The JW brochure about medical care and blood transfusions cities on page 3
And in Hoffmann v. Austria, the Court stated that the Witness parent’s choice of medical treatment without the use of blood transfusions should not in any way have impaired her right to receive custody of her children.5
However this decision is based on a replacement of a parental permission by a judicial decision in Austria. So this is certainly a fake reference. The JW applicants were indeed JWs. Dr. R. Kohlhofer, JW from Vienna and famous religious right lawyer in Austria, a friend of Hofmann the bloodless JW, who fought decades for JW's legal acceptance in Austria, as well as Garay JW- Avocat from Europe and brother Renoldner from bethel Austria. .
© Source : https://www.droit-tj.fr/spip.php?article476&lang=fr
However, in the concrete case it needs to be examined whether the mother’s religious convictions have a negative influence on her upbringing of the children which should be taken into account and whether their well-being is impaired as a result. It appears in particular that Ingrid S. would not allow blood transfusions to be given to her children ; that for herself she rejects communal celebration of such customary holidays as Christmas or Easter ; that the children experience a certain tension in relation to an environment which does not correspond to their faith ; and that their integration in societal institutions such as kindergarten and school is made more difficult. However, the father’s apprehension of complete social isolation as a result of the mother’s religion does not appear well-founded in the light of the established facts.
In addition, no possible dangers to either child’s development have appeared in the course of the establishment of the facts. It is true that the facts adduced (blood transfusions, holidays, impaired social integration) are in principle capable of having detrimental effects on the children. This point must now be examined in the context of the particular case. It appears first of all that the father’s argument that Martin and Sandra would be exposed in an emergency to serious danger to their life and health by the refusal of a blood transfusion is not of decisive importance. In the absence of parental permission for a medically necessary blood transfusion to either child, such permission can be replaced by a judicial decision in accordance with Article 176 of the Civil Code (compare the decision of the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) of 3 July 1979, 4R 128/79). In any case, according to this legal provision, anyone can apply to the court for an order that is necessary to ensure the welfare of the child when the parent endangers it by his conduct. In view of this possibility of applying to the court, which is available at all times, no danger to the children need be inferred from the mother’s attitude to blood transfusions. As for Ingrid S.’s rejection of holidays, notice must be taken of her express agreement to allow the father to take the children on such occasions and celebrate them with the children as he sees fit. The mother’s religious convictions thus do not deprive Martin and Sandra of the possibility of celebrating these holidays in the usual way, so that no detriment to the children can be found in this regard either. Of the reservations with regard to the mother’s upbringing of the children resulting from her religion the only remaining one of any significance is the circumstance that Martin and Sandra will in later life experience somewhat more difficulty in finding their way in social groups as a result of the religious precepts of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and will find themselves to some extent in a special position. However, the court cannot consider this so detrimental to the children’s welfare that they should for that reason not be entrusted to their mother, with whom they have such a close psychological relationship and to whose care they are accustomed. Careful consideration must lead to the conclusion that in spite of more difficult social integration, as discussed above, it appears to be more in the interest of the children’s welfare to grant parental rights to the mother than to transfer them to the father.”
© Source : https://www.droit-tj.fr/spip.php?article476&lang=fr