Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  OrphanCrow

  truthseeker: A pair of devout Jehovah's Witnesses have been ordered by a B.C. provincial court judge not to talk about religion in front of their four-year-old granddaughter.
  I hate to put a damper on everyone's enthusiasm but I think this decision will be struck down eventually. That's free speech you can't legislate good manners.

  This is not a free speech issue. This is an issue of what is in the child's best interests. Free speech stops at the feet of the child. There are many things that cannot be said in the presence of a child and would be considered either improper or illegal in this country.

  The ruling didn't really have anything to do with free speech/religion per se. It had to do with the conflict that the religion was causing which was placing stress on the child:

  In this case, Ritchie found it wasn't fair to place A.W. in a holy war between her mother and grandparents.
  "I am concerned that the applicants' demonstrated inability to respect and comply with M.W's decisions on religion will continue to cause conflict," she wrote. "It is not in A.W.'s best interests to be exposed to that conflict."

  The grandparents could have been engaging in any behaviour/speech that would have resulted in that ruling - it wouldn't have to be religious in nature. It was the resulting conflict that was at issue here.
  
  
• 

  truthseeker100

  I am sorry Orphan but I think it will go down as a free speech issue. How would you feel if you were forbidden to talk to someone about something? I wholeheartedly believe in the intentions of the ruling it's not wishful thinking that brings me to this opinion.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  "insisted the child "had begged to go to Kingdom Hall."

  aka - "okay granddaughter, we are going to go to the kingdomhall because those who don't go will be killed real soon. Look at this picture of the people dying. Do you want that to happen to you? If you go to the kingdomhall you'll be saved. " :kid crying: Okay I'll go cause I don't want to die!
• 

  OrphanCrow

  Then we will agree to disagree, Truthseeker.

  I have a little bit of knowledge and experience with the BC Family Court. I have no doubts that this ruling will stand.

  I cannot emphasize enough that the best interest of the child is based on whether or not a situation, regardless of what it is, is causing stress to the child. Free speech has no standing in this issue. None whatsoever.

  *to add - free speech is the right of the adults (grandparents) but, in this case, and in all family court decisions, the right of the child is paramount and supercedes any parental or grandparent right. The right of the child to a confilct free, safe environment is what this decision is based upon.
• 

  truthseeker100

  I cannot emphasize enough that the best interest of the child is based on whether or not a situation, regardless of what it is, is causing stress to the child. Free speech has no standing in this issue. None whatsoever.

  Lets hope your right and I mean that, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
• 

  Crazyguy

  Grandparents usually do not get any where near the rights as a biological parent. If they push this case the mom can easily just stop all visitation and the grandparents will have no recourse. So if they refuse to obey theyll be done. They inthe end probably wont care they just spiritually adopt a child in thier hall. Thats what most of these freaks do anyway.
• 

  gone for good

  OrphanCrow-

  Thank you for posting this.

  I can imagine how hesitant judges would be to facilitate the indoctrination methods of destructive cults like

  the JWs as they see the results showing up in their courtrooms - example this very case.

  A conflict-free safe environment for this child required restricting relatives trained and willing to search out and exploit the vulnerable.

  Make disciples = search and exploit
• 

  the girl next door

  The ruling will stand and is being repeated by the hundreds is US and Canadian courts.
• 

  OrphanCrow

  truthseeker: Lets hope your right.

  This isn't about me being right.

  I read the ruling. It is what the ruling said.

  The details of the case and reasons behind the ruling, are in the court ruling document.

  The judge makes it clear that the grandparents' "right to practice their religion" cannot and will not interfere with the rights of the child and the child's custodial parent. And, the rights of the grandparents do not supercede the responsibilties of the guardian/mother.
• 

  the girl next door

  This works across the board with the custodial or non custodial parent as well. Most often the court ruling will be that "neither" parent can impose religious training upon the minor. Seems fair enough to me.