...trying to file a suit against me for reverse shunning!!!
They just keep getting weirder and weirder!
Sued for "reverse shunning"!
by alamb 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Flash
-
Stephanus
Okay, brass tacks time, people. Under tort law, in order to sue someone, there must some kind of damage. The first question one must ask when contemplating a lawsuit is: "What's the damage"?
What exactly are they going to claim is the damage?
Are you perhaps shielding your kids from their JW crap, keeping them away from your relatives' corrupting influence? Is this a custody/visitation issue?
-
Stephanus
There was a thread which talks about reverse shunning fro about 3 years ago.
Good to see some of Fred Hall's idiocy up in lights again!
This reference made me think: Alamb, where exactly did they get the term "reverse shunning"? Have you perhaps used it in conversation with your relatives, perhaps as a possible counterthreat?
-
Frannie Banannie
yeah, Steph (snicker) She's imposing her familial love on them in the face of their obviously shunning of her and her fam and has caused them untold misery by doing so.
Frannie B
-
Brownboy
The damage portion of the claim would be "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress", but it falls under the basis of religion, and I believe the WTS has already won suit over their "shunning under disfellowshipping" doctrine.
In the same manner, you are excercising your right to shun them under your own religious beliefs............is this not correct?
Brownboy
-
Stephanus
A good point Brownboy - since the Watchtower has in the courts continuously established the right to shun others due to religious differences, time and time again, then presumably the courts will never uphold an anti-shunning suit by a Dub against a non-Dub.
Or to put it differently: ex-Dub sues Dub for shunning them - court rules it has no jurisdiction
Therefore: when Dub sues ex-Dub for shunning - court will rule it has no jurisdiction
Justice is blind, and the Towerites can't have it both ways. As it is, they are safe. Should they ever win a "reverse shunning" lawsuit, then they'll create a precedent whereby they can be sued for shunning, and, like Sampson, will bring the whole edifice crashing down on their own ugly heads!
-
Brownboy
Well put Stephanus !!!
BB
-
Scully
So, they're playing the I-don't-want-to-associate-with-you-but-I-do-want-to-associate-with-your-children game. This is also called the I-want-to-brainwash-your-children-while-you-are-not-around game.
Tough. They're your kids, and association with them comes with a price: being civil, respectful and courteous to you. They have not done that. You're a package deal, and if they want to associate with your children, they have to do so with you present and treat you in a humane way. These people are practically strangers to your children. Would you let your children play with strangers?? Of course not!
Do what you must to protect your children from their hateful influence. Get a restraining order against them. File a countersuit of harassment against them. Disown them. Whatever you say in court, keep first and foremost that the best interests of your children are not those that would influence them to hate their mother or father.
Love, Scully
-
bull01lay
Hi, I've read this topic in absolute amazement at the double standards identified here... so it's ok for them to shun, but not be shunned ?? I can't really say anything more - I'm dumbfounded!! I hope you fight this tooth and nail, for the sake of yours and your childrens future happiness!!! Bull!
-
blondie
Here is some information on this that could put a different spin on this depending on what state you live in and another support site for parents.
http://parentsrights.com/index4.htm
The statutes granting grandparents the right to petition for visitation fall into two general categories. Under the first, most typical kind, grandparents may petition for visitation of their grandchildren only where there has been some kind of disruption of the "intact family," i.e., divorce, death of a parent, adoption, or termination of parental rights. This type of statute has been enacted in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Under the second kind of statute, there does not need to be any kind of disruption of the intact family. Rather, a grandparent can petition for visitation so long as such visitation would be in the best interests of the child. This type of statute was enacted in Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
In recent years, the second type of statute has come under attack as being an unconstitutional infringement upon the right of the parents to decide with whom their children may associate. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals was the first state to agree with this argument, and it decided that the grandparent visitation statute was unconstitutional. Soon thereafter, the courts in Connecticut, Kentucky, North Dakota, Tennessee and Washington held their statutes unconstitutional as applied.
Given the trend of courts finding greater parental authority and autonomy, the first type of statute also came under attack. The courts in Florida, Georgia, and Nevada also held their grandparent visitation statutes unconstitutional, and the court in Virginia restricted the rights of grandparents under the Virginia statute by holding that the grandparents must prove not just that visitation would be in the best interests of the children but that the children would suffer harm if visitation were not granted.
Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Troxel v. Granville, the state legislatures will have to revisit their own grandparent visitation statutes to make sure that the circumstances under which third parties may petition for visitation do not violate the fundamental rights of the parents.
After the decision, as before, visitation of a grandchild, visitation must always be in the best interests of the child. The starting point for determining whether grandparent visitation will serve the best interests of the child is to analyze the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Courts consider the length of the relationship and the frequency of actual contact as primary evidence that the relationship should be preserved. A grandparent's mere desire for a relationship, when none exists, is generally not sufficient to impose visitation over the objections of the parents. The hostility of the parents to the grandparents is also an extremely important factor, although it is not an overriding factor. Obviously, if the grandparents were driven to bring a lawsuit against the parents for visitation, there is hostility. It is up to the court to determine whether the hostility is deep-seated or just the inevitable result of friction over the lawsuit at issue. Finally, the court will look at the totality of the circumstances, considering tangential relationships and the family unit as a whole.
Many lawyers and psychologists agree that grandparent visitation cases are often just vicious family disputes that replay old hurts, force neutral parties to pick sides, and, worst of all, place children in the heart of adult conflicts. For these reasons, most legal scholars and psychologists agree that grandparent visitation cases should be limited to those cases where the grandparents and grandchildren know each other well and have a deep existing bond.