Does this bother anyone else?

http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills061/bills/HB989.HTM

HB989--- Allows courts to consider the opinions and recommendations by a professional or member of the clergy in child custody proceedings

THUS:

2. The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child. The court shall consider all relevant factors including:

(9) The opinions and recommendations provided to the court by a professional or member of the clergy at the request of a parent. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as conferring upon any professional or member of the clergy with a right to intervene or otherwise participate in a child custody proceeding except at the request of a parent.
________

Does anyone else envision some ugly scenarios with parents and judges who have matching religious viewpoints?

But I do understand your concern about clergy. I would hope that a parent who is not religious would not be denied custody for that reason alone.

A teacher vs clergy is too different things.
A teacher has influence for one year. Clergy is supposedly lifetime influence. This is the kind of situation where the judge may be making judgements between situations with an athiest vs religious parent with clergy testifying about how stunted the development of the child will be, etc etc.
And a kid could wind up with an abuser or a drunk.

but many preachers are trained counselors. My uncle is a priest and he is a licensed counselor.

If so, he works as a mediator and does not take sides.
This is taking sides. It changes everything.
You have to start looking at everyone's motivations. You have the potential for clergy trying to save children's souls in family court, parents using clergy to demonize one another further, etc.

he did family counseling.

Their most common goal is to find common ground and mediate.
For clergy members to allow themselves to be pulled into custody cases seems very unethical to me.
Custody hearings are supposed to be in the interest of the children. A person who is a witness who also happens to be a member of the clergy as is one thing.
They are talking about a member of clergy as a sort of special witness with an opinion on the best interest of the child.
They are, in effect conveying expertise in the arena of child raising to clergy by virtue of the fact that they are ordained.

Don't judges make the decision anyway? Yes, this seems a bit odd.

And, as I noted in another post custody hearings are supposed to be in the interest of the children.
They are, in effect conveying "expertise" in the arena of child rearing to clergy by virtue of the fact that they are ordained.
The clergy is supposedly an expert on behalf of the child. Which would mean that a judge would have to sort out stuff like biases assuming that the clergy wasn't there trolling for souls, or having the strength of character to know if he\she was being fooled, etc.
This concept seems like a real problem to me.

Or someone with the same viewpoints but a little less vocal/extreme. Let's say mom was a fundie nut and dad was a sane gay man living with a partner in a loving relationship. Let's say the the judge was also a closet fundie nut...you do the math

Scary.

My pastor is a great guy, and is unmarried with no kids. He likes kids, but is no child development expert.