I agree that parents should have a right to a hearing before the state takes away their children for any reason. However, in my lifetime, I have not seen the State-- whether Great Briatan,
Canada, or US---- use this authority willy nilly. In fact, agencies are actually loathe to seperate a child from his biological parents and do so only under extreme circumstances.
It seems to me that a hearing, if granted, could bring out into the open the history of this blood ban. It may also help untangle the web they, WTS Legal Department, weaves when
it calls a blood transfusion a medical treatment and asserts that JW's have a right to refuse objectionable "medical treatment" but stay away from saying the objection is
based, actually, on doctrinal religious grounds, not medical and sceintific ones.
The prohibition is RELIGIOUS. But they do not want the parents to say so becuase it then makes JW's look like wackos. Let your kids die for a RELIGION? Sounds like child sacrifice
to me. Object to a "dangerous" medical procedure? That sound more like sound parenting.
These guys cover all the angles.