|
| ||
|
|
02/13/2006
Valentine's Day and Constitutional Challenge of No-fault Divorce MEDIA AVAILABILITY, Feb. 13 /Christian Newswire/ -- For millions of people, Valentine’s day is a gut-wrenching reminder of the intact family they once had, which was ripped from them by no-fault divorce. By next Valentine’s day in Ohio, loyal spouses and children whose parents were married in their church might be protected from no- fault divorce. In no-fault divorce, children are regularly separated from loyal spouses who never wanted a divorce, and loyal spouses have to pay for households in which they can’t live. An Ohio mother of four, whose husband left her two and a half years ago, has launched a constitutional appeal against a civil divorce and custody decision. Her potentially precedent-setting argument was submitted by Ave Maria School of Law professor Stephen Safranek on January 19, in the Eighth District Circuit Court of Appeals. Safranek is handling the case through his public interest law firm which will challenge no-fault divorce and defend the institution of marriage. A parallel case is being pursued through the Roman Catholic Church tribunal system. Mrs. Macfarlane had her children removed from her care because she disagreed with the court psychologist who stated homeschooling turns bad after second grade even though the psychologist also stated the children were well educated. Macfarlane said, “Millions contracted to be married in accordance with the rules of the Roman Catholic Church; we vowed to be true for all the days of our lives. Even if disputes arose, we expected that we would resolve them as Catholics, from the Church’s moral position, not from the relativist position of the government court system.” Attorney Safrenek said, “The civil courts do not have sole authority to end her marriage or to control the upbringing of her children.” Those who breach their religious marital contract have to follow the rules of their religion regarding divorce. “Holding fast to religious beliefs should not result in discrimination against a mother.” “The court's ruling gave the father, who works full time, permanent custody and their stay-at-home mom visitation time,” Safranek said. “This occurred despite the fact that the father did not have a single family member or friend or even an employee who could testify on his abilities to serve as a custodial parent. However, a veritable blizzard of family and friends testified on behalf of Mrs. Macfarlane.” Background: history of case: http://www.marysadvocates.org/ohiocase /ohiocase.html
| |
|
| ||
