Rifqa Bary is once again in grave danger in Ohio

If Rifqa is to be considered a minor in her parents custody, and no actual grave wrongdoing has been established against the parents, then they technically do have the right to govern and oversee her religious life and education. When she becomes an adult, she can do as she wishes.

It is instructive to see what eminent Catholics have said regarding this. They have clearly upheld the right of all parents, including all non-Catholic ones, to have the right to educate their children religiously, even if it includes serious errors from the Catholic perspective, as Thomistic theology holds that while error can have no rights in and of itself, allowing for it is to be pursued when a greater evil can be averted, apparently not unlike what Muslims such as Yusuf Qaradawi utilize in the form of Fiqh al Muwazanat.

Let's see what the Catholic sources I'm familiar with have to say:

“It is the parents’ duty to look after the salvation of their children, especially before they come to the use of reason…Hence a child before coming to the use of reason, in the natural order of things, is directed to God by its parents’ reason, under whose care it lies by nature: and it is for them to dispose of the child in all matters relating to God.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

“Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral.”

Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge

“You cannot take the children from the Islamic education of their parents against their will without, at the same time, depriving the parents of their natural objective right of educating their children.”

Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve, Religious Liberty Questioned

If anybody has applicable Catholic teaching/thought on this subject from sources that at least measure up to Aquinas, Pope Pius XI, and Archbishop Lefebrve, I'm all ears and willing to reconsider.

Why is the judge in this case even considering all this loony tunes CAIR interference...Is he just stupid? He can't see the abuse being heaped upon Rifqa? He can't see the attempts at character assassination? He can't see by the constant blows being delivered to her, that SHE HAS A POINT???
She is not safe from abuse by these people even while in custody...I hope that if Rifqa survives and manages to turn 18, that she sues the pants off everyone who conspired to abuse her, and they pay through the nose...

fairuzan...In the US, parents can lose their rights to their children when the children are perceived to be in danger...This case has religious connections but the court will not rule religiously...It will make it's decision on
it's evaluation of Rifqa's claims against her father...Which has not been automatically rejected...The fact that Rifqa is not already back with her parents indicates the court gives her claims some merit...Everyone reading JW knows why she is in danger, and should not be returned to its originators...

Basically I could care less about the Catholic Churches views on parental rights...

Consider the fragile nature of Islam in the United States. Apparently the apostacy of one young women (17 years old) is such a severe threat to both Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood that it marshals the energy of one of it's front organizations (CAIR) to subvert the laws and customs of the United States to silence her.

What would Rifqa Bary say that would rock Allah on his throne in heaven? Or frighten his minions here in America?

Would she say that Islam is not a religion that is freely chosen by its members? Would she say that Islam is forced upon the children of it's believers? Would she reveal the differences between the freedom given to her brother and the virtual slavery that she has been subject to? Would she reveal that Muslim parents routinely beat their children? Would she add to the growing evidence that the Noor mosque is under the control of the Jihad?

Would her escape from Islam demonstrate to the Muslim population in the United States and the West in general that the Islamic penalty for apostacy (death) will not be enforced?

Will her escape inspire the other children of Islam to leave this barren, hopeless "religion" for the freedom of the West?

Hang in there, girl. Only a few more months or so, and you're 18 and free. If they try to send you somewhere you don't want to go, run away again, as quick as possible. Hide with people who will keep your whereabouts secret, even if it means cutting yourself off as much as the State is cutting you off.

Just hang in there, and survive, by whatever means necessary.

Stemberger, Rifqa's FL attorney, debated Shaytan, her father's CAIR affiliated FL attorney this morning on Fox and Friends. Unfortunately, Stemberger is not gifted in debate and extemporaneous public speaking. He needs to use a PR person rather than try and present her case himself. He made some interesting points, but his presentation was weak compared to Shaytan's. He kept looking to his cue cards and making nervous gestures. By contrast, Shaytan was able to take control of the debate and clearly and concisely state his views while looking directly at the camera.

I thought one of the most interesting parts of the debate was where Shaytan claimed that neither he nor the parent's current attorneys have any ties to CAIR. Shaytan says he worked pro bono and received nothing from CAIR. Stemberger told him he'd been cheated since the Noor Mosque has held at least 2 fundraisers to pay for the Bary's defence. Does anyone know anything about these events? When were they held?, etc.

Shaytan also kept emphasizing that FL and OH law enforcement and Franklin Co. Child Protective Services have all said it is safe for Rifqa to return home and denied that the Barys have abused their daughter. He went on to tell Stemberger that he lost in FL and that he's losing in OH as well. He implied that Rifqa is liar and needs to be returned to her parents so that the family can deal w/ her disobedience. This did not increase my confidence in Rifqa's counsel or that she will remain safe in OH.

Here's the link for anyone that wants to watch the interview:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3959758/rifqa-bary-update/?playlist_id=86856

So long as Rifqa has Christ, she is NEVER isolated or alone.

Likewise, so long as those of us within the Body of Christ uplift her in prayer, we are guaranteed that He knows, hears, and listens (even if that 'two or more' that are gathered in HIs name happen to be in cyber-space).

The prayers will continue, unabated.

Christ, have mercy...

Hey Fartfuz, no one is taking Rafiq from her parents. She left of her own discord (for obvious reasons). This isn't about anyone stealing a muslim girl from her "loving, peaceful" parents who have her best interest at heart. This isn't about anyone taking Rafiq against her will; it's about protecting her from the muslim ingrates in Ohio who wish her harm (even if only according to her). Do you really think quoting Christians has anything to do with this situation? If the family were christians and she fled for fear of life, the case would be the same; well not really the same, since she would have have so much more support but try to get the point. Go someone else to defend your vile religion.

fairuzfan:

Unfortunately you are dismissing the entire point when it comes to Rifqa Bary's situation. Islam is different then Christian religions and Rifqa Bary has been branded an apostate which easily marks her for death based on sharia and the fundamental teachings of the Quran. We do not find such deplorable actions in Christian teachings.

In Rifqa's case you are trying to back the train up in an attempt to suggest that after 6 years of being a Christian Rifqa should default back to Islam at the will of her parents.

As you point out here:

“You cannot take the children from the Islamic education of their parents against their will without, at the same time, depriving the parents of their natural objective right of educating their children.”

What's missing here is that Rifqa made this choice on her own and no one took her from her Islamic education but herself and of her own free will and at great danger for herself years before she was found out. She understood the risk at being marked an apostate by Islam and her family in making her choice.

Fairfuzan -

What Catholics may or may not think is irrelevant to this case. There will always be people who demand absolute parental control over minors until they're not minors any more (or perhaps beyond.)

Rifqa chose for herself, and is certainly old enough to make that choice. The problem is with American law; 18 is, well, rather old to still be under your parents' thumbs. Of course, in Canada, you're free to do as you like at 16 - quit school, move out, get a job, rent a place, get your driver's license and own a car. You can't vote or drink, and any contract you sign isn't binding, but you have all the other privileges of an adult (if you choose) and some of the responsibilities (though I think the Youth Justice Act or whatever it is now should stop also at 16, rather than at 18.) I myself was living on my own, in a different city than where I grew up, at 16, and it really boggles my mind that a 17-year old is going through this crap as if she were 5 or something.

Frankly, I would rent her a room and help her get a job here before her 18th birthday if she could get here. No one could do anything about it, so long as her work visa was in order.

She was not taken away against her will. She was not taken to be put in some sort of indoctrinational residential school to force her to not be Muslim any more. Personal belief is, well, personal, and she is being punished for making a choice that goes against her parents' belief system (ie, leaving Islam for anything at all else), simply because she is not 18 yet. And she is being punished in the Sharia manner.

She can think for herself, and ought to be allowed to do so.

Hey fairuzfan, you liar, you're pretending that the Rifqa matter is something entirely else than it really is.

All that your Catholic quotes say is that a child should not be forcibly, against the CHILD's wishes, taken away from her parents and forced to become Catholic.

None of your quotes say that a 17-year-old minor should be FORCED to practice a religion she dislikes and PREVENTED from practicing religion of her choice; none of it says she has no freedom of conscience just because she is a minor.

Does the pope oppose the U.N. declaration of children's rights, which includes freedom of religion? None that I heard of.

Besides, you pretend the parents are somehow blameless and without blemish. No parents whose child runs away hundreds of miles, endangering herself in the process, and places herself at the mercy of nearly total strangers, and that all because the child is mortally afraid of her parents, can be blameless. Had Rifqa broken a window by an accident, her parents would be culpable. But when she endangers herself so severely, after nearly 17 years of being raised by her parents, you find no fault with them?

Decent parents don't cause their children to take such desperate measures.

"Hey fairuzfan, you liar..."

Agreed, he is a liar.

Believe me, it hasn't been his first lie, nor will it be his last.

sigh .....

As Rifqa's friend and fellow ex-Muslim, Jamal Jivanjee pointed out in his very concise and well written letter to all of Rifqa's supporter above:

"there are upwards of 50 people who, if allowed, could possibly testify to the fact that Rifqa greatly feared for her life long before she fled from her parents in Ohio. The evidence is actually overwhelming in favor of supporting Rifqa's assertion that she was in tremendous fear for her life for quite some time."

With opinions apparently being reflected by Fairfuzan as to what religious leaders such as; Thomas Aquinas,Pope Pius XI,and Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve have said;

With all do respect to their attained positions in religious theological teachings. There are simply way to many variables that drive the human condition. It is to difficult to make blanket statements about what should or should not be.

Situations can vary dramatically in every situation based on all kinds of unknown input from a variety of factors. Take for instance this analogy, the game of golf. The book of the rules in golf is 2 inches thick and it takes years to understand all the things that can occur in that game that may have never been fully addressed before to keep the game fair.

More obvious analogies are found in the courts and legal challenges that are being addressed everyday.

The rules of search and seizure by law enforcement as it is reflected in case law have changed and re-changed hundreds of times over the past decade.

One simply cannot make a blanket statement about Rifqa's situation and everything needs to be carefully and thoughtfully addressed when it comes to the safety and security of this young girl who has clearly been branded as an apostate based on Islamic sharia law.

I don't understand why the judge simply does not legally emancipate her. She is just a few months away from her 18 th birthday. Her parents attempts to control her behavior are doomed to failure on the day she comes of age. It is an exercise in futility on their part. Barring that I hope they don't return her to her parents custody. On the day she turns 18 she will be free as a bird.

@ fairuzfan -

You act like Catholicism and Islam are more or less the same. Is this your first time at Jihad Watch and you know nothing about Islam? Or are you just playing around here?

We're talking about a young girl who's been threatened by her father for leaving an ideology which teaches death to those who convert away from it. What part of that is unclear to you? And why are you bothering to compare it with Catholicism when 1) Catholicism has nothing to do with Islam and 2) she's not even Catholic?

This girl seem to be perpetually stuck at age 17.When will she be 18?

Duh_Swami, we're having a good day together, aren't we?

Well, I have to give you credit where credit is due. While I certainly have differences with what you stated, compared to the other nutball responses to my post, yours is rather thoughtful and sound, all things considered.

Congrats.

fairuzfan -

Nutball responses like mine? You know, wherein people ask you why on earth you're bringing up Catholicism in a situation concerning Islam?

I'll not hold my breath for a response to my points. Something tells me I'll be just wasting my time.

unbeliever1:

RIFQA BARY WILL BE 18 ON AUGUST 10,2010.

THAT IS UNLESS HER PARENTS AND CAIR TRY TO UNDERMINE THAT ALSO AT THE LAST MINUTE.

"...other nutball responses to my post,"

Just another dismissive put-down characteristic of a troll. These dismissive and dishonest tactics are getting old.

As a Catholic who brought my kids up Catholic I can say for a fact and without a doubt that nowhere in Catholic teaching, not in the Baltimore Catechism or in any of the Pope's encyclicals or in the writing of the church doctors or saints that parents may kill their child if they leave the faith. I know of nowhere it says that in the Bible.

This is not about the parents rights to govern their child. This is about a death threat made by a parent to a child and somebody must be taking it pretty seriously otherwise Rifqa wouldn't have spent 1/2 of her summer vacation under government supervision in Florida or the fall school term under the same in Ohio. She's going on six months out of the family home and away from her parents. Surely some one in authority must have thought this a prudent idea for some very important reason. And we should expect that whatever the reason Rifqa will not be returned to her parents without a thorough investigation and actual results, which we haven't seen yet. Otherwise I believe the state of Ohio will have a firestorm on it's hands and will cause a lot of otherwise peaceable people to react in scary ways in defense of this young lady's life.

Just ignore FF. He knows he only came her to confuse people.

For those who believe the salient lesson to be learned in all this is that Muslim female apostates in America just bide their time until they're 18, understand that the lesson will not be lost on their parents. My guess is that Muslim parents will increasingly seek to have their daughters married before the 18th birthday, lest adulthood interfere with the acquisition of dowry...and of course the maintenance of family "honor".

Rifqa's treatment is a travesty, a blight on the moral conscience of America, and a strategic retreat in the nebulous war against Sharia.

Religion need not enter this matter at all. The fact that Rifqa was beaten and threatened by her parents should be enough to have them declared unfit, and have her placed under the protective custody of the state until she's 18. That would certainly have been decided, and the case over and done with by now, if the family had called itself Christian.

To Fairuzfan:

Your argument speaks volumes about your mindset. Hopefully such a learned person as you is aware of the gazillions of us (Not translatable to Arabic) who are not catholic. I also hope you understand that the reasonable fear for the safety of a minor has taken many a child from their home into protective custody. Even though you often say things that are rational and reasoned your subcontious often employs a "Jihad vs. Crusader" ideal. Please leave the midevel times behind and join us here in the 21st century.
When we JW Infadels constantly read the headlines we search for just one instance of a catholic school girl or a mormon missionary with a bomb strapped to them. We yearn to see a baptist preacher order a flogging or to hear of just one pentacostal stoning. Sorry BUBBA, it just ain't happnin.

To fairuzfan; I usually don't like piling on in a debate but this time someone's life is at stake, Rifqa Bary's.
First to quote Catholic authorities is not very wise as the Catholic Church has a long list of administrative and doctrinal errors going back a long time. You only have to look at the current contraversy surrounding the proposed cannonization of Pope Pius X11 to see that the churches record during World War 11 was a bit spotty. I speak sadly as someone raised in the Church and am still very fond of it's rituals which can be very comforting to people.
But the Church isn't always wrong. It is considered a mortal sin by the Church to murder anyone including your own daughter. Mortal sins can lead perpetrators to an eternity in Hell.

OK, Mo, you want to be taken seriously, so here goes:

1)Yes, I know quite a bit about Islam. I'm guessing I've had more extensive discussions with more Islamic mujtahids, academics and theologians than you have. My travels in the past decade have included Egypt, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar, and India, and have featured extended discussions in all of those places, except Iran. Where have you been in recent years?

2) No I'm not playing around. I don't play games. Do you?

3) I'm not aware that it's been proven that her father has threatened and has plans to kill Rifqa. And if he did, I assume he would be arrested. And I stated at the outset that if indeed this is the case, then my subsequently stated thoughts based on Catholic teaching are inapplicable.

4) Yes, Islam does teach that apostates are subject to the death penalty. I also understand, if I'm not mistaken, that it requires a full sharia jurisdictional trial and due process, so that nobody has the right in such a case to take the law into their own hands. If the point of your claim here is that her father has the right, according to Islam, to directly kill her for converting, my understanding is that that is not so.

While we're on the subject, normative Judaism also teaches that apostates are subject to the death penalty. And I come from a Jewish background and have converted out, apparently making me eligible for possible execution if a theocratic Judaic jurisdiction should arise in the future. You'll understand if I'm a little more concerned with Judaism than with Islam on this point. And if you think this is a theoretical irrelevancy, try googling and learning about Yaacov Teitel and he what he did to Ami Ortiz.

5) Catholicism and Islam have key differences, to be sure, but also have a significant amount of overlap. In fact, Islam is, overall, closer to Christianity than any other religion. No other religion reveres the figures of Jesus and Mary as these two do. And before you go ape over religion and government questions, yes, Catholicism actually does authoritatively teach that governments have an obligation to recognize, respect, uphold, support, defend and promote the True Faith.

6) What Rifqa is or is not is irrevelant. As a Catholic, I will approach a subject from the lens of normative Catholic thought and teaching. That's what serious people of any religious affiliation do. That teaching has certain strictures that will carefully distinguish between where teachings do apply to non-believers and where they do not. The ones I stated clearly do, as they apply to all parents, not just Catholic ones.

The real question is: What part of this is unclear to YOU, Mo?

Isabella, it looks like you're trafficking in the usual nonsense.

I present serious Catholic thought from serious Catholics, including an authoritative papal statement. So where's your response? Did I fabricate it? Did I misunderstand it? Has it been replaced by other teaching? So??

Nothing from you at all. Completely ignored, as usual.

Swell, the Baltimore C. doesn't say apostates are subject to death from their parents. Of course I never said Catholicism teaches any such thing.

I will agree with your 'confuse' reference, as it appears you are easily confused by the facts, and simply resort to irrelevancies, evasions, and calls for others to be ignored. Your signs are those of somebody who has been licked.

First of all, Lefebvre died in a state of direct disobedience of the Pope and the Church. The Pope very kindly refused to take his actions as open schism; but he was certainly no moral authority.

Also, you drastically misquote the anti-Nazi papal letter "Mit Brennender Sorge", which denounced the Nazi government's attempts to get children to be good Hitler Youth instead of good Christians. (Among a great deal of other denunciations of Nazi practices. Which is why the letter was banned by the Nazis, and had to be smuggled into Germany and read out loud from Catholic pulpits during Mass.)

But moving right along, I see that you totally misunderstand the basic principles of Catholic moral theology.

Yes, a minor child is generally under parental authority, and generally must obey -- just as one generally must obey any person set in authority over one.

However, nobody has the authority to order a subordinate, or child, to commit sin; and nobody is allowed to commit sin out of obedience.

So a parent has the natural authority to instruct a child in moral principles and in obeying God, as far as the parent understands God's will. But if the child understands the parent to be commanding sinful behavior or false worship of God, the child has not just a right but an obligation to cease to obey these immoral commands. The child is encouraged to do so with respect, and to obey as far as possible; but it is more important to obey God than to obey a parent or any human.

I will end with a fuller, correct, and contextual version of the quote from "Mit Brennender Sorge":

"Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction of the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom that "right is common utility" a proposition which may be given a correct significance; it means that what is morally indefensible can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: "Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good" (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man's nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values which collectivity alone can provide also derive from the Creator for the good of man; and for his full development, natural and supernatural; and for the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence.

The believer has an absolute right to profess his Faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law.
Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which, in school questions, fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral. The Church, whose mission it is to preserve and explain the natural law, as it is divine in its origin, cannot but declare that the recent enrollment into schools organized without a semblance of freedom, is the result of unjust pressure, and is a violation of every common right.

"...Thousands of voices ring into your ears a Gospel which has not been revealed by the Father of Heaven. Thousands of pens are wielded in the service of a Christianity which is not of Christ. Press and radio daily force on you productions hostile to the Faith and to the Church, impudently aggressive against whatever you should hold venerable and sacred...."

Fairuzfan said;

"It's not been proven that Rifqa's father plans to kill her".

Did we discover before or after the fact that Sarah and Amina's father planned to kill them? Or does that make them any less dead?

It's easier to be the smartest man in the room than to be the wisest. But feeling like you have to win the argument at any cost makes you neither.

Oh, and I will add that Catholicism holds that Christian parental rights extend only so far. A parent has a right to tell a child to attend church (non-abusively) or take religious classes (non-abusively). But if the child is able to reason and tell right from wrong, the child cannot be ordered to believe in any religion or receive any sacrament. (Forced marriage is no marriage, for example.) It is a parent's responsibility to look after a child, but that doesn't mean the child's soul is not her own.

Using quotes about responsible parents to defend would-be murderer parents is reprehensible.

You keep on evading, fairuzfan.

I find it morally reprehensible for you to use Catholic statements, meant to prevent taking away children simply to ensure they become Catholic, as de facto supposed arguments to justify forcing a 17-year-old girl to practice one religion and abstain from another simply because her parents desire it to be so and without any regard to her conscience and maturity.

I also find it morally reprehensible for you to see no fault in Rifqa's parents despite the fact that she fears them, accused them of serious abuse, and took grave risks to get as far away from them as possible. If you think decent parents have that kind of effect on children, I really wonder how you treat your own children, if you have any.

Finally, your insistence on proof of abuse in order for Rifqa to get any kind of protection is frightening. Such a policy would doom countless children to daily abuse, including sexual abuse. A teenage girl could be molested by her dad every single night and still be unable to prove it. So in your view I guess she'd have suffer sexual abuse until she turns 18. What the girl says is of no import, as long as dad denies it all. And if she runs away, endangering herself gravely, in your view that is not evidence there may be serious abuse. And I guess if she tries to commit suicide, it still means nothing to you.

Your policy would be paradise for child abusers and hell for abused children. Vast majority of child abuse is not provable, but that does not mean children who take the extremely rare step and ask for protection in foster care (hardly a fun place) should be forcibly delivered to their parents like a runaway slave.

For Fairuzfan . . .

The difference is that Catholic's aren't performing "Honor Killings" in the name of Jesus.

Sometimes reasoning that "sounds" good, isn't "good" sound reasoning.

Robert:

Thanks for posting the updates on Rifqa. Despite contacting our major newspaper, they fail to cover this situation in depth [let's not name names . . . well, ok . . . the Plain Dealer] . . . unreal.

Ladies and gentlemen

in its posting above the supposedly-devout-catholic Fairuzfan cited a Catholic text that mentions 'the age of reason'.

"It is the parents’ duty to look after the salvation of their children, especially before they come to the use of reason…

"Hence a child *before coming to the use of reason, in the natural order of things, is directed to God by its parents’ reason* {my emphasis}, under whose care it lies by nature: and it is for them to dispose of the child in all matters relating to God.”

Well, I did a google search and lookit what I found on a Catholic site: the 'age of reason' - defined as "that period of human life at which persons are deemed to begin to be morally responsible" = SEVEN YEARS OLD.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

This means, if I understand correctly, that Rifqa's conversion from Islam to Christianity, which took place when she was 13, and her decision at 17 to leave her home after her apostasy was detected, because of her entirely rational fear of being killed by her parents or by some other Mohammedan as punishment for said apostasy, *must* both be considered by any Catholic as decisions taken by a person who had well and truly achieved the age of reason and who must surely be regarded as a morally responsible individual.

She is not, under American law, legally an adult - though she is coming closer to that threshold with each day that passes - but in the eyes of the Church she is surely to be viewed as a person with a mind of her own and a right to make moral and spiritual choices of her own, being a good ten years past that initial 'seven years' threshold.

If the Mohammedtroll (or Islamochristian?) known as Fairuzfan wanted to argue, from that Aquinas passage, that Rifqa should be viewed as a prerational child subsumed under her parents' 'reason', and should therefore be sent back to their custody, it made a massive error.

Prerational child she is NOT.

Here's a simple reason why Rifqa might have plead guilty to the unruly charge:
--- [ Ohio Revised Code ] ---
(5) “Child” means a person who is under eighteen years of age, except that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over any person who is adjudicated an unruly child prior to attaining eighteen years of age until the person attains twenty-one years of age, and, for purposes of that jurisdiction related to that adjudication, a person who is so adjudicated an unruly child shall be deemed a “child” until the person attains twenty-one years of age.
--- [ Ohio Revised Code ] ---

So perhaps she could get support from children's services past her 18th birthday?