For those who are interested I came across this case relating to a dispute about how much exposure a JW parent could give her child to the JW'religion'. The case is interested because it shows how much weight the courts put on freedom of religion and the right for a parent to expose the child to their religion provided the religion is 'socially acceptable' while also being mindful of the impact on the child's welfare. I think the judgement is quite naive in its assessment of the potential harm and spends to much time concentrating on blood issues and birthdays and Christams and not enough on the WBTS techniques for recruiting and manipulating members while they are vulnerable children. The case findings are in summary as follows:
"Re N (A Child - Religion - Jehovah's Witness) [2011] EWHC B26 (Fam)
High Court proceedings in which father sought to restrict the extent to which mother involved the child in the practice of her religion as a Jehovah’s Witness. Principles to be applied in cases relating to religious upbringing.
This case concerned disputes about the division of time a child N (aged 4) should spend with each of the parents under a shared residence order and whether the father should be permitted to take N on holiday abroad, as well as an attempt by the father (who went to his local Anglican church most Sundays) seeking to restrict the extent to which the mother (who was a Jehovah's Witness) involved N in the practice of her religion.
HHJ Clifford Bellamy sitting as a Judge of the High Court set out the principles which should guide his approach to the issues relating to religious upbringing as follows (paragraph 85):
1. Parental responsibility is joint and equal. Neither parent has a predominant right to choose a child's religious upbringing.
2. Where parents follow different religions and those religions are both socially acceptable the child should have the opportunity to learn about and experience both religions.
3. A parent's right to enable her child to learn about and experience his or her religion is not an unconfined right. Where the practice of that religion involves a lifestyle which conflicts with the lifestyle of the other parent and the court is satisfied that that conflict has had or may in the future have an impact on the child's welfare the court is entitled to restrict the child's involvement in those practices.
4. Restrictions imposed for welfare reasons do not necessarily amount to a breach of that parent's right to follow the beliefs and practices of his or her religion provided that any restriction imposed is justified by the findings made by the court and proportionate.
5. In determining such an issue, as in the determination of any other question relating to the upbringing of the child, the child's welfare is the court's paramount consideration.
The learned Judge invited the parents to submit drafts of the orders they sought which narrowed the issues and each parent made concessions. The mother conceded, inter alia, that she would not take N with her in house to house ministry; that N would spend every Christmas Day with the father; and that the mother would pass on to the father invitations for N to attend celebrations which her religious beliefs precluded her from accepting.
The learned Judge held that:
• There was no reason why N should not continue to attend both the Kingdom Hall with his mother and the Anglican Church (including Sunday school) with his father and grandparents. There was no reason to impose a limit on the frequency of N's visits to the Kingdom Hall as the father had sought.
• It was both proportionate and in N's best interests to restrict the parents' right to "instruct" or "give lessons" to N concerning their Christian beliefs."
I think there is scope to further restrict the ability of a JW parent to expose the child to JW doctrine including by stopping them from taking them to the Kingdom Hall by persuading the court that exposure to WBTS propaganda in any form is harmful and abusive. An argument to this effect might be constructed in the following way:
1. The objection is not one to the JW 'religion' as such but it is to the JW lifestyle and membership of the WBTS organsiation, the methods used by WBTS to recruit children to the WBTS organisation and the JW lifestyle, the methods used by the WBTS to coerce members to obey the organisation's dictates and to stay as members of the WBTS organisation in the JW lifestyle and the psychological damage caused if they later choose to leave the organisation and the JW lifestyle.
2. The WBTS uses fear as a tool for recruiting vulnerable children. An analysis of the Bible Stories and Teacher book and perhaps some expert opinion from a child psychologist could be employed to support this and show how the WBTS used certain Bible stories to create images that manipulate thinking through fear.
3. The WBTS literature extolling JW parents to spiritually educate their children and encourage them to be baptized could be used and the literatiure on the importance of following the guidance of the FDS (i.e. the GB) could be sued to show that any JW parent will feel complelled to try to recruit their chilren into the organisation and to show how the organisation see future growth as dependent on recruiting the children of current members. The active encouragement of baptizing children before they are adults to make a decision (to be baptized) which will potentially impact on them for the rest of their lives.
4. The methods employed by the WBTS to get absolute unquestioning obedience from members and to stifle dissent.
5. The methods used by the organisation to stop members from leaving the organisation including demonization of apostates and shunning. The abusive nature of shunning could be evidenced by testimony from UK based members of JWN.
6. The methods used by the organisation to discourage members from achieving their potential in life, in particular from an educational standpoint.
The challenge would be to get all the relevant WBTS documentation admitted into evidence and the fight the WBTS would put up using their Lefgal Department to discredit this argument.
I would be interested if anyone has addressed these issues or has any ideas on how to progress this, particulary if you are in a current custody battle in the UK with a JW spouse.
Cheers
Fraz