She just wanted to raise her little girl. I mean, she's not trying to accomplish anything. She's just trying to defend herself and protect her daughter, at this point. We thought we had things under control, she's been awarded custody of her daughter, so that's not even an issue anymore. It's really just an issue now of a few visitation questions and now, of course, Mr. Reyes bringing this religious aspect to it is something that he just created, recently.
Well the judge hasn't done anything yet with respect to holding him in contempt, that's what the hearing is about on the 16th. But, you know, it wasn't just the judge—the judge ordered the initial restraining order. What maybe hasn't come out is that Joseph, through his attorney, took an appeal and the Illinois Appellate Court upheld what this attorney had done, so it wasn't just this judge but it was also the Illinois Appellate Court that has ruled that Joseph should not be doing anything to take his daughter to church, for example, until the trial. And the trial is only a few weeks away, so why he suddenly felt compelled to take his daughter to church just to make a point seems like a very unusual decision to make and doesn't seem to be—it seems to be more than just him raising his daughter as a Christian, I think he's just trying to call attention to himself, basically.
Well, I think it was the way Joseph had done it that created the restraining order because it was so out of the blue that he would take his daughter who had been raised all her life in the Jewish religion and just to have her baptized one weekend… it was shocking. And I think he judge thought it was poor judgment and that was his ruling. And the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed his ruling, so it wasn't just this judge, but it was the Illinois Appellate Court. And, you know, keep in mind Joseph is in law school, he should know that he shouldn't be violating court orders, he knows that he's got a remedy in court, yet he chose to violate a court order and bring a film crew to watch it.
Well, it right now is about Joseph violating a court order. I think next month when we go to trial, we're going to find out how this child should be raised, at least for the next couple years. She's 3 years old, her identity is Jewish at this point. I think it's going to be up to the trial judge to decide at what point does this little girl get exposed to other religions so that she's not confused and her identity is intact. I think her mother feels very strongly that it had always been their decision to raise this little girl as a Jewish girl. And Rebecca is the custodial parent, and we will be arguing in court next month that this little girl should be raised Jewish, at least for the next couple years till she's old enough to understand the differences between religions.
I feel very strongly that this judge is going to take some action here because he flat out admitted, even on the tape that he was violating the order and he felt that he was going to exercise what he called his First Amendment rights, and I think that's going to be something that—I don't think the judge is going to look at this as a First Amendment case, you know, I think the judge is going to look at this as a man who's in law school who has legal remedies, who has a trial coming up in a couple weeks, that simple chose to violate this court order and take his little girl and put her on TV while he takes her into church.