with religious belief, this is the kind of thing you point to.

      Judges have far too many protections, both legally and by tradition. Judges who make such appalling decisions should not just have their decisions overruled by a higher court, they should be removed. There is a difference between differing opinions on points of law that are less than clear, or honest error, and clear abuse of authority.

    1. Well the local priest or congregation might be able to be a jerk about it and basically inform on him when he skips.

      But it strikes me that if the adults involved in ‘overseeing’ church attendance (mother, father, priest) are in agreement that the ruling is stupid, they could just mutually agree not to say anything about skips.

      That puts the father in a precarious legal position so I would still (IANAL…) recommend appealing the ruling and trying to get it overturned. But if worse comes to worse and the courts don’t overturn it, on appeal, then maybe everyone just agrees to look the other way.

      Or maybe the priest says “look, I know you gotta do this. I think it’s wrong to force religion on people. So come in at 8:50am before the service. Bing bang boom he has communion, and you’re outta here by 8:55am…and if you choose of your own free will to stay for the rest of the service, know that you are always welcome.”

Comments are closed.