As soon as I read the title to this article, I knew this would be an uphill, very unfair battle. Arkansas? The one state that very obviously has no clue what Naturism is about. It’s unfortunate that she’s learned the value and the benefits of pure innocent nudism while living there. And thinking it’s possible she’s not allowed to move, take her child with her of course, away from AR.
She’s done nothing wrong. Her Ex and the state are the ones who are wrong. 😢
This isn't just an Arkansas thing. I met a woman at Deep Creek who couldn't bring her almost adult children because it was a clothing optional place. It was part of a custody agreement and her ex-husband thought naturism was evil. The court thought it was reasonable. This is California, where there is no state law against nudity and the county didn't have one either.
I'm not sure why the Arkansas state law against even advocating for nudity wasn't challenged and overturned long ago. And now that SCOTUS is dominated by right wing ideologues, its too late.
Agreed with Fred. This isn't laws on naturism. This is family court. In family court, anything can go, and if you have an ex bent on destroying you, they will take a smidge of the smallest thing and run with it, regardless of the law. Then it all comes down to the judge you have and the financial means you have to battle it.
I do personally feel that this is something that should be mentioned to people new to naturism. I feel that people become enraptured on advocating for children in naturism and lose sight of how it is weaponized in various venues -- and frankly, there isn't enough support to fight these things in court. Acknowledging this reality doesn't take away from the ideal of children in naturism.
I have to disagree. In a lot of cases, I'll say you are correct. But it does very on location. In CT, I doubt you will have a judge who would be out to destroy naturism. There might be cases in a divorce where it is agreed upon that the children of divorce would not be allowed to take their children to a resort or area (of know some parents in that situation, sadly), but you would be hard-pressed to try to take someones' parental rights away completely because they are a naturist.
While we are a blue state, and we do, of course, have a few Republican elected officials, we are also a very libertarian state. Our conservatives are not like conservatives in AK or even CA.
With that said, you said, "something that should be mentioned to people new to naturism"; you could and should say the same thing about relationships. I've been saying it for years: if you want to raise your kids as a naturist, that should be a discussion one has long before they have children and before marriage. Every family I know raising naturist kids was talked about between the two people during the dating process. Either both parents were naturists beforehand, or one was, and the other wasn't, and for the latter, the naturists educated the textile on naturism while they were dating. And if they weren't keen on it, the relationship was over before they mixed DNA.
I get slacked for saying that all the time. I don't know why? It also seems the people who have these talks beforehand don't end up in divorce, as perhaps they are more compatible in just not interest but also in shared values when it comes to child rearing, family, etc.
Agree to disagree on the first point. The GFM even says in it that it is used to judge the mom's parenting capability. Many items can be brought in court to bring into question a parent's capability, including things like "lacking judgement" that do not mean any law has been broken but that the judge in particular feels brings to question a parent's capability. It's about heuristics and biases. Given that this was scheduled as an emergency hearing, sounds like the opposing parent knows his way around the court system and is willing to jump on that knowledge to add difficulty to the mom's life. This happens everywhere and nudity presents the perfect opportunity to weaponize the system, regardless of the laws on the books.
Agreed on the second point, should definitely be spoken about during a relationship, if one or both are naturists at that stage. I was thinking more about it as parents becoming naturists after they had children. Thanks for pointing out this other angle.
"Many items can be brought in court to bring into question a parent's capability, including things like "lacking judgement" that do not mean any law has been broken but that the judge in particular feels brings to question a parent's capability."
I 100% agree. My point is in a state like CT; it is very unlikely that a judge would see a parent being a nudist as a sign of "lack judgment" to cut off all ties with the nudist parent, even if both parties agree not to take the child to a nudist resort. This is because, for starters, CT is a small state; we don't have a county government, and our population is less than Los Angeles County. Now, I don't know about AK, but here, judges are appointed by the governor, not elected. I did look it up, and custody battles in CT go through the family superior court. There are only seven family superior court judges, five of whom were appointed by progressive governors. Plus, or republicans, elected, appointed, or your run-of-the-mill civil servant, aren't evangelical/religious right Republicans, as that really doesn't exist here in New England (when people like that do run for office, they are seen as loonies and get less votes then Green Party candidates), out republicans are the more socially libertarian fiscally conservative types.
With that said, it is very rare in all custody battles, no matter the state, that cases even get to the courts, as statistically, most are settled out of court.
It's important to consider the specific context of Arkansas in this case. The father's lawyer referenced the Arkansas Nudism law in court, claiming that Sarah's activities are illegal in the state. What's interesting is that this law has never been enforced, pleaded to, or even cited in any Arkansas court before. Naturism has never been brought as a cause for action in Family Court in Arkansas, so no one has had standing to challenge the constitutionality of this law until now.
This case could be precedent-setting, as all family court proceedings in Arkansas take place in Circuit Court, and only a circuit court decision can establish legal precedent in the state. The outcome of this case might have significant implications for the naturist community, not just in Arkansas but potentially beyond, depending on how the court rules.
At least, this is my understanding of it after speaking with people close to the case in Arkansas. I am not an attorney and have no personal experience or knowledge with the Arkansas legal system.
"not just in Arkansas but potentially beyond, depending on how the court rules."
This is something I worry about, especially if a cretin party gets elected in November. Although in places like CT and where you are in CA adult and child nudity is legal, it could go the same way as abortion with a national ban.
Sarah, When I was looking for a company to produce the Skinny-Dipper flag, I was thrilled to find FlagandBanner.com in Little Rock, AR. They took on the project, produce wonderful flags, and have even offered me statistics on how the promotional Skinny-Dipper flag as sold around the USA and internationally. They suggested the name as "everyone already knows what skinny-dipping is" as I was struggling with the name of a "body acceptance flag." I knew that the State had a ban on promoting social nakedness and was very pleased to know that FlagandBanner were marketing the Skinny-Dipper flag. The company produces "Brave" magazine and provided a very positive, two-page article in their Spring/Summer 2018 issue on the origins of the Skinny-Dipper flag with a cropped photo of me nude after a dunk in the Arctic Ocean and the flag's first flying at a gathering of the nAKed Friends in Anchorage - again promoting body acceptance. The owner Kerry McCoy, is a positive woman entrepreneur, who took an abandoned building and has generated a new creative company. McCoy represents in many ways what you are struggling to achieve, taking old ideas and bringing them forward with new understanding for the benefit of today's society. May I suggest contacting McCoy for in-state support of your cause.
The reality is that Arkansas has never enforced the anti-nudity law and it seems to be one those clearly unconstitutional laws that continues to exist by virtue of simply being ignored. There are at least two nudist locations in Arkansas and another one under construction outside of Little Rock. Beyond that, Arkansas has a huge boating culture (I live by a 45,000 acre lake here in AR) and skinny dipping is quite common on the lakes. Yes, if you flaunt it in front of the police or rangers the authorities might tell you to put some clothes on but there is no history that I know of, of anyone being arrested that wasn't actually misbehaving in a sexual way.
I saw the update that even though parental rights weren't entirely removed, she no longer has full custody rights, as she has had for the past 2 years. :( That's a big adjustment for both her and her child, and it's hard to believe that the motivation comes from a place of the other parent wanting to be invilfed vs seizing on a gotcha moment and weaponizing nudity.
As soon as I read the title to this article, I knew this would be an uphill, very unfair battle. Arkansas? The one state that very obviously has no clue what Naturism is about. It’s unfortunate that she’s learned the value and the benefits of pure innocent nudism while living there. And thinking it’s possible she’s not allowed to move, take her child with her of course, away from AR.
She’s done nothing wrong. Her Ex and the state are the ones who are wrong. 😢
This isn't just an Arkansas thing. I met a woman at Deep Creek who couldn't bring her almost adult children because it was a clothing optional place. It was part of a custody agreement and her ex-husband thought naturism was evil. The court thought it was reasonable. This is California, where there is no state law against nudity and the county didn't have one either.
I'm not sure why the Arkansas state law against even advocating for nudity wasn't challenged and overturned long ago. And now that SCOTUS is dominated by right wing ideologues, its too late.
Agreed with Fred. This isn't laws on naturism. This is family court. In family court, anything can go, and if you have an ex bent on destroying you, they will take a smidge of the smallest thing and run with it, regardless of the law. Then it all comes down to the judge you have and the financial means you have to battle it.
I do personally feel that this is something that should be mentioned to people new to naturism. I feel that people become enraptured on advocating for children in naturism and lose sight of how it is weaponized in various venues -- and frankly, there isn't enough support to fight these things in court. Acknowledging this reality doesn't take away from the ideal of children in naturism.
I have to disagree. In a lot of cases, I'll say you are correct. But it does very on location. In CT, I doubt you will have a judge who would be out to destroy naturism. There might be cases in a divorce where it is agreed upon that the children of divorce would not be allowed to take their children to a resort or area (of know some parents in that situation, sadly), but you would be hard-pressed to try to take someones' parental rights away completely because they are a naturist.
While we are a blue state, and we do, of course, have a few Republican elected officials, we are also a very libertarian state. Our conservatives are not like conservatives in AK or even CA.
With that said, you said, "something that should be mentioned to people new to naturism"; you could and should say the same thing about relationships. I've been saying it for years: if you want to raise your kids as a naturist, that should be a discussion one has long before they have children and before marriage. Every family I know raising naturist kids was talked about between the two people during the dating process. Either both parents were naturists beforehand, or one was, and the other wasn't, and for the latter, the naturists educated the textile on naturism while they were dating. And if they weren't keen on it, the relationship was over before they mixed DNA.
I get slacked for saying that all the time. I don't know why? It also seems the people who have these talks beforehand don't end up in divorce, as perhaps they are more compatible in just not interest but also in shared values when it comes to child rearing, family, etc.
Agree to disagree on the first point. The GFM even says in it that it is used to judge the mom's parenting capability. Many items can be brought in court to bring into question a parent's capability, including things like "lacking judgement" that do not mean any law has been broken but that the judge in particular feels brings to question a parent's capability. It's about heuristics and biases. Given that this was scheduled as an emergency hearing, sounds like the opposing parent knows his way around the court system and is willing to jump on that knowledge to add difficulty to the mom's life. This happens everywhere and nudity presents the perfect opportunity to weaponize the system, regardless of the laws on the books.
Agreed on the second point, should definitely be spoken about during a relationship, if one or both are naturists at that stage. I was thinking more about it as parents becoming naturists after they had children. Thanks for pointing out this other angle.
"Many items can be brought in court to bring into question a parent's capability, including things like "lacking judgement" that do not mean any law has been broken but that the judge in particular feels brings to question a parent's capability."
I 100% agree. My point is in a state like CT; it is very unlikely that a judge would see a parent being a nudist as a sign of "lack judgment" to cut off all ties with the nudist parent, even if both parties agree not to take the child to a nudist resort. This is because, for starters, CT is a small state; we don't have a county government, and our population is less than Los Angeles County. Now, I don't know about AK, but here, judges are appointed by the governor, not elected. I did look it up, and custody battles in CT go through the family superior court. There are only seven family superior court judges, five of whom were appointed by progressive governors. Plus, or republicans, elected, appointed, or your run-of-the-mill civil servant, aren't evangelical/religious right Republicans, as that really doesn't exist here in New England (when people like that do run for office, they are seen as loonies and get less votes then Green Party candidates), out republicans are the more socially libertarian fiscally conservative types.
With that said, it is very rare in all custody battles, no matter the state, that cases even get to the courts, as statistically, most are settled out of court.
It's important to consider the specific context of Arkansas in this case. The father's lawyer referenced the Arkansas Nudism law in court, claiming that Sarah's activities are illegal in the state. What's interesting is that this law has never been enforced, pleaded to, or even cited in any Arkansas court before. Naturism has never been brought as a cause for action in Family Court in Arkansas, so no one has had standing to challenge the constitutionality of this law until now.
This case could be precedent-setting, as all family court proceedings in Arkansas take place in Circuit Court, and only a circuit court decision can establish legal precedent in the state. The outcome of this case might have significant implications for the naturist community, not just in Arkansas but potentially beyond, depending on how the court rules.
At least, this is my understanding of it after speaking with people close to the case in Arkansas. I am not an attorney and have no personal experience or knowledge with the Arkansas legal system.
"not just in Arkansas but potentially beyond, depending on how the court rules."
This is something I worry about, especially if a cretin party gets elected in November. Although in places like CT and where you are in CA adult and child nudity is legal, it could go the same way as abortion with a national ban.
Sarah, When I was looking for a company to produce the Skinny-Dipper flag, I was thrilled to find FlagandBanner.com in Little Rock, AR. They took on the project, produce wonderful flags, and have even offered me statistics on how the promotional Skinny-Dipper flag as sold around the USA and internationally. They suggested the name as "everyone already knows what skinny-dipping is" as I was struggling with the name of a "body acceptance flag." I knew that the State had a ban on promoting social nakedness and was very pleased to know that FlagandBanner were marketing the Skinny-Dipper flag. The company produces "Brave" magazine and provided a very positive, two-page article in their Spring/Summer 2018 issue on the origins of the Skinny-Dipper flag with a cropped photo of me nude after a dunk in the Arctic Ocean and the flag's first flying at a gathering of the nAKed Friends in Anchorage - again promoting body acceptance. The owner Kerry McCoy, is a positive woman entrepreneur, who took an abandoned building and has generated a new creative company. McCoy represents in many ways what you are struggling to achieve, taking old ideas and bringing them forward with new understanding for the benefit of today's society. May I suggest contacting McCoy for in-state support of your cause.
I hope that you get a favorable day in court. I will pray.
Here's the background on the Arkansas law regarding nudity:
https://www.planetnude.co/p/reverend-braxton-sawyer-the-crusading
The reality is that Arkansas has never enforced the anti-nudity law and it seems to be one those clearly unconstitutional laws that continues to exist by virtue of simply being ignored. There are at least two nudist locations in Arkansas and another one under construction outside of Little Rock. Beyond that, Arkansas has a huge boating culture (I live by a 45,000 acre lake here in AR) and skinny dipping is quite common on the lakes. Yes, if you flaunt it in front of the police or rangers the authorities might tell you to put some clothes on but there is no history that I know of, of anyone being arrested that wasn't actually misbehaving in a sexual way.
https://arktimes.com/news/arkansas-reporter/2016/03/31/group-wants-arkansass-prude-nude-law-revoked?oid=4345924
Best Of Luck Sarah.
I saw the update that even though parental rights weren't entirely removed, she no longer has full custody rights, as she has had for the past 2 years. :( That's a big adjustment for both her and her child, and it's hard to believe that the motivation comes from a place of the other parent wanting to be invilfed vs seizing on a gotcha moment and weaponizing nudity.