Atheist father sues to keep son out of St. Xavier High School

 

As a practicing Catholic whose eighth-grade son, Michael, has always attended parochial schools, Susan Bisig says it would be best for him to attend St. Xavier High School.

 

The 144-year-old Catholic secondary school also happens to be Michael's first choice.

But Bisig's ex-husband, David Ryan, an atheist who has joint custody of their 14-year-old son, wants Michael to attend a nonreligious high school.

And he says the Kentucky Constitution is on his side because it says no one shall be "compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed."

 

To me, this isn't about what the father is compelled to do. This should be about what the son wants. He isn't forced to send his child to a Catholic school, his soon is choosing to attend a Catholic school.

 

Bisig said that Michael, an excellent student, toured several high schools before picking St. X.

"This is something he wants, and I definitely support it because it would be great for him," she said. "It is what is in his heart."

 

So sad an 8th grader must be drug through this. Mr. Ryan does not get my vote for father of the year.

Until he is 18, it doesn't matter what the son wants.

Until he is 18, it doesn't matter what the son wants.

 

 

Before I respond to your statement, did you read the entire article?

Yeah.

 

It's a shame it's come to this but legally, the son doesn't get a say if the parents aren't in agreement.

What about the fact that the parents are obviously in conflict? Does the parent with non-residential custody's decisions supercede the parent with whom the child resides?

Don't know. That's where the court comes in to make a decision. I agree that it's a tough situation for a child to be put in. But everyday we hear of situations where the child doesn't get to make the decision because of his age. Parents forbid their son from bringing home a "trashy" girlfriend, They don't allow him to purchase a dangerous car, etc.

 

Because he's not 18, the court will decide on what is best for the child based on the arguements and wishes of the parents and not what the child wants.

Rockmom, I am with you on this but what I see in this is the mother taking the effort to make this public. Dad is a stock photo, she is standing in a pose. Why is that an issue? This is something that strictly belongs in the courts to decide. We have a minor child and there is something very required on minor issues - privacy.

 

The mother makes points the courts will see. In the realm of public opinion she is grandstanding and has no business doing that.

I agree with Scribe on this one, the court will decide based on the parent's wishes and not the son's desire to attend St. X. However, I really do not buy the religious angle argument that the father is making. If as the custodial parent, the mother wanted to compel the son to attend a Catholic Church, I cannot see the government stopping her because of the father's objection, so why would the religious affiliation of the school matter?

 

I hope the judge sets aside the religious argument in this case and rules against the father. I am not aware of anything in the US Constitution that would compel a court to favor the views of an atheist over a Catholic in a case involving only two adults. I think that if the roles were reversed and the father was the custodial parent, the court would (and should) side with the father.

If he's attended Catholic school since preschool, why the big stink now?

It does seem to be a too little too late arguement. I think the father should have made the arguement earlier, he may have, although we don't know from the article.

 

The paper also said they had joint custody. Seems they shold both have an equal say in where he goes. Obviously, they aren't negotiating with the goal of getting their son a good education in mind.

 

As far as the religious aspect I believe a parent can teach a child at home, although it isn't as formal as you might get in a religiously afliiated school the values certainly can be taught. I have observed as least a few parents who abdicate religious education responsibilities since their child is going to a religious school.

 

St. X is an excellant academic school. There are other options to get the same academic rigors in other schools. Parental invovlement is the key to the success (or failure) of their child - in any endeavor..... religion, academics, sports, social interaction, drugs, bad influences, etc.

A little background...this story actually came to light a few months ago. At the time, the publicity was done by the father's attorney, and the mother and son's names were unknown. I believe that the publicity, although it may possibly now be being done by the mother, was begun by the father's leagal counsel.

 

The article also states that the father was against the Catholic school for his son during grade school, but was advised by his attorney to wait until the high school age to purse legal recourses. Now...why would that be?

 

This, to me, stinks of an attorney trying to make a name for himself.

 

Bear, I agree with you, but I also believe very, very, very strongly that a child should be able to attend a school of his/her choosing, if the option is available to him/her. I believe it is one piece of the success of the student, that they want to attend the school in which they enroll.

Sorry, I misread the article. Apparently it was the judge, Tim Freely, who adivsed Mr. Ryan:

 

Ryan objected a few years ago to sending Michael to St. Aloysius, but Feeley told him then to take up the issue when the family was considering high schools.

Ryan is represented by Ed Kagin, a Boone County lawyer who is national legal director for American Atheists, an advocacy and education group founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, best known for a lawsuit which led to the Supreme Court ruling that ended the practice of daily prayer in American public schools.

 

Now, why would the Judge do that? And, is it even his place to do so? Doesn't that advice negate his suppsed impartiality in hearing the case?

I'm with you all the way on this one, RM. :thumb:

...... but I also believe very, very, very strongly that a child should be able to attend a school of his/her choosing, if the option is available to him/her. I believe it is one piece of the success of the student, that they want to attend the school in which they enroll.

 

RM - Agreed! IF the child is mature enough to gather information, process it and make an informed decision. All too often we see kids reflecting the positive and negative traits and opinions of the parents.

 

Success is not guaranteed, although success will be more probable with hard work and desire. As you say - one piece of the puzzle...

 

I too agree kids our children will stand a better chance to succeed if there are where they want to be,

Yet when it comes to divorce, the "experts" say the child should never get to choose which parent to live with because they aren't able to make a wise, non-emotional decision. Which is it?