The court docket threatens the mom to lose custody of youngsters except she eliminates the stone painted with the Accomplice flag

A New York appeals court has threatened a mother with losing custody of her multiracial child unless she gets rid of a “small” rock near her driveway that is painted with a Confederate flag.

What are the details?

The Albany Times-Union reported that a jury of five judges in the state’s second highest court unanimously ruled that the white woman and black father of her elementary school-age child could keep joint custody of their daughter – but if the mother didn’t remove it Hold the stone, she could face a “change of circumstances” in the custody battle.

Judge Stanley Pritzker, who drafted the court’s decision, wrote that during a hearing “the mother testified that she had never or never used racist slurs in front of the child,” but noted that neither the judge presiding A 2018 ruling and the child’s legal guardian deal with possession of a “small Confederate flag painted in stone near its driveway”.

“Given that the child is a mixed race, it seems obvious that the presence of the flag is not in the best interests of the child as the mother must encourage and teach the child to adopt his or her mixed race identity rather than being into it a world to bump into that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance, “wrote Pritzker.

“Furthermore, and pragmatically, the presence of the Confederate flag is a symbol that ignites the already strained relationship between the parties,” the judge continued. “While it is recognized that the first amendment protects the mother’s right to fly the flag if she is not removed by June 1, 2021, her continued presence constitutes a change in circumstances and the family court will include this in any future analysis of best interest. “

According to the Washington Post, the court’s decision was clear: “The stone threatens custody of the woman’s child.” The newspaper found that the mother was not represented by a lawyer.

Jason Leifer, the attorney serving as the child’s guardian, told the Times-Union that while he agrees the stone must go, he is concerned about the precedent the court ruling may set for future parent-child custody disputes.

“I think the parties will now object to many of the other party’s symbols and opinions, including some that the majority of society does not find offensive,” Leifer told the outlet. “What needs to happen is this: when the problem is raised, the court needs to hear evidence for the child of how a parent’s views and opinions negatively affect the child’s wellbeing. In some cases this will be simple, such as whether a child will be indoctrinated into a hate group, but in many cases it won’t be that easy. ”

Leifer told the Associated Press, “I just think this thing opens a door to litigation … someone’s personal opinion on something.”