In May a devout mother made a legally binding promise, backed up with the threat of criminal sanctions, never to talk to her son about her religion, take him to church or even say grace at meals in a doomed attempt to stop him being taken into care, amid claims that she was “indoctrinating” him, a judge has disclosed.
How is it possible that judges can prohibit parents to pray or talk about their belief in front of their children or even not allow them to take them to church?
The court-case in England may create a precedent and make it very difficult for parents to give their children a religious background. Quite easy it is to say they are indoctrinating their children. I naturally do not know, but can not imagine the JW mother through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques to implement her beliefs as to take it or the child having her to leave. Naturally I also find it wrong she would not want to have her child to go to her father. She should know it is also the rightful parent of the child, having the same rights as her to educate his child and to tell about his believes, like she does.
Having teachers saying the boy also rejected other children and that he had only a small friendship circle, describing him as “one of the most worrying children in our school”, does not have to indicate the mother is in such a way dominant to her child she manages it not to make friends with children of an other belief.
Details of the case were disclosed in a written judgement handed down by Judge Clifford Bellamy, after a hearing at the Family Court, sitting in Leicester, in which he set out his reasons for making an interim care order. {Indoctrinated son 'troubled’ by mother’s religion is put into care}
He found that the boy had suffered emotional harm as a result both of the conflict between the parents and, specifically, “immersion by his mother in her religious beliefs and practices”.
He concluded that she was doing this “with the intention of alienating him from his father”.
But the judgement disclosed that a social worker at the centre of the case rejected this assessment and believed that, while the boy was damaged by the conflict between his warring parents, the mother’s religion was not the cause. {Indoctrinated son 'troubled’ by mother’s religion is put into care}
I also would not think there lies the problem with the mother talking about God, taking her child to the Kingdom hall of the JW and reading Watch Tower publications. Far what I do know of those publications they should give enough balance to the kid to stand stronger in a society of different thoughts, though this seems more to do with an introvert child that has worries brought on it by the damaging divorce, and not with damaging faith.
It disclosed that at one point in the proceedings the mother went to the Court of Appeal to challenge an initial care order and made a number of strict undertakings in an attempt to stop the process.
These included not to take him to
her local Kingdom Hall — the Jehovah’s Witness meeting house — or any
other such gatherings; not to talk to him about religion at all; not to
allow him to go on to the church’s website or watch religious DVDs; and,
if he raised the issue, to attempt to change the subject.{Indoctrinated son 'troubled’ by mother’s religion is put into care}
+
Find also:
