It is the judge's purview to look after the best interests of the child during the divorce. Those are complicated issues, so basically the judge's keep everything the same until the issues can be heard. So, for example, who is going to get what car? Who is going to pay the loan on it? That issue gets worked out, but until then the judge says "whatever was going on before the separation stays the same".
The judge is simply doing the same thing here.
Now, I am not religious, so I don't particularly care and I think its fine if the kid is exposed to many religions, but unfortunetly the long history of divorce in this country shows that the religion of the child is something that is bitterly fought over so I have no problem with the judge saying "hey, just keep it the way it was until we work it out".
That is assuming of course that the kids was being raised as jewish at the time of separation, which I am not sure about but I would be willing to bet is the case.
Therein lies the problem with the state of America's family court system. This concept of "best interest of the child" has become so over-broad, that parents are in court litigating every aspect of the custody arrangement.
The court has absolutely NO BUSINESS interjecting itself into matter of religious worship or religious & political education. As I said, divorce is a family divided. When the child is with the father on his days of visitation/custody, then the child will be exposed to the things that are important to the father. And, the opposite is true on days where the mother has visitation/custody. If the mother wants to keep a kosher home, that's fine. But the mother, nor the court, has any place or right to tell the estranged father what kind of food he keeps in his home, or that the child has access to while there.
"So, for example, who is going to get what car? Who is going to pay the loan on it? That issue gets worked out, but until then the judge says "
That's absolutely right because those are questions that need to be answered in the dissolution of the marriage contract. The court certainly has a role or a mandate to intervene when a marriage, or any contract is severed. But, the court has (or shouldn't have) no role with respect to how the individual parents actually parent.
Like many things in life, the state (vis-a-vis the court) needs to restrain itself from interjecting its authority in the daily lives of people, to include how estranged parents raise their children.