by Caveat 13 Replies latest jw friends
For our resident lawyers and those familiar with the law anywhere but specially on the US…
Can a parent legally forbid a son from being baptized until he becomes an adult (legal age)?
JWs usually baptize their children when they are in their early teens, can an unbelieving parent do something legal to prevent this?
Your thoughts,
Caveat
I would be interested in a legal answer, but I would say
Children are unable to enter into binding contracts.
WTS baptism is a binding contract, but with no force behind
it. They should never be able to get a baptism without
parental consent. Legally, it should be possible to deny
one's own child permission to enter into binding contracts.
Baptisms would be done without parental consent, and
parents should sue WTS for allowing them without first
consenting with and gaining permission from parents.
Problem is legal fees for parents- you would have to involve
ACLU or someone willing to help tackle WTS.
Can a parent legally forbid a son from being baptized until he becomes an adult (legal age)? JWs usually baptize their children when they are in their early teens, can an unbelieving parent do something legal to prevent this?
Although not an expert in US law I am aware that there are some similarities to the law in the UK.
The answer to your question is simply no, however you can obtain a court order preventing your ex partner from taking the child to meetings and or otherwise indoctrinating your child as a Jehovahs Witness. The court will decide what is in the best interests of the child so your case will need to rely upon their teachings regarding shunning, blood, restricted associations, higher education and the fact that witnesses openly encourage non witness parents to be ostracised in terms of being an influence spiritually.
The courts will no doubt consider human rights issues and religious freedoms but the rights of the child will remain paramount!
DB74
Thanks for your prompt replies, OnTheWayOut and diamondblue1974.
Still the best analogy I can think of is a Marriage. If you plan to marry while underage you need the written consent of one of the parents.
Can a refusal somehow stop or delay the process while the local elders get advice from the legal department?
Caveat
Still the best analogy I can think of is a Marriage. If you plan to marry while underage you need the written consent of one of the parents.
Can a refusal somehow stop or delay the process while the local elders get advice from the legal department?
Although I am not an expert in this area of law, the analogies that have been used are incorrect and my guess would be the answer is simply no.
First marriage is governed by laws that are in place, hence the need to obtain permission for under aged marriage. As for a "contract" last I know of, when you get btzd there is nothing you are signing and my guess is getting btzd is not the same as entering into a verbal contract. You are answering questions, but they are not questions you are being asked to swear to, you are not providing a witness statement nor are you giving a deposition.
Again, my quick response w/o doing research is no. You may find someone here that has actually looked into it and they may have an answer. Regardless, I would want the back up, just in case you have to fight the issue. Make sure they have your state correct and they provide with either the Statute that is appropriate and/or case law.
Caveat,
Family law varies from state to state, but when it comes to children, the laws are fairly close. You may want to conduct a Google search on Parental Rights, Family Law, etc. for your state.
Example (Tatoo law): I just conducted a search in Illinois on tatooing children under 18, which requires parental consent in Illinois. (http://tattoojoy.com/tattoo_laws/united_states,illinois,1.htm) I could not find anything immediately on religious baptism. But, I cannot imagine that a parent could stop a minor from being tatooed, but not from joining a religion until age 18.
FINDLAW.COM is a good resource. I looked up Family Law and here is a list of areas where the law legislates in Illinois. You may want to type in your state and see if the topic of religion or baptism comes up. Usually, the law leaves the issue of religion up to the parents to control, unless there is a disput in custody, and thus which parent's religious affiliation will prevail. - http://family.findlaw.com/
If you have a serious legal issus, call a Family Law attorney in your area.
Jim Whitney
I can only comment from a UK legal perspective, but it would seem that if a parent has parental responsibility for a child this means that they can make decisions on behalf of the child without the other partners consent; the only way to prevent this would be take legal action under Section 8 Children Act 1989.
This means first of all obtaining a court order preventing the other parent from taking actions which would not be in the best interests of the child; admittedly this is extremely difficult on the basis that religious freedoms and human rights issues are at stake. The childs best interests will be paramount in these cases but they will tread very carefully in order to avoid offending the right to religious freedoms.
In Palou - Martinez v France [2004] 2 FLR 810it was held that it is wrong to make such orders on the basis of religion only; any successful case will need to concentrate on actual actions which undermine the family unit, this isn't tolerated in any respect by the courts. The Claimant in this case failed to properly concentrate on these issues hence the reason why the court fell into error. Click on the link to see the facts and the judgement.
Tricky area but not impossible.
(Gary) DB74
That would be my advice. Contact a Family Law attorney in your area to get factual information.
Juni
What if the child wishes to get baptized, regardless of the parent's wishes? I'd think the courts, if pushed, would err on the side of the child, once they are over twelve or so. At about that age, the courts heavily favor the child's preferences, including living arrangements and so on.
Threatening legal action has slowed the elders down before. That might be worth it.
P.S. If you were to go down this course, I would bring up the potential harm of SHUNNING, which unbaptized youth are protected from.
In Palou - Martinez v France [2004] 2 FLR 810 it was held that it is wrong to make such orders on the basis of religion only; any successful case will need to concentrate on actual actions which undermine the family unit, this isn't tolerated in any respect by the courts. The Claimant in this case failed to properly concentrate on these issues hence the reason why the court fell into error. Click on the link to see the facts and the judgement.
Just to highlight that the European Court of Justice does distinguish between orders made solely on the basis of religion and those made on the basis of actions which could undermine the family unit. Hoffman v Austria [1994] 1 FCR 193. This was a case where the court rules that the childs interests are paramount and but there has to be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued.
In the UK there has been cases where shunning is practiced by other religious sects and orders have been made by the courts to prevent the child coming into contact with such environments Re R (A Minor) (Religious Sect) [1993] 2 FCR 525
Contact with parents is deemed in the UK and Europe to be fundamentally in the childs interest's (even where the parent has historically been abusive) anything which undermines contact will be deemed not within a childs best interests.
This just supports my argument that such cases are not impossible to plead if the right information and evidence is presented; my advice is to look for a specialist family lawyer.
DB74
