Author Unknown


Abstract

In the United States there are over 1,000 custody cases fought
annually involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. 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 to the problems and
child custody trends and discussed the most appropriate strategy
for the non-Witness to prevail in court on this manner.

Introduction

Background of Jehovah’s Witnesses

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 Watchtower 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
Watctower 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 Watchtower has 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 Watchtower 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 Watchtower 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 pejorative, they fit most definitions
of the term (Lifton, 1961; Dellinger, 1985). The Watchtower 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 Watchtower 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 Watchtower (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 Watchtower 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 Watchtower 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
Watchtower 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 Watchtower
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
Watchtower 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 Watchtower teachings on the children involved. Some of
  the many recent custody cases that were decided in favor of
  the non-Witness include:

• In the Raymond Estes case the judge awarded custody of the
  six-year-old boy to the father concluding that being raised
  in the Jehovah’s Witness faith is not "in the best interests
  of the child" (Montgomery, 1992, p.14).

• In 1990 in LeDoux vs. LeDoux, the Nebraska Supreme Court
  (No. 88-172) upheld an order barring a Witness father from teaching
  his sons information which is not consistent with Catholicism,
  even though the boys live with their mother, a Catholic.

• In Pennsylvania, a father was prohibited from taking his four-year-old
  daughter from door to door during his visitation periods.

• In Pater vs. Pater (Hamilton County, No. C-890553 and
  Ohio Supreme Court Pater vs Pater (1992), 63 Ohio
  St. 3d393) a psychologist testified that "Extracurricular
  activities and exposure to different cultural and religious
  beliefs are beneficial to a child’s development" and such
  exposure is at odds with Witness beliefs.

• The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the beliefs of the Jehovah’s
  Witnesses can be discussed to help decide a custody matter if
  they are "reasonably likely to adversely affect the child."

• Ellard versus Ellard (Montgomery County, TX, 350 Judicial
  District #92-01-00271) involved a twenty-three-year-old father,
  and twenty-four year old mother, and their two-and-a-half-year-old
  daughter. The father was repeatedly accused of being "potentially
  violent" a claim commonly used by Watchtower followers
  to help insure that the Witness woman obtains custody. In this
  case the father was successful at the temporary hearing; the
  judge awarded custody to him, specifying that the father is
  to make all of the decisions relative to the religion in which
  the child will be raised. If the father chooses the Lutheran
  Church, for example, and wished that the child not be taken
  to Witness meetings, the wife must abide by this decision. Even
  if the mother had the child for a weekend, she is not allowed
  to take the child to the Kingdom hall, or openly teach him or
  her the Witness belief structure. At the final hearing custody
  was removed from the father and given to the mother.

• In Bentley v. Bentley, a case very similar to LeDoux
  "Affirmed a visitation modification prohibiting the non-custodial
  father from teaching his children the doctrines of the Jehovah’s
  Witnesses and taking them to the sect’s religious functions."
  Because they were being raised as Catholics by the custodial
  mother, the judge concluded they would be "emotionally
  strained and torn" as a result of the conflict (Mangrum,
  1991, p.483).

• In the case of Mendez versus Mendez, Judge Philip W.
  Knight admitted that, "Religion was a very strong determining
  factor" in his 1985 decision awarding custody to Ignacio
  Mendez, the non-Witness parent, instead of Rita Mendez, the
  mother and Witness parent. In this case, the judge ruled that
  he did not want the daughter, Rebecca, to grow up "Confused
  and possibly hurt by the tug between the faiths of the mother
  and father, concluding that it is best to have one set of beliefs
  reigning in her life." Also important in the case was the
  Jehovah’s Witness prohibition against blood transfusion. The
  judge felt these beliefs were so detrimental that he ordered
  the Witness mother not to expose their child to any teaching
  contrary to Catholicism, nor is she allowed to permit anyone
  else to do so.

• A March 18, 1993 Wisconsin 4^th District Court of
  Appeals ruling upheld a court ruling that prevented the non-custodial
  parent from imposing his religious views on his children. The
  father, Robert Langue, now must visit his three daughters, ages
  6, 9 and 11, only if supervised by a social worker to insure
  that he does not try in impose his "religious views on
  the children."

• A November 1993 Canadian Supreme court ruling in Young versus
  Young upheld the court’s right to prohibit a non-custodial
  parent form indoctrinating and even proselytizing his child
  in the Watchtower theology and lifestyle (See Canadian Press
  Report in Spectator, Jan 26, 1993 - see also Plouffe
  versus Plouffe).

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 US 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.

Q. They say that Daddy’s bad because he doesn’t serve Jehovah?
And what’s gonna happen to Daddy?

A. You’re gonna die.

Q. When’s Daddy gonna die?

A. When paradise comes….At the end of the system.

Q. At the end of the system? What happens to you if you don’t
go to the Kingdom hall?

A. Um, I will die too…

Q. Okay. Who is going to paradise?

A. Only the people who serve Jehovah.

Q. And who are the bad people?

A. People who doesn’t listen to Jehovah.

Q. What’s going to happen to Daddy?

A. You are going to die.

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?

A. Because, if I live with you, I wouldn’t serve Jehovah.

Q. So…if you live with Daddy, then you can’t serve Jehovah?

A. Yea…

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?

A. Um, I say my Daddy’s not bad.

Q. Are you afraid to live with Daddy?

A.Yeah.

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.

-Author Unknown