by Corvin 55 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • Corvin


    The court appointed attorney will be recommending to the judge the following at the hearing tomorrow morning.

    1. Unsupervised visits with mom at the children?s request ONLY, away from her home and away from stepfather.
    2. Discussing religion with any of the children is forbidden from this day until they turn 18. They will not be attending meetings or having to associate with other JW?s, but if by chance they do end up in the company of JW?s while with their mother, the JW?s are not to discuss the religion either.
    3. I am to cease picketing the Kingdom Hall.
    4. All family members including the children, me and mom, and possibly stepfather, are to complete 8 weeks of group family counseling/therapy together.
    5. After the 8 weeks of therapy, Nancy must continue with a private therapist for an indeterminate period of time.
    6. There will be a review hearing in 6 to 8 weeks to determine what, if any, action should be taken, based primarily on the group family therapist?s determination.
    7. The judge may see fit to add to or adjust the court appointed attorney?s recommendation at the hearing tomorrow.

      Aside from my deepest personal feelings with regards their mother and stepfather, and of course the religion, the results are what I wanted for the kids, and the kids are happy with the outcome as well. The above recommendation represents what it was I was fighting for in the first place. So, they win their freedom of choice. They have now gained their freedom from the organization of Jehovah?s Witnesses and have the opportunity to become educated and succeed in life in ways they would never have been permitted to as a captive of the organization of Jehovah?s Witnesses.

      Tomorrow, after the hearing, I will update this thread to share what the judge ordered officially.

      Thank you all for you support and for letting me vent. The outcome of this situation is an example of how parents breaking away from the organization can protect their children from the other faithful/fanatical JW parent and from the substantial harm caused by the religion.

      Best Regards,

  • shamus

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    "Two" words Corvin.....

    WA HOOOOO !!!!

  • simplesally

    Congratulations! Get some sparkling cider and celebrate!

  • Satanus

    Congratulations!! I drink a toast to you and your children.


  • Junction-Guy

    Bravo Corvin, I have been watching your posts off and on, and Im must say im glad that everything is working out, but I dont believe this is final just yet, so still keep your fingers crossed. Although it would be great if they were barred from speaking to your children about the JW religion, somehow I dont know if this would be legal or not. Well anyway congratulations to you!!!! Oh and by the way, If I had lived any closer to you, I would have definitely helped you picket.


  • Badger


    This fantastic for you and yours. I know this may be gunning for the stars, but I hope she can be salvaged. If not, you have all the safeguards you need.

    I'm so thrilled for you. I can't imagine how relieved you must be.

  • Corvin
    Although it would be great if they were barred from speaking to your children about the JW religion, somehow I dont know if this would be legal or not

    Junction, the laws are pretty clear in this instance and there is now much legal precedence to support barring a parent from indoctrinating their child with a particular religion. This is what the law says:

    The Actual or Substantial Harm Standard

    Courts applying this standard will restrict a parent's religious activities only if the other parent proves that those activities cause substantial or actual harm to the child. This standard is used in many states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

    Some states, such as Maryland and Ohio, may use the term "actual harm" in one case and "substantial harm" in another, even when the facts are similar. Other states treat actual harm and substantial harm as two separate standards. This may sound confusing, but in reality, the difference between the terms is minimal, and courts often use the language interchangeably. Just remember this: No matter what terminology these courts use, they all look for tangible evidence of harm to the child's physical or mental health.

    The No Harm Required Standard

    In a few states, including Arkansas and Wisconsin, courts do not apply the actual or substantial harm standard or the risk of harm standard. Instead, these courts use a simple rule: The parent with sole legal custody has exclusive control over the child's religious education. If a dispute arises over religious upbringing, the court will curtail the non-custodial parent's religious activities and enforce the custodial parent's desires. These courts reason that interfering with the non-custodial parent's religious activities does not violate First Amendment rights because the restrictions apply only to the time period in which the parent is with the children. At all other times, the parent is free to practice his or her religion as he or she chooses.

    The custodial parent's right to influence the religious upbringing of her children is considered exclusive. If the custodial parent objects to the non-custodial parent's religious activities, that's the end of it: The court will defer to the custodial parent's wishes.

    Who knew?

  • Gretchen956

    Corvin, you ROCK!!! Congratulations!


  • Mulan

    That is such good news.

    Anxiously awaiting the results.

  • Share this