Rifqa Bary's parents have filed a claim against her in Ohio stating that she is an "incorrigible minor" in an attempt to return jurisdiction--and more importantly, Rifqa herself--to Ohio. Judge Dawson in Florida has thus far claimed his court has jurisdiction on the grounds that no court in Ohio claims jurisdiction. This could change all that.
An "incorrigible minor" claim is, from what I've been able to glean, a claim on the part of parents that they cannot control their own child and need the help of the state to do so. Some of the actions that can support such a claim are refusing to obey "reasonable" parental orders, repeatedly running away, being truant, or using drugs or alcohol. Obviously, several of these don't apply to Rifqa, and she has run away only once. Of course, her parents have in one sense "lost control" of her, since she escaped from them! But when the juvenile claims abuse and danger from the parents, there must be (I assume) some mechanism for the court to consider these counterclaims rather than simply returning the child to the parents. The courts can order any number of things if a child is found to be an "incorrigible minor," from house arrest (particularly bad in this case) to foster care. (Unfortunately, I did not keep the most useful link I found on the definition of an "incorrigible minor.")
Commentators here and here at Atlas Shrugs seem to be under the impression that Rifqa will be returned to Ohio but not to her parents. Moreover, this commentator indicate that an "incorrigible minor" claim can be met by a counterclaim for emancipation by Rifqa. I had previously been under the impression that Ohio does not permit emancipation claims, but according to this commentator, what it does not permit is only spontaneous emancipation filings by minors. A minor can, however, try to be emancipated in response to an "incorrigible minor" claim. But is Rifqa financially independent? Would her lack of financial independence scotch an emancipation claim?
More to the point, this article from the Orlando Sentinel, Sept. 2, claims that "Ohio child welfare officials already have concluded it is safe for Rifqa to return. They want to place the girl in therapy and reunite her with her family." This doesn't sound like it supports the positive talk about the responsible and serious actions to be expected from the Ohio authorities. Several news stories have said that Rifqa's parents have consented for her to be put in foster care in Ohio, but not all have added that this is "for at least thirty days." If the Ohio authorities send her back to her parents after thirty days rather than extending the foster care, she could simply be spirited out of the country, a result all the more likely as it appears she is presently here illegally. (That is, of course, not her fault--so are her parents, by the way.)
All of these considerations are, of course, in addition to concerns about her increased danger if she is returned to Ohio at all, even to foster care.
September 14--Pamela Geller at Atlas reports that Rifqa's Sept. 29 hearing date in Florida has been postponed. I am a pessimist by nature and am concerned that this may indicate Florida's willingness to relinquish jurisdiction to Ohio.
Comments (18)
They want to put her in therapy for what? Do they conclude that she is paranoid? Do they conclude that she has not been socialized to accept all religions as being equal? In essence, they want to do therapy without understanding the meaning of the following:
Matt 10:34
Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law: and a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that doth not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
This is nothing more than religious coercion of the worst kind - sanctioned by the state. Does the girl have no first amendment rights? So, the all-seeing State has determined that she will be perfectly fine. This case should not become a precedent (except of how to do things. badly) because some other Christian convert's pleas might go unheard and even if Rifqa should survive, since her case has a large amount of public scrutiny the other person might not be so lucky. This socially acceptable therapy solution nonsense is just an excuse to ignore similar situations in the future.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | September 14, 2009 3:12 PM
I'd guess myself that her obvious fear and distress (e.g., in the video) are being used as an excuse for the "therapy" idea. My one hope if she were sent back to Ohio is that there has been considerable publicity since the Sept. 3 date on that Sentinel article. Who knows what their source was for that intent by the Ohio authorities, but the Ohio authorities have had some time to rethink by now and _may_, God willing, be more sensible than that statement implies if it comes to it. May.
One other piece of evidence, which I know has been forwarded to Florida law enforcement as well as to the FBI, is a "Facebook fatwa"--a group that was formed about Rifqa on FB with the statement "We need to kill her" as the group's purpose. FB showed disapproval by taking down the page and canceling the person's account who formed it. It's good to show disapproval. On the other hand, there is a little matter of preserving evidence for law enforcement. Fortunately, there were screen captures.
Posted by Lydia | September 14, 2009 3:59 PM
The parents are here illegally? Are you kidding me? The Department of Homeland Security is making me feel insecure.
Deport the parents. At once. Give the girl asylum.
Posted by William Luse | September 15, 2009 3:58 AM
I gather they all originally _came_ here legally but their visas have expired--something like that. I wish they would do that, Bill.
Posted by Lydia | September 15, 2009 8:56 AM
And when she is murdered by her family, they'll claim that they couldn't have seen it coming. Despite the reported threats, and the public knowledge that such threats are usually acted on. The liberals who work there will do a 2 minute hate about the male dominated society that killed her, and go onto their next target with the self-righteousness of one who boldly denies responsibility for their actions with a straight face.
Posted by Mike T | September 15, 2009 11:35 AM
How could anyone be so heartless as to return this girl to her parents. She was living in fear and what can be proven about the parental behavior is besides the point.
Posted by Nancy Saccone | September 15, 2009 1:17 PM
If only the poor girl had claimed to be a lesbian and her parents were homeschooling "homophobic" Evangelical fundamentalists, then we would hear the calls for her emancipation from the enclaves that, unless there's a cop-killer seeking a pardon, remain silent.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | September 15, 2009 11:03 PM
Am interesting Christian perspective...former Lawyer on the case...some of the facts being posted here are just ludicrous..
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/09/14/why-the-facts-in-the-rifqa-bary-case-should-matter-to-christians/
Posted by yeahyeah | September 18, 2009 12:48 AM
Whoop-de-do. My take on the case was never based on the claim that the parents didn't report her missing right away or didn't give her note to them to the police. This is trivial stuff. And if this lawyer thinks he's scoring some big point by using the phrase "he said, she said," he doesn't seem to know much about family law. A child's claim of a death threat from a parent is not proof beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal trial, but the standards for child protective services are quite a different matter, and erring on the side of protecting the child is supposed to be the principle in place. The FDLE report, which this lawyer thinks so telling, was extremely shallow. I have seen it. Their only idea of evaluating the credibility of Rifqa's death threat claim was to ask her father, "Mr. Bary, did you threaten to kill your daughter?" And then report that he denied it. I mean, that's pretty absurd. I was also impressed by the point in the FDLE report that Bary let slip to law enforcement that he intends only to let her _study_ Christianity if she is returned to him but would insist that she _practice_ Islam until she is 18 (by which time, of course, they would doubtless be long gone from the country). So much for all his claims to the media that he just wants her back, she can be a Christian if she wants, blah, blah.
Posted by Lydia | September 18, 2009 10:02 AM
OK..I get that you are not willing to discuss anything in the case. I seriously mis-judged when I was posting here (
Now you are wanting her parents to die?? I thought people were looking for facts...not on a Christian propaganda site!...or perhaps I was looking to see what facts the other side had to offer in terms of facts..which has not been much.Statements like these are why you are not investigating the case and thus not in a position to make any judgements
The biggest point in this article is that no one but the investigators have the details...making assumptions and then passing judgement is a serious sin in Islam and I am pretty sure it is in Christianity as well. Also I find it laughable that you are claiming that a Lawyer who specializes child abuse doesnt now anything about family law (Do you see why you perhaps shouldnt make that claim...and then when you make it publicly it is dangerous because it isnt based on any facts?) I am not surprised though as for all the crazy bloggers can only retort to this when faced with the facts of this case...desperate really!!!! But I am not going to argue anymore...one question I did want to pose: What are your thoughts on having a pastor convert a 13 year old girl without parental consent? I am not sure if there is a legal basis but this but her parents rights have seriously been abused here and then brought forth this whole scenario
Also I do believe as you do that Rifqa will be returned to Ohio...and in time returned to her parents and although it will be tough..they will return to a normal happy life...(pleae note that I stated this as my belief not fact...)
I also believe that the pastors involved in kidnapping Rifqa from her door and those who harboured her for two weeks without contacting the authorities will be charged with kidnapping.
Posted by Yeahyeah | September 19, 2009 2:02 PM
No, they wouldn't be charged with kidnapping if they were charged with anything, which I doubt will happen. Not reporting the location of an unmarried minor is not, I understand, the same crime as kidnapping. And the pastor who drove her to the bus station committed no crime at all. No one kidnapped her. She is 17, not 13. (Why am I bothering to talk to this fact-free idiot?) And I have no problem at all with evangelizing minors. And you're darned tootin', it isn't illegal. Actually, the FDLE "investigators" posted what they did to investigate in their report, and my summary is accurate. All they say about her statement is that the father denies it. Whoopee. That's such deep evaluation of their respective credibility. You can read the report for yourself, if you haven't already. What dying has to do with my wanting her parents deported is completely obscure to me. You mean everybody who goes to Sri Lanka dies? It's Rifqa who has to fear being sent back and "dealt with," to use her mother's words.
Posted by Lydia | September 19, 2009 3:19 PM
When you drive someone knowing they are running away from there parents that is aiding and abetting...she is still a minor and all of the pastors would have been required to tell the law. The pastors in florida not only didnt report it they harbored her...
As for evangelizing...of course you would have a problem if it was the other way around? If a Christian teen found a mosque and was converted at the age of 13...am I right about that? You would probably even have a big posting here on your site"Terrorists brainwash Christian Child". You have to realize Lydia..you do not live in a "Christian" country. I know that you wish you did...but the Christian came into this land..slaughtered all of the Natives that were here...but then chose to separate Church and State (which Christians seem to do everywhere..thus there are no Christian states.) Then your leaders desperately needing people to fill the lands and let people from all over the world emigrate in, promising the rights and freedoms to practice there own faith...do you then see why it might infringe on parents rights when minors are being converted??
When the Ohio cop said that there was no reason Rifqa should be in danger..he is clueless...when the Florida Authorities say no reason she is danger they are idiots...the lawyer who worked on the case says please dont make judgements without knowing the facts and you say that she doesnt seem to know anything about the law..everyone who produces facts against your OPINION are just morons plain and simple....this is what I am getting from most Christian Blogs...its pathetic really; but stupidity in this type of numbers begins to be dangerous affecting minds of people who do no know any better.
Posted by yeahyeah | September 19, 2009 5:38 PM
Good, good for them. Likely saved her from being taken back to Sri Lanka and "dealt with," as her mother threatened.
Nope. It doesn't. Deal with it. Part of what it means for America to be a free country is that Christian truth is available, even to kids, who seek it. Thank God, some do, like Rifqa, and find it. We don't live under sharia where evangelism is forbidden.
Oh, and that Ohio cop? He was not investigating Rifqa's claims, and he wasn't assigned to do so, and he isn't in a department to do so. He merely dealt with the parents when she was missing.
And I read the blog post about "finding out the facts," and I read the things the person was stating, and nothing there whatsoever makes Rifqa's story anything but credible.
Posted by Lydia | September 19, 2009 8:04 PM
You are correct in we have freedom....there was a case in Quebec recently where the state mandated for kids as young as 7 years old will learn about all different kinds of religions and there beliefs as a part of there school curriculum...this has caused the parents to get together to with a lawyer to have the right for there kids not to participate in this. This group consisted largely of Catholic parents..who are the majority in the area..but the other parts of the group are made of Jewish and Muslim parents. The governments case is that this will help promote respect towards all cultures...for me; I believe it would be my duty and responsibility as a parent to instill these values into a child...so in this case I would feel that my rights are being infringed on; Christian and all other truths will obviously be available to them...you cannot keep it away...but I so want a say in what my kids would be exposed to at such a young age.
Posted by yeahyeah | September 20, 2009 10:24 PM
Right--I had a whole post on the Quebec situation. The problem with parental rights there is that the *state is mandating* this curriculum for all children, including children whose parents are paying to have them educated outside of the state system. "Evangelization" of a minor by some means or other, even if the minor is the one making the inquiry initially, is not the same thing as a state-mandated religious curriculum. An elementary distinction.
Posted by Lydia | September 20, 2009 10:35 PM
Unlike Muslims, Christians don't murder those who convert to another religion. Therefore, to compare Rifqa's case with a Christian who theoretically converts to Islam (which would, in reality, only happen if the "Christian" was a false convert or a Christian in name only) is ridiculous, because, unlike devout Muslims, a devout Christian family would not seek to kill their child then.
And Rifqa had already been a Christian for 4 years, secretly, before she fled for safety to Orlando.
Al Takeyya/al-Taqiyya is the Muslim practice of lying for the sake of Islam. I have seen it before. Muslims will claim that "Muslims do not practice terrorism," "Islam is a religion of peace," "Muslims do not practice honor killing," "Muslims do not kill for apostasy," etc. They do that to defend Islam and to dhimmitize non-Muslims and to try to convert others to Islam. See this, for example: http://www.conservapedia.com/Takeyya
Posted by Jeff Jenkins | September 21, 2009 6:17 PM
You have an interesting interpretation. From your link, which I am sorry but appears to prove my point:
What I am reading is not quite the same as your open ended
Please explain if I am missing something here...this seems to say if someone is going to kill you unless you renounce your faith then renouncing your faith will not be a sin. You have used this false interpretation to place it so that anything that Muslims can say now cannot be trusted because they are lying...what next; why even ask them cause they are all liars??
The idea that Muslims kill there children...I have posted my comments on this site about that previously...what percentage are you talking about here?
Posted by yeahyeah | September 22, 2009 2:03 AM
Whoever thinks her life would not be at risk were she to go back to Ohio is in never never land.
And why aren't the authorities dealing with her parents for overstaying their visas? They could be deported, with amnesty given to the girl...
Posted by Ali Hussein Rosenberg | September 26, 2009 6:40 AM