Export thread

Father claims he lost custody of his kids for being Agnostic

#1

Hylian

Hylian

Father says his faith cost his custody » Local News » The Herald Bulletin



ANDERSON, Ind. — An Anderson father says that because he professed religious doubt in a custody hearing, a judge took his children from him.

Craig Scarberry, 29, this month was stripped of joint custody of his three children, Kaelyn, 7; William, 6, and Ayvah, 4, because he changed his religion from Christian to agnostic.

“It blew my mind away,” Scarberry said of an order written by Madison County Superior Court 3 Commissioner George C. Pancol and affirmed by Judge Thomas Newman. The order that stripped Scarberry of joint custody listed evidence heard in the case upon which Pancol based his ruling.

Pancol’s order says Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training that the (mother) exercised and that (Scarberry) was agnostic.” Scarberry has until Dec. 1 to appeal the ruling, which has reduced his custody to visitation with his children four hours per week and on alternating weekends.

“I’m a good, loving father, and this ruling has taken my children away,” Scarberry said. “I wasn’t interfering in their right to be brought up in a Christian environment,” he said, noting that the children still attend Christian school and church services as they have done in the four years that he has had joint custody.

Pancol, through a court staff member, said it would be unethical to comment about the case. The mother, Christine Porcaro, and her attorney, Andrew C. Lawrence, did not return telephone messages seeking comment for this article.

A Navy veteran and health-care worker, Scarberry has obtained a permit for a demonstration in support of fathers’ rights for Dec. 16 at the Madison County Courthouse. He said he believes his religious liberty has been violated.

“I thought I lived in America, where you have the right to practice what you want to practice without persecution,” he said. “I feel like I’ve suffered the highest persecution ... I had everything taken away from me.” Scarberry also was ordered to pay child support, which had not been stipulated when he and the children’s mother shared custody.

Pancol’s order included other evidence presented in court. It said there was evidence that Scarberry had used profanity in front of the children and at times “failed to control or manage his anger. ... In addition, (Scarberry) was sending a great number of text messages to (Porcaro).”

The order does not say that Scarberry was abusive or negligent toward the children.

Earlier, Percaro had obtained a protective order against Scarberry, which he objected to. She alleged that Scarberry “attempts to harrass and intimidate me at my place of employment with abusive language and profanity” and accused him of “randomly and unexpectedly stopping by my house at different hours of the day and night.”

A protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations. A month later, both parties renewed an agreement that extended joint custody.

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.”

The order severing joint custody was issued by Pancol on Nov. 1 and affirmed by Newman on Nov. 8. It said that when Scarberry had been a Christian, “the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.”



Violent encounter

Less than a week after Newman affirmed the custody order, Scarberry was meeting Porcaro to transfer custody of the children to her when communication broke down violently, according to Anderson police.

Scarberry said he was saying goodbye to the children when Porcaro’s boyfriend, Brandon Galbraith, 23, told Scarberry that he didn’t need to get so close to their minivan. Scarberry said he told Galbraith that he was just saying goodbye. He said Galbraith got out of the vehicle and shoved him. Scarberry shoved back and a fight ensued.

A witness separated the men as they wrestled on the ground. Galbraith got in the minivan and left as Scarberry called Anderson police shortly after 8 p.m. on Nov. 11. An APD case report says that as Scarberry talked to an officer, Porcaro sent a text message to Scarberry saying she and Galbraith were going to the police station to file a report against Scarberry.

The case report says Scarberry had cuts and scrapes on his elbow and he told police he had been punched in the back of the head, the right cheek, the left cheek and in the mouth. Scarberry said in an interview that was treated for a concussion as a result of the fight.

When the investigating officer returned to the police station, Galbraith was waiting, and the officer questioned him. The case report says Galbraith acknowledged shoving Scarberry first, and it names Galbraith the suspect and Scarberry the victim.

“I advised (Galbraith) that he was the aggressor and that he needed to let his fiance and (Scarberry) handle the child custody matter,” the officer’s case report says. “At this time I am only doing a case report to document what happened,” the APD report says.

As of Friday, no charges had been filed.

A day after the fight, Scarberry asked for and received a protective order against Galbraith in Madison County Superior Court 4. The Herald Bulletin requested a copy of that order on Friday, but court personnel said the case file could not be located.
Click to expand...


#2

Dave

Dave

Family law is one fucked up animal.


#3

Krisken

Krisken

I do worry about the religious litmus tests in the country as of late.


#4

sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Church of the SubGenius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even taking part in a "Joke" religion can get your kids taken away from you.


#5

Dei

Dei

Part of me wants to know how old the wife is with her 23 year old boyfriend. Just kind of amazed that a 23 year old would want to date a woman with 3 kids. Does that make me ageist?


#6

Krisken

Krisken

When I was 20 I dated a woman with 2 kids.


#7



Chibibar

Dei said:
Part of me wants to know how old the wife is with her 23 year old boyfriend. Just kind of amazed that a 23 year old would want to date a woman with 3 kids. Does that make me ageist?
Click to expand...
the father is 29. So I would assume the wife is around the same age (could be older) but within +/- 5 years? (guesstimate)

That is pretty mess up. So the wife did have a ruling of some "abuse" (not feeding breakfast) and reckless endangerment by not buckling child into the seat..... that is a big no no in my book.
The violence and verbal abuse intrigue me. It looks like the wife is just trying to cut off all contact with the husband and decides to cut him off the children. There are sooooo many factors not present here, I would like to see the whole official ruling.


#8

Dei

Dei

Honestly I guess my issue is more that, with the way the boyfriend is behaving, and they way the mother is "allegedly" neglecting the kids, I guess I wonder if there's something more to the boyfriend thing, since supposedly the father had the allegations against him originally shut down by the court. This is one of those things we'll never really know more about unless the press starts digging.


#9

Hylian

Hylian

Chibibar;454634][QUOTE=Dei said:
Part of me wants to know how old the wife is with her 23 year old boyfriend. Just kind of amazed that a 23 year old would want to date a woman with 3 kids. Does that make me ageist?
Click to expand...
the father is 29. So I would assume the wife is around the same age (could be older) but within +/- 5 years? (guesstimate)

That is pretty mess up. So the wife did have a ruling of some "abuse" (not feeding breakfast) and reckless endangerment by not buckling child into the seat..... that is a big no no in my book.
The violence and verbal abuse intrigue me. It looks like the wife is just trying to cut off all contact with the husband and decides to cut him off the children. There are sooooo many factors not present here, I would like to see the whole official ruling.[/QUOTE]


I don't know how real these are but someone on reddit had posted the following








#10

Dei

Dei

#13 is pretty big there... like I said, I take all this shit with a grain of salt, since of course the father is going to say that it's because he's agnostic. And maybe he was sending angry text messages because he's a controlling asshole, or maybe it's because his wife was negligent and he knew it. Fuck only knows, he said/she said arguments are really annoying and I don't blame the judge for rulings.


#11

strawman

strawman

The father can claim that the reason he lost custody is due to his choice of religion, but since that was merely one of items on the long list of things the court took into account, then we can't assume it was the major reason, or even that if that reason didn't exist then the order would be different.

It is absolutely true that changing your religious viewpoint during an ongoing battle for custody is something worth taking into account, especially if previous family life had a large religious component.

Take the word "religion" out and replace it with any other family club/activity/alignment and no one would raise a fuss, but since it's religion it's a big deal?

But, quite frankly, it's pointless to argue about this specific case since we don't know all the circumstances, and it's pointless to argue about it in general because it's such a huge, complex topic.

I feel bad for the kids caught in the crossfire.


#12



Chibibar

Item 10 disturbs me
So excessive texting is a bad thing?

---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------
First Lady Puffinstuff said:
The father can claim that the reason he lost custody is due to his choice of religion, but since that was merely one of items on the long list of things the court took into account, then we can't assume it was the major reason, or even that if that reason didn't exist then the order would be different.

It is absolutely true that changing your religious viewpoint during an ongoing battle for custody is something worth taking into account, especially if previous family life had a large religious component.

Take the word "religion" out and replace it with any other family club/activity/alignment and no one would raise a fuss, but since it's religion it's a big deal?

But, quite frankly, it's pointless to argue about this specific case since we don't know all the circumstances, and it's pointless to argue about it in general because it's such a huge, complex topic.

I feel bad for the kids caught in the crossfire.
Click to expand...
well.. what if their kids are in little league and the father hates baseball. Is that enough reason for a whole line item to lose custody? (example of removing religion and replace with little league)


#13

Dei

Dei

Excessively texting a woman you are no longer married to? Yeah that's a little creepy.


#14

Espy

Espy

It is if it crosses the line into harassment.

Sounds like this case might be a little more complicated than the thread title implies if those files are real.


#15

strawman

strawman

Chibibar said:
well.. what if their kids are in little league and the father hates baseball. Is that enough reason for a whole line item to lose custody? (example of removing religion and replace with little league)
Click to expand...
No, the point I'm making requires even more devotion to the given subject.

For instance, if the family were devoted University of Michigan fans, held season tickets, went to every game home and away, and it was a major topic of conversation around the dinner table. The family, as a whole, is thoroughly invested in this sports team, and they find it a common point of enjoyment and something around which their personal relationships orbit to some small degree.

So they get divorced, and the dad decides to switch allegiances to Ohio state (a major football rivalry - Michigan/Ohio).

Not a big deal, right? It's his choice?

Only now he's taking the kids to the ohio state games. He's not taking them to the michigan games. When they are with him he's teaching them that the thing which the family used to love is now the worst thing in the world.

When the kids try to have a conversation about something unrelated, they may naturally relate it to a sports analogy, which then causes an argument about sports, rather than a discussion about whatever topic they wanted to discuss in the first place.

Changing religions is much worse in terms of communications, and making sure everyone is on the same playing field mentally when they talk to each other.

But the issue isn't whether they believe in god or not, or whether the wolverines are better than the buckeyes. The issue is that in both cases the family as a unit loved the same thing in this arena, and now that the family is split further tension and communications problems are caused if one parent decides to further the split into areas the family used to bond together on.


#16

North_Ranger

North_Ranger

I hear ya, smoking baby.

I was ready to come here with agnostic rage, but that kinda petered out. Damn you, shades of grey!

Also, I generally hate reading about custody battles. As a heterosexual male, it just seems that more often than not the father ends up with the short end of the stick :( That is, that there seems to be a level of favoritism towards the mother. But that's an entirely different issue...


#17



Chibibar

Dei said:
Excessively texting a woman you are no longer married to? Yeah that's a little creepy.
Click to expand...
could be texting about the kids. I don't know. I am guessing the judge does have the logs of those text (hence maybe evidence of abusive language?)

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------
First Lady Puffinstuff;454651][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
well.. what if their kids are in little league and the father hates baseball. Is that enough reason for a whole line item to lose custody? (example of removing religion and replace with little league)
Click to expand...
No, the point I'm making requires even more devotion to the given subject.

For instance, if the family were devoted University of Michigan fans, held season tickets, went to every game home and away, and it was a major topic of conversation around the dinner table. The family, as a whole, is thoroughly invested in this sports team, and they find it a common point of enjoyment and something around which their personal relationships orbit to some small degree.

So they get divorced, and the dad decides to switch allegiances to Ohio state (a major football rivalry - Michigan/Ohio).

Not a big deal, right? It's his choice?

Only now he's taking the kids to the ohio state games. He's not taking them to the michigan games. When they are with him he's teaching them that the thing which the family used to love is now the worst thing in the world.

When the kids try to have a conversation about something unrelated, they may naturally relate it to a sports analogy, which then causes an argument about sports, rather than a discussion about whatever topic they wanted to discuss in the first place.

Changing religions is much worse in terms of communications, and making sure everyone is on the same playing field mentally when they talk to each other.

But the issue isn't whether they believe in god or not, or whether the wolverines are better than the buckeyes. The issue is that in both cases the family as a unit loved the same thing in this arena, and now that the family is split further tension and communications problems are caused if one parent decides to further the split into areas the family used to bond together on.[/QUOTE]

Now assuming the kids are "really" into religion cause they want to not "force" to. I think changing religion is good for the kids to learn about other things and don't devote blindly like some other religions.

but that is me.


#18

Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Sensationalist liberal media topic titling!


#19

tegid

tegid

First Lady Puffinstuff said:
No, the point I'm making requires even more devotion to the given subject.

For instance, if the family were devoted University of Michigan fans, held season tickets, went to every game home and away, and it was a major topic of conversation around the dinner table. The family, as a whole, is thoroughly invested in this sports team, and they find it a common point of enjoyment and something around which their personal relationships orbit to some small degree.

So they get divorced, and the dad decides to switch allegiances to Ohio state (a major football rivalry - Michigan/Ohio).

Not a big deal, right? It's his choice?

Only now he's taking the kids to the ohio state games. He's not taking them to the michigan games. When they are with him he's teaching them that the thing which the family used to love is now the worst thing in the world.

When the kids try to have a conversation about something unrelated, they may naturally relate it to a sports analogy, which then causes an argument about sports, rather than a discussion about whatever topic they wanted to discuss in the first place.

Changing religions is much worse in terms of communications, and making sure everyone is on the same playing field mentally when they talk to each other.

But the issue isn't whether they believe in god or not, or whether the wolverines are better than the buckeyes. The issue is that in both cases the family as a unit loved the same thing in this arena, and now that the family is split further tension and communications problems are caused if one parent decides to further the split into areas the family used to bond together on.
Click to expand...
But then what is important is how much the way of living of the parent and the kids have changed. After all, the article (to which I don't give much credibility) states that they keep attending a religious school and religious services.

[EDIT: Your analogy is very valid, but wouldn't everyone think it mad if there was a ruling like this where an important point is 'the father changed sports team allegiance'?]

--------------

If that document is true, then I don't get the ruling:
Negative points against the father: 10(religion), 12(religion), 13 (which is pretty bad). 11 is a positive point
Negative points against the mother: 8 (which is very bad)

I don't see how changing religions and using profanity is worse than leaving the kids alone, not giving them breakfast, etc. (neglecting them!)

Sooo either the religious part was given a lot of importance, the document is lacking some information, or it is just fake (I guess it's the latter)


#20



Chibibar

Tegid: I have to agree. I feel we are missing some picture here. If there are prior abuse (father side) it should have been report but I guess it won't make the news. There is neglect on the mother side. I believe it is a big no-no is leaving kids alone.


#21



Jiarn

Chibibar said:
So excessive texting is a bad thing
Click to expand...
It leads to drinking, sex and drugs remember?


#22



Chibibar

Jiarn;454797][QUOTE=Chibibar said:
So excessive texting is a bad thing
Click to expand...
It leads to drinking, sex and drugs remember?[/QUOTE]

Oh yea!!! ;) (how could I forget. I started that thread)

I have a feeling that the news agency is reporting VERY one sided and "stir the pot" (if that is the right term) on this case. I feel there is more justifiable reason the father lost custody to the kids.

edit: I am not saying that judges are perfect in anyways. Some do make mistakes, but I feel in cases like this, there are more stories to be heard that we the public know about. It would be interesting to see the Text log the father sent.

But this is a local domestic issue so we, the public, probably not going to get the whole picture. I do feel sorry for the kids since they are at an impressionable age. Seeing their parents fighting over this could scar them in the long run. (I know some friends who do have commitment issues due to their parents breakup... yea it is real and not only in TV)


#23

Jay

Jay

Personally, if you can't see your children then you shouldn't be forced to pay alimony. It just seems so unfair.


#24

Espy

Espy

It's not unfair at all. If you do something that makes it so the court beliefs you could be a danger to them it doesn't alleviate you of your responsibility.


#25

Jay

Jay

It's weird that this rule rarely applies to women.


#26

Espy

Espy

Well that issue, if it's true, is probably a whole different discussion.


#27

HCGLNS

HCGLNS

Isn't it odd that they continued to have sex for over two years after their divorce?


#28

Jay

Jay

The plot thickens.


#29

Shakey

Shakey

HCGLNS said:
Isn't it odd that they continued to have sex for over two years after their divorce?
Click to expand...
I've known a few people like that. They absolutely hate each other, but keep going back for more. People change, they're different now, etc. Some people just can't stand to be happy.


#30



makare

Dave said:
Family law is one fucked up animal.
Click to expand...
This. Infinitely this.


Also, alimony and custody/child support are not related. The goals of the two are completely different and women have to pay alimony too. Not as often, it's true but that usually has more to do with income than gender.


#31



makare

They may be linked but under the law, and I say law knowing full well judges personal prejudices are not based in law, the issue is income not gender.


#32

strawman

strawman

Jay said:
Personally, if you can't see your children then you shouldn't be forced to pay alimony. It just seems so unfair.
Click to expand...
If you don't want to support children financially for 18-??? years, you should not have them in the first place.

Alimony is not meant to be an entry fee for seeing your children. It's meant to reflect the fiscal responsibility you bear as the parent of those children. If your behavior, as judged by the courts, is harmful to the children, then you may be in the poor position of both having to pay alimony and not being able to see your children.

The only downside of this is that one is at the mercy of the courts in the rather subjective determination of fitness to parent. But it's a risk parent must accept when they decide that they can't work things out with each other and require a third party to mediate.

All that said - yeah, it sucks. I have two close friends who have lost access to their children due to the actions of their partner (and their unfortunate choices to play "mr nice guy" and let their partner have her way early on in the proceedings).

It tears your heart out.


#33



Jiarn

I thought Alimony was money paid to the ex spouse and Child Support for the children.


#34

strawman

strawman

Jiarn said:
I thought Alimony was money paid to the ex spouse and Child Support for the children.
Click to expand...
Yes, but a lot of people refer to both as alimony.


#35



Jiarn

If Jay meant that alimony shouldn't be paid unless visitation is given, I agree.
If he meant child support, then I disagree.


#36

strawman

strawman

Jiarn said:
If Jay meant that alimony shouldn't be paid unless visitation is given, I agree.
If he meant child support, then I disagree.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that if a parent loses access to their children due to, say, beating them during visits, then they shouldn't have to pay alimony because they are being denied seeing their children?

I don't understand the logic.

It is unfair that access to one's children can be used as leverage to get one to pay owed alimony and child support while the reverse is not true (ie, if being denied visitation rights, then one cannot withhold payments).

Keep in mind that while they are reasonably separate, alimony and child support are often tied together for accounting and legal purposes. If you pay only one, you are legally not fulfilling your responsibility for both. In other words, not supporting the other parent is the same as not supporting the children, even if you are paying child support, since they may not be able to raise the children if they are not financially solvent.

Regardless, there's enough unfairness and complexity in the system for everyone.


#37



Jiarn

No, let me clarify.

If the spouse has visitation rights, but the other is denying them the right for "holdout" reasons. That's where I don't feel Alimony is deserved.

If the other spouse is beating them during visits, then that's resolved by involving the child protective services. So I'm not seeing your point either.


#38



makare

Alimony has nothing to do with the kids. There is alimony even when the family has no kids or the kids are grown. It wouldn't make any sense to tie something that has nothing to do with the kids to visitation.


#39



Jiarn

Perhaps I'm just misguided due to my bias against the idea of Alimony all together. Seemed a way to get a message across to a spouse that was preventing the other from seeing the children for their own gains.


Top