Joseph Reyes pleaded not guilty for allegedly violating a court order issued by Chicago family law Judge Edward R. Jordan who had barred Reyes from taking his 3-year-old daughter to church following a dispute over religion with his estranged wife. Reyes’ wife, Rebecca Reyes, is Jewish.Reyes and his wife are in a bitter divorce battle, and the question of what faith their child should be raised in is pushing the boundaries of child custody arrangements.
Reyes’ decision to baptize his daughter without his wife’s permission resulted in what some are calling an extraordinary court order: Jordan in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., imposed a 30-day restraining order forbidding Joseph Reyes from, according to the document, “exposing his daughter to any other religion than the Jewish religion. …”
When Joseph Reyes decided that he was going to expose his daughter to his religion, Catholicism, and have her baptized, Rebecca sought injunctive relief. The court ordered a 30 day TRO, usually issued pending determination of the motion to maintain the status quo ante. Naturally, Joseph, had to bring her to church while the TRO was in effect. And brought a TV camera crew along for the personal religious experience.
Reyes had his explanations at the ready. He never stopped being Catholic despite the conversion. He was deeply religious. He didn’t really violate the court order.
“Going to church, I don’t think I violated the order,” he told “Good Morning America.” “In terms of Judaism, based on the information I was given, Catholicism falls right under the umbrella of Judaism.”
In a YouTube video of the subsequent visit to church, Joseph Reyes says, “I am taking her to hear the teachings of perhaps the most prominent Jewish rabbi in the history of this great planet of ours.”
Yet the question remains, should the court have issued the TRO? Eugene Volokh thinks not.
Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, said a parent who has visitation rights “usually has the right to expose the child to his religious beliefs, teach the child his religion, to take the child to religious services, unless there seems to be likely psychological or physical harm stemming from that exposure.”
Where First Amendment rights are involved, TROs aimed at preserving the status quo may well be improper. That’s certainly so in a typical free speech case; for instance, even if one can get a permanent injunction against a libel after a trial at which it’s proved to be a libel – and some states allow this – one generally can’t get a TRO or a preliminary injunction, even if that’s necessary to preserve the status quo by minimizing the damage to the target’s reputation. See generally Lemley & Volokh, http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/copyinj.htm .
As to the prior agreement, I’ve seen no evidence that there was a binding contract to raise the child Jewish for the rest of the child’s childhood. There was an agreement that the child will be raised Jewish, but such agreements are generally intended as agreements to go along with something so long as one thinks that’s the right thing. An analogy: Say you agree with your wife that you’ll take a particular high-paying but potentially unpleasant job; I take it we wouldn’t see this as a binding contract with her that you will continue to work at that company so long as they’ll have you, but rather a tentative agreement to go to work there and to stay working there so long as you yourself think is right for you and for the family. Likewise, an agreement not to tell your child about sex until he hits puberty would probably not be a binding contract not to say such things, but just a statement of your intentions (plus perhaps some modest moral obligation), subject to change if circumstances or even your attitudes change.
It’s not entirely clear to me that this agreement wasn’t binding, even though it may not have been in writing with the usual formalities. There was reliance, perhaps detrimental estoppel, at the time and the parents acted upon it by having a child and raising the child Jewish. Moreover, it seems fairly clear that Joseph’s finding religion has more to do with the bitter divorce than any love of a prominent Jewish rabbi, making his change of mind disingenuous and intentionally antagonistic.
That said, it seems that the wife, Rebecca, is similarly making a mountain out of a molehill. If her daughter is Jewish, then a baptism is nothing more than a quick bath without soap. That it holds religious significance for Catholics doesn’t change its lack of religious significance to her. Nor will a three year old suffer any harm from the experience, any more than a visit to church will fundamentally alter the child’s life.
So the parents are locked in a bitter divorce and are acting out of spite for each other by using the daughter as a weapon. What else is new? If this was truly a clash of religious beliefs, the legal aspect might well present a truly difficult conundrum. But since religion is secondary to spitefulness, and since there was a court order in effect at the time that, and no harm would have been suffered had Joseph waited it out and argued his position as to a permanent injunction, I find it difficult to imagine how he could prevail. The rule, comply now, appeal later, seems fully applicable, Eugene’s prior restraint argument notwithstanding.
For those who think criminal cases are ugly, they are nothing compared to the anger and bitterness of a divorce.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The custodial parents has the legal right to raise the child in his/her chosen religion. HOWEVER, Judge Jordan (a very very sharp, well-mannered, disciplined jurist) shouldn’t have barred the husband from exposing the child to his lapsed religion. He placed therein an obstacle, which was unnecessary. These religious issues have come up repeatedly in Cook County courts. Divorcing parents soon learn they must be flexible. As Chief Judge Tim Evans once lectured to a group of them:”you loved each other once. Now, love your child enough to spare them the ugly consequences of your divorce.
Some Christians believe an unbaptized child who dies doesn’t go to heaven, which is probably a good reason to baptize sooner rather than later.
On the other hand, not being terribly religious myself, I say a pox on both their houses for messing their child up with this nonsense.
This piece is all wrong. Watch the GMA piece again. First, the TRO was issued in response to the Baptism- not prior. So, the Baptism is not the alleged violation of the order. Second, interfering with one’s ability to freely practice IS a harm. Third, there’s no telling the status quo because no hearing was held on the matter. Fourth, this order was issued as an injunction not a TRO and well before Christmas, it is past 30 days. Fifth, the couple filed for divorce two years ago, so it is inaccurate to write that he “raised” the child Jewish for three years. It’s wholly possible that the child was being raised in both faiths all along. This case is ridiculous. This woman is complaining about a guy that takes an active role in his daughter’s life…. if all unwed moms were so fortunate.
As at least one lawyer has opined, “I gave up divorce work for criminal defense because in a murder case at least one of the SOB’s is dead.”
You’re right about the baptism coming prior to the TRO. You’re wrong about everything else.
Your last assertion raises an interesting question, though it’s not controlling of the situation under any circumstances: Is Joseph a dedicated father, or a spiteful ex-husband? You see him as having virtue for playing an active role in his daughter’s life, which is more than sufficient for you to forgive him his trepsasses. I see him as using his daughter as a weapon in his war with his wife, and his use of religion as purely facile and manipulative, and very much a trespass in itself.
I agree. And yet, I have no doubt that I’ll here from some zealots telling me how one side is completely right and the other is totally wrong. I wonder how long it will take?
John Mortimer preferred murder clients to divorce clients because they tended to be calmer – since they already got rid of the person that was annoying them.
Without knowing Joseph and Rebecca personally, isn’t it little more than speculation by both of you to speak to his intent. He may well have his mother pressuring him to get the girl into a Catholic church though he couldn’t care less yet doesn’t want to tell his mom “no”.
WRT the TRO, that’s the sort of thing that needs to be ignored. Judge Jordan should know there are things that don’t belong in a court room and should have told the parent as much.
Or he may be very, very angry at his ex wife. He is divorcing her, after all.
Orders which maintain the status quo while a divorce is being decided are extremely common, people regularly do things to their children that their ex spouse doesn’t like. A fair number of parents simply take the children, leave the country and disappear.
This reminds me of the Mormons, who believe that you can Baptize someone after they died, doing mass baptisms for victims of the Holocaust. This of course causes great outrage amongst various Jewish groups, with demands that the Mormons stop doing such a terrible and heinous act. This causes a rift and animosity between Mormons and Jews (at least between Mormons and Jewish political groups).
My thought has always been — why should Jews care? If Jews believe it doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t do anything, why make such a big tsmiss?
On a separate note, I thought that estate planning and administration was going to be a rather tranquil field, that is until I saw various relatives fighting over grandma’s money.
I’m with you on both counts. I did a will early on in my career for an acquaintance, and had to endure the relatives whining about how they were reduced to eating dog food until they received their bequest. What the heck would they have done if the relative lived? For crying out loud, what leeches they were. Give me an honest murderer any day.
SHG there is nothing to support your position that I am wrong other than some bitterness you harbor against the guy. First, the SCOTUS agrees with me regarding the “ongoing harm” part. You have no authority to rely upon. Third, if you view the order you will see that the order was curiously entered as an injunction WITHOUT HEARING. The order also shows the date. Again, every news report talks about the divorce going on for over two years, so how could Rebecca know that he was raising the girl Jewish all along. Further, according to public records, Rebecca seemed to do everything she could to make this guy’s life miserable. There are an uncanny number of motions filed by Rebecca, many of them to restrict Joseph’s access to the girl. This motion seems consistent with her agenda. Before you tell me I am wrong, check your facts…and try to find some objectivity. You act like this guy stole your wife.
It doesn’t bother me that you disagree, but to call it bitterness is just too bizarre for my tolerance, and violates my “no asshole” rule. So you’re gone.