Child Custody and Jehovah's WItnesses

by Kismet 23 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Kismet

  Over the weekend I was asked by a very elegant lady and by another lady with a Julia Robert's smile to re-post this here. The original can be found at H20. ( http://www.aimoo.com/h2o

  I look forward to any and all constructive comments....

  Child Custody and Jehovah’s Witnesses

  This is a topic that generates great interest and often raw emotion since it involves innocent children, one’s own progeny. Most loving parents would endure anything in order to provide for, raise and protect their children. Thus during a divorce often issues revolving around children can be the most acrimonious and emotionally charged.

  The two most common instances involving Jehovah’s Witnesses where children are an issue is when either a parent is disfellowshipped from the religion and subsequent divorce or separation results or where one parent converts to the Jehovah’s Witness faith, leading to conflict between the newly converted parent and the non-JW parent.

  In matters of divorce, it has been my experience that any time where a non-JW parent raises religious issues it usually backfires and creates a prolonged expensive trial involving the Watch Tower Society as a third party or acting as legal consultants to the JW parents attorney. Most people are not able to afford the proceedings that would occur with the Society’s involvement. Some JW's have in the past exasperbated the religious issues for no reason other than to get free legal assistnce from the Watch Tower.

  I am not advocating that one not fight for their child, but as most courts have determined, religious beliefs and practices should NOT be the determining factor in issues of child custody.

  The paramount issue is the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

  This is the element that is oft forgotten or overlooked by the parents and their respective supporters. I have been in Kingdom Halls where a JW parent laments that they have lost custody of their child to the non (or ex) JW parent. The congregation then rallies support and even funding for the JW parent. The same scenario is played out on some online forums supporting those who are not or are no longer Jehovah’s Witnesses. All it takes is for someone to post that they are fighting for custody against a JW spouse and many rally around offering support and sometimes financing to fight against the Watch Tower Society. Such support is often based on a desire to help a person who is in a similar state as our own.

  But rarely if ever is the issue of ‘who is the better parent?” or “what is best for the child” raised by these well meaning supporters. Just because someone is or is not a JW does not instantly qualify them as a good parent or as a better parent than the other spouse.

  Courts in both the United States and in Canada (as well as in other International jurisdictions) have frequently ruled that the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of a parent should not be made issue during a custody proceeding as every individual is entitled to personal religious beliefs. So too it is the right of a parent to instruct a child in the tenets and belief structure held by the parent. Just as a black American parent might feel compelled to ensure their children are raised in full knowledge of the rich history of African-Americans, a highly religious individual will feel compelled to share their basest spiritual beliefs to their children.

  So what is a parent to do if they are involved in a custody battle either as a Jehovah’s Witness or against Jehovah’s Witnesses?

  It boils down to several qualities; reasonableness, tolerance, and child-centric thinking.

  The Watch Tower Society’s Legal Department counsels their clients and ‘expert witnesses’ to demonstrate reasonableness in all things. For example, as JW parent you want religious freedom for you and your child, Are you willing to give the same freedoms to your spouse? Is it really that harmful if a father wants to give his daughter a birthday present? Is it wrong for your child to want to make a special present for ‘mommy’ on mother’s day? If you want your rights you must be willing to give these same rights to your ex. You want to take your child to the Kingdom Hall, then let your spouse take your child to church as well. You want to take your child to the District Convention, then let you spouse take the child for the weekend to spend Christmas with your ex’s family.

  If you are not a JW, the above suggestions apply to you as well. How willing are you to let your reasonableness be known? The courts look more favourably upon the parent that can demonstrate this reasonableness best.

  It is the responsibility of both parents to ensure a healthy positive relationship with the other parent. To do otherwise is harmful and in some ways abusive and cruel to your child. A child needs both parents.

  The above paragraphs covers the qualities of reasonableness and tolerance that leaves the aspect of having a child-centric thinking pattern.

  This entails thinking of your child first. This means your anger, angst hatred for your spouse and their belief system has to be secondary to the best interests of your child. While you may despise your atheist or Jehovah’s Witness spouse, DO NOT let this hatred blind you to what is best for your child.

  Many have tried to demonstrate to the courts that the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses are harmful to the child. They have always failed. The only concessions made by the courts is that regarding keeping a child out late during a school night (Theocratic Ministry School/Service Meeting) and the degenerating of the other spouse by the parent or by church members if that person is disfellowshipped or the child is told as part of the indoctrination that the non-believing parent is going to be killed by god for being evil etc. Courts have agreed to having such activities specifically forbidden in Custody Orders.

  A divorce or separation is highly emotional even without religion being an issue. It is far better for the parents to determine or have a neutral third party (child’s advocate or social worker) assist in determining what living conditions and custody arrangements would be best for the child.

  It is after all about your child right? For those individuals who, as well intentioned as they may be, should determine what is best for the child before rallying too much support in legally defending the parent that more closely reflects our own belief system. There are lousy parents in every walk and belief system. There are also great parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and there are great parents that are disfellowshipped and there are great parents that have never been Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  Find out what is best for the child, demonstrating reasonableness, tolerance and child centric thinking and this will assist is a smooth transition for you and most importantly make it easier for your child to deal with the range of emotions that are inevitable to divorce without hearing claims of the evils of their mommy’s or daddy’s beliefs. Kids just want their parents.

  Kismet
• 

  VeniceIT

  Hey Kismet!!! just thought I'd say hi hadn't talked ot yo in a while soooo umm 'HI'

  Ven

  "Injustice will continue until those who are not affected by it are as outraged as those who are."
• 

  Kismet

  Hey Venice!!

  It has been a while.

  Due ot various reasons and circumstances I've been on a somewhat of a self-imposed exile from here for the past while. Between that and a blown motherboard/CPU 3 weeks ago it has limited my online activity.

  Thanks for the g'day tho! :) Hope all is well with you.

  Kismet
• 

  AlanF

  To Kismet:

  In principle I agree with the above information. The best interest of the child should certainly be of great importance. There are a few practical problems, however.

  For one thing, a very large fraction of Jehovah's Witnesses are not reasonable -- they are religious fanatics. Therefore, advice to be reasonable falls on deaf ears. What then, is the non-JW parent to do?

  It goes without saying that in most Western countries, the mother gets virtually full custody of the children. A mother normally has to be extremely messed up for a court to award custody to the father, or the father has to have an incredibly good lawyer. Therefore it's usually the non-JW father who has the serious problem here.

  How serious is it? Consider my brother's case. He was divorced in 1995, and his ex-wife naturally got custody of the two children (ages 15 and 13 at the time). Over the years the mother turned the children against their father because "he doesn't love Jehovah", and so now, for purely religious reasons, the two children have nothing to do with him -- and he isn't even disfellowshipped. My brother was simply cut out of his children's lives by their JW mother, aided by the rotten court system.

  A particularly nasty example of a JW parent turning children against the other is told by James Kostelniuk in Wolves Among Sheep: The True Story of Murder in a Jehovah's Witness Community (Haper Collins, 2000). Kostelniuk's JW ex-wife ignored court instructions and taught their small children to hate their father because he was no longer a JW. The man did not see his children for years on end, and finally ended up seeing them dead at the hands of their JW stepfather.

  Another problem is in defining "the best interests of the child". Is it in the best interests of a child for him or her to be turned against a parent by a religious fanatic? Of course not. We know very well from stories told by ex-JW parents on discussion boards like this that people who leave the JWs for ethical reasons tend to be far more reasonable than most JWs. JWs believe that God will kill their non-JW children at the soon-to-be-fought battle of Armageddon, and so they often care nothing for the rights of the non-JW parent -- even in the face of a court order. So it is the exception, not the rule, to find a JW parent who is willing to let the non-JW, non-custodial parent exercise freedom of religion. The JW parent will almost invariably work against the non-JW. Because children are most strongly influenced by the parent with whom they live, they naturally tend to pick up that parent's beliefs, prejudices and so forth. Therefore children of a JW custodial parent tend to pick up JW religious beliefs. The fact that some 75-80% of children of JWs tend to give up on the religion in their late teens is irrelevant to the matter of parental rights and prerogatives, since in the meantime the non-JW parent does not enjoy a normal relationship with his children.

  The problem here is not so much a matter of religion but of religious tolerance. Naturally, ex-JWs who quit the religion for ethical reasons tend to think that JWs are complete idiots -- that's why they quit! But they tend to be tolerant of JWs in the sense that they know that if a normally bright child is presented fairly with all evidence for and against JW beliefs, the child will usually see the goofiness of the religion on his or her own. JWs know the same thing, and so they tend to do everything in their power to prevent a child from gaining full information. They do this by labeling the non-JW parent "wicked, apostate, a hater of God" etc. Such labeling by a custodial parent is extremely effective, and that is precisely what non-JW parents complain about so bitterly.

  The statement was made that:

  : Many have tried to demonstrate to the courts that the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses are harmful to the child. They have always failed.

  That is not entirely true. Much depends on the quality of the legal counsel, which in turn usually depends on what the non-JW parent can afford. It depends a great deal on the knowledge of the legal counsel. My own experience is that very few lawyers have any idea what these issues are all about.

  One person, not a lawyer, who has made a nice living by offering expert counsel in these matters is Duane Magnani, the founder of Witness, Inc., an evangelical-oriented outfit dedicated to opposing the Watchtower Society. Magnani tells me that in general, if both parents are equally decent in the eyes of the court, he is able to show the court that being raised as a JW will cause a great deal of grief both to the child and to the non-JW parent, and then the court will award custody to the non-JW. The reason is not strictly on religious grounds, because what is being considered is not religious belief but religious practice. Anyone is free to believe on religious grounds that child sacrifice is ok, but no one is free on religious grounds to practice child sacrifice. With appropriate argumentation before a court, it is easy to show that many JW religious practices are detrimental to children -- such as being infuenced to view the non-JW parent as wicked and unworthy of the child's love. Obviously there is a gray area between practicing child sacrifice and teaching a child to hate a parent on religious grounds, but courts will usually consider these things as long as an expert demonstrates that certain JW practices are detrimental to children. So as long as a non-JW parent can pay the rather large fees demanded by expert counsel, he will often win custody on the grounds that certain JW practices are not in the best interests of the children.

  When I was divorced in 1995, my ex-wife naturally got custody of our daughter. She subsequently did everything in her power to turn the child against me, but since I was a very loving father and my daughter knew it, this did not work. Over the years I told my daughter the reasons I quit the JW religion, but she now tells me that she closed her ears to this because of her mother's influence. Obviously what I said above comes from personal experience. Eventually my ex-wife remarried to a JW man who was recently divorced and whose teenage daughters at first lived with him. The girls quickly learned that living in the same household with my ex was a terrible thing, since the woman treated them extremely poorly. One girl left the house within a couple of months and went to live with her mother. The other girl did the same a year later. A couple of months later, after observing the horrible treatment afforded these girls, my daughter decide to live with me. Since then she has told me a good deal about how much her mother tried to influence her against me, simply because of religious differences.

  In view of the above, whenever anyone tries to argue that JWs will respect the rights of a non-JW parent, I view them as horribly naive, or just plain liars. This is the practical aspect of child custody that the author of this piece has ignored.

  AlanF
• 

  Had Enough

  Hi there Kismet:

  Thanks so much for bringing your article to this discussion board. I enjoyed talking to you about this and now to read it in full again.

  You know what a touchey subject this is for me, but even though it does no good to "cry over spilt milk", I do so often wish I had been able to hear this about 10 years ago. I fell into the trap of believing the Society would win no matter what, in a court custody battle and being df'd and alone, I felt defenseless against the big boys in the Legal dept.

  Knowing that going to court against my ex (an influencial elder), would mean no reinstatement for me, and at the time, reinstatement was so important to me for the sake of my kids and my ill father, I felt absolutely defeated before even considering objecting to his refusal to share custody.

  The points you make of what is the best for the kids as being the most important factor really would have spurred me on to fight for them, I'm sure now. It breaks my heart even now, to remember how my son cried everytime I took him back to his father, but what resulted from that is that we are closer than ever, he loves and respects me and understands how I believed my hands were tied. Most importantly to me, is that he doesn't blame me but can see how the WTS can blind people's logic, confidence and reason. At least I have that to be thankful for.

  All the logical reasoning of sharing the raising of the children, even though apart, can so easily go right out the window when dealing with a JW parent though, who is steeped in the traditional belief that everyone else is wrong and they, the JWs, are the only right and blessed ones.

  I would hope that somewhere there is support such as what you suggest, for those non/ex JWs who are facing a custody issue. To know there are others who would back them up if they were the parent that would be best for the children, or perhaps could share the custody, would be so important especially to those newly leaving the org. but are still "carrying around baggage" of guilt trips and feelings of being outnumbered.

  Anyway, thanks for letting me unload, and it actually does me good to know that others, in the same situation, may not feel helpless when facing a custody issue these days. To know that the WTS does not have the power it claims to have, can be a real confidence booster. I wish I had known that back then.

  It was real nice to see you again and talk about certain issues. I'd still like to discuss a few more points, so I hope we get that opportunity again, (when my teeth aren't chattering from the cold .

  Had Enough

  "Never doubt that a small group of citizens can change the world.
  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."...Margaret Mead
• 

  messenger

  I find your post interesting as it appears to be saying JW's need a fair shake when going into court. As you well know this is never the case when WT gets involved with a child custody case. They will encourage all "witnesses" to lie for the sake of winning at all costs. Has Wt ever determined what was in the best interests of the child and then let them go to a worldly mate for custody? I think therein is the flaw in your analogy. Will a child be better off raised as a witness if the parent is a great person? Would a child be better off raised as a "Hitler youth" if he had a great Nazi parent? I think the answer is a forgone conclusion. It is difficult to be raised as a Witness with two great parents much less the empowerment given to disfunctional behavior advocated by the WT. Have you read the 12-15 WT? A great little child beating article is contained therein.

  Face it WT does not play fair,so how can you call for fair judgement when one side is stacking the cards against you? Perhaps it is true not all worldly parents are the best, but who is to determine the better parent? Is it not the judge? How better can he do that without WT blasting away with their attorneys? If you really wanted to be fair let each parent approach the judge and make their case without any interferance from a religion. Then you are on equal ground to make your case. But you see WT does not want equal ground. When that happens they lose 90% of the time as the judge in most cases realizes the children are better off being raised outside of a cult. Even a foster home in some cases might be a better alternative.

  So you might say I beg to differ. Unless Wt is willing to back down and let the chips fall where they may, then the worldly parent is always going to be at a disadvantage. Otherwise why do WT attorneys go around bragging in special talks how they win 95% of the time. Are you sure in all those cases the JW was the better parent? Wt only wants to win,they do not care for the child or its best interests I believe it soley a matter of pride and arrogence which they percieve as losing when a judge deems the child go with the better parent who is a non-witness. But then how else would a lying hypocrite operate?
• 

  ozziepost

  G'day Kismet,

  Glad to read your post. Your presence sure lifts this place!

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
  Anonymous
• 

  Norm

  Hi Kismet,

  Among other things you said:

  "Many have tried to demonstrate to the courts that the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses are harmful to the child.They have always failed."

  This seems like a very strange claim to me. On the contrary, I have myself been a witness in several custody cases where the court understood this very well and gave the custody right to the non Witness parent.

  This has happened both in Norway and Sweden. It is in fact quite easy to demonstrate how the beliefs and practises of JW's are harmful to children. The WT literature is chock full of evidence for this. Many years ago I made a compendium about Child upbringing in the WTS and it has been used with success by many lawyers in such cases.

  Norm
• 

  safe4kids

  Hey (((((Kismet))))),

  It was great meeting you in Toronto!! Sorry you weren't able to hook up with us again tho , but hey, if you ever get down to Florida...!!!!

  Thanks for posting this information; I agree with much of what you said, especially:

  It is the responsibility of both parents to ensure a healthy positive relationship with the other parent. To do otherwise is harmful and in some ways abusive and cruel to your child. A child needs both parents.

  When both parents are indeed considering the best interests of the child(ren), then a more positive atmosphere can prevail. What concerns me though, is how most JW parents truly, fanatically, believe that THEIR way is the only right way and that it IS in their child's best interests. When I was a Witness, I would not have been able to be reasonable about such issues as the holidays, church, etc., as I truly believed my children's everlasting lives were at stake! And so I just wonder if there are Witness parents out there who have displayed reasonableness in the issue of child custody. It seems we only hear horror stories.

  ((((((HadEnough)))))), I'm so sorry for all that you went through but wow, what a strong and courageous lady you are!! My respect for you continues to grow and I am so happy that I know you.

  Dana

  Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end...
  Closing Time, Semisonic
• 

  think41self

  Hi Kismet,

  Thanks for posting this. I think you make some excellent points. I think all people in a dvorce or separation should put the children's interests first, but sadly, most adults do not seem to know how to do this.

  I've never been in a custody battle...we came close to it at one time, but it fizzled thank goodness. The cost of the whole matter dissuaded the other party.

  One thing I would question though, I can see how the courts would not want to take religious beliefs too much into account, but what about the blood issue? That was the first thing our attorney thought would be helpful...how could we send the child 2000 miles away from us, knowing if he were in an accident his mother would let him die before giving him blood? It never came to using it, but I would think a judge would be mightily swayed by that one...just as they are by the fanatics who don't believe in medical care at all for religious reasons. Around here, the state is quick to take the children away from their parents for such neglect and abuse. Just some thoughts.

  P.S. I enjoyed "talking" with you in chat last night.

  think41self

  Holy Flying Screaming Buddha, Batman!