"Put a Walmart Bag on Her Head … to Keep the Sex Witches Away": Court Upholds Limit on Aunt's Access to Divorced Couple's Children

From Styles v. Styles, decided Wednesday by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Kenneth Hixson, joined by Judges Stephanie Potter Barrett and Wendy Scholtens Wood:

In the final order, the trial court ordered that Angela's twin sister, Andrea, not be left alone with the children or communicate with them in any way except as authorized in the order. The trial court found that Andrea "poses a clear threat to the emotional well-being of the children based on earlier findings resulting from her testimony in open court." The trial court ordered that, if Andrea wished to see the children, the visitation would be supervised by a person of Jamey's choosing….

The testimony at trial showed that Andrea had exhibited concerning behavior, including praying in the presence of the children for a spirit of confusion to come upon one of Jamey's sisters and her family. Andrea also thought Jamey's sister was a witch and controlled Andrea's mind, and Andrea shared this with the children.

There was also testimony that, while working at Angela's [dermatology] clinic, Andrea put a Walmart bag on her head and stated that she had to wear it to keep the sex witches away. As a result of Andrea's behavior at the clinic, she was banned from the clinic by the Arkansas State Medical Board. Finally, the children's attorney ad litem, who was very familiar with the case, recommended that the children have no contact with Andrea unless it was supervised by someone other than a relative.

While we agree with the principle that a parent's visitation rights cannot be denied for their religious beliefs, we observe that Andrea is not these children's parent, and we further conclude that the trial court's decision to limit the children's contact was motivated not by religious considerations but rather by the well-being of the children. We hold that, on this record, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that it was in the children's best interest to have only restricted contact with Andrea.

Bart W. Calhoun (McDaniel Wolff PLLC) represents the father.

Comments

[Krychek_2]

While I agree with this decision, I have to say this does not strike me as that much nuttier than any number of mainstream religious beliefs. I guess "cult" is defined as a religious group with too few adherents to have political power.

[John F. Carr]

The father got custody and the mother owed support. The trial court was apparently following the father's wishes about who could have unsupervised contact with his kids.

[gormadoc]

Reason's "new" comment system is still terrible, years later. Way too easy to respond in the wrong spot on mobile.

[MatthewSlyfield]

I recall reading some where (I doubt I could find a cite for it) that the difference between a cult and a religion is that a religion has outlived it's founder.

[gormadoc]

"On another occasion Angela accused Jamey, in front of the children, of having sexual relations with a puppy. According to Jamey, Angela accused a woman of stealing three inches of MC1’s height to pass it on to her children."
Normal mainline Protestant beliefs.

[Krychek_2]

I didn't say her beliefs *were* mainline Protestant beliefs; I said *they were no nuttier* than mainline beliefs (you inserted Protestant).

And "mainline Protestant" takes in a lot of ground. But Mark Twain summed it up pretty nicely:

“You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, burning bushes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?”

[Joe_dallas]

The aunt's behavior is not even remotely similar to mainline beliefs.

[Krychek_2]

You need to get out more.

[Joe_dallas]

I dont live in the bubble that leftist live in.

[Krychek_2]

Oh so that's your problem.

[Joe_dallas]

Living outside the woke leftwing bubble is a blessing.

[Krychek_2]

Yes, we're just as happy not having you as a neighbor.

[gormadoc]

Mainstream American Christian beliefs are rooted in mainline Protestant traditions. And for most religious Americans, even non-Christians, the type of things that Twain was speaking about were primarily in the distant past, when God(s) had a more direct hand or were even present.

I’m an atheist and I think that believing that God walked on water 2000 years ago is less nutty than believing a specific woman literally stole three inches of height from your kid and gave it to hers. Believing in witches is nutty (and not a mainstream religious view in the non-Hispanic West), but believing in sex witches that are deterred by shopping bags is still nuttier.

[Krychek_2]

And I would argue that believing that God walked on water 2000 years ago is equally nutty with believing that someone stole three inches of your kid's height.

[gormadoc]

The reliance on faith in believing in early miracles when you have no access to evidence may be wrong but it is not “nutty;” it seems to be the default human experience. People can have wrong and even stupid beliefs without that belief being nutty. In contrast, believing that someone stole your kid’s height is simply only personal conviction despite the evidence.

Do you think that believing in sex witches deterred by shopping bags is just as nutty as not believing in witches, which is the mainstream belief?

[Krychek_2]

Relying on faith in an earlier era in which science was not well developed and we understood far less about the world than we do now may have made sense at the time. But to continue to believe it now, after we do have a good understanding of science, is nutty.

At one time people believed in werewolves because they didn't have the forensics necessary to catch serial killers. Most such ancient storytelling -- vampires, succubai, and other such fauna -- were based on the real phenomena of bad things happening for which they had no understanding of the real cause. Had Jack the Ripper lived a thousand years earlier, he would have been written off as a werewolf or a vampire.

But what is nutty (I should have used the term "irrational" instead) is to continue to believe such stories now that we do understand the real causes.

To answer your question, I'm aware of no evidence for witches, or that they would be deterred by Wal Mart bags if they did exist. I would like an explanation for why a Wal Mart bag would keep a witch at bay -- how exactly does that work? Is it like garlic to Dracula? Is there some physical property in the plastic? But my bottom line is there's no evidence for witches, or for most of what's in the Bible, and if you spend a few minutes actually thinking either one through they collapse as totally ridiculous.

[Roger S]

Say I agree with everything you say. You want to take kids away from all the parents with faulty beliefs?

[Krychek_2]

I said nutty; you changed it to faulty. In either case, no, not all nutty beliefs. But there is a line. I would hope you would agree that religion based incest, or child sacrifice, would cross the line.

It’s not always easy to tell where the line is and there are close cases. But it does exist. Do you disagree?

[NOVA Lawyer]

These are equally nutty things. At least, very close as both violate all known laws of physics/biology and neither has a shred of evidence other than someone's report...and in the one case, the report was thousands of years old and made in the context of starting a religion.

However, the shopping bag over the head indicates an interpretation of the nutty belief that may involve danger to the children (e.g., putting plastic bags over their heads and inadvertently suffocating them, or something). So, yes, I think limiting contact with the non-parent who has nutty beliefs that seem to require of her bizarre, unpredictable and at least possibly dangerous behavior is justified whereas if someone simply purports to believe a 2000 year old miracle, that doesn't portend danger to the child absent them interpreting it to require taking nutty action vis-a-vis the child, say throwing them in deep water when they don't know how to swim because God will help them walk across it if they just believe enough, or something.

[Roger S]

Okay, she has nutty beliefs, but why is some judge regulating the beliefs of a private citizen? We have laws against child abuse, but nothing here qualifies as child abuse.

[gormadoc]

Their beliefs aren't being regulated, only their conduct with the children, through which they were explicitly trying to irreparably destroy the children's relationships with the father, who has custody. The fact that their beliefs are stupid is icing.

[Roger S]

I do not think anyone should try to destroy a father-child relationship, but if this is so demonstrably harmful, why don't we outlaw anyone doing it? Why don't we broaden the definition of child abuse? Why only apply it in these rare cases where a divorce has resulted in a judge trying to micromanage the family?

[gormadoc]

It isn't simply bad because they're hurting the relationships but because it was harming the children. They were intentionally destructive and defiant towards their custodian at her direction.

The judges aren't imposing themselves here for no reason: the mother sued the father to get custody. Both were asking for full custody and shared clearly wasn't going to work

[Roger S]

You say "harming the children", as if that were an established fact. The dad somehow got the guardian ad litem on his side, and then convinced the judge to order extra child support to pay for a private school. All this opinion shows is that the dad out-lawyered the mom, and the courts meddled in a very intrusive way.

[NOVA Lawyer]

So you don't like courts. That's how we've decided to resolve these disputes. From the opinion, as the appellate court wrote, the trial court seemed to have a reasonable basis to make the custody/visitation calls it did.

It's not clear what your angle is other than, perhaps, you always disagree with trial courts ordering child support or granting one parent sole custody?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Why only apply it in these rare cases where a divorce has resulted in a judge trying to micromanage the family?"

IIUC it's the Dad who is asking for this. I agree it would be a problem if the judge did it on his own.

[Krayt]

I wouldn’t mind stealing 3 inches from someone.

Height? Hmmmm, yeah.

Yeah.

That would work, too.

[John F. Carr]

Based on the court's opinion, the mother is a little bit nuts too but not as bad as the aunt.

Perhaps Eugene Volokh was drawn to this case by the free speech aspect:

In the final order, for each of its findings of contempt against Angela, the trial court sentenced her to thirty days in the county detention center, suspended on the condition she never again disregard the court’s orders not to malign, harass, or in any way communicate negatively toward Jamey.

This contempt finding was reversed on procedural grounds. Under state law an indefinite suspension of a sentence for contempt is not allowed, and the sentence is considered vacated entirely. The court did not reach the legality of an order not to be negative.

[mulched]

Sure, that and the sex witches.

[Krychek_2]

And why am I never lucky enough to receive visits from sex witches?

[gormadoc]

She had it backwards. Normally the sex witches visit after wearing the bag for a while.

[Drewski]

I don't know about you but I'm not prepared to give up three inches.

[John F. Carr]

He was probably searching for anti-harassment orders rather than sex witches. The sex witches were a bonus.

[gormadoc]

[tkamenick]

Honestly this feels gross and petty to draw attention to. Why punch down like this?

[Estragon]

The day after the mark robinson revelations? It’s truly a mystery…

[Krayt]

It's ok to feel bad for her without wanting her anywhere near your kids.

[MN2828]

It is Northwest Arkansas. Probably the misuse of the Walmart bag that motivated the court.

[ReaderY]

This case is perhaps a good example as to why the First Amendment shouldn’t be interpreted to require people to spill all their family dirty laundry to the public just to get a divorce. The First Amendment is intended primarily for citizen political knowledge and participation. It just shouldn’t be interpreted so broadly as to require gratifying peeping Toms.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Second time today I heard about putting bags on heads. The other time was from a typically racist/bigoted Republican, Sen. John Kennedy of Alabama, bullying Maya Berry of the Arab-American Institute who was testifying about hate crimes.

“I think it’s exceptionally disappointing you’re looking at an Arab American witness before you and saying you support Hamas. I do not support Hamas,” she said.

“You know what’s disappointing to me? You can’t bring yourself to say don’t support UNWRA, you don’t support Hamas, you don’t support Hezbollah [she had said she didn’t] and you don’t support Iran [she had said she didn’t]. You should hide your head in a bag,” he concluded, to gasps and yells from the audience.

[Daddyhill]

If there isn't such a thing as Christians Anonymous now, there should be, and soon too.

If these people had been openly naming women (or men sometimes) as witches or heretics in just about any western country or state in the 16th or 17th century, one or more of them would probably have been burned at the stake, beheaded, hanged, or drowned. This might have been intended as generous therapy for their wicked souls, such that they might still receive salvation.

The massacre of fellow Christians by other fellow Christians in Catholic Europe became more than a spectator sport in the 13th century. Pope Innocent III in 1208 declared a holy war (read: Crusade) against the Albigensians of southwest France. He guaranteed salvation to all crusaders who killed these fellow Christians, preaching that the Albigensians were heretics and that all of them should be killed. Those who signed up for crusaderhood were sometimes devout believers, but very often they were French nobles or unemployed knights or peasants who looked forward to the opportunities for looting that would surely arrive. In 1209 the crusader mob attacked the city of Beziers, in which many Catholics lived alongside the Albigensians. When the siege ended the mob invaded Beziers and killed or mutilated thousands of residents--regardless of rank, age, or sex. The gang leader, papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux, advised hesitants that it was unnecessary to distinguish between Albigensians and Catholics, that they should "Kill them all. The Lord will recognize his own." Most of us are familiar with this recommendation as "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

I've started having vivid and not so vivid dreams featuring the establishment of Christian theocracy in the US. While not overtly violent, these dreams nevertheless disturb me because of what I know of the history of Christianity, including Catholicism, Protestantism, or subsets of these. As I suggest to folks about a lot of things, "If you're not concerned about X then you're not paying attention." I'm paying attention.

[Roger S]

Apparently the Pope in 1208 thought that the heresy must be stamped out, or it would destroy Europe. Maybe he was right. We will never know. At any rate, those Christians created modern civilization as we know it.

Britain last burned a witch in 1727. Some people still believe in witch, and some even practice witchcraft. Putting a Walmart bag on one's head is new to me, but relatively harmless.

[tuphat]

V: What makes you think she is a witch?
P2: Well, she turned me into a newt!
V: A newt?!
(P2 pause & look around)
P2: I got better.
(pause)
P3: Burn her anyway! (burn her burn her burn!)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Superstition is wrong, except for men being able to get pregnant. That's simply science.