Father Loses Custody of His Children for Being Agnostic

This has me so angry, I could chew fairies and shit ogres.

About Ray Garton

I am the author of more than 60 books, including the horror novels LIVE GIRLS, CRUCIFAX, LOT LIZARDS and THE LOVELIEST DEAD, and the thrillers SEX AND VIOLENCE IN HOLLYWOOD, MURDER WAS MY ALIBI, TRADE SECRETS, TRAILER PARK NOIR, and my newest thriller, MEDS Please visit my website for more information: http://www.raygartononline.com
This entry was posted in Absurdity, America's image, Atheism, Crazy fundies, Family, for fuck's sake!, Religion, Stupidity, Values. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Father Loses Custody of His Children for Being Agnostic

  1. Ray Garton says:

    Why the ACLU isn’t all over this by now, I do NOT understand. This is outrageous. Why should this man have to assure ANYONE that he hasn’t imposed his beliefs on his children? He’s their father — HE CAN IMPOSE WHATEVER FUCKING BELIEFS HE WANTS ON THEM! That’s his RIGHT. CHRISTIANS certainly do! Christians should be just as outraged by this as I am, because if this man can lose custody of his children for being agnostic, then CHRISTIANS CAN LOSE CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN FOR BEING CHRISTIAN! If a judge can remove children from their father because he’s agnostic, then when are judges going to start removing children from their parents because they’re racist or homophobic or because they raise their children in mortal fear of hell or the end of the world? There should be a loud outcry over this.

    Also, I hope someone has started a legal fund for this guy, because if the ACLU doesn’t jump on this and help him out — which means they are as useless as tits on the pope — he’s going to NEED it.

  2. Stardust says:

    This is outrageous. This whole country is becoming more and more outrageous with this religious bullshit. Makes me want to start packing up for Canada, Britain, Iceland, Sweden..somewhere where this religious shit isn’t going on. I don’t want to be part of any theocracy.

  3. Ray Garton says:

    Stardust — People have become so numbed to religion, so accepting of it, that they don’t see the way it’s violating our rights and the Constitution. I think the most important thing we can do is try to make them aware of it. Of course, there are those who will never see it, either because they don’t want to or because they’re perfectly fine with it. But I think they’re the minority. The majority is too quiet about this and needs to be riled up.

  4. Justin Bonaparte says:

    I don’t see where it was stated that the ruling specifically reduced his time with the kids BECAUSE of his agnosticism. The judge’s remarks may have been part of the statement, but there may also have been some other reasons why the judge ruled that way. The title of this piece is misleading.

  5. hogarm says:

    I am not an angry atheist; I AM AN ANGRY AMERICAN.
    Land of the free, home of the brave, with liberty and justice for all.
    Only for bigoted white Christians.

  6. Ray Garton says:

    Justin — The very fact that religious beliefs were brought up is wrong. That alone should make any American very uncomfortable. But if it’s not enough for you, a very quick Google search reveals that the title of the piece is NOT misleading. Here you go:


    From the article:

    “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.”

    “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 protective order against Scarberry was issued in April, and Scarberry said evidence was presented later in court to refute the allegations.”


    “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 mother leaves the children home alone and unattended and doesn’t feed them breakfast, but the fact that the father is an agnostic is a problem? THAT’S NOT EVEN RELEVANT TO THE CASE and that makes this ruling very prejudicial.

  7. Justin Bonaparte says:

    I agree that the religious beliefs should not have been included in the ruling. I’m an atheist and an advocate for freedom of religion. What the article doesn’t make clear is that he lost custody DUE to his agnosticism. In fact, I’m hard pressed to understand exactly why his custody was reduced. HE says he lost it because he’s an agnostic, but that’s not the same thing.

  8. Ray Garton says:

    I don’t know how you could reach any other conclusion. The ruling cites problems on his side that are very mild — no abuse, verbal or otherwise — and problems on the mother’s side that are quite serious. But the judge goes out of his way to point to the fact that this man no longer considers himself a Christian and then blames THAT for what he sees as a communication problem. The judge does not specifically point to anything else in any of the articles I’ve read, and so far, I’ve read half a dozen. I don’t need the judge to say, “I’m doing this because you’re an agnostic,” in order to see that that’s the case. I have not yet found one report that tells a different story.

  9. Justin Bonaparte says:

    The article also says that he used profanity in front of his kids, failed to control his anger, and that he was sending an alarming number of text msgs to his ex. So we don’t know whether his custody was reduced because the judge has something against swearing, or possibly he thinks the guy is harrassing his ex. So, like any other third party hearing only one side of a three-way argument, I’m hesitant to condemn the judge on the word of an emotionally distraught man.

  10. Ray Garton says:

    Scans of the court order can be found at the following links:




    Notice #10 and #12. While religion is not the ONLY factor in the judge’s decision, it is a factor that is mentioned TWICE in his ruling. I’m not concerned with a three-way argument, only with the judge’s ruling. The judge reached his decision in part because this man is an agnostic and no longer identifies himself as a Christian. I’m not concerned with the semantics of the article’s headline, because if I were, I’d be focusing on the blatant inaccuracy of stating that the man lost custody of his children because of his FAITH, when in fact it was his LACK of faith that played a part in this judge’s ruling.

  11. Robster says:

    Jeez, somethin’s wrong in the good ol’ USA it seems. What on earth has the fathers religious beliefs or lack of them, got to do with his parenting ability? It’s not as if it’s something of importance. It’s completely irrelevent. The mans ability to care and provide matters, not his choice whether or not he has ‘faith’ in an imagined sky fairy. Jeez….

  12. Tony D says:

    This is probably the tip of the iceberg in this part of the country where if you wear a cross and hold a bible you are considered better than your fellow men. The judge made a horrible mistake introducing religion into a complicated divorce arrangement. I am sure he will regret having religion written into the record.

  13. John Kennedy says:

    I first heard about this on the local news since it happened 20 minutes from where I live. It pissed me off as much as the story last year when a mother lost custody of her children because she wanted to raise them Jewish, but the ex-husband, who had converted, decided he wanted to raise them Catholic instead. The Judge’s ruling in that case was that we are a Christian Nation, and it would make the children fit in better.

    As for this case, the Indiana Chapter of the ACLU is involved, and my wife and I are writing letters to the Madison County Court House to find out why Religion was invoked. Hopefully the Judge’s other cases will be looked at very closely.

Comments are closed.