Page Two

Every hour there are hundreds of divorces worldwide. Each year millions of children are involved in an agonizing tug-of-war over which parent they will live with. In some places as many as 1 out of every 5 divorcing couples will fight it out in court.

Custody battles have escalated into front-page stories of murder and violence. What makes these cases so explosive? How can a child best be helped by both parents? Are the courts always fair in their decisions? A recent ominous worldwide trend regarding custody decisions has alarmed many informed lovers of civil liberties.

Who Gets the Child?

AS Paul waited his turn in the steamy New Hampshire, U.S.A., courtroom, his stomach cramped. Weeks earlier, his wife had hustled their two sobbing children from the home. Paul was not about to give up his 7- and 13-year-olds without a fight.

Finally, his court battle was about to end. “It’s all so unfair,” thought Paul as the judge decided one case after another. “This judge, a total stranger, is going to decide where my children are going to live.”

Paul and his wife were one of 1,187,000 U.S. couples who divorced during 1985. This was triple the number of 1960. The surge in divorces is not limited to the United States but is worldwide. Roughly from 15 to 20 percent of divorces involve court battles over custody. In Paul’s case, one court appearance followed another. Tensions mounted. “One day in court with all these things spinning through my head,” explained Paul, “I felt as if I was going to go wild and start grabbing people. I was so frustrated.”

Fortunately, Paul controlled his emotions. Front-page news reports, though, have detailed murder and mayhem spawned in the bitterness of custody disputes. Why do these cases often become such fierce conflicts?

Parental Warfare!

Laws regarding the awarding of child custody vary around the world. In most Western countries the mother and the father have equal rights before the court. In deciding who gets the child, the courts in recent decades have stressed “the best interests of the child.” This allows each parent to contend that he or she is the one best suited for custody.

Though some parents fight in the interests of the children, others are motivated by spite and animosity toward the former mate. The child becomes “the ultimate instrument of pain” by which a parent unleashes anger or frustration. The children can become, as one judge stated, “footballs to satisfy the ‘I’ll show you’ attitudes with which estranged spouses too frequently are imbued.”

Some parents even take the law into their own hands. Parental child snatching has become an international problem. According to estimates, there are as many as a hundred thousand cases in the United States each year! One agency has found that the number of cases doubled during the five years leading up to 1983. The emotional trauma to the children is often great. In her book Children in the Crossfire, Sally Abrahms says: “Child stealing is the heartbreak of the Eighties.”

Justice in the Courtroom?

From ancient times, parents have appealed to the government to intervene in such custody disputes. Wise King Solomon is remembered for his famous decision in settling a child-custody dispute between two mothers. (1 Kings 3:16-28) But wielding the proverbial “sword of Solomon” is not easy for judges today.

When a family is shattered by divorce and both parents want custody, the court must decide. Judges consider such factors as the mental stability of each parent, the wishes of the child, the quality of the relationship between each parent and the child, and their respective abilities to provide a secure environment.

In most cases, however, the child wants and needs a warm relationship with both parents. Thus, the goal of most courts is “to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents.” In the case mentioned earlier, the judge considered that Paul’s “life revolves around his children,” whereas his wife preferred “to spend her free time at a local restaurant talking with her mother and friends.” Paul was given physical custody. Still, the need of the children for their mother was recognized in that she was given “liberal visitation rights.”

Recently, however, an ominous trend has developed. To win a case, some lawyers have turned custody disputes into religious controversies. This unethical practice has diverted some courts from their true function of focusing on the best interests of the child. Instead, judges have embroiled themselves in a religious evaluation that is beyond the mandate of the secular court. But what are the consequences?

Some lovers of civil liberties believe that the intrusion of religious issues into child-custody disputes jeopardizes the rights of every child and parent. Since so many families will be shattered by divorce or separation in the years to come, your life may be affected.

[Box on page 4]

In the United States, as many as 40 percent of all families with children may be affected by divorce or separation in the next decade

Child Custody​—Should Religion Be an Issue?

KARON “has love for the children and attempts to properly provide for them. However, her beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness come first, and by her actions and beliefs she is jeopardizing the health, welfare and best interests of the children.”

This statement by a circuit court judge hit Karon like a thunderbolt. It meant that she had lost custody of her two small children​—one an 11-month-old infant. Her husband, who before their divorce had taunted, “It’s Jehovah’s Witnesses or me!” now had custody. Karon could see her girls only every other weekend.

“My lawyer had assured me that my children could not be taken away from me because of my religion but that I had to be proved an unfit mother,” explained Karon, a housewife in the state of Missouri, United States. “I was devastated.” And no wonder, since undisputed testimony was presented in court that she was a loving mother who ‘regularly spent quality time with her girls.’

To visit her girls, Karon now had to travel to a city a hundred miles [160 km] away. “Each time I left from the visits, my ex-husband’s parents, who were keeping the girls, literally had to drag them off my legs so that I could go,” recalled Karon. “They were kicking and screaming, ‘Why can’t we go home with you?’ There were times I had to pull over on the roadside on the way home because of my tears and pray that Jehovah give me strength.” Karon appealed to a higher court.

In a unanimous decision, the six judges of the Missouri Supreme Court gave her girls back to her. Appellate judge John Bardgett expressed the “firm conviction that the trial court was wrong” in concluding “that the members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion, as a class and because of the tenets of that faith, are unfit to have custody of children.”a

Some lower courts in Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Canada, South Africa, and other countries have also denied parents custody because of their beliefs. Though many of these decisions have been reversed by higher courts, such injustices have continued.

Noncustodial parents too have been victims of religious bias. One Massachusetts lower court judge went to the extreme of ruling that a father during his visitation “was not to read [the] Bible with the children or take them to church services (or even cite to them the Ten Commandments).”b One journalist commented: “The whole affair might strike you as ludicrous​—unless the beliefs involved are your own.”

Yes, what if they were your beliefs? The implications of a court’s judging a parent’s religious ties are ominous. “Some who care little for Jehovah’s Witnesses still wonder whether a court has any business telling a father he cannot cite the Ten Commandments or read the Bible to his children,” stated the Los Angeles Times.

The question that this raises is, How far should the State involve itself in the private affairs of its citizens? In fact, one law commentator warned that such practices could “end in adoption of judicial standards for orthodox child raising for all families.” Would you want a judge, perhaps of a different religious persuasion, deciding this for you?

The Court and Religion

Courts themselves have recognized the narrow scope properly available for judicial inquiry into religious beliefs and practices. Commenting on one case, Justice Jeffers of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington explained: “We do not doubt the right of the state to suppress religious practices dangerous to morals, and presumably those also which are inimical to public safety, health and good order, but so far as appears from the testimony in this case, the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot, in our opinion, be classed in any one of these categories.”c

Thus, when religious practices do not injure “public safety, health and good order” or there is no “factual determination that the child’s temporal well-being is immediately and substantially endangered by the religious practice,” then the court properly should not favor the religion of either parent. The Court of Appeal of Ontario, Canada, succinctly stated: “It is not for the Court to decide as between the two religions.” To deny custody because of such favoritism is “a heavy penalty [for a parent] to pay for the exercise of a religious belief, neither illegal nor immoral.”d

At times, religiously biased “experts” have introduced discrimination. Consider the testimony of one psychologist: “I say it is unhealthy for this child to be raised as a Jehovah’s Witness. . . . Living in this society, she needs to adapt herself to the mainstream of culture. She is growing up and it is not a country of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If the majority of the country was Jehovah’s Witness, we would not have any problem.”

If such advice were followed, it would mean that any parent of a minority faith should be denied custody of his or her children! It is shocking that some judges in the state of Florida were persuaded by that very testimony to deny the mother residential custody of her four-year-old daughter despite undisputed testimony that the girl was “extremely attached to her mother.”

Significantly, Judge Baskin refused to endorse this unjust decision reached by the other two judges on the Florida District Court of Appeal (Third District). Judge Baskin explained: “What does emerge from the record is a demonstration of the experts’ personal biases against the mother’s religion. Their disdain for the mother’s religion induced them to speculate as to the possibility of harm to the child in the future even though no evidence of harm existed. The trial court was obviously persuaded by their less-than-objective considerations . . . and its judgment should not stand.”e

What was done by this court in the United States parallels what was done in a totalitarian country during the regime of Hitler. In 1937 a district court in Nazi Germany removed the children from a family of a religious minority. How was this justified? The court stated: “If parents through their own example teach their children a philosophy of life which puts them into an irreconcilable opposition to those ideas to which the overwhelming majority of the German people adheres, then this constitutes an abuse of the right of guardianship . . . [so] the evil educational influence of the parents [must be] eliminated and broken.”f

Children Prosper

Are children psychologically damaged by association with a minority group? In the case of Karon, mentioned earlier, the trial judge speculated that her daughters’ “development as productive citizens” and ‘adjustment to school and community’ would be hindered by being raised in their mother’s minority religion. Was he right? Consider the situation now ten years later.

The school report cards for the girls, now active Witnesses, speak loud and clear. Eleven-year old Monica’s card, which contained high academic marks, reported that her “Personal/​Social Development” was “satisfactory.” Her teacher wrote on the card: “Monica is a sweetheart and is very dependable. I’m glad she is in my class.” Karon’s other daughter, 13-year-old Shelly, received an award from the president of the United States for “Outstanding Academic Achievement.” She also was selected “Citizen of the Month” because of her good “personal relationships with staff and students, and good study habits.” Do these sound like maladjusted children?

Standing up for one’s beliefs builds good character and strong minds. Chief Justice Struckmeyer of the Arizona Supreme Court, in another custody case involving a Witness, commented: “We are not unaware that deviation from the normal often brings ridicule and criticism. . . . Criticism is the crucible in which character is tested. Conformity stifles the intellect fathering decadency.”g

Indeed, children who are trained from a young age to give reasons for their beliefs learn to use their minds. Rather than ‘stifle their intellect,’ this training is very beneficial, as is shown by the surprising results of a study of 394 12-year-olds. “A disproportionately large number of highly creative children were Jehovah’s Witnesses,” revealed the Australian researchers. “The girl who gained the highest total score on the [creative potential] tests, and the girl who was the only child, male or female, to be included in the top 20 percent of all five performance measures, were both Jehovah’s Witnesses.”​—Journal of Personality, March 1973.

It is because of their religious beliefs that parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses take seriously the need to “love their children” and to encourage high moral standards. (Titus 2:4, 5) Many courts have noted such quality care. For instance, in a 1986 custody case at Muscatine, Iowa, U.S.A., the father and the so-called expert called to testify began to malign the religion of the Witness mother. Judge Briles remained impartial, stating: “The Court cannot take sides.”

Though Judge Briles gave the father generous visitation rights, she gave custody to the mother because, as she said: “The Court is satisfied that these children will not grow up to be anything other than happy children if left with the [mother], even though her religion may seem to be out of step with the American mainstream. The Court is also satisfied that to remove these children from the love, security and consistency of such quality care would be harmful to the best interests of the children.” This decision was confirmed by the Iowa Court of Appeals.h

Do Religious Differences Confuse Children?

In another custody dispute, the experience of Julie confirms the wisdom of the above decision. Julie maintained access to both parents, who were divorced when she was six. Now at age 20 she explains: “I feel it was a definite advantage. I got to see for myself the difference between Catholicism and the Witnesses. My brother and I went to the Kingdom Hall with Mom, but on Sundays we went to church with Dad because we spent the weekends with him.”

Even though exposed to conflicting religious views, such children have been found to experience few, if any, ill effects. A study by Canadian researcher James Frideres concluded: “Little difference is evident between children of [religiously] mixed and homogamous marriages. The data relevant to this point does not substantiate previous research which suggested that children from mixed marriages would be more psychologically ‘unstable.’”​—Jewish Social Studies, 1973.

A child has the right to understand the religious views of both parents. When he becomes of age, he can make his own choice. In Julie’s case, the court maintained its proper neutral position on religion and focused on the best interests of the child. Justice is served when courts permit the children to have input from both parents and ultimately to make their own decision in religious matters. How fine if courts will maintain this position!

[Footnotes]

[Box on page 7]

Are the Beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses Harmful?​—The Law Speaks

◼ “There is no basis on the evidence to conclude that the religious upbringing of the two children in the Jehovah’s Witnesses [faith] has proven to be detrimental to their health or emotional status.”​—Koerner v. Koerner, No. 002793 (Conn. Superior Court, October 2, 1979).

◼ “I cannot find that they will suffer from being with their father on his field ministry. . . . I have not been able to find evidence in this case which convinces me that a Jehovah’s Witness, by the practice of his religion, tends to destroy our social order.”​—Evers v. Evers, 19 F.L.R. 296 (Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia, 1972).

◼ “To deprive Mrs. Ayers of custody . . . would be tantamount to finding that the life style espoused by non-Jehovah’s Witnesses is preferable to that of Jehovah’s Witnesses; that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not proper parents. Such a suggestion is patently preposterous and would be an intolerable restriction of religious freedom.”​—Ayers v. Ayers, (Provincial Court of British Columbia, Canada, Family Division, April 8, 1986).

[Box on page 9]

Are the Children Deprived?

In Quebec, Canada, a father claimed that his children were deprived and emotionally abused by the beliefs of his ex-wife, who was a Witness. He asked the court to intervene. The children had to testify. Notice the answers of his 16-year-old daughter:

Q.: What kind of life do you have as a Witness?

A.: I consider that I lead the same life that all teenagers do. I am not deprived of anything. I don’t consider myself different from anybody else.

Q.: What do you get out of those meetings at the Kingdom Hall?

A.: First of all, it gives me a goal in life. I know what to base my future on according to my beliefs. Second, I have many friends there, with whom I can associate.

Q.: Do your meetings help you at school?

A.: Yes, because at our meetings we give five-minute talks in front of people. At school when we have oral presentations to give, many of the students are very nervous. But because I already give talks, I have a sort of apprenticeship.

“What is the impact of such a religious practice?” asked the judge in his decision. “The court found positive things rather than the evidence that [the father] wanted to present in his argumentations.” After ruling in favor of the Witness mother, the judge said privately to both lawyers, “I wish I had children like that!”

[Picture on page 8]

Because of her religion, Karon was at first denied custody of her two daughters

Acting in Your Child’s Best Interests

REGARDLESS of how a custody dispute turns out, the children still need the love and guidance of both their parents. After the judge gives his decision, the parents are still left with the task of helping their children cope with the consequences. Though a court proceeding is difficult for the parents, it is an even greater emotional strain for the children.

For instance, when Mary Ann was six years old, the court awarded custody to her father. But in the ten years that followed, her mother fought relentlessly to get the girl back. Emotionally drained after more than 40 court appearances, Mary Ann explained her solution. “Why don’t they cut me in half,” she proposed. “My mother can have my front and my father my back.”

Obviously, a lengthy legal fight is not always in the best interests of a child. The director of the clinic that helped Mary Ann explained: “Chronic litigation is costly in both economic and human terms.”

Children Still Have Ties to Two Parents

While there are divorced mates, there are no divorced children. The blood ties of children can never be dissolved by a judge. To appreciate a child’s dilemma, imagine how you as a parent would feel if asked to choose between your children. Which child would you pick? Which would you discard? Neither parents nor children should be confronted with such a decision. Usually, children love both parents, so the pressure to make a choice creates a painful conflict of loyalties.

In a leading text on this subject, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, the authors showed that such loyalty conflicts “may have devastating consequences by destroying the child’s positive relationships to both parents.” For instance, Julie, a child from a broken home, explained: “You have one parent at home that you really love, and you love the other one too. It was so hard when Dad would come to pick us up for the weekend. I would have to look at him, and then also look at Mom, and I knew that he hated her. I was afraid to show any of my feelings to either one.”

Recognize your child’s emotional ties to both parents. Each parent must respect and honor the other parent’s position in the child’s life for the healthy development of the child’s personality. Try to see positive areas where both of you can contribute to the child’s welfare. Do not conclude that everything an ex-mate does is automatically wrong. It is “the duty of each to enhance the image of the other parent in the eyes and mind of the child, or at least to avoid criticism which might impair it,” explained one Texas court. This requires parents to minimize their personal conflict to make room for the child’s needs.

Strive for Settlement

Before going to court, explore all avenues of negotiation and possible settlement. Lawsuits are like war; they leave deep wounds and emotional scars that may never heal. Recourse to law should be taken only when all avenues of reasonable negotiation and accommodation have been tried and have failed. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ gave a basic legal principle that has practical value: “Be about settling matters quickly with the one complaining against you at law.”​—Matthew 5:25.

The outcome of a trial is never certain. Judges have found that between 80 and 90 percent of their custody cases involve two caring parents, neither of whom is unfit. This often makes a satisfactory resolution all but impossible. “It’s no wonder that occasionally such a magistrate will throw up his hands in horror,” explains The Custody Handbook, by Persia Woolley, “and ask the parents why . . . they don’t settle the matter between themselves.”

Many divorce courts have provisions for a couple to work out between themselves the care of the children. Parents surely know best the needs and circumstances of the children and can decide what arrangements would allow each parent still to have a reasonable influence in the children’s lives. With some legal help, many parents have worked out together an acceptable custody arrangement, including joint custody in instances where custody can be shared. In fact, 90 percent of custody cases are settled before the parents actually go into court.

A trained mediator may help work out even the most difficult of situations. For instance, one extremely bitter couple planned to live 3,000 miles [5,000 km] apart after divorcing. Yet, each wanted custody of their two children. The mediator told them: “There must be a spark of cooperation here. You both did like each other once, so let’s see what we can work out so your kids don’t lose one of you completely.” An arrangement was worked out so both parents could still have meaningful roles in their children’s lives.

Mediation is, of course, only one of several ways by which to settle child-custody disputes short of a court battle. The focus should be on working out the present instead of dredging up the past. The primary goal of mediation is to help the couple achieve a mutually fair agreement (with neither feeling like the winner or the loser) that will be of benefit to the children. While this is not a panacea in all cases, it is a process that can save the huge cost​—financial and emotional—​of a court battle. Genuine effort to settle can prevent bitter disputes and allow children to maintain their attachment to both parents.

How to Reach an Agreement

Obviously, when a family is broken and marriage partners are separated, neither can have exclusive control of the child. Both parents must be reasonable and willing to make some concessions. Mediation requires negotiation. Negotiation means neither parent gets everything he or she wants.

Never forget that the child has a right to receive input from both parents. Therefore, it would be shortsighted for one parent to demand prohibitions on a child’s attendance at or participation in the religious, cultural, or social activities of the other parent when the child is with that one. Likewise, it would be inappropriate for a parent to take an absolute position on a child’s school and extracurricular activities, association, recreation, or post-secondary education without due consideration for the other parent’s input and the child’s individual choices.

For example, in a number of custody disputes in which a parent is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the other is not, the couple have reached an amicable settlement by agreeing that the non-Witness parent will have generous time with the children throughout the year, including holidays and other times that are of special importance to the non-Witness. The parents have agreed to allow each other to have an active input into the educational, social, and medical issues affecting the children. After all, both parents brought the child into the world and thus have a natural right to have a say in his upbringing.

The Witness parent should encourage the child to respect the right of the non-Witness parent to have his own religious views and to express appreciation for that one’s kindnesses and gifts. If both parents consider what is best for the children, restraint and reasonableness can prevail over emotion and bruised pride.

In most cases these negotiations are emotionally draining. Thus, it may be well to have legal or other representatives conduct the settlement discussions. This assistance can often eliminate most misunderstandings about the specifics of the settlement.

The Divorce Mediation Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, compared the couples who chose to mediate their cases with those who went into court as adversaries. Fully 93 percent of the mediated group expressed satisfaction with the results, as compared to only 56 percent of those who battled in court!

But what can be done if your ex-mate refuses to negotiate in good faith or demands religious restrictions that are not negotiable? Then it may be necessary to prepare to go to court.

When You Must Go to Court

In most cases, having a competent lawyer trained in custody cases is essential to a successful conclusion.a Having experienced legal counsel at the outset can often prevent costly mistakes. Also, a competent lawyer may even be influential in bringing about a pretrial settlement. Even during the trial, a mate may be moved to negotiate a settlement. An equitable agreement at any stage of the procedure is better than a dragged-out battle.

Knowing what most judges look for in making their decision is helpful. A 1982 survey of 80 magistrates found that at the top of the list were (1) mental stability of each parent and (2) each parent’s sense of responsibility to the child. To assist courts in determining the facts, a mental-health professional may interview the parents and the children. His psychological assessment has often shaped the court’s decision.

Such evaluations are nothing to be feared. Even if a Christian’s beliefs are under scrutiny, there is no reason to become defensive or uncooperative. “Let your reasonableness become known to all men,” recommends the Bible.​—Philippians 4:5.

Remember, during such evaluations it is not the time to give a Bible sermon. It is a time to describe the full range of your activities with your child, including recreation, secular education, vacation time, arrangements for contact with the other parent, and social activities with friends and relatives. Answer questions honestly and clearly. Think the matter out carefully so that you can explain in positive and simple terms how you care for your child’s emotional and physical well-being.

The same principles apply when you are questioned in court. By thorough preparation you will be able to describe, without trying to preach or give a sermon, the many ways that “the healthful teaching” of God’s Word enables you to be a responsible parent.​—2 Timothy 4:3.

Making the Best of the Situation

At times, despite your best efforts, a judge may rule against you. Christians are urged to “be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers” and “not to be belligerent, [but] to be reasonable.” (Titus 3:1, 2) Hence, a Christian does not disregard the orders of a court.

If you are dissatisfied with a court order, you can review your options with legal counsel. You may wish to appeal the decision to a higher court. In some instances, you can seek modification of the order from the court after a period of time if circumstances change. But you will have to live with the order as long as it is in place.

Even an adverse judgment does not mean that all is lost. The lives of both parents and children change. There may be favorable, though unexpected, developments. Your patience can be richly rewarded.

Although your time with your child as a visiting parent is limited, you still can be a valuable influence in your child’s life. Children who continue to have close regular contact with both parents not only suffer less from the divorce but are also more likely to grow into mature and balanced adults. So work to nurture your relationship with your child.

You can influence the religious and moral values of your child by your own fine example. “The righteous is walking in his integrity. Happy are his sons after him.” (Proverbs 20:7) Even without words, you can do much to shape your child’s heart and mind. He will notice the way you treat others, your major goals in life, and your feelings about God.

Indeed, acting in the best interests of your child requires genuine love. Love “does not look for its own interests,” says the Bible. “It does not keep account of the injury . . . [but] hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-8) Such unselfish love can be richly rewarding. One 11-year-old girl whose divorced parents had learned to put her interests above their own disagreements said: “Thank goodness my parents love me enough to let me love both of them!”