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

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    If a judge ever decided what was permissible religious doctrine for a child, we would be back in the days of the Inquisition. Judges have no wisdom in this area. There is no societal consensus concerning what is a proper religion. One person's indoctrination is another person's valued zeal. I would so much rather have not been raised a JW. There are far worse monsters than JWs though. Law does not equate with justice. It rarely rights societal wrongs. The ACLU and NAACP Legal Defense Fund cases are the exception to the rule. What law can do is balance competing ideals.

    Keeping government out of religion is a much more important principle than which religion a child is raised by its parents. In this particular case, the child will be exposed to a mainstream view of Christianity. His life will be more diverse than my life was. When I talk with worldly friends, it strikes me that almost no one I know follows their parents' religious ideals. College and life experience made them independent. New York has its own mix. When you must interact with someone, it is difficult to believe they are the devil. I recall seeing ethnic immigrants as a child. They looked nice. Many children refuse to participate in their teen years. It is not easy. I ache for the child sitting through boring meetings. Of course, I've attended boring Anglican services.

    Are you aware of the history of "best interests of the child?" The traditional rule for centuries was the ten years doctrine. Women only were granted custody during a child's tender years, preschool basically. Women were considered inadequate to train and teach children beyond that age. The father received custody for the rest of the child's life until majority. There was no discussion of parenting skills, religious choices, etc. Some parents would fight each other with reports of sexual immorality. No one focused on the child.

    I could never be a family court judge. The wisdom of Solomon in the Bible with the true mother choosing the child's life rarely happens in real life. There has to be an interesting story behind the no field service concession.

  • Frazzled UBM
    Frazzled UBM

    I would argue that the WBTS is not a religion but an Orwellian publishing organisation perpetuating itself by selectively using quotes from the Bible to control and manipulate its members to distribute more of its propaganda. That may seem like an extremist view but I think I could argue thart case based on the evidence. Unfortunately the law is moving in the opposite direction with Scientology now recognised in the UK as a religion. BoE - I agree the judiciary is not well placed to express views in this area - they seem to exhibit a certain amount of naivety about so-called religions which are in fact cults. It is remarkable that here we are in the 21st century and cults can still operate with impunity despite it being well-known how harmful they are. The approach seems to be that people should be free to become victims of cults.

  • Frazzled UBM
    Frazzled UBM

    bumped for the benefit of 'apostating' - I hope you find this useful

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    The judiciary is not naive. Lawyers tend to know British history b/c of our common law background. Appellate judges and the legislature and executive balance two evils. They are not clueless. These men and women hear heartbreaking stories involving children all day, every day. The WT is not as bad as many religions. Government becoming entangled in choosing religion is far more dangerous than an occasional JW case. Besides, no one here knows these real life people.

    There is no way of knowing whether if we had access to confidential records people on this forum might want the JW parent to have custody. All this summary does is set forth general legal principles. The general legal principles, an abstract, must be applied to the specific facts of the case. We have no idea what the facts are. Judges are not stupid, removed people.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Judges are not stupid, removed people.-Band

    I wouldn't ague with that but I would say that the system is at fault and judges don't always look at the full picture. Here in the UK you have a false and a true stroy submitted to the judge. The the person giving the false statement should be held in contempt of court. This has never happened in my experience. The judge just sits there and listens to two sets of stories and then decides who is more believable. Sometimes they get it wrong, like with us.

    The pain and suffering that ensues when a judge gets it wrong it insurmountable, but there is nothing that can be done for immediate relief. I for one do not trust the British family court system, IMO it's not full proof I am afraid to say.

    Kate xx

  • Frazzled UBM
    Frazzled UBM

    Judgements of courts usually involve versions of events and which version is accepted by the court as the most credible and this does nto necessarily coincide with reality. Skilled advocatesa re those who are best at getting the judge or the jury to accept their version of events. The WBTS knows this and so has a strong Legal Department and will get involved in child custody cases to try to paint themselves as not being a cult or otherwise harmful to children and because of judicial tolerance of religious belief they can get some traction in this regard.

  • KateWild
    KateWild

    Skilled advocatesa re those who are best at getting the judge or the jury to accept their version of events-fraz

    Yeah I agree, no matter how false the version maybe. JWs lie in court, it's so frustrating, but we have to move on and remain stable and at peace as best we can.

  • nonjwspouse
    nonjwspouse

    If a religion will not allow you to walk away for ANY reason without completely destroying your family bonds ( and friendship bonds) , then it is harmful and destructive. If a religion will encourage the parent in the religion to turn the children against the other parent due to the other parent not being in the religion, then it is harmful and destructive, and abusive!

    Any such abuse should not be tolerated in a custody hearing.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit