by OrphanCrow 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
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.
OC :"-- He testified that he has little contact with A.R. and B.R. He also pays no child support and has no parental responsibilities.--"
talking of the biological father. wow, no wonder the child should be shielded from influences prevailing in it's family. All children should be shielded from such religious coercion until they are old enough to decide for themselves.
look at "Jesus" starting at an early age to diverge from the strict indoctrination.
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.
I think parents have the legal right to decide from themselves what religious teachings are taught to their own children.
Be it in schools or other social environments.
These grandparent should have respected the parents decision to withhold any JWS religious teaching /Preaching.
They didn't do so and it cost them visitation rights.
This could have happened as well if the grandparents were practicing Mormons, Buddhists, Scientologists and so on. Its the parents or guardians decision to decide what their child should be taught.
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The grandparents' rights are superceded by their responsibilities.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.
Why is the biological father of this child not being held responsible to support her? The mother, and good on her, is back to working so presumably is not on the public dole. But what about other expenses like medical care? Why should the public support this child when the father should be doing so? Apparently, he has acknowledged paternity and still sees the child from time to time.
I obviously don't know about the circumstances of the mother's other child, but one would hope that father is paying child support. People should not be allowed to get away with fathering or having children they cannot support.
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.
I guess when I read visitation rights, I see that as something legally enforceable. I didn't realize that grandparents had the ability to legally to see a grandchild with the same enforcement as a parent. I was always under the assumption that parents had complete control over who their kids spent time with.
Where is the line drawn? If I had grandparents (or anyone else for that matter) who I though was bad association for my kids, there's no way I'd let the person near them. That's really messed up that there is even a legal battle here.
At least the grandparents aren't shunning the grandchild so I guess that's a positive. I know of several situations where the parents are df'ed and the grandparents shun the grandkids as well. What a jacked up cult.
