A blog raising awareness about a woman who lost custody of her child because of her performance art.

Thursday, February 23, 2006

December 22, 2005 Petition for Modification



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Questions regarding document 4-11 pg2 item #6 . The handwritten entry here states that 11/05 Rachel and Kohl had been kicked out of the georgia residence by her husband. It also goes on to state she is residing in Alabama.

I am confused here.

There is mention of the wonderful home being provided by Rachel and her current husband.. But he kicked her out?

8:15 PM

Blogger Hypatia's Father said...

The affadavits seem to clear these questions up. The relocation to temporary residence was temporary. Marital problems, while unfortunate for all involved, do not necessarily imply a failure to meet a child's needs. It seems that Rachel and her husband were handling the situation with maturity, and that Rachel can easily document that Kohl's needs were, in fact, being met during the temporary relocation.

The decision to nullify her custody rights seems to be based largely on her affiliation with a religion and/or art movement, her participation in which produced publicly available pictures of a semi-nude Rachel. The photos apparently confused the judge. He seemed preoccupied by a papier machet goat's head that appeared with Rachel in one of the pictures. Perhaps in his confused state he mistakenly attributed malevolent or degenerate qualities to Rachel that were based more upon his own religious affiliation and personal biases than upon objective fact.

In any case, it is of no matter. Why should Rachel, or any plaintif in similar circumstances, bear the responsibility of educating the judge on the contextual differences between Judeo-Christian symbolism and the Church of the Subgenius? If he had been a muslim judge and if she had been wearing strips of bacon, should she have been forced to respond to inane lines of questioning as, "But why bacon?! Why?"

It seems that, legally speaking, the judge simply allowed his own "demons" to get the best of him. This is what happens when we elect persons to office based on subjective "faith-based" measures of character.

Ethically and morally speaking, it seems that the burden should lie squarely on Rachel's accusors to provide REAL objective evidence of neglect and an insufficiency to meet parental obligations. Perhaps I am naive to expect our laws to demand as much, or moreover expect our judges to be familiar with the law. What I do know is that much as it may irritate or even confuse any paricular culture, taking one's clothes off and acting "whacky" falls way short in demonstrating parental neglect. It's all about context.

Temporary marital problems notwithstanding, in Rachel's and Kohl's case it is exactly this kind of REAL evidence that is lacking.

Hope that helps, anonymous, with yr. confusion.

10:49 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home