The Supremes vs noncustodial rights

Sometimes in a rush to go to work or get some sleep, I'll bookmark an article of interest and intend to come back to it. While cleaning up my links today, however, I found this article from June 17th on the impact of the Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow ruling from the Supreme Court:

In avoiding the merits of the Pledge of Allegiance case, the US Supreme Court has dealt a substantial blow to the rights of noncustodial parents to use the federal courts to protect their children from alleged unconstitutional harms.
The court's 5-to-3 ruling on Monday has been largely portrayed as a dodge by the majority justices to avoid the difficult constitutional issue of whether the words "under God" in the Pledge violate the separation of church and state. But to many parents - primarily fathers - who do not share custody, the five-justice majority has just given lower-court judges the power to throw noncustodial parents out of court - even when their complaints involve possible constitutional violations against their children by the government.

I had some comments in my head prepared, but decided today to do some more research. Could this just be an unwieldy fear that will never come to a head? Apparently not.

Elk Grove places children in harm's way by limiting the ability of noncustodial parents to use the legal system to protect their children if the custodial parent is unable or unwilling to do so.

For example, in a pending Illinois case, an elementary school girl suffers from a life-threatening medical condition which requires a medical procedure. The procedure, though standard, violates the custodial mother's religious beliefs. The girl's noncustodial father has gone to court to force the mother to accede to the lifesaving operation. Now, in the wake of Elk Grove, unless the father can win custody, the judge may be compelled to rule in favor of the mother, to the serious detriment of the child.

In another pending Illinois case, a noncustodial father seeks to take legal action both against a baby-sitter who allegedly molested his son, and against the agency that placed his son in this baby-sitter's care. However, the custodial mother, apparently because of her hostility towards the father, has refused to consent to the filing of the lawsuit. Under Elk Grove, unless the father can win a substantial modification of custody, the father has no standing to file the lawsuit without the mother's consent. As a result, his traumatized son may be deprived of a potential damages award which is needed to pay for therapy, and neither the alleged molester nor the agency will be held responsible.

Elk Grove will make it more difficult for noncustodial parents to hold negligent schools, daycare centers, doctors, hospitals, sports coaches, and others accountable for harming their children.

Then the article then makes the two points I was thinking about all those weeks ago, but no doubt more eloquently then I would have.

The court's ruling also highlights the hypocrisy of the current public policy and discourse on fatherhood, wherein men are lectured to take responsibility for their children while at the same time courts and lawmakers frequently disregard their right to play a meaningful role in their children's lives. Many believe that the court used the issue of standing as a way to sidestep having to make a decision on the thorny issue of the pledge. Evidently noncustodial parents are of such little concern that the court found it more expedient to undercut their rights than to decide the pledge case.

Elk Grove will also fuel damaging and costly custody battles. Millions of divorced or separated fathers have declined to fight for custody because they did not want to put their children in the middle of a conflict, or because they wanted to respect their children's bonds with their mothers. These dads are fit parents and are an important part of their children's lives, yet by declaring that noncustodial parents have no standing, the Court has seriously undermined their parental rights.