To see more documents/articles regarding this group/organization/subject click here.
In the United States there are over 1,000 custody cases
fought annually involving Jehovah's Witness. Most involve
a young couple in which the mother is converted to the Witnesses, severely alienating
the father, and resulting in a divorce. Because the non-Witness fighting for
custody is typically the father, the author recounted primarily the difficulties
encountered in these kinds of cases. The major concern of the fathers is that raising their
children as Jehovah's Witnesses is not conductive of achieving the goals that most fathers
deem important for their children. These include normal social involvement
in school, attending college, pursuing a career, being able to
utilize appropriate medical treatment, and the development of tolerance toward humans of a variety
of religious faiths and orientations. The author reviewed the literature
relative tot he problems and child custody trends and discussed the most appropriate
strategy for the non-Witness to prevail in court on this manner.
Jehovah's Witnesses are an offshoot of the second adventists movement which developed in the middle 1800s. Judging by their memorial of Christ's death attendance, a required Witness activity, and thus it is a rough gauge of adherents, they number over twelve-million world wide. Jehovah's Witnesses have gained public prominence primarily because of their antagonism to all secular political systems, and by refusing to give these systems formal allegiance, including becoming part of the military, voting, holding public office, and saluting the flag, (Bergman, 1984, 1990). They share many of the features of late nineteenth and early twentieth century apocalypticism, including repeated predictions of the imminent end of the world-such as in 1914, 1925, 1975 - which will usher in God's Kingdom (Brose, 1982; Zygmunt, 1970). Pittsburgh businessman Charles Taze Russell who founded the group in 1879, worked tirelessly to spread his views until his death in 1916. The mantel was then passed on to his personal attorney, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who ruled with an iron hand until 1942 (Zygmunt, 1967).
Rutherford was far more militant than Russell and changed the direction of the movement considerably (White, 1967). As a result, many schisms occurred, and over half of Russell's followers eventually left because of the radical changes Rutherford instituted. His teaching to resist military involvement resulted in major conflicts with the American government, and Rutherford and seven other Society officers were eventually convicted of conspiring to obstruct the recruiting of soldiers (Penton, 1985). The adverse conditions in prison caused Rutherford's health to deteriorate considerably and he remained plagued with health problems throughout his life (Sprague, 1942). Sentenced to harsh terms of twenty years each, they endured prison for nine months before they were released on bail while their appeal was pending. As a result until he died Rutherford prociferously condemned the American government and its courts, and especially the Catholic Church, which he felt influenced his imprisonment.
Many people responded to Rutherford's condemnation of America by unleashing one of the worst waves of violent persecution against a religious group in United States in the twentieth century (ACLU, 1941) world wide. The Witnesses have experienced more church-state conflicts than all other large religious groups in the world, having been banned, or their activities severely proscribed, in the Untied States, Canada, and most of the western world (Penton, 1976; Manwaring, 1959, 1962). Until recently, they were banned in most communist countries, and still face problems in Israel, the Islamic nations and others.
After Rutherford's death in 1942, Nathan Knorr assumed the presidency. His forte was in business, and he changed the Watchover considerably. Gone were the virulent attacks against the government and religion, and in their place was a calm, reasoned condemnation (Harrison, 1978). Major changes in doctrine also occurred, and the membership grew faster than during any other period in their history.
The Witnesses teach that only 144,000 will go to Heaven, and the rest of the saved, the great crowd, or Jehovah's Witnesses in good standing will survive Armageddon to live forever on a restored paradise earth. The soul is not immortal and the state of the wicked is eternal annihilation. They reject the trinity, teach that only God has existed for eternity and His Son, Jesus, is a created being and the Holy Spirit is simply God's active force. A critical teaching is that salvation can be obtained only through working within the Watchover Society, which they teach is the only ark of salvation for mankind (Franz, 1983, 1991).
Each Witness is expected to spend much time studying the publications
and proselytizing for the Society. Well known for their prodigious
output of literature which they sell from door to door and on
street corners. Their income from this activity last year in
the United States alone was over one-billion, one-quarter million
dollars according to their Dunn's report. A teaching that has
caused them much trouble is that all other religions are under
the control of Satan, and that all of those involved in them will
be eternally annihilated (Franz, 1991). The clergy are especially
an evil class because they are leading the people away from the
truth, which only the Watchover is privy to. While the Bible
is held to be the word of God, its interpretation can be made
only by the Watch over Society, not individuals. Witnesses are
prohibited from reading dissident literature, even that which
is not critical to the Watchover Society (Beverley, 1986). Because
the end of the world is still taught to be very close, attending
college, having families, and even marriage is discouraged (Bergman,
1990).
One of their most infamous past teachings was their refusal to
accept vaccinations and organ transplants (both doctrines which
have been reversed). And, the Watchover ruled in 1961 that persons
accepting blood transfusions are to be disfellowshipped (Bergman,
1990, 1991 a). This prohibition extends to their children, and
as a result judges typically remove the children from the custody
of the parents, and the new guardian allows doctors to use transfusion
treatment. When the crisis is past, the parents are usually again
given custody.
While the use of the term "Cult" to describe the Jehovah's
Witnesses may be regarded as perjorative, they fit most definitions
of the term (Lifton, 1961; Dellinger, 1985). The Watchover Society
is extremely exclusionistic, rigidly enforcing the isolation of
its followers from all unnecessary contact with the world (Rogerson,
1972; Salzman, 1951, Sprague, 1942; Stroup, 1945). Their children
are not allowed to involve themselves in any school activities
other than those that are required, are discouraged from career
advancement and attending college, and are required to rigidly
conform to all Watchover rulings, even in small matters such as
celebration which is in many ways more extreme than the Unificationists
(Beverley, 1986). Although some areas, such as celebrating of
Christmas or voting, often results in disfellowshipping. Extreme
pressure also exists to be involved full time in selling literature
for the organization, and all contributions received must be turned
over to the Watchover (Beckford, 1972; Penton, 1985).
Major concerns include the influence of the sect on young people,
issues related to coercion, the long-term effect of certain coercive
practices on free will and the psychological adjustment of persons
who are involved. All of these are commonly raised in Witness
custody cases, pitting the Society against the state and forcing
a judicial evaluation of the Society's teachings. The focus here
is to summarize the literature which is pertinent to custody issues
concerning the Jehovah's Witnesses, and to review the practical
issues that must be addressed in these cases.
The Literature and Cases that Relate to Jehovah's Witness Custody
The Jehovah's Witnesses have experienced greater frequency and
intensity of church-state conflicts than most all religious groups
(Bergman, 1984, 190). Their persecution is to be condemned, but
the Watchover has brought much of it on themselves by their often
inhumane and irrational policies such as condemning flag salute
or the purchase of political party cards, (Franz, 1991). The
major past court battles were over their refusal to salute the
flag (they interpret all pledges of allegiance to national emblems
as idolatry). Today, their most impenetrable legal thicket is
child custody (Moss, 1988). Former Chair of the American Child
Custody Committee, Jeff Atkinson, concluded that in 1990 Jehovah's
Witnesses were "probably responsible for half of the contested
custody cases that are in courts of review around the country"
(1994).
Partially because the Witnesses tend to be hostile toward all
government and churches, and also because most people do not understand
their beliefs, studies have consistently shown that they are now
among the most disliked of all non-cult religious sects (Brinkerhoff
ad Mackie, 1986). One study concluded that over 57% of all Americans
are "somewhat" or "Very unfavorable" about
Jehovah's Witnesses and only 4% had a "very favorable"
impression, a more negative opinion than any other group surveyed
even the Hare Krishnas (Sellers, 1990; Heymann, 1991, p. 124).
This, plus the perception - based partly on empirical research
- that it is more difficult for a child raised a strict Jehovah's
Witness to be well adjusted to society, has motivated many courts
to award the children to the non-Witness parent (Ward, 1988).
Marital discord is relatively common when one parent becomes
a Witness, and divorce often follows. If young children are involved
in a divorce, custody battles often focus on the harmful psychological
and social effects of the Witness religion on young persons (Franz,
1991; Moss, 1988; Hickman, 1985; Montague, 1977).
When Watchover practices which are detrimental to child development
are used as a factor to grant custody to the non-Witness parent,
much of the media publicity about them has been unfavorable.
The Watchover tries to use these situations to their own advantage,
but rarely tell the whole story. They have published articles
stressing that it is necessary for a child to grow up healthy
to have quality contact with both parents, but they have never
discussed the clear negative influence that some of their teachings
have on child development, and the fact that the incidence of
mental illness problems among Witnesses exceeds the national average
by as much as over four times (Spencer, 1975; Sack, 1985; Rylander,
1946; Janner, 1963; Montaque, 1977; Onoda, 1979; Jones, 1985).
Beginning in about 1978, the writer has consulted in over one
hundred Witness custody cases, most involving a situation in which
the wife becomes a Witness and the husband does not accept the
Watchover teaching. If the wife's involvement and entrenchment
is high and the husband's resistance strong, a divorce often follows.
The escalation of conflicts in these cases often results because
wives that become involved in the Witnesses typically pressure
for extreme changes in the marriage. Most of the changes require
the husband to alter his behavior in what often was a satisfactory
marriage. Moss (1988, p.32) observed that 1,030 inquiries from
Jehovah's Witnesses entangled in custody or visitation disputes
were filed with the Watchover Society between February 1987 and
January 1988. As Mangrum notes:
"…the conflict is most evident whenever the parent…belongs
to an unorthodox religion of follows and unconventional way of
life. Very often the courts believe that the child's best interest
would be served by excluding family influences which are aberrational
or unconventional (1991, p. 445)."
These cases are often complex, and clearly contradictory rulings
are common but many judges will openly consider the influences
of the Watchover teachings on the children involved. Some of
the many recent custody cases that were decided in favor of the
non-Witness include:
The concerns behind these Rulings
The main conflict in these cases was summarized by Hastey as follows:
…turned down by the high court, the justices let stand a
ruling that awarded custody of two Texas children to their father
because the mother had become actively involved with the Jehovah's
Witnesses. The…case involved Lawrence and Marianne Rutland,
whose eight-year marriage ended in 1983, shortly after Mrs. Rutland
became a Jehovah's Witness. Both Rutlands previously had been
nominal Catholics, and at the time of the divorce both agreed
that… their sons should reside with their mother. But a
year later, Mr. Rutland went to court seeking to modify the custody
agreement by having the boys taken away from their mother and
placed with him. A trail judge agreed and was upheld by a state
appeals panel. The Texas Supreme court then refused to review
the case.
In her U.S. Supreme Court appeal, Marianne Rutland claimed that
religious prejudice has pervaded the custody trial. Her lawyer
said the trial was "no more than an inquisition-like examination
of the mother's religion." Lawrence Rutland's attorney,
on the other hand, argued that the state had a compelling interest
in the children's welfare "that outweighs any burden thereby
imposed on (Marianne Rutland's) religious freedoms" (1988,
p.3).
Ward concluded that the court's concern in these cases often related
to the Witness religion's
clear-cut, unwavering rules dictating how one conducts his or
her life. Their door-to-door proselytizing is spurred by an urgent
need to warn mankind of what they believe is the impending Battle
of Armageddon and a desire to proclaim Biblical truths against
the evil triumvirate of organized religion, business, and government
(1988, p.21).
It was these beliefs which may have attracted persons such as
Rita Mendez to the religion, but it was also these teachings that
many judges have found objectionable. The importance of religion
in the Mendez case is clear: of the 485 pages of custody proceedings,
51 percent (249 pages) contained references to religion (Tyner,
1991, p.9). Two psychologists and a psychiatrist agreed that
Rita was the preferred custodial parent and the parent to whom
the little girl had the deepest attachment, but they "also
agreed that Rita's religion, at least where it affected her child,
was troubling. The psychologists called her religion 'different'
and 'deviates, not main stream'" (Ward, 1988, p.22). Their
concerns included alienation in school and society because of
Witness beliefs, and the possibility of the need for a blood transfusion
which could produce a crisis in health and other areas. Dr.
Levy testified:
Being raised a Jehovah's Witness would not be in the best interest
of the child, given the fact that [their teachings]…do not
fit in the Western way of life in this society. 'Living in this
society, she needs to adapt herself to the mainstream of culture.
She is growing up [here] and…If the majority of the country
was Jehovah's Witnesses, we would not have any problem…it
isn't healthy for this child to be raised a Jehovah's Witness
(Ward, 1988, p.23).
Dr. Levy also stated that in his judgment:
emotional health is the ability to adapt to a particular culture…Bringing
her up Catholic would allow her to adapt to our society and have
the freedom that Catholic children have in the society, rather
than take the chance and a possibility…in raising her as
a Jehovah's Witness" (Quoted in Tyner, 1991, p.9).
The judge admitted in his decision that he was influenced by the
expert testimony which concluded that the Witness religious upbringing
and withholding critical medical care would be detrimental to
the child, and consequently ordered that all decision relative
to medical, dental, health, and general welfare are to be "vested
solely and exclusively within the discretion of the husband, [as
well as all decisions on] religious training, welfare, religious
education and teaching."
The three judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed
Knight's decision, concluding the trial court had the right to
consider the effects of the divorcing parents' religious differences
on the children. And in 1988 the Supreme Court declined to review
the case (Tyner, 1991, p.10). Courts have consistently ruled
in custody cases that the best interests of the child should take
precedence over all other factors - not what is in the best interests
of either the mother or the father. A judge in a Pennsylvania
case concluded:
We are convinced that embraced within the best interest concept
is the stability and consistency of the child's spiritual inculcation.
It would be an egregious error for our courts in a custody dispute
to scrutinize the ability of parents to foster the child's emotional
development, their capacity to provide adequate shelter, and their
relative income, yet not review their respective religious beliefs
(Morris versus Morris 412 A2d 139, Pa Super Ct., 1979)"
(quoted in Tyner, 1991, p.10).
Mangrum (1991, pp.446) summarized one case as follows:
In LeDoux the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed on appeal
a district court divorce decree that ordered the non-custodial
father, a Jehovah's Witness, "to refrain from exposing or
permitting any other person to expose his minor children to any
religious practices or teachings inconsistent with the Catholic
religion." In a concurring opinion, Judge Grant emphasized
the possible breadth of the decision by opining: "I do not
see how one parent with one set of religious beliefs can raise
their minor children with full training and instruction in each
parent's beliefs without reducing their minor children to a totally
confused, psychologically disastrous state" (at 487, 452
N. W. 2d) (Grant, J., concurring, joined by Hastings, C.J., and
Boslaugh, J.).
Since the interpretation of past court rulings is left to the
discretion of the judge, some concluded that anything even hinting
at religion will not be discussed in a custody hearing, others
that religious beliefs can be scrutinized in detail. The rulings
also vary according to state-- California requires only that
a "clear, affirmative, showing that religious activities
would be harmful to the child" whereas Maine will not consider
a parent's religious practices unless the child's well-being "is
immediately and substantially endangered by the religious practice
in question" (Quoted in Tyner, 1991, p.10).
In one decision (Estes vs. Estes 89-C6103 Johnson County,
KS, 1991) the court ruled that the child, a first grader born
June 12, 1983, was to be removed from the mother's home and placed
in the custody of the father largely because the mother was raising
the child as a Witness. The court ruled he should not be raised
a Witness, even though the domestic court services investigation
recommended that the child remain with the mother. The reason
the judge gave included the potential threat of the child's health
because of the Watchtower prohibition on blood transfusions, their
disparagement of all higher education, their teaching that all
non-Witnesses including the child's father are in bonds of Satan
and will be destroyed soon at Armageddon, and the fact that "the
behavior of the minor child, Scotty, reflects that he is becoming
more and more alienated from his father and from his extended
family, believing that 'Christmas persons' those who celebrate
Christmas as opposed to …the JWs who do not…are going
to die…and should be shunned" (Tyner, 1991, p.18-19).
The court also evaluated a booklet entitled Preparing for
Child Custody Cases, which was written by the Watchtower headquarters
staff to improve the odds that Witnesses prevailed in court, and
concluded that this booklet "recommends the giving of testimony
under oath which is known to be untrue." The court ruled
that "because of the absolute conflict between the parents
with reference to the Jehovah's Witness religion, and for good
cause shown, sole custody of said minor child be granted to the
respondent father" (Tyner, p.21). Further the wife was to
be:
enjoined and restrained from exposing said minor child to any
activities in which she participates as a member of the Jehovah's
Witness religion and is to restrain form indoctrinating or attempting
to indoctrinate the minor child in the restrictions and prohibitions
of that religion; the petitioner is specifically ordered restrained
from teaching said child or exposing said child to teachings that
his father, grandmother, or other paternal relatives are 'of the
Devil' or are 'of Satan' or that his relatives including his father
and grandmother are 'going to die' and will be just 'dust…'
(Estes v. Estes, 1991, 89-C6103, Johnson County, Kansas).
A follow-up on Cases where the Witness was awarded Custody
It is extremely important to do a follow-up on these cases, especially
those in which the custody battle resulted in the Witness gaining
custody. As to the latter, this writer is aware of many cases
which argues that the decision was incorrect. In one such case
the victim stated that his father left the Watchtower while his
children were still very young. A divorce resulted and the father:
fought for custody rights of my sister and me until he could fight
no more. Every effort was made to make me despise my father and
by the time I was in my teens, I truly thought he was an evil
person controlled by Satan (Johnson, 1992, p.3).
Johnson adds that his mother, a Witness, was given custody in spite of his father's "valiant efforts which took him all the way to the United States Supreme Court." He continues,
When my sister was eighteen, she was told by my mother that she
could no longer see our father if she wanted to remain in 'good
standing' with the congregation. I left the organization at this
point, seeing this hypocrisy. My father committed suicide a few
months back. He was literally destroyed by Jehovah's Witnesses."
(Johnson, 1992, p.3).
Johnson adds that he believes his life would have been much better
if his father had been awarded custody.
Practical Issues that must be Addressed.
In cases involving a father endeavoring to obtain custody of his
children, one must at the onset realize that it is an uphill battle
(Musetto, 1982; Cassidy, 1977). Some judges seem to feel that
the worst mother is better that the best father. In fully about
90% of all divorces, custody is awarded to the mother regardless
of all other factors. Wolf concluded "virtually all industrialized
countries believe that children belong with their mothers,"
noting that only 3% of all families are headed by single fathers,
a number which is slowly rising (1992, p.239). The current U.S.
Census Bureau reports show the number of single fathers with their
children is only 2.7%, the number of single mothers is 21.2% (Udansky,
1994:3A). Males are naïve to conclude, even if they are
demonstrably the better parent , that they will receive custody.
They must often prove beyond a doubt that the mother is
blatantly unfit, often a very difficult task (Victor and Winkler,
1977; Ornstein, 1978). It usually requires much more than the
father proving that he will be the better parent, and is related
to the difficulties in obtaining justice in American courts.
In one case, the woman left her husband and children to live with
another man in another state. She was soon involved in a bank
robbery which resulted in one man being killed.
A high speed chase followed, and when the police finally stopped
the car, they were shocked to find the woman and her absolutely
terrified two-year-old child in the car. The father then took
the responsibility for the children, but a couple of years later,
the woman decided that she had enough running around, and now
wanted her children back. We argued in court that a woman who
had involved herself in such criminal activity is a questionable
mother, and the father had in these two years clearly proved his
abilities. The judge responded that we all make mistakes, and
duly pulled the children from the father's care (who was working
full time, and supporting them in a middle class lifestyle) and
gave them to the mother, who promptly went on welfare and later
moved out of state. The pain I have seen these fathers go through,
especially at the hands of our horribly unjust court system, is
enormous. Is it any wonder that so many fathers soon resign themselves
to this situation, and withdraw themselves from the lives of their
children (Bergman, 1991, p.6).
In most of the Witness cases the author has worked with, the charge
of spouse or child abuse is raised by the Witness party, often
with little evidence. This is compounded by the tendency for
men and women in our society to respond to frustration in different
ways (Spiegel, 1986). Men tend to physically act out their aggression,
and women are more apt to be verbally aggressive. Even in justifiable
and understandable situations, responding physically tends to
be seen as evidence that the male "cannot control himself"
and thus is at least a potential child abuser (Ambrose et al.,
1983; Gill, 1981). If there are any unresolved questions about
his control, the male typically does not gain custody.
Witness wives raise this issue because the Watchtower often advises
them that if any evidence for child abuse exists, either
sexual or physical, such accusations often preclude the male form
obtaining custody. This is also a concern in non-Witness cases
- many studies have found that a couple living together for years
with no accusations of child or sexual abuse until the woman files
for divorce. As Felton noted:
The charge - sexually abusing a child - has surged in divorce
custody proceedings. Fathers are the prime targets. Many accusations
are false, made to hurt a spouse or to ensure sole custody….Gordon
Blush spent the 1980s working with Karol Ross at the Macomb County
family services clinic, making recommendations to judges in divorce
cases and in custody and visitation disputes. Early in the decade
the two noticed an increasing number of child sex abuse cases
in their practice. "About 1982 or 1983 we began to see a
proliferation of allegations regarding sexual abuse in the context
of custody or visitation disputes,"…
The trend was noticed by others involved in divorce litigation as well. "I started doing child custody cases back in 1980 and one rarely, if ever, heard an [abuse] allegation," says Melvin Guyer, an attorney and professor of psychology at the University of Michigan. "By the mid-eighties the first of them started, and it was just like a wildfire." … "A decade ago nobody was doing more than one or two of these cases, so no one was getting much of a sense of what was going on," says Gail Benson, a family law attorney in Detroit. "As the load increased, lawyers like me stopped and looked around and said, 'I've got so many of these, there must be a problem.'" The problem, she claims is an explosion not in abuse, but in dubious allegations. …troubled by the large number of accusations they believed to be untrue, Blush and Ross looked at 24 cases they had been involved with…They found similarities they labeled the "SAID syndrome" :sexual allegations in divorce. They reported the findings in 1987 in the Conciliation Courts Review (1991, pp.6, 9).
Fathers who love their children enormously - often true to go
through expensive, emotionally draining litigation to gain custody
- find it extremely frustrating to be confronted with charges
that he knows are false, but yet are very difficult to defend
against in court. Because such charges are especially common
in Witness custody cases, the father should endeavor to deal with
this concern from the very beginning. One way is by insuring
that, if this issue may be a concern, a neutral but respected
third party, who is willing to testify that no abuse took place,
is always with the male when he is with his children (Speigel,
1986).
In one Witness case the author worked with, a Hispanic father
walked in on his sixteen-year-old stepson in the act of sexually
molesting his seven year-old stepsister. The father reacted very
decisively, immediately physically removing the boy (who was close
to his size) for his daughter's room, and emphatically informing
him that this behavior was totally unacceptable. Ironically,
the father ended up in court for child "abuse" against
his stepson and at the divorce hearing was not awarded custody
of either his stepson or even his own daughter. The mother, a
Witness, appeared to at least partially condone her son's behavior,
rationalizing that he was only curious and was just "experimenting."
The woman in Witness cases may also attempt to goad her estranged husband into hitting her, hoping to use this as evidence against him in court. In altercations where both are struggling, the woman may try to convince the court to interpret the event as male-caused spouse abuse when in actuality she was flailing at him and he was only endeavoring to restrain her. If bruises are left, he will often lose. Some people bruise incredibly easily, and men are generally less prone to injury because of their size and higher level of muscle tissue which provides some protection. When goading fails, she may simply lie and claim that she was slapped and hit numerous times, realizing it will be her word against his -- and if there is any question, courts are inclined to believe her (Victor and Winkler, 1977; Fleder 1971). The common generalization is that males behave this way whereas females do not (or if they are, they are far less likely to cause tissue damage) and thus this response is seen in quite a different light than when the male responds aggressively.
Of course, if the man has been physically violent, either against
his child or wife, and clear evidence if this exists (such as
witnesses, police reports in which the officers observed aggressive
behavior) it is largely a wasted effort for the father to endeavor
to achieve custody. In most of the Witness cases that I have
worked with, though, the father was likely innocent of such charges.
A father usually will not spend a large amount of money endeavoring
to achieve custody if he knows he was wrong. The foregoing should
not be interpreted as implying that spouse or child abuse is not
a major problem, but that in cases of non-Witness males involved
in custody battles, false claims are common (Abcarian, 1992; Chelser,
1986).
Stability in the Child's Life
Overall, my recommendation is to do whatever is possible to
save the marriage. In my experience, the majority
of Witnesses who go through these custody battles will eventually
themselves leave the Watchtower Society. They often soon become
disillusioned with the organization and congregation, and many
become bitter over the fact that they gave up their marriage to
become involved in what they later come to believe is a human-made
religious system (Bergman, 1984, 1985). This is an especially
common result when they learn about the history of the Watchtower.
If this is not possible, custody is an issue that must be reviewed.
It is imperative that fathers desiring custody be living with
the children at the time of the custody hearing. A common situation
I have observed is for the fathers to move out and live on his
own in an apartment while the mother remains with the children
in the family home. At the custody hearing, the court is unlikely
to remove the child or children from her home and place them with
the father if the current situation seems satisfactory (Krantzler,
1974; Sheresky, 1972). If the other parent will not move out,
the person who wants custody should try to continue to live in
the family home no matter how difficult. Judges have long been
extremely reluctant to remove children from both familiar surroundings
and their school in order to move them into an apartment with
the father (Gardner, 1977; Goode, 1956). If the children are
living with the father in the family home and are doing fairly
well, the father's chances for custody are far higher (Young,
1973).
The Problem of Credibility
Judges often have difficulty accepting as bonafide the teachings
that all Witnesses know are required in order to remain in the
Watchtower. When one testifies in court that Witnesses are not
allowed to join the Boy or Girl Scouts, become involved in any
extracurricular activities at school, salute the flag, celebrate
birthdays, give presents on holidays, or attend college, many
judges, if they are aware of any of their prohibitions,
accept only their flag salute stand as a true prohibition. Judges
tend to believe that even though certain rules and prohibitions
may exist, behavior prohibitions are both real and ideal, and
consequently the ideals presented by the Watchtower can be violated
with impunity by members. The example that some relate is, in
spite of the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of birth control,
many studies have found that no statistical difference of its
use exists between Catholics and non-Catholics.
The Watchtower uses this fact to their advantage in court. Many
Witnesses claim on the stand that they do not celebrate birthdays
or allow their children to involve themselves in extracurricular
activities and adhere to other Watchtower teachings only because
of their own independent study of the Bible, not because of
the Watchtower's teaching. In fact, they would be disfellowshipped
if they did not go along with the Society in these areas. And
almost nobody outside the Watchtower has concluded from the Bible
alone that flag salute, attending college, organ transplants or
blood transfusions (and most of the other problematic watchtower
teachings) are sinful. That they conform to Watchtower requirements
is shown in a study which showed the Witnesses are educationally
at the bottom of the thirty groups studied by one researcher -
only 4.7 percent have college degrees compared to 49.5% of Unitarians
and 46.7% of Jews - and Witnesses were ranked at the bottom for
an aggregate measure of social class using education, occupation,
and income (Kosmin and Lachman, 1993; Bergman, 1981). Unitarians
were ranked first, Disciples of Christ second, Agnostics third,
and Congregationalists fourth.
Judges may assume that, even though many prohibitions exist, they
have no practical effect on a specific case because the decision
to follow the rules is up to the child or the parents. One must
prove that this is in fact not the case, and for such "minor"
violations as sending Christmas cards (even just season's greetings
cards), if one is not fully repentant or if personality conflicts
exists between the elders and the violator, the offender will
likely be disfellowshipped. It must also be shown that disfellowshipping
is far more rigid among the witnesses than among any
other religious group that still practices it, including the Amish.
The extreme degree that one is normally totally cut off
from family and friends must be proved in court.
A person who leaves the movement or opposes the Witnesses - a
category which includes most of the fathers who challenge custody
on the basis of religion - are to be shunned by all Witnesses,
including one's own children (Franz, 1991). It is obviously usually
traumatic to be cut off by all of one's family members who remain
Witnesses, and this is especially true for children:
Minor children of Witness parents are taught that they must gradually,
as they grow up, lessen the amount of communication and relationship
with the parent who has left the church. When the child is considered
old enough to be personally accountable before God for his or
her actions, he or she is expected - indeed pushed - to terminate
the relationship with the non-Witness parent. Those who leave
the church, either to join another or to be non-religious, are
considered to be heinous, and it is believed that associating
with them, even if they are your parents (or children, brothers,
sisters, cousins, grandparents, etc.), will result in God's disapproval
and ultimate condemnation. Witnesses are prevented from associating
with family members who were once church members with the threat
of being excommunicated themselves if they do so. For a Witness,
being excommunicated is tantamount to eternal destruction, since
they believe salvation can not be obtained only through their
organization (Duron, 1991, p.17).
The writer states in her own case:
It is now sixteen years since I left the Witness religion. My
daughter is grown. I will not watch her graduate from high school
this month. Nor will I be a participant in her wedding, or even
know about it. I will not meet or even see my grandchildren.
I well do none of these things unless my daughter is no longer
a Jehovah's Witness.(Duron, 1991, p.17).
Being cut off from one's family is only part of the problem.
The Witness parent typically endeavors to denigrate and totally
alienate the non-Witness parent. As Duron states:
For years [after our divorce]…an attempt was made to discredit
me and to wean the children from any relationship with me under
the guise that my visits were severely disrupting their lives.
My son, now sixteen, recalls signing blank pieces of paper upon
which his sister would later write; 'we don't want to see you
any more because you don't serve Jehovah [God].' She later wrote
me saying she really did want to have a relationship with me,
but she felt she could not because of the church. This from an
eleven year old child. The years went painfully by, punctuated
by additional trauma for all of us, a total alienation from both
children that lasted three years, a subsequent reunion after I
initiated court action (that resulted in my gaining custody of
my son) and a final parting with my daughter last summer (because
she went with her mother and the Witnesses, thus was cut off from
me) (1991, p.17).
The child in these cases may claim that the decision to cut off
all relationships from a non-Witness was made on his or her own,
but as Duron (1991, p.18) observes, "through my own personal
experience and through those of many, many former Witnesses I
know who are also living daily without family relationships"
this decision was made solely because of the teachings and direct
pressure from the Witness organization. Few children would on
their own cut off all interaction with a parent because the parent
elects to celebrate Christmas or does not accept 1914 as the date
of Christ's second coming.
This severe alienation from the non-Witness parent has been a critical factor in a number of decision to award custody to the non-Witness parent. The court correctly sees that if the custody is awarded to the Witness parent, the child's alienation from the non-Witness parent will likely be severe, if not complete. On the other hand, if the custody is given to the non-Witness parent, the chances are far greater that the child will be able to establish a decent relationship with both parents. As Judge Baskins stated in the Mendez cases: "To be forced to choose between one's religion and one's child is repugnant to a society based on constitutional principles" (Ward, 1988, p.23). A good example of this is found in a report made to the court in the case of Selvaggio vs. Adams (Macomb Michigan Circuit Court case 94 388 DC).
Q. What do the people at the Kingdom Hall say about Dad?
A. You're bad, and that you, um…you don't serve Jehovah.
what's gonna happen to Daddy?
Q. When's Daddy gonna die?
Q. At the end of the system? What happens to you if you don't go to the Kingdom
hall?
Q. Okay. Who is going to paradise?
Q. And who are the bad people?
Q. What's going to happen to Daddy?
Q. What if you live with Daddy, what's going to happen?
A. Me and you will die.
Q. Why are you going to die?
Q. So…if you live with Daddy, then you can't serve Jehovah?
Q. And when do they tell you these things?
A. At the Kingdom [Hall]…
Q. And what do you say to them when they do that?
Q. Are you afraid to live with Daddy?
Many judges find it hard to accept that the Watchtower rules are
this extreme, and consequently this must be proved from
the Watchtower's own publications and from the testimony of ex-Witnesses.
It must also be proved in court that both non-Witnesses who oppose
the Society and ex-Witnesses are viewed "like dogs that have
returned to their vomit." Proving that opposers and ex-Witnesses
are considered the worst of humanity, close to the devil himself
- and this includes the non-Witness parent - it is critical because
it demonstrates that the non-Witness parent will not have
a normal relationship with their child or children if the Witness
parent is given custody. If the non-Witness parent is awarded
custody, it is far more likely that both parents will have a normal
relationship with their children. Thus, Duron argues that,
Unless the factual circumstances of these situations are publicized,
the Witnesses will continue to present themselves to the courts
as innocent victims of religious persecution (1991, p.18).
The Problem of Religion and the Courts.
Many judges are leery of bringing the issue of religion into the
courtroom, and will often not openly assign custody on the basis
of religion. Some prefer that it not even be discussed in their
court. It must be stressed that the actual concern is not religious
doctrine but the lifestyle that the Watchtower requires,
and especially the disastrous psychological consequences
of this lifestyle (Magnani, 1986, 1988). In an early Witness
case the judge ruled as to the effect of a Witness lifestyle on
the children:
Prince v. Massachusetts [321 US 158 1949] established that
protecting children constitutes a compelling governmental interest.
In Prince, the court upheld a statute which prohibited
children from distributing religious literature in violation of
child labor laws, as necessary to protect the states interest
in child safety. The case involved a guardian who allowed her
nine-year-old ward to sell Jehovah's Witnesses' literature on
city streets on evening, in accordance with both the guardian's
and ward's religious beliefs. A Massachusetts statute provided
that no minor may sell any magazine or periodical on a public
street, and that no parent or guardian may permit a minor to work
in violation of the law. The guardian, Mrs. Prince, argued that
the statute infringed on both her parental rights guaranteed under
the due process clause and her freedom of religion under the first
amendment. The court acknowledged that parents have the right
to give children religious training and encourage their children
in religious practice…However, the court found that the family
unit is not above government regulation even against the claim
of religious liberty, and that neither parental rights or freedom
of religion is beyond limitation. Where a child's safety is endangered,
the state has the right to protect the child. Therefore, the
court held that as long as Massachusetts had correctly determined
that its labor statutes are necessary to protect children, the
statutes are constitutionally valid (Kroller, 1990, p. 1072).
As the California Supreme Court (Molko vs. Holy Spirit Association
46 Cal.3d 1092; 252 Cal Rptr 122 (Cal, 1988), p. 122-156 ruled:
However, while religious belief is absolutely protected,
religiously motivated conduct is not…conduct is subject
to a balancing test, in which the importance of the state's interest
is weighed against the severity of the burden imposed. That practice
is not itself belief - it is conduct "subject
to regulation for the protection of society" (p.132, 135).
Duron describes the solution to the religion problem as follows:
The courts are notoriously leery of appearing to be religiously biased, so discussion of your and your spouse's convictions will most likely be disallowed. Yet, you are very aware that, if custody goes to your spouse, you will be the object of a church-supported systematic effort by your ex-spouse to eliminate you as a parent on the basis that you are an unworthy associate for your children because you are not a Witness (1991, p.18).
She believes it is often preferable that religious bias "does
not enter into courtroom, but we also need to be very aware that
religious bias exists in many forms," and the Witnesses who
"protest most vehemently about being persecuted often inflict
their own cruel brand of prejudice and persecution upon others
who do not share their beliefs" (Duron, 1991, p.18). She
adds that Witnesses have fought vigorously in the courts for their
right to practice their religion - yet when a person decides to
exercise the same right and chooses a set of beliefs different
from the Witnesses, "the ex-member is branded as an unfit
parent." She concludes: "I do not like it when a church
teaches my child that I am unsuitable to be her parent any longer
because I do not subscribe to its beliefs." Although most
courts will look at any factors that may affect the child, even
the most favorable to the Watchtower, has ruled that:
A parent may not be denied custody on the basis of his or her
religious practices unless there is probative evidence that those
practices will adversely affect the mental or physical health
of the child. Evidence that the child will not be permitted to
participate in certain social or patriotic activities is not sufficient
to prove possible harm. (Pater vs. Pater 1992, 63 Ohio
St. 3d393).
The Psychological Concerns of a Child being raised a Witness.
A major concern that must be demonstrated in court is that it
is very difficult for a child who is raised consistent with the
Jehovah's Witness teachings to be socially well adjusted (Bergman,
1992a, 1992, 1991b, 1991a, 1989, 1986, 1976; Spencer, 1975; Harrison,
1978).
This problem is not necessarily the result of the individual prohibitions
but the fact that the total sect of prohibitions seriously isolate
children from their peers. The Watchtower forbids involvement
in patriotic or nationalistic activities, is taught that voting
is wrong, cannot celebrate any holidays, and believes that God
requires that one die rather than accept most blood products (although
some, as albumin, immune globulins, factor VIII, factor IX and
circulating blood, are now acceptable - a fact which illustrates
the blood donctrine's inconsistency). This experience will almost
always casue the child serious social problems. Watchtower teaching
that all non-Witnesses are not of God, but worldly are are serving
Satan, and will soon be destroyed at Armageddon is likely to severely
alienate the Witness child from both his or her peers and most
all non-Witness relatives and family members. It is very difficult
for a Witness child to have a normal relationship with people
at school, and most Witnesses do not try because the Society teaches
that such relationships are not proper.
Part of the problem is the fact that children tend to be cruel
and viciously make fun of anyone who is different - whether for
reasons such as physical handicap, or because of religious or
cultural differences (Rosenberg, 1962). Jehovah's Witnesses are
not uncommonly the brunt of cruel attacks by other children (Bergman,
1989). This only reinforces the child's perception that all non-Witnesses
are worldly, evil persons to be avoided. In the long run, this
experience can severely affect the child's general adjustment,
self-perception, and ability to deal with the normal contingencies
of life. The social maladjustment will likely follow the child
in work, career, marriage and all other areas of life, adversely
affecting him or her in almost all situations where involved,
intimate social intercourse is required (Rogerson, 1972).
A major concern of non-Witness parents is that Witness children
cannot involve themselves in activities which many people deem
extremely important. These include normal after school social
involvement, participation in sports and recreational activities
such as dances or visits to museums that are part of such social
activities and, especially, attending college. If the non-Witness
father is a college graduate, he will likely believe that college
is mandatory for success and happiness in a career. The rejection
of these values is difficult for many fathers to deal with, and
thus they will attempt to insure that their children have at least
the same opportunities that they had.
The most serious affect of Witness teachings on children is alienation
from the non-Witness father. This factor is critical in custody
arguments because many jurisdictions have "Friendly parent"
statutes which favor the parent most likely to insure frequent
and continuing contact with the other parent (Korzec, 1991).
In view of the disfellowship ostracism of ex-Witnesses, often
the best legal tract for an attorney litigating a Witness case
is to emphasize the deliberate parental alienation that active
Witnesses must practice. Witnesses must "hate in the truest
sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to
consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest" ex-member
parents or a parent who opposes the Watchtower (Watchtower, October
1, 1952, p.599; June 15, 1980, pp. 8-22, July 15, 1961, p.420,
Kandel, 1993, p.1).
In many of the cases the author worked with, the children openly
admitted that they learned from the Kingdom Hall or their mother
that opposing fathers are of Satan and not to be associated with,
or at the least to be avoided. A common Watchtower response to
this is to attempt to deny the disfellowshipping or shunning practice,
which requires proof from the Watchtower publications that they
must practice a most severe form of disfellowshipping as discussed
below (See Paul vs. Watchtower No 85-4012 vs. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1987).
An illustration of how the Witness teachings alienate children
from the father involves the wife of a Jewish physician. When
she started studying with the Witnesses, severe marital conflicts
ensued, and not long thereafter she left him. She now lives with
her two children in a separate residence, is a full-time unpaid
Watchtower worker, and her former husband is required to support
her and the children "in the lifestyle that they were accustomed
to" before the divorce. The children, although still in
elementary grades, are both extremely intelligent, and the mother
has indoctrinated them against attending college. Further, they
have heard much criticism of the medical profession at the Kingdom
hall and consequently have made statements to their father such
as "Daddy, you shouldn't be a doctor. Doctors are bad.
They give blood transfusions and cause people to die and lose
their everlasting life." His children were told that blood
transfusions kill many people, and therefore doctors are bad.
The father has in vain used his medical knowledge to explain
this is absolutely false, noting that all medical procedures are
imperfect, but that blood saves far more people than it kills.
The children also told their father that, unless he became a
Witness, he would soon be destroyed at Armageddon - and that only
they and their mother were going to survive.
This father was absolutely furious with the Watchtower because
they broke up his family, ruined his marriage, and alienated him
not only from his wife, but also from his children. The court
trial experience was an enormous disappointment and disillusionment
for him. The court would not allow any of his expert witnesses
to testify, and the judge ruled that he was not going to entertain
any discussion of the wife's religious beliefs. Part of the
reason may have been time constraints (the case was tried in a
Los Angeles court, and a mere one day was available for each side
because of the tight docket). When the trial and court process
was completed (he lost custody and the wife received a huge settlement),
he was almost as disillusioned with the court system as with the
Witnesses.
Theocratic War Strategy; Why Witnesses lie in Court
Watchtower legal battles have "become so common [that] they offer its followers a pamphlet entitled 'Preparing for Child Custody Cases'" (Montgomery, 1992, p.14). The booklet openly advocates deception and advises Witnesses to refuse to honestly reveal the full situation to the court. Duron concludes that this Watchtower publication is,
designed for their internal use in helping their members prepare
to discuss custody matters in divorce hearings [and] encourages
Witness children, under oath, to present a distorted view of the
opportunities that a Witness child has to assume a place in the
larger world. An example of this is the comment in this publication
that Witness children could become journalists…when attending
a college is at best strongly discouraged, and at worst condemned
by the Witnesses as a vehicle by which Witness children can lose
their faith and be subjected to immoral association (1991, p.18).
The Watchtower legal department is now to be contacted in all
custody cases involving Witnesses (Watchtower, 1989, 1991). Even
if the Witness hires a secular attorney, the Society usually provides
the Witness the advantage of extensive free-of-charge legal services
and assistance of the Watchtower law staff (see Kingdom Ministry,
Aug. 1992, Vol. 35, No. 8, p. 7). Since many of the Watchtower's
full-time attorneys do nothing but defend Witness cases, they
have an enormous amount of experience and expertise in this area,
and know how to best deal with the courts. Deception, unfortunately,
often does work, and in my experience many of the documents
they file before the court contain untruths which can be proved
such if one is given the opportunity. The Watchtower Society
is also not above unscrupulous ad homin attacks, presenting
wholly inaccurate evidence against the people who testify in these
kinds of cases.
In an excellent summary of the 'Preparing for child custody cases'
booklet Franz notes:
The brochure of more than 60 pages supplies guidelines to Witness
parents, their children and their attorneys, as well as local
elders and others who may testify, by reviewing difficult questions
that may be presented by the opposing side and then offering suggested
sample responses…Watchtower…[teaching]on honesty…[is
to] respect the truth, [not]…willing to twist the truth a
little bit, to get out of an inconvenient circumstance, or to
get something we want…Compare that with some of the responses
suggested in the Society's manual. Under "APPROACH BY WITNESS
PARENT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION," we find this question…Will
all Catholics (or others) be destroyed?…[and the suggested
answer on page 12 is]: Jehovah makes those judgments, not we.
This sounds good, implies freedom from a dogmatic, judgmental
attitude. Yet the Witness so responding knows that his organization's
publications clearly teach that only those who are in association
with "Jehovah's organization" will survive the "great
tribulation" and that all those who fail to come to that
organization face destruction. (1991, p.283).
Franz then evaluates the section, "DIRECT EXAMINATION AND
RESPONSES FOR LOCAL ELDER," in which the booklet presents
these questions and responses:
What view does [the Witness religion] take toward people of other
religions? (Jesus taught love thy neighbor as self, includes
all; we respect others' right to worship as they choose. [Do
Witnesses] teach that young people should learn only about religion
of Jehovah's Witnesses? (No. Consider following objective consideration
of other religions in our publications.) [This is followed by
a list of articles in the Watchtower magazines.] (pages
29-31).
In response to this section Franz notes:
Again, the responses imply an attitude of considerable tolerance
[about religion]…Yet once more, the Witness elder responding
knows that his religion teaches that "people of other religions"
are all within "Babylon the Great," the empire of false
religion, depicted as a "great harlot" in Scripture,
that the worship they have chosen is considered unChristian and,
if continuing in it, they face destruction. He also knows that
Witnesses are urged not to have social relations with such "people
of other religions," since such would have a "corrupting"
effect, the only approved association with such being in "witnessing"
to them in the hope of changing their religion. He knows that
all the articles set out in the brochure's list emphasize negative
aspects of the "other religions" discussed and that
the organization discourages reading literature directly proceeding
from other religions; only what it itself publishes about such
religions is viewed as safe reading (1991, p. 284).
In summary, Franz concludes:
…people counseled to respond in this way must know that they
are being asked to present an outlook that is very different from
the one urged upon them in Watch Tower publications. If they
are speaking the truth, without "twisting it a bit,"
they would not have to be told to speak differently from the way
they would in a circuit assembly-or anywhere else for that matter
(1991, p. 285).
Probably the major psychological concern is Witnesses who deceive
themselves. Leaving the Witnesses is incredibly traumatic for
many people - especially whose who are highly committed.
As Duron states:
I was a third generation Jehovah's Witness before my departure from that religion in 1975. I am married to a second generation former Witness. My husband and I, with a combined total of nearly sixty years of exposure to Witness beliefs and activities, have spend many hours, both separately and together, searching for rationality in our lives. The focus of that search, aside from trying to learn how to rebuild our lives after living through the intense spiritual upheaval of rethinking all of our moral, religious, social, and personal values and beliefs, was to deal rationally with "who gets the kid?" We had two children to think about (Duron, 1991, p. 16-17).
As Magnani states, "The Watchtower Society encourages its
faithful to fudge their testimony" (quoted in Montgomery,
1992, p. 14). An example is when asked if people of other religions
will survive Armageddon, the Society suggests the answer, "Jehovah
makes those judgments, not we." In actually, the Watchtower
teaches that only those who are baptized Witnesses and
in good standing will survive Armageddon (Rogerson, 1969). The
official Watchtower book You Can Live Forever in Paradise Earth
teaches that:
Did Jehovah ever use more than one organization during any period
of time? In Noah's day only Noah and those with him inside the
ark had God's protection and survived the floodwaters. (1 Peter
3:20) Also, in the first century there were not two or more Christian
organizations. God dealt with just the one. There was just the
"one Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians
4:5) Likewise in our day Jesus Christ foretold that there would
be only one source of spiritual instruction for God's people…there
are [not] different roads, or ways, that you can follow to gain
life in God's new system. There is only one. There was just
the one ark that survived the Flood, not a number of boats. And
there will be only one organization - God's visible organization
- that will survive that fast-approaching "great tribulation."
It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal…
You must be part of Jehovah's organization, doing God's will,
in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life (1982, pp.
192, 193, 255-256).
They justify deception in court by teaching the concept of theocratic
warfare in which lying (or in the Watchtower words, withholding
the truth) is proper if it furthers the Watchtower's interests
(Bergman, 1995). Their lying includes efforts to deny their past
teachings, something which is bound to have some effect on changing
their current teaching (see Selvaggio vs. Adans 90-338 DC). As
a result of these cases, Watchtower adherents may modify some
of their teachings in court - including down-grading and de-emphasizing
certain past views, such as only Jehovah's Witnesses can please
God and earn the gift of life, and that all governments, religions
and business except their own are run by Satan.
The Society also teaches that it is appropriate to withhold the truth from "people who are not entitled to it" if it will further their ends (Reed, 1992, also Franz, 1971, p. 1060-1061) Witnesses do not always lie outright, but they often lie as per the court's definition, not telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" which means they must relate the whole story. The following exchange occurred between Witness attorney Carolyn Wah and Duane Magnani, who was being disposed in the case of Marvin Reyes (Case 6936-C, Abilene, Texas):
Magnani: …[Witnesses teach that they are] in theocratic
warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God's
foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting
the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from
God's enemies.
Wah: Thanks. Would that suggestion be any different than
a soldier supporting a government who is captured by an opposing
Army?
Magnani: Yes.
Wah: How so?
Magnani: Well, in this situation, when we are talking
about hiding the truth…in terms of theocratic warfare or
spiritual warfare Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all non-Jehovah's
Witnesses are in the camp of Satan and all Jehovah's Witnesses
are in God's camp…
Wah: So then you are saying in a war, that during World
War II, for example, that German soldiers captured by American
soldiers would not have a problem with lying…
Magnani: …With Jehovah's Witnesses their main motivation
in life is to present whatever the Watchtower organization desires
them to present. If the organization had said something which
an opposer, i.e., a non-Jehovah's Witness wants to discuss, then
it is the duty of the Jehovah's Witness, in our experience and
from the documentation that we have, to, in essence, cover up,
lie, distort or what not to make the Society look good…
The origin of this now infamous doctrine is related by Frakes:
There is always the possibility that new interpretations of Jehovah's
word will be presented at the assemblies by…the Watchtower
Society, new revelations based on temporal developments which
prove the validity of the Society's tenets. In his Sunday-morning
discourse on "Cautions as Serpents among Wolves," Vice
-President F.W. Franz interpreted certain Old Testament passages
as proving that when it meant preservation of his own, Jehovah
approved lying to one's enemies; hence, such lying is not to be
condemned so long as it is addressed to outsiders. Thereupon
the chairman thanked him as the agent of the Watchtower Society
for the "new light" he had brought (1955, p.819).
As Walker (1990) concludes, the Watchtower advises Witnesses to
paint a decidedly untrue picture in court and "to say in
court the exact opposite of what they would normally say
in a Kingdom Hall" (p. 7). The Watchtower booklet "School
and Jehovah's Witnesses" and all official teachings all but
forbids Witness children from being involved in organized sports
or after school activities, hobbies and higher education, concluding
that this time should be used principally to pursue Watchtower
interests. The booklet, though, instructs Witnesses to imply
exactly the opposite in court (Walker, 1990, p. 23).
In my experience, Witness attorneys and the Witness themselves
regularly and routinely follow this advice on the stand. They
may swear under oath, for example, that they have no problem allowing
their children to celebrating the holidays, play with "worldly
children," participate in school sports, attend college,
or have a blood transfusion if it meant the child's life
(even at times claiming that this is not a disfellowshipping situation).
Some state they would at the least permit their non-Witness ex-spouse
to make the decision (which, in essence, would allow the child
to have a blood transfusion) even though this is blatantly contrary
to required Watchtower policy:
If a Christian is asked to submit to something that will be a violation of God's higher law, the divine law comes first; it takes precedence [and if the court]…authorized the forcing of a blood transfusion on a Christian…Christians must take the same stand that the apostle Peter did; 'we must obey God rather than men' - Acts 5:29…[and must be] "Absolutely determined to obey God even if a government directed them otherwise." [The Society stresses that the degree that this is to be enforced] by an example of a twelve year old…[who] left no doubt that she would fight authorized transfusion with all they strength she could muster. That she would scream and struggle, that she would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed. She was firmly resolved to obey the divine law. (Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31)
Ironically, not one Scripture exists which the Watchtower can
use to condemn the medical use of a blood or any organ transplant,
and many Scriptures condone such use to save lives (for a discussion
of those the Watchtower uses, see Bergman, 1990, 1991a). Even
the Society had historically allowed blood transfusion - it was
not a disfellowshipping offense until 1961 (Watchtower,
Jan. 15, 1961, p. 63-64). The extent of avoiding transfusions
includes the prohibition of putting oneself in the position where
a transfusion could occur and, "if a court authorized transfusion
seems likely…[a Witness must] put forth strenuous efforts
to avoid a violation of God's law on blood [and if] authorities…consider
him a law-breaker or make him liable to prosecution…the Christian
could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness"
(Watchtower, June 15, 1991, p.31). As Duron notes, Witnesses
are to die rather than submit to a transfusion:
Witnesses seldom actually state succinctly that they not hesitate
to allow their minor children to die rather than to allow the
child to receive a blood transfusion. (1991, p. 18)
Another deceptive line of reasoning the Watchtower often uses
is to argue that their refusing a blood transfusion is based on
a rational fear of AIDS and that their choice is medically wise
in the long run. They may cite cases of people who obtained AIDS
from blood transfusions but often grossly distort the evidence.
American blood banks only began screening blood for AIDS in March
of 1985, and, since then, of the "more than 120-million blood
transfusions…. Only 21 people appear to have been infected
with HIV" (Nixon, 1993, p. 3). As of this writing, the chances
of contracting AIDS from a blood transfusion in the United States
is now considered about one out of a quarter-million transfusions.
It is so safe that autologuous blood transfusion is now cost
effective or normally preferable to allogenic blood transfusions
(Rutherford and Kaplan, 1995).
Finding a Lawyer to handle these Cases
My experience with attorneys is that many are not adequately prepared
to defend their client in these types of cases without extensive
reading about the Watchtower. Even attorneys who specialize in
child custody are generally unprepared to handle Witness cases.
To learn about the history and practice of the Witnesses is a
mammoth task, and, although many lawyers endeavor to inform them
selves by reading a couple of books and several articles, there
is no substitute for an extensive study of the Witness beliefs.
To prevail, even if one hires an attorney, the client must do
the majority of the leg-work him or herself. To defend the case,
the litigating parent must extensively research the case and produce
documents, have tape recordings, eye witnesses,
and affidavits in support of your case and even then:
As it is, you and your client have two strikes against you before
you even begin: the universal tendency to show deference to religious
groups and beliefs; and a general disbelief that ideological molding
or thought reform -- not simply normal social conditioning -
exists. But if you refrain from questioning the truth or falsify
of a religious doctrine - which cannot be litigated - and avoid
being drawn into a 'heresy' trial - which cannot be successful
- you can win a cult-related child custody dispute for a non-cult-member
spouse (Green, 1989, p.1).
The court also often requires proof from what they call
neutral parties which includes expert Witnesses. The husband,
for example, is not considered neutral because it is felt that
he has a vested interest in not being truthful (Wilkins, 1977).
And courts, "are generally reluctant to recognize causes
of action grounded in psychological manipulation because of the
law's strong presumption that adults act autonomously and voluntarily"
(Kandel, 1988, p.1).
A custody battle may be expensive and time-consuming, but the
economic cost of paying one's ex-spouse for a decade and often
having to fight over visitation, plus the psychological and emotional
costs of being alienated from one's children and dealing with
what often turns out to be a club that the ex-wife uses to "get
back" at her ex-husband (or vice versa) - namely the children
- can be far more expensive (Spiegel, 1986). One way this is done
is to reach a divorce settlement agreement that the husband will
pay all medical bills - and then the wife will spend enormous
amounts of money on unnecessary "psychiatric" or counseling
care, and other types of medical service. In several cases that
I have worked with, the medical bills were for years more the
husband's entire take-home salary!
Most secular psychologists also have little training or experience
in working with the Witnesses. They often naively or purposefully
ignore the religious factors and consequently evaluate Witness
parents only according to the general criteria used for other
clients. The court tends to rely heavily upon the recommendations
of the court-appointed psychologist, and in most cases they recommend
that the mother receive custody. My experience is that both male
and female examiners are biased against male care givers, and
thus usually recommend custody go to the female. Also, any physical
acting out on the part of the male is looked at very undesirable
(although similar acting out on the part of the female is often
not). And it is far easier for the court to simply rubber stamp
this recommendation rather than to go against it. It is therefore
essential that the psychologist doing the evaluation understand
in depth the actual Witness situation and their teachings,
and their likely effect on the child if he or she is raised a
Witness (Zygmunt, 1953; Magnani, 1986).
The custody issue relates directly to the rights of children to
be raised in an environment which will maximize their total educational,
social, occupational and economic potential and allow them reasonable
choices relative to the issues directly related to their happiness
and adjustment to society. The-best-interests-of-the-child standard
requires an evaluation of the life style of each parent, and its
probable future effects upon the child. Judges unfortunately
are not always willing to do this in cases where the lifestyle
is dictated by a religious world view. A major issue relates
to how sensitive and knowledgeable the court is in custody issues
when one parent is involved in a cult and other opposes this involvement.
This issue raises concerns that force the court to make an assessment
of the likely ramifications of the involvement.
Conclusions
The goal of this review has been to examine some of the salient
issues and to provide guidance for attorneys, parents, and others
who are interested in the issue of religion and custody. The
Witnesses are an excellent example which illustrates that court
rulings in the area of child custody have been highly inconsistent
and that state law is vague and varies considerably. A clear
need exists to examine the question of cults as it relates to
custody, keeping in mind that the prominent concern should be
the welfare of the child or children involved. At best, the child
should be exposed to both parents' belief structures. Unfortunately,
if custody is awarded to the Jehovah's Witness parent, the child
will likely be alienated from the non-Witness parent. The children
are taught that if their non-Witness father is a Watchtower critic
- which is how he would be defined in a contested divorce - he
is of Satan and will soon be destroyed at Armageddon. This teaching
at the least impedes - and often precludes - the children from
developing a satisfactory relationship with their father. On the
other hand, if the non-Witness parent is awarded custody, the
child is more likely to receive favorable exposure to both belief
structures, even if one parent is critical of the other's beliefs.