RSS

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

07 Dec

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.

Advertisements
 
6 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 responses to “Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

  1. dysperdis

    December 8, 2010 at 4:44 am

    How about the restraining order held by Scarsberry against Porcaro’s boyfriend? You know, the one he obtained when the boyfriend physically attacked him in a public place in front of the children in question? If Scarsberry’s alleged behaviour is enough to keep him away from the kids, why is the mother allowing someone with such violent tendencies near them?

    But then, I’m sure she’s a good mother otherwise, and would never do anything to endanger her kids, right?

    Oh, wait. “Pancol’s order also included evidence that the mother “had left minor children at home alone, did not feed them breakfast and did not at time(s) buckle them in their car seats.””

    http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1897758594/Father-says-his-faith-cost-his-custody

    So, we have a woman who doesn’t feed her 4-7 year-olds breakfast, leaves them at home with no supervision, doesn’t always bother to buckle them into their car seats, and is dating a guy who gave their biological father a concussion on front of them for standing to close to their minivan while saying ‘goodbye.’

    But yeah, anyone saying something is wrong with this ruling is obviously a liberal non-theist intent on attacking Christianity.

     
  2. Messed Up

    December 9, 2010 at 8:34 am

    It’s ironic that she was having intimate relations with the father as recently as Feb., and put a restraining order on him after he put one on the boyfriend. Then she renews joint custody a month after she put a restraining order on the ex.

    I think it has a lot to do with the new boyfriend, he lives at home with his parents and goes to school and looking for a woman to support him and she is stupid enough to fall for it.

     
  3. dentist in salt lake

    May 4, 2012 at 2:47 am

    Excellent post. I definitely appreciate this website. Keep writing!

     
  4. catering in salt lake

    May 4, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Very good write-up. I definitely love this website. Continue the good work!

     
  5. Loving Dad

    August 5, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    There are a lot of opinions and its funny how when you go to side of the case you hear a very different story. Before we make judgement on these peoeple we should all have the true facts and time line.
    One side only mentioned the agnostic issue with eh case, the other brought up that there was a restraining order against the father, but never mentions it came after he was assulted by the mothers boyfriend who them got a restraining order, and then there is the fact he was granted joint custody after all the restraining order fued.

    Sounds like the truth is the boyfriend stirred up a decent divorced relationship and he is the one that should have to loose time.

    One of the main issues here to me is that if she is so religious then why did she get divorced? I’ve seen agnostic people make it through really bad things in marriages and heal. Today women just want everything and give up too easy. They expect men to changte after they marry them and become rpince charming and live like someone in a movie.
    I think the parents of both women and men need to set realistic expectations for kids about what married life is like so kids don’t fail so easily when it doesn’t turn out liek the movies.

    Christina Divorces an absolute hypocracy and oh so common today.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: