I'm sure there was some kind of a prenup.
"the holding fast to such beliefs should not result in discrimination against a mother.”
Depends on what the beliefs are. In this case, the relevant beliefs are that: 1) The mother didn't want the divorce, 2)Divorce is bad and 3) It's daddy's fault. The courts, psychs and social workers don't allow this. You are required to accept the divorce, never refer to it as bad, and never blame anyone. If you rebel against their "wisdom", you will suffer their wrath.
"Bai also asked Cletus in my(social worker) presence, 'Why aren't you at my house anymore?' Cletus responded, 'Because Daddy broke up our family.'" ... "Of great concern are her interactions with Cletus in my office. Specifically, she encouraged Cletus to state that his father was 'breaking up' their family.'"
See! Ma failed to teach the kids that this is simply normal thing to do. I'll bet see even got into an argument with the social worker too and perhaps the judge at a prelim. Judges adhere to the preachings of the same psych gurus that lead the social workers.
Courts see marriage as a contract. The conditions of the contract allow dissolution if one party, or both ain't happy. When the contract is dissolved, the court requires that you follow their orders to act, which they justify on grounds of the children's mental heath needs.
" Stephen Safranek. The Constitutional Law professor argues: “The civil courts do not have sole authority to end her marriage or to control the upbringing of her children. These religious and moral beliefs may be considered alien or quaint in our culture. Yet, the holding fast to such beliefs should not result in discrimination against a mother.”"
If this is his Constitutional argument, he's not playing with a full deck. The marriage license and court jurisdiction are clearly State matters. Freedom of religion is irrelevant here. The only relevant issue is what's best for the children, not the parent's religious beliefs.
The courts have repeatedly held that one can hold whatever religious beliefs one wants...but the ability to act on those beliefs can be limited by the State. Examples include snake-handling, polygamy, wife-beating, withholding medical treatment from a child, etc.
Here is a fine case from TROP.
"Defendant took three wives. They wed into the Islamic faith. Defendant believed that the teachings of the Holy Koran empowered him to beat his wives. So he beat all three of them. Only two survived...
Jeannie Boyd-Jones succumbed to massive injuries sustained as a result of a prolonged beating administered by defendant. Portions of her deep body fat liquified, and the tissue died as a result of the force applied. Over one-third of her blood supply permeated the internal body cavity lost to circulation as a result of the force applied. Her lower torso and shanks were one massive contusion, with no portion of her frame free of visible welts and bruises. Jeannie Boyd-Jones was beaten to death. Of that there can be no dispute...
He admitted that the State's exhibit was the "stick" employed to "discipline" his three wives. There is no question about the weapon used to inflict the wounds that caused death.
The "stick" was 36 inches in length and 2 inches in diameter. It was only slightly larger in length and slightly smaller in its barrel than the Louisville Slugger employed by Mark McGwire. The trial court characterized it as a cudgel. Over the course of 8 1/2 hours it was applied with full force to various portions of Jeannie's body. At times, defendant would hold it with both hands like a baseball bat and swing for the fences with all the force he could muster. The defendant is six feet two inches in height and weighs 250 pounds.
Of course, defendant did not swing at Jeannie continuously during the 8-hour "disciplinary period." Jeannie fell in and out of consciousness, a circumstance that on occasion brought a respite. Defendant had two other wives to address. There was also evidence of certain smoke breaks during the ordeal. On occasion, however, when defendant was not beating his other wives or smoking crack cocaine, he was reviving Jeannie in order to inflict further punishment. At one point, as Jeannie was about to collapse and pass out, defendant told her to 'go ahead and die bitch'..."
State of Illinois v. Jones, 297 Ill. App. 3d 688; 697 N.E.2d 457 (1998).
How can this be? No other contract can be unilaterally "dissolved" if ONE party "ain't happy." And certainly no Catholic can enter into a so-alled "marriage" with the pre-existing intention that the relationship is dissolvable. Such a "marriage" would be null in the eyes of the Church.
Plus, I always thought that a no-fault divorce can only be obtained if both parties want it, and there are no children. If one party doesn't want to divorce, it's a contested divorce, isn't it? (Sincere question. I'm no lawyer, just an interested party trying to figure this out.)