Posts by OrphanCrow

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

OrphanCrow

undertheradar: Why is the biological father of this child not being held responsible to support her?

There may be circumstances that stop him from doing so. Remember, this is a young man who was disfellowshipped and has no contact with his parents. For all we know, he could be suffering from mental health issues and unable to work.

undertheradar: Why should the public support this child when the father should be doing so?

Who says "the public" is supporting the child? I may have missed it, but I don't remember reading anything about the child being supported by the public. Is this an assumption based upon a stereoptypical view of single motherhood?

People should not be allowed to get away with fathering or having children they cannot support.

If that were the case, probably many of us wouldn't have been born.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

OrphanCrow

Doubting Bro: How do the grandparents have any rights at all in this case?

By acknowledging that the rights of the child and the child's guardian have precedent over the grandparents' perceived rights.

The grandparents in this case still have visitation rights. However, because of their past performances that disregarded the right of the parent to control the child's religious training and upbringing, those visitation rights have been curtailed. Now, those visitations will be limited to one hour per week in a supervised environment.

The grandparents' rights are superceded by their responsibilities. And, their primary responsibilty is to respect the rights of the parent and child. And to provide a conflict free, safe environment for the child. The grandparents gave up their rights when they put their own rights ahead of the rights of the child.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

OrphanCrow

prologos: ...talking of the biological father. wow, no wonder the child should be shielded from influences prevailing in it's family.

Not only that, but the very same grandparents who told the court that "they know what is best for their grandchild", are also shunning their own son for not following the religion that they want to shove down that small child's throat.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

OrphanCrow

I would like to add that I have great respect and admiration for the mother of the child in this visitation court battle. My hat is off to her - and a big bouquet for taking a stand for her child.

That child should grow up being proud of having such a strong momma.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

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.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

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.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

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.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

OrphanCrow

carla: Great news for that innocent child!

It is wonderful news, Carla.

Not only will this ruling protect this small child from harmful JW indoctrination practices, it also sets precedent for other parents with children who are in simliar situations. It may take some time for this ruling to have an impact outside of BC, but, with the readily available information now online, other custodial parents in the same situation could access this court ruling readily. It may help another child.

35

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

by OrphanCrow in

british columbia, canada.

jehovah's witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves.

a pair of devout jehovah's witnesses have been ordered by a b.c.

OrphanCrow

British Columbia, Canada

Jehovah's Witness grandparents ordered to keep faith to themselves

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.
The couple lost their bid for unsupervised access to the girl because they insisted on taking her to worship at their faith's Kingdom Hall despite the repeated objections of the child's mother.
The girl is identified only as A.W. and the grandparents as A.R. and B.R. in Judge Edna Ritchie's 12-page decision. And for now, they're on a short leash.
"There are many people with strongly held religious views that do not discuss those views in front of others, and specifically not in front of children," Ritchie wrote.
Unless A.R. and B.R. can satisfy the court that they can comply with the mother's wishes, Ritchie said, "their time with A.W. must be supervised and limited."
Religious rights vs. parental responsibility
The case pits the Family Law Act against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Family Law Act states that only a guardian has parental responsibilities, including decisions about religious upbringing, and the mother, M.W., is sole guardian.
But A.R. and B.R. argued that forbidding them from expressing their faith to their grandchild would violate a charter right to practise their religion.
hi-bc-130216-scales-of-justice
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled a custodial parent can't limit another parent's ability to discuss religion unless the child's best interests are threatened
The grandparents want A.W. to experience their religion, while M.W. insists her daughter "can decide when she is older whether or not to participate in any religious practices."
The battle is the culmination of a saga that began when the child's biological dad, L.R., told his parents he had fathered a child three weeks after A.W. was born.
L.R. was "disfellowshipped" from the Jehovah's Witness faith, a type of religious excommunication. He testified that he has little contact with A.R. and B.R. He also pays no child support and has no parental responsibilities.
A.R. and B.R. were determined to have contact with their granddaughter, and the child's mother felt it important for them to be part of their lives. She previously allowed them unsupervised access.
Poppa and Momma vs. Grandpa and Grandma
But according to the decision, the relationship between the "well-meaning, determined grandmother" and M.W. has been strained from the outset.
M.W. also objected to the couple insisting the girl call them Poppa and Momma instead of Grandpa and Grandma. But by far the biggest disagreement arose over visits to the Kingdom Hall.
From the time A.W. was a baby, A.R. and B.R. took her to services; M.W. said she wasn't happy, but didn't object until December 2013.
She switched the timing of their visits, but then learned from her daughter the grandparents had taken A.W. to services the following spring; A.R. insisted the child "had begged to go to Kingdom Hall."
Visits were then limited to supervised access at M.W.'s home.
But even at that, M.W. was upset to find her daughter watching a Jehovah's Witness video on A.R.'s laptop. The grandmother insisted the child had pushed the play icon before she could stop her.
Mother knows best
The judge noted that when two or more parents with different religious views share parental responsibility the court will often support the child being exposed to each religion involved.
But because A.R. and B.R. are not guardians, the court was bound to respect the decision of the mother. For that same reason, Ritchie also found the charter argument didn't apply.
The couple cited another Supreme Court of Canada case involving a divorce in which a mother with custody had obtained an order forcing her Jehovah Witness ex-husband not to discuss religion with their children.
In that case, the top court ruled a custodial parent does not have a right to limit the other parent's ability to discuss religion unless the child's best interests were threatened.
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."

Court ruling at this link:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2473473-jehovah.html

6

Building Work

by truthlover in

has there been anything in writing sent out to the elders, co's re the stopping of the "ww building work yet?.

no one has mentioned anything at cong level but it has been mentioned about the bethelites being sent tot the field as of january - canadian bethel is being reduced by 40% and the ones remaining have been told they will have to do work themselves, i.e.

food and cleaning.... .

OrphanCrow

truthlover: Has there been anything in writing sent out to the elders, co's re the stopping of the "ww building work yet?

The construction stoppage and problems will be explained in tradtional WT style. It will be covered in the new and improved "workbook" - the 2016 CLAM workbook, download at this link:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5473778616238080/2016-oclam-meeting-workbook

Almost the emtire workbook is about construction and page 5 gives an easy, simple Bible explanation for the construction stopping (*hint...royal decree...).

I doubt there will be an "official" announcement concerning construction issues. The workbook will explain it all. In terms even a child can understand. Easy peasy. Just find something in the Bibble. And add some pictures.

I think the WTS is even setting up for another "excuse"...check out page 4 and see why the building of the temple was stopped - *hint - bad guy. And then why the "temple" building was resumed. Ah..."repentance" allowed the temple to continue. I wonder who, in the WTS' higher echelons, did something wrong.