Professor Erwin Chemerinsky gets the Pledge case right. But he raises another important issue- the interests of non-custodial parents in the upbringing of their children. Obviously, I am not an expert in this field, but it would seem to me that in a country with so many children of divorce that we need some sort of clear, or at least less ambiguous, statement of the rights of non-custodial parents. Sure, if the parent without custody is either absent or lost custody because of some factor which reflects on that person's ability to care for a child, then that parent probably deserves little legal say in the child's upbringing. But what about cases where the non-custodial parent is active and decent and caring? Should that parent not be afforded some level of legal protection or recourse? I assume that in many such instances, the parents may continue to have a co-operative relationship and raise the child(ren) together and are not at cross-purposes. Again, though, what about instances where there is not such a simpatico relationship and agreement about what is best for the child(ren)?