I'm not trying to say Feely isn't a good judge. With regard to my questions about him, my main question is why he thought it would be better for Mr. Ryan to wait until high school to pursue his legal "rights".

 

Regarding who pays the tuition, nothing in the article indicates whether Mr. Ryan has been paying tuition up to this point, or is expected to pay tuition in the future. Which brings up another question:

 

If a parent is paying child support, can he/she object if it (in whole or part) is used to pay tuition?

 

The article indicates that the Judge has already ruled that whichever parent wins will be paying whatever school tab there is.

 

Interestingly, I don't think this is a $ issue, nor is it a "private" school issue. The dad indicated he would be fine with KCD.

 

Child support is personal to the child, so I doubt a challenge to its use would be sustained.

In trying to figure this out, I still am perplexed by several things:

 

Obviously, the child has been raised Catholic. Now, supposing that the parents were still married when the child was baptized, why would Mr. Ryan have not fought to stop the baptism? I assume (can't be certain, but it's a reasonable assumption given the child's parochial grade school education) that he's been confirmed. Why would Mr. Ryan have not fought to stop that?

 

In all ways that I can try to figure out his thought process, I can't rationalize it. I'm not arguing the case for or against St. X, specifically, or Catholic schools generally. I'm trying to figure out why now....????

In trying to figure this out, I still am perplexed by several things:

 

Obviously, the child has been raised Catholic. Now, supposing that the parents were still married when the child was baptized, why would Mr. Ryan have not fought to stop the baptism? I assume (can't be certain, but it's a reasonable assumption given the child's parochial grade school education) that he's been confirmed. Why would Mr. Ryan have not fought to stop that?

 

In all ways that I can try to figure out his thought process, I can't rationalize it. I'm not arguing the case for or against St. X, specifically, or Catholic schools generally. I'm trying to figure out why now....????

 

Maybe he recently changed his opinion and went atheist.

In trying to figure this out, I still am perplexed by several things:

 

Obviously, the child has been raised Catholic. Now, supposing that the parents were still married when the child was baptized, why would Mr. Ryan have not fought to stop the baptism? I assume (can't be certain, but it's a reasonable assumption given the child's parochial grade school education) that he's been confirmed. Why would Mr. Ryan have not fought to stop that?

 

In all ways that I can try to figure out his thought process, I can't rationalize it. I'm not arguing the case for or against St. X, specifically, or Catholic schools generally. I'm trying to figure out why now....????

 

Perhaps Mr. Ryan only recently decided upon atheism.

Maybe he recently changed his opinion and went atheist.

 

I didn't read this before I posted!

If my wife had tried to put one of my sons in St X, I'd have sued too. Some things are just too much to tolerate.

I didn't read this before I posted!

 

 

That's would make sense, but the article states that Judge Feely advised Mr. Ryan against pursuing his alleged rights when the child was in grade school, to wait until high school. That leads to the conclusion that the father has been athiest for some years, if not before the child was born.

If my wife had tried to put one of my sons in St X, I'd have sued too. Some things are just too much to tolerate.

 

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I just skimmed through this, but how much of this issue may be about money.

 

For example if the kid goes to StX does Dad have to pay half? and if so maybe that is the root cause and the religion issue is only a means to an end.

I just skimmed through this, but how much of this issue may be about money.

 

For example if the kid goes to StX does Dad have to pay half? and if so maybe that is the root cause and the religion issue is only a means to an end.

 

According to the judge's remarks in the C-J article, tuition payment will be the sole responsiblity of the parent who wins the case. Money, therefore, has been removed as a potential root cause.

Does the kid play football ? :flame:

That's would make sense, but the article states that Judge Feely advised Mr. Ryan against pursuing his alleged rights when the child was in grade school, to wait until high school. That leads to the conclusion that the father has been athiest for some years, if not before the child was born.

 

What seems more likely is that when they got married, he was lukewarm toward any faith at the time, and agreed the child would be raised Catholic, as the mother likely remained strong within the faith.

That's would make sense, but the article states that Judge Feely advised Mr. Ryan against pursuing his alleged rights when the child was in grade school, to wait until high school. That leads to the conclusion that the father has been athiest for some years, if not before the child was born.

 

Or when his wife divorced him.

It was ruled today that the child can go to St. Xavier....I really feel this was the right call.

 

It made national news....

 

Teen can go to X

It was ruled today that the child can go to St. Xavier....

 

 

It was yesterday actually.:thumb:

 

http://www.bluegrasspreps.com/showthread.php?t=150348