Sued for "reverse shunning"!

by alamb 30 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  alamb

  Here are some quotes from the court:

  " Dad shall not directly or indirectly expose or allow the children to be exposed to shunning of their mother, or to engage in any family contacts or religious activities that directly or indirectly suggest or expose them to teachings, scriptural interpretation, or declarations that mom is anything less than a good and honorable person and fully worthy of designated, implied, inferred, promised, reserved, assumed, or otherwise available, obtainable or receivable, so-called 'spiritual blessings' or rewards which might be obtained or available to faithful religious persons, including faithful members of the Jehovah Witnesses Church. This shall include his exposure of the children to family member, church teachers, preachers or other advocates of the JW church or to condemning any doctrines or activities. Dad shall not have, suggest, or cause any religious contact or religious communications with the children, advise them regarding religion or direct or advise them regarding what their personal conduct or religious activities should be, or monitor their activities to determine if they are in compliance with his religious beliefs, while they are with mom."

  1. I haven't denied them any contact, the shunning is their own.

  2. My dad molested me as a child and there is a restraining order from the girls being taken to his home which is violated on more than one occasion.

  3. I have always acted to protect them as best I could.

  I will include more court quotes in the next post...it's not working to cut and paste them together here...sorry.
• 

  alamb

  "Their common religion and the Jehovah's Witness Church has been used by dad and some of his family as a manipulative tool. Dad has manipulated events and allegations which this Court believes has caused dad's desire to result of having the oldest two children choosing to ask the Court to allow them to live with him. Unfortunately, this manipulation has been passed down to the 6 year old. Dad may have acted in many instances believing the means he used justified what he believes is a righteous end. He has acted wtihout sensitivity to the emotions and well-being of his children. He and some of his family have committed intentional acts which have severely harmed these children, all with the purpose of succeeding in his crusade to obtain custody. Dad has falsely convinced the children and tried to convince their church leaders that Mom's broken up the family and stolen the children..... Dad tried to make her feel guilty about her feelings, tried to control her by blocking her exit from rooms and would effectively hold her hostage for hours, trying to force her to change her mind or accept his version of what their lives should be. His main effort was verbally trying to prove she was wrong, often using their mutual religious beliefs, one of his primary methods of justification for his argument, making her feel guilty. He would attempt to coerce by threats, hitting the wall, hitting with his fist to frighten her, physically restraining her, yelling at her and various means of substantial emotional and some minor physical abuse. The children were often present or at least aware of the conflict because of his intensity now that was gaining and his insistence on her changing. As time proceeded his frustrations and efforts became even more intense so he and some of his family members became involved in their disputes by bringing in the ecclesiastical authorities of their church. Dad became frustrated and increased efforts to do everything he could to thwart her efforts to become independent. He would not transfer personal property to her to meet the needs of the kids, destroyed or allowed destruction of many of the personal items and I think he came close to violating the law by stalking and generally make her life miserable. It appears he became totally obsessed at this point with vilifying mom and made a very conscious and concerted effort to ensure that their three small children and their church leaders and church members understood what he perceived in his mind were her wrongs. He became involved in extreme manipulations to try and obtain custody of the children to ensure to everyone that he looked like the good guy and that she and her new husband were the bad guys. There were almost no bounds to which he would go to accomplish his mission because he apparently felt that God was on his side because she had sinned. Additionally, by Dad's refusal to give mom adequate furniture, personal property, care for the children in her custody, he intentionally prevented her from becoming properly settled when she wanted to just get on with her life and it did have substantial negative effect on the children's well-being and ability to adjust to the divorce. These young and impressionable children were also convinced by dad and some of his family that new husband was evil and dangerous. Unfortunately, they still believe that new husband is evil and dangerous though the court the court finds absolutely no evidence to support that claim against him. Dad has played every card imaginable to turn the children and others away from mom. He and some of his family members have made derogatory statements about mom in front of the children. He attempts to make the children feel that he will not be alright unless they are with him, making them feel guilty if they choose to be with her and her evil environment. He and some of his family have tried to make these innocent young girls feel that they will be raped if they are not careful around one of mom's adult friends' young boys who are very close to the children. He has instigated church action against her causing her to be embarrassed in front of the church and her children as part of his effort to turn them against her. This has resulted in her being disassociated. This was also accompaned by an effort to have her disfellowshipped. The court believes that ths is a direct result of dad and some of his family pursuing unverifiable complaints through the church elders. _________________________________________________________________ Bottom line: He now has physical custody. We have joint legal.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Ok, I have read this whole thread and I'm still a bit lost.

  Alamb, coult you define what is ment by "reverse-shunning"?

  Are they suing to make you talk to them, or are they suing to make you stop talking to them?
• 

  alamb

  I haven't seen the suit yet as they are still working on it. I have no idea what they want. They refuse contact when I extend the hand, up until last week when my father called my house. Now I see they were probably recording it and hoping I wouldn't let him speak to the girls? I think reverse shunning sounds like a double negative. Reverse (not) shunning = associating? What court wouldn't laugh at that? Or shunning in reverse...shunning them?

  I can't even fathom it either.
• 

  drwtsn32

  I always thought reverse shunning is when an an inactive/ex JW proactively shuns his/her family. How could they possibly sue for something like this!? Everyone has a right to associate with whomever they want. You could just as easily sue them for shunning *you* if these types of suits were acceptable.
• 

  alamb

  If shunning suits are so hard to get support of the courts for, how could reverse-shunning fare any better? Surely they could not be thinking I am going to abide by the rules of an organization I no longer answer to?
• 

  Stephanus

  If shunning suits are so hard to get support of the courts for, how could reverse-shunning fare any better? Surely they could not be thinking I am going to abide by the rules of an organization I no longer answer to?

  Heh, heh! Maybe they're trying to get the courts to force you to adhere to the Tower's shunning policy?

  It's no fair when you won't play their little game!
• 

  Jim_TX

  Is it possible... that they are *actually* trying to sue for 'shunning' - but are trying to avoid calling it that, hence are calling it 'reverse-shunning'?

  Regards,

  Jim TX - who is still confused over this one...
• 

  Fleur

  alamb, i sent you an email but I am not sure if the addy i have is current, if yoiu don't get it, please PM me!

  i'm so sorry they're putting you through this. if misery loves company you should know that my sister has tried the same crap on me about wanting to see my kid but not me. Scully, your post is pure genius from beginning to end here:

  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!

  this is EXACTLY what hubby told my sister when she wanted to do the dice-and-slice- build- your- own happy- meal pick- your- person- to see my kid but not speak to me. like i'd give her carte blanche to brainwash my child that way! what planet is she living on?!

  not as bad as what you're having to cope with, poor alamb, please know that i have to believe that someday, your determination to show unconditional love to your children will have to win out somehow over the empty lies that they're being fed right now.

  (((((((((((alamb and little lambs))))))))

  i'm so sorry :(

  love,

  fleur
• 

  waiting

  Hi Alamb,
  

  Blondie's put up some excellent information -- and I would think that's what your/his parents are referring to.......as *grandparents* - they feel that you are inflicting shunning on them.........as to the reverse part? Perhaps they shunned you for religious purposes, but they feel under law, you don't have the right to have your children shun them, as they are the blood grandparents. And they feel that you can't shun them for their religious beliefs. But they can shun you for their religious beliefs (religious freedom).

  They shun you, but are protected because of religious freedom. They say you shun them, but you (and children) can't shun them because they're the grandparents. Or, you can't shun them for their religious beliefs. Interesting.

  Your idea of a cookout is a good one! I would think a written invitation to a cookout at your home for ALL the family involved (jw's, xjw's, friends, etc.) might be a way to prove that you (and children) are not shunning them. There would be other people there too to prove whether grandparents showed up or not. And whether they spoke (and ATE) with all present. If they do not, then they are practicing shunning. If they don't EAT with you, then they're practicing shunning in the presence of your children, which the court said shouldn't/couldn't happen.

  I would think they're after the grandparent idea, however.

  Take care, and keep us posted. It's hell that you're going through this, but please know - you are educating thousands of other xjw's of what's potentially out there. Your fight is NOT un-noticed.

  (((((((((((((((((((alamb)))))))))))))))))))

  waiting

  ps: What about a monthly, written invitation (lol, even with a return receipt postmark to prove in court) for a Bring a Covered Dish Dinner at YOUR house? That's more that a LOT of grandparents ever get - and they couldn't say that they couldn't come just because they don't celebrate the holidays. It would PROVE that you and your children are including them in the family arrangement, and might preclude a suit saying that the grandparents want the children at THEIR house.

  (adding more) - It could be just a Once A Month Chili Dinner or burgers dinner. Make it easy?