What Is in the Child's Best Interests?
Awake! December 8, 1997
(Portion Only)
This Web Page's Comments, Outside of This
Awake Article, Are in Blue Font
Questions That May Be Faced
When faced with child-custody litigation, parents who are
Jehovah's Witnesses must also consider what is in the best interests of the children's spirituality. For example,
what if the non-Witness parent is against any Bible-based training for the children? Or what if the non-Witness
parent has been disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation?
The Question not stated here is, what
if the non-Witness parent is against the control and leadership of a "slave class" of men?
These scenarios can make decision-making more complex for
Christian parents. They want to act in a wise and reasonable manner, and they also want to maintain a good conscience
before Jehovah as they prayerfully consider the best interests of the children.
The Witness parents are taught that they
must maintain a good conscience before the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, in order to please God, Jehovah.
Child Custody—Religion and the Law
IN DIVORCE and child-custody cases, religion can be an important
factor—and a complex one. For example, questions such as the following may arise.
Should a judge consider testimony claiming that one parent
is unfit to have custody of a child because that parent is a member of a certain religion, especially a minority
religion? Should a judge consider testimony about the religious beliefs and practices of the parents so that he
can determine which religion, in his opinion, would be best for the child? Should he then order that the child
be raised in that religion and forbid the child's exposure to other religions?
When a religion separates a child from
the rest of society, teaching and labeling those outside as "worldly" and shunning those who have left
the religion, including other family members, serious consideration of the child's welfare should be put first.
In addition, the indoctrinating of children to preach door-to-door and attend 3 two hour meetings a week questions
the welfare of the child and the balance of the parent.
|
Three Important Qualities
|
A family-court judge interviewed by Awake! said that among the important qualities he looks for in a parent
are the following three:
Reasonableness—a
willingness to grant maximum access to the child by the other parent (where there is no physical or moral threat
to the child)
Sensitivity—an
awareness of the child's emotional needs
The restrictions Jehovah's Witnesses
enforce to children against all holiday observances, medical blood treatment, all extra curricular school activities,
outside sport activities and the shunning of former members are neither aware of nor meet a child's emotional needs.
Self-control—a
balanced home life that would contribute to a calm atmosphere in which the child could flourish
Would bringing a child to three weekly
meetings, the Door-to-Door preaching every week, daily study of Watchtower publications, the additional meeting
preparations, holiday restrictions, the restrictions against all extra curricular school activities, the teaching
of complete pacifism, the restriction on flag salutes, the restriction on medical blood treatments & etc. be
a balanced home life that where a child would flourish? |
Today, more and more people marry outside their own religious
and ethnic backgrounds. So when these couples divorce, the children may already have ties in two religious communities.
Sometimes, a parent who is involved in divorce proceedings may have recently adopted a particular religion that
is different from what that parent had before. The new religious association may be a stabilizing factor in the
life of that parent and very important to him but unfamiliar to the children. So another question arises, Can the
court forbid the parent to take the children to the religious services of this religion just because it is different
from the religion that the parents practiced previously?
Any religious organization that teaches
and labels all persons outside of their organization as "worldly" and not to be associated with, cannot
be a stabilizing factor, nor can the shunning and labeling of those who have left the religious organization as
"apostates" be either.
These are difficult questions. They require that a judge
consider not only the needs of the child but the interests and rights of the parents as well.
Fundamental Rights of Parents and Children
It is true that judges may be influenced by their personal
religious views. But in many lands it is not likely that the parents' or child's religious rights will be ignored.
These lands may have constitutions that prohibit the judge from restricting the parents' fundamental right to direct
the upbringing of a child, including the child's educational and religious instruction.
However, when the issues of shunning,
with the separation from society and non-blood medical treatment are involved the welfare of the child is at stake.
In turn, the child has the right to receive such training
from his parents. Before a judge can lawfully interfere with the religious training of a child, the court must
hear convincing evidence that "particular religious practices pose an immediate and substantial threat to a child's temporal well-being." (Italics ours.) Mere
differences about religion or even hostility between the parents over religion is not sufficient to justify State
intervention.
The teaching to shun a former witness
parent and labeling him or her as an "apostate" and "evil slave" and as a person who has "left
God", goes much further than mere differences. The enforcing of non-blood medical treatment goes far beyond
this as well.
|
Judicial Guidelines
|
By setting guidelines, some judges have tried to avert needless
disputes over a parent's religious values. For example:
1. A meaningful relationship should be encouraged between a child and both parents. Canada's Supreme Court Justice
John Sopinka noted that each parent should be allowed "to engage in those activities which contribute to identify
the parent for what he or she really is [including the practice of his or her religion]. The access parent is not
expected to act out a part or assume a phony lifestyle during access periods."
2. To prohibit the access parent from teaching the child his/her religious beliefs is a violation of the parent's
freedom of religion, except where there is clear, affirmative evidence of imminent and substantial harm to the
child.
To teach a child that their former
Jehovah's Witness parent is now an "apostate", "evil slave" and has left God, is clear, affirmative
evidence of imminent and substantial emotional harm. |
In Nebraska, U.S.A., the reasonable position taken by a mother
who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses in a custody dispute illustrates how these legal provisions protect both the
parents and the children. The non-Witness father did not want their daughter to attend the religious services of
Jehovah's Witnesses at the Kingdom Hall. A lower court agreed with the father.
The mother then appealed to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
The mother argued that there was no evidence of immediate or substantial threat to the well-being of the child
in any of the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. The mother testified "that attendance and participation in
the religious activities of both parents would . . . provide a basis for the child to determine which religion
she would prefer when she reaches a sufficient age of understanding."
By indoctrinating a child to attend 3,
two hour, weekly meetings, weekly hours spent in the door-to-door ministry preaching, the attendance of three annual
conventions, consisting of 1 to 4 days each and the daily study of Watchtower publications, is not fairly allowing
a child to accurately determine which religion they would prefer, but instead overwhelms them with repetition and
forceful techniques.
The higher court reversed the lower court's decision and
held that "the [lower] court abused its discretion in placing limitations on the custodial mother's right
to control the religious upbringing of her minor child." There was absolutely no evidence that the child was
being harmed by attending religious services at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.
On the contrary, evidence of harm occurs
with the many hours enforced attending meetings, hours spent preaching door-to-door, the teaching of shunning those
who have left the organization, including family members and parents, the restrictions on sport and all school
extra curricular activities, the restrictions on family holiday observances and the restrictions on medical blood
treatments.
Rights of Non custodial Parents
Sometimes, divorced parents try to use disputes about religious
training as a means of gaining control of the children. For example, in Khalsa
v. Khalsa, a case in the state of New Mexico, U.S.A.,
both parents had practiced the Sikh religion during their marriage. But shortly after they divorced, the mother
converted to Catholicism and began to discourage the children from practicing Sikhism.
The father was upset and took the matter to court in an attempt
to obtain more authority to direct the children's religious training toward his Sikh religion. How did the trial
court respond to the father's request? It refused his request. The trial court ordered that "when the children
were with [him], they could not voluntarily or involuntarily participate in any Sikh activity, including any church
activity, Sikh camp or Sikh day care center."
The Sikh religion does not teach the shunning
of former members, including parents, nor the non-blood medical treatment.
The father appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court
of Appeals. This higher court agreed with the father and reversed the trial court's decision. The appeals court
stated: "Courts should adhere to a policy of impartiality between religions, and should intervene in this
sensitive and constitutionally protected area only where there is a clear and affirmative showing of harm to the children.
Restrictions in this area present the danger that court-imposed limitations will unconstitutionally infringe upon
a parent's freedom of worship or be perceived as having that effect."
It is not unconstitutional for the courts
to decide for the welfare of an innocent child who is being enforced to obey a parent's unfair religious beliefs,
regardless of the parents freedom to shun other people and refuse medical blood treatment.
Such a decision follows a long line of principles that are
well established in many lands. A reasonable parent will consider these principles. In addition, the Christian
parent will carefully reflect on the child's need for interaction with both parents, as well as the child's obligation
to show honor to both mother and father.—Ephesians 6:1-3.
