Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mom ends up in jail after son's baptism
Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | 5/13/12 | Jamie Satterfield

Posted on 05/13/2012 9:39:27 AM PDT by SmithL

Last December, a 12-year-old boy was baptized in a Karns Baptist church.

Four months later, his mother went to jail as a result.

"I was in complete shock," Stephanie "Stacy" Miller recalled of the day in April when Knox County Fourth Circuit Court Judge Bill Swann ordered her jailed. "The guy had to drag me down the hallway. I was like, 'I just had my son baptized.' I laid my head (on the arresting deputy's) shoulder and just cried, 'Please, help me.'"

Swann's controversial decision is raising questions about the use of the state's criminal contempt law to punish parents in divorce disputes, the inclusion of religion in parenting plan agreements, the influence of parents on a child's religious choices and the age at which a child should be allowed to make decisions of faith.

That Stacy Miller's son was baptized at Grace Baptist Church in Karns in a Dec. 18 ceremony attended by his father, Stephen Miller, is not in dispute. That Stacy Miller went to jail in late April at her ex-husband's behest is also not a matter of debate.

Almost everything else about the case is, however, hotly contested.

The controversy began when 12-year-old Caleb Miller, a regular attendee at Grace's Wednesday night youth services, announced a decision to be baptized.

The boy would later testify at a deposition that he "made a profession of faith" in Jesus Christ as savior — the overriding tenet of Christianity — while his parents were still married.

(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: baptism; custody; divorce; familycourt; govtabuse; meninblack; moralabsolutes; rapeofliberty; tyranny
Stephen Miller attended the baptism. Soon after, however, he filed a contempt of court action against Stacy Miller, alleging she had violated the couple's parenting plan.
He seems to have created a martyr out of Stacy. He's also a jerk.
1 posted on 05/13/2012 9:39:38 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Tennessee is going to immensely regret taking this step in governing private matters.


2 posted on 05/13/2012 9:53:24 AM PDT by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockinqsranch

“Tennessee is going to immensely regret taking this step in governing private matters.”

Tennessee or some dude named Bill Swann?


3 posted on 05/13/2012 9:57:17 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I would say the judge is also a jerk. You expect the ex to be a jerk, but why do the courts play this game?


4 posted on 05/13/2012 9:57:35 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"They treated me like an animal," she said of her stint in jail. "I had never even so much as stole a piece of bubble gum … They shackled my feet, handcuffed me and put a chain around my stomach. You have to spread your legs, put your hands against the wall. You have to show them your mouth and tongue. About 20 people had to feel every part of my body every time they moved me from one place to the next."

She must be assimilated to the Borg. They are just doing their duty. She will thank them, once she has been completely absorbed.

5 posted on 05/13/2012 9:58:06 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Stephen Miller is a nurse practitioner.

Translation: He is a bundle of sticks who is really an aetheist and hates any Biblically-based religion.

6 posted on 05/13/2012 10:01:08 AM PDT by MIchaelTArchangel (Da Bro' Gotsta Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The guy sounds like he has contempt for his wife, and is using his son. Since the divorce is final, he lost control over the family, and doesn’t like losing the power he once held. No wonder they are divorced.


7 posted on 05/13/2012 10:04:00 AM PDT by Jaidyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Morgana
the influence of parents on a child's religious choices and the age at which a child should be allowed to make decisions of faith

This government thinks 12 year olds are perfectly old enough to make decisions on sex without parental influence though.

8 posted on 05/13/2012 10:04:56 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; SmithL; Morgana
This government thinks 12 year olds are perfectly old enough to make decisions on sex without parental influence though. My first thoughts exactly!
9 posted on 05/13/2012 10:11:06 AM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11 0bie don' t eat my dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
There is absolutely no way to know exactly what's going on. The father says the boy was crying that he "had" to be baptized. Children are very, very, very manipulative re their divorced parents.

However, I lived in Tennessee for 13 years and had occasion to observe their legal system. Some of their judges are the most ignorant, lazy, stupid, ill mannered and ill bred people on earth. And this case sounds 100% like a case where the ex husband's lawyer and the judge are poker playing buddies.

10 posted on 05/13/2012 10:13:09 AM PDT by LouAvul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ngat

Ngát?


11 posted on 05/13/2012 10:31:22 AM PDT by ThanhPhero (Khach hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

Some I know had the choice of using this Judge or one in the district where his children had been absconded.
Because Swann is a known woman hater (essentially), and he had findings of fact from child protective regarding child abuse, issues of kidnapping, custodial interference, domestic abuse, family history of abuse of all sorts, this foolish person thought he would take the high road and get a judge which would not allow the other party to simply say the judge hates women (which she would have done to herself and her children).
Unfortunately for him, the unknown judge spent lots of time with her attorney, ignored several dozen instances of perjury, disregarded the CPS findings, ignored the law in numerous areas, made up his own laws, allowed farcical, nonsupported by the worksheets child support rulings, and found the father in contempt when the clerk would not take his ordered payments...
In Swann’s court, even if you feel he was biased or wrong, he goes down the list of considerations point by point to justify his positions. The father would have had his evidence considered in writing. The mother in the above case would have gotten the maximum contempt sentence for each count of perjury or obstruction.
I think he goes too far, especially with his anti smoking position and his godlike insistence on respect for the court and his decisions (i.e. this contempt issue above), but as far as East Tennessee judges go, he’s probably a straighter arrow than most.

Lessons learned: the devil you know is probably better than the devil you don’t (Obama or Clinton, anyone?).
Never take the “high road” in legal matters - it is too much of a crap shoot, and the dice are loaded.
If you can avoid court, do so at any livable cost, if not, it is life or death, fight accordingly.


12 posted on 05/13/2012 10:43:00 AM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Oh, c’mon. 98% of judges are jerks, or they wouldn’t be where they are.


13 posted on 05/13/2012 10:43:12 AM PDT by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marron

To some people this would be the very definition of unreasonable search and seizure...


14 posted on 05/13/2012 10:45:42 AM PDT by LastNorwegian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Judge is the real jerk here.

The father attended the baptism, that indicates acquiescence if not approval.

To then demand this woman be put in jail 4 months later is an outrageous waste of the Court’s time. They are not going to un-do a Baptism. It is a MOOT point.

Further, this father’s history does NOT indicate that he takes religion seriously. Rather it shows he is ambivalent about it, which is fine, but I don’t think he can be permitted to inflict that ambivalence on his son and ex-wife.

For the Judge to send this woman to jail over this is a complete travesty.

If I were she I’d move for full custody of the child as the father has shown that he is hostile to her and indifferent to the well being of his child.

And if that Judge is elected I’d try very hard to get him ousted, and if he not elected I’d try very hard to get him impeached.


15 posted on 05/13/2012 10:53:57 AM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apogee; LouAvul

TN does have some crazy family court and probate judges.

Here in Nashville both Muriel Robinson and Carol Soloman...both women have married over and over and over

Randy Kennedy in probate...

crazy rulings

electing nuts


16 posted on 05/13/2012 10:54:12 AM PDT by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ThanhPhero

Next Generation Air Transportation system.


17 posted on 05/13/2012 11:10:39 AM PDT by ngat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ngat

Okay.


18 posted on 05/13/2012 11:13:47 AM PDT by ThanhPhero (Khach hanh huong den La Vang)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Divorces can be exceedingly mean, and the amount of willful pain that people can inflict on each other is amazing. This is why overlap in their lives afterwards must be planned with great caution.


19 posted on 05/13/2012 11:36:06 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Swann's controversial decision is raising questions about the use of the state's criminal contempt law to punish parents in divorce disputes, the inclusion of religion in parenting plan agreements, the influence of parents on a child's religious choices and the age at which a child should be allowed to make decisions of faith.

Ah, just typical, the parent must promote a plan, but then the plan is the government's plan.

All these divorces are all about is about paying some CPS or Education whore who will indoctrinate the child.

Any pro-Christian parent is on the hit list, and the parent (gay) who sides with the state's agenda of brainwashing the child to worship the judge and whatever garbage that "expert" is deeming to be "harmful" to the child gets the accolades.

This is the same program that communist Obama is promoting... This is all for lawyer and government to pocket child support and rearing moneys while telling the tax paying parents who are not properly represented to STFU.

YEp, this is Amerika, Brazile, Nazi Germany and the SOviet Union... no shame.

20 posted on 05/13/2012 12:49:25 PM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I don't practice family law and actively avoid it. I also don't practice in Tennessee, but, this sounds like a bad deal all around. The key paragraph I think is here.

In July 2010, his parents finalized their divorce. Stacy Miller was represented at the time by attorney Keith Pope, who would later admit he was addicted to cocaine. She signed a parenting agreement at the behest of Pope that gave both her and her ex-husband "joint decision making" on matters including "religious upbringing."

Considering that he's an Episcopalian and she's a Baptist, that's going to be a major conflict.

I sympathize with Stacy Miller and Holland. Bad counsel can do a number on one's life.

21 posted on 05/13/2012 1:10:56 PM PDT by Darren McCarty (The Republican Party is bigger than the presidency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; GeronL; SmithL

This story is not about:

religion or freedom there of

the rights of the boy

parental issues

parents not agreeing on a religion

This story is about one thing and one thing only:

REVENGE

Daddy wanted revenge on mommy and he got it using religion, his child, the courts, jails, and lawyers.

Well daddy I hope it was worth it. You hurt your ex wife but also you child.

“When you embark on the journey of revenge dig two graves” -Confucius


22 posted on 05/13/2012 3:35:14 PM PDT by Morgana (I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul; GeronL

“The father says the boy was crying that he “had” to be baptized. Children are very, very, very manipulative re their divorced parents. “

Now wait just a second. The boy said he “had” to be baptized.

He may have said that but in what context?

as in....

“Dad I have to be baptized” ie mom, grandparents and church are forcing this upon me.

or

“Dad I have to be baptized” ie Dad I have found God, accepted Jesus as my savior and I feel the urgent need to be baptized as soon as possible.

See my point?


23 posted on 05/13/2012 3:35:28 PM PDT by Morgana (I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
TN Constitution, Article 1,

Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

IMO, sounds like the judge should be punched in the face, and then laughed out of the courtroom.

24 posted on 05/14/2012 7:03:07 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Apogee
In Swann’s court, even if you feel he was biased or wrong, he goes down the list of considerations point by point to justify his positions.

And how do those points line up w/ the Tennessee State Constitution:
TN Constitution, Article 1
Section 2. That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

Does the judge, perhaps, think that he is not a "human authority"?
Does the judge presume that the boy's decisions [and right to make that decision] to "worship Almighty God according to the dictates of [his] own conscience" may be nullified? (i.e. that it is not indefeasible.)

25 posted on 05/14/2012 8:29:55 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.

They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.

She reaped what she sowed.


26 posted on 05/14/2012 8:34:40 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

>>She signed a parenting agreement at the behest of Pope that gave both her and her ex-husband “joint decision making” on matters including “religious upbringing.”
>
>Considering that he’s an Episcopalian and she’s a Baptist, that’s going to be a major conflict.

Not really; the TM Constitution makes such agreement null and void: Art 1, Sec 3.
{Hint: because such agreement denied the right of the son to worship God “according to the dictates of his conscience;” and also because the enforcement of it would be reliant on a “human authority.”}


27 posted on 05/14/2012 8:34:40 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.

That's right; it is a constitutional case. I'll get to that addressing your next point.

They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.

Utterly irrelevant. Why? Because of the wording of the TN Constitution:

Art 1, Section 3.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any minister against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious establishment or mode of worship.

To assert that this agreement has any binding force is to reject the above portion of the State's Constitution.
It violates the underlined portion in that it prevents the boy from worshiping according to his own conscience; i.e. that he is prevented from, say, being a Catholic [or trained thereby] if the parents are against it.
It violates the italicized portion in that he is being compelled to support [by his presence] the religious institutions in the agreement.
It violates the bolded part in that the enforcement thereof is reliant upon human authority to control and interfere with those rights of conscience.

She reaped what she sowed.

Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court's readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.

28 posted on 05/14/2012 8:50:27 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

The mother AGREED not to do exactly what she did. She signed the agreement. She was represented by counsel or had the right to counsel.

She AGREED to the jurisdiction and the court enforcing the agreement. She got EXACTLY what she agreed to recieve if she violated the agreement.


29 posted on 05/14/2012 8:53:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The father’s religious rights are in that agreement too.

He had a different religious view and they AGREED to abide by it. She had to respect his rights and that was the written, signed, and court ratified agreement.

This is nothing about the constitution. There are two equally important religious rights here. Father and Mother. The Mother contumaciously chose to ignore the court ratified agreement she signed and the father’s constitutional right, in that order.


30 posted on 05/14/2012 9:00:19 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

>This is nothing about the constitution.

It is; but the court will likely not mention that detail.

>There are two equally important religious rights here. Father and Mother.

They may be equally important, but what of the SON’S?
Or do you mean to assert that o “contract” involving HIS mode of worship is binding upon him?

>The Mother contumaciously chose to ignore the court ratified agreement she signed and the father’s constitutional right, in that order.

Ah, so if a parent signed their children into slavery then “tough-shit kid, there’s a contract. Suck it up!”?
No, the agreement CANNOT be construed to do so without violating the State’s Constitution; if my assertion is incorrect, then prove it.


31 posted on 05/14/2012 9:38:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chesley

I have had experience with judges, personal basis and professional basis. Most of them are wanna-be kings. It boggles a persons conception of individual integrity/equality as to having many of these judges, at all levels, having the power they have over other people.


32 posted on 05/14/2012 9:58:53 AM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; GeronL

“The mother AGREED not to do exactly what she did.”

With out reading all the court papers I can’t say if what she did was right or wrong.

However several FReepers have brought up an excellent point. There are 12 year olds who can have sex and get free condoms from the guberment without parental knowledge so then why can’t a 12 year old boy make a choice on his own to be baptized?


33 posted on 05/14/2012 10:10:04 AM PDT by Morgana (I only come here to see what happens next. It normally does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Judges, especially federal ones, must be brought under political control.


34 posted on 05/14/2012 10:31:37 AM PDT by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

He seems to have created a martyr out of Stacy. He’s also a jerk.


Yes he is a jerk and there are also a bunch of jerks in our injustice system, the Gods dressed in the black robes for instance.

They think of them selves as Gods, i think some of them are Gods alright GDSOBs. In the first place the justice system
should refuse to be involved in those sort of things.

Does it make sense that this same justice system is trying to take away parental rights when it comes to under age girls getting abortions, but in order to get a bath it must be agreed upon by both parents?

And yes, at that age a bath with out soap and a wash rag is really all it amounts to.


35 posted on 05/15/2012 8:57:25 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chesley

Oh, c’mon. 98% of judges are jerks, or they wouldn’t be where they are.


At least jerks, but that is letting them off real light.


36 posted on 05/15/2012 9:03:39 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

This is a divorce case NOT a religion case.

They made a contract, she ignored it under the pretext of religion.

She reaped what she sowed.


Kow Tow to government, Hand cuffs, chains, you have to have the usual police mentality of a public servant.


37 posted on 05/15/2012 9:10:50 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Perhaps; but the disturbing thing in this case is the court’s readiness and willingness to violate the State Constitution so flagrantly.


Right, if not for that it would have come out with out any hand cuffs, chains, dehumanization, and a whole lot less hate.

But like in a lot of cases the hate will not come from the one that got abused, it will come from people like myself although i am not a hater by nature i am getting fed up with too much Government.


38 posted on 05/15/2012 9:22:30 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
At least jerks, but that is letting them off real light

Well, yeah! But I was in a generous mood when I posted.

39 posted on 05/15/2012 9:31:05 AM PDT by chesley (Eat what you want, and die like a man. Never trust anyone who hasn't been punched in the face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The mother AGREED not to do exactly what she did. She signed the agreement. She was represented by counsel or had the right to counsel.

She AGREED to the jurisdiction and the court enforcing the agreement. She got EXACTLY what she agreed to recieve if she violated the agreement.


Signing a contract does not nullify the law, OneWingedShark quoted the T.N constitution to you, but obviously the constitutional law means nothing to you, and it means nothing to them, its just what ever law they can push down our throats is all that matters, just like any other liberal or conservative socialist we have in government.


40 posted on 05/15/2012 9:35:26 AM PDT by ravenwolf (reIf you believe that Nero was the anti-Christ, and among othJust a bit of the long list of proofsre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I was referring specifically to the list of points to consider when determining the best interests of the children.

He is really over the top, though.


41 posted on 05/27/2012 6:35:06 PM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I was referring specifically to the list of points to consider when determining the best interests of the children.

He is really over the top, though.

The courts think they are a special case, re this nonresistance stuff...
They may need as much of a correction as the executive, though they will never accept it.


42 posted on 05/27/2012 6:36:30 PM PDT by Apogee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson