UK Family Law re child custody where one parent is a JW and the other is not

by Frazzled UBM 27 Replies latest social family

• 

  KateWild

  Of course this would open a can of worms as it would imply that this is the case for all children including children of parents who are both Witnesses. Such a ruling could have a huge impact on the activities of the WBTS generally.-fraz

  The point is it's a destructive cult, if precedent was set, in the UK potentially all kids could be put into care. Really the kindest thing would be for parents to be deprogrammed and give their children plenty of love. I know many JWs who do truly love their kids and show them care and concern. My kids are my testimony.

  My personal view is that trying to get these points across to a Judge will be a challenge especially if the non-JW is an exJW. Just because it's a challenge it doesn't mean it wont work. Some very good points.

  Kate xx
• 

  Chaserious

  I agree that most children would likely be better off raised by a non-JW parent, but making the argument in the OP would open up Pandora's box to put religions on trial in every child custody case. If using fear is a negative, doesn't that apply to every religion that teaches that hell exists?

  I also think it paints with too broad of a brush. When children's lives are at stake, I'd rather consider what the particular parent does instead of what the parent's religion does. If the parent themself, for whatever reason, discourages higher education for example, I think it should be considered. But I can think of several examples of people I knew personally where the child would almost certainly be better off with the JW parent.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Chaserious - the child may be better off with the JW parent but would the child be even better off with restrictions on the ability of that parent to rope them into a cult before they are old enough to make an informed choice for themselves. A quick survey of this chatroom shows you the number of born-ins who felt cheated by being brought up in the cult.
• 

  Chaserious

  FrazzledUBM - I am a born-in; I know about being cheated out of a lot of things. And if I had a child and a JW spouse, I would definitely want primary custody if possible regardless of how good a parent she was otherwise. But what do you mean by restrictions on the parent? Like a court telling the parent she can't take a child to JW meetings or teach them at home with WT literature? That's a dangerous game, and I would be against anything like that.
• 

  Band on the Run

  We don't know what documentation, interviews, etc. the judge relied upon in making his ruling. I don't believe judges or legislatures should decide which religion is appropriate. The child will be exposed to mainstream Christianity. He will not be raised isolated by a JW parent. I loved my mom very much yet she was a Witness. I would not have wanted some judge to remove me from my mother based on her religion.

  These cases can't be won. Factual details are important. I hope the child in this case is not a ball to be tossed around by warring parents. It seems rather aggressive for the father to demand restrictions on meetings. He has so much time to make a subtle, respectful case to his son.

  I would be upset by an 8 or 10 year old baptism.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Chaserious - I respect your views as a born-in who saw the light. In fact the court in the N case did impose some restrictions on both parent's giving religious instruction to the child, which I agree with, but did not restrict attendance at the KH. Family Law courts frequently make orders about what the custodail paretn should or should ot do, as the primary consideration should be the interests of the child. In many respects this may be a beter way to deal with concerns about a JW parent than denying them custody. I find it interesting you have a realitvely tolerant view of WBTS indoctrination material given your background. My view as someone who has only recently acquired athorough understanding of what the WBTS does is that the bboks they use to indoctrinate children are highly manipulative and abusive because of the fearful images they plant in the child's subconscious (using the reassuring presence of the JW parent as a way to get them accepted without question) at a time when they are vulnerable and unable to discern reality from fantasy. They then manipulate the phobias they have implanted to keep them in the fold. That is why they have such a strong foucus on recruiting the children of JWs because they know they have a better chance of retaining them as a members. I see this in my wife, who is a born-in, on a daily basis and it makes me both sad and frustrated. Cheers Fraz
• 

  happy@last

  In that paragraph the point I would highlight is the same point about the child's welfare, not the social aspect but the techniques that are used by the mother's religion to control their thoughts, behaviour and emotions. These are detrimental to the child's welfare, and are what I would highlight.

  I would be very interested in how this goes as I suspect I will be in the same position soon.
• 

  Chaserious

  I find it interesting you have a realitvely tolerant view of WBTS indoctrination material given your background.

  I would say that it's not so much a tolerant view of WTBTS indoctrination as a desire to maintain a broader view of how child custody disputes should be best resolved in society. In trying to avoid tunnel vision by just looking at the consequences for JW parents, wouldn't this level of intrusion require a family judge to review all religious literature related to one parent's religion if the other has a problem with it?

  Considering that family judges have a lot of discretion, wouldn't you be worried that some judge might have a bias against Muslims, Jews, Catholics, or some other religious group, and shape the custody order accordingly? I have a neighbor where the mother is a very strict Catholic, and her little girl believes bad people go to hell and homosexuality is evil. Personally, I don't think that's the best way to raise a child, but that doesn't mean I think the government should step in and tell her she can't do it.

  Although courts do frequently make specific orders related to raising the child, I don't think they tend to tell parents what they can or cannot teach them, especially when it relates to reference to outside materials, and not activities specific to the parent. I thought that lost in the critique of the judge's decision was the concession that the mother wouldn't take the child in house-to-house ministry. I think that's a worthwhile step, because that can be quite damaging to some kids. Although it seems it was the result of an agreement, and not the judge's order, I believe at least in the U.S., it would be nearly unheard of for the non-JW spouse to be able to get such a concession.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  happy@last - keep me updated on your position - I would be happy to help if you have a custody dispute with your JW spouse - I do think there is scope to try to get UK courts tosee that JWism is different from other mainstream religions in the extent of unhealthy BITE control it exercises of the faithful and that as such it is HARMFUL to children.

  Chaserious - I think the key point of difference between us is that you are comparing JWism to mainstream religions whereas I see it as HARMFUL due to the way the WBTS has set itself up as an unquestionable authority that uses psychological manipulation to recruit and retain members. I agree that the restrictions on exposing the child to some elements of JWism such as door to door ministry were part of a settlement but I am sure the JW parent would not have agreed to them unless she thought it likely the judge would make such a ruling. The UK and US may be different in this respect - I am not sure which is better - dnying a JW custody per se or allowing the JW parent custody (assuming that apart from being the victim of WBTS indoctrination he or she is otherwise a good parent) but restricting the child's exposure to WBTS indoctrination.
• 

  Chaserious

  you are comparing JWism to mainstream religions whereas I see it as HARMFUL due to the way the WBTS has set itself up as an unquestionable authority ...

  JWism is not the only religion that claims to be an unquestionable authority, is it? (And actually, if you go by the letter of what they write, which I'm sure a JW parent would introduce if forced to defend JWism, they explicitly claim not to be infallible). That is kind of the point, it's not a leap of logic to suggest that some people would be (and are) critical of mainstream religions, also. E.g., Islam is a religion of violence and extremism, Catholicism harbors a lot of child molesters (not my views, but suggesting what some argue). Plenty would argue that it's harmful to raise a child around evangelical / born again doctrines that teach that its ultra-conservative views are right and everyone else's are wrong. Maybe these are minority views, but you must recognize that so is yours. There are very few people outside of the ex-JW camp who are willing to broadly label JWism as harmful, but other religions as not harmful. I would be against setting a judge up to decide the rightness/wrongness of any religious doctrine, or to force a parent to raise their child the way s/he thinks is "best" unless the doctrine results in physical or emotional abuse, as legally recognized.

  As much as I wouldn't want a child indoctrinated with WTS doctrine, when a family breaks up, it's never going to be ideal. I think looking at the individual parents and what's best for each individual child remains the best approach. As hard as it might be to swallow, it may not be better for the child's interests to be removed from a JW parent if in a given case, that also means being removed from many extended family members and being placed with a parent who is ill-equipped to be a full-time caregiver.