There is no such thing as a "national child custody law". Although similar, each state's legislature has established its own state laws regarding child custody, and each state's courts interpret those laws using legal standards that may vary from that used by courts in other states.

As site visitors will quickly see from reading the following summaries, state courts currently apply one of the following three different legal standards when deciding these cases:

1. Actual Or Substantial Harm: Existing actual or substantial harm to the child must be proven to have been caused by a parent's religious practices before the court will restrict that parent's constitutional rights. Such states include California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.

2. Risk Of Harm. For a court to restrict a parent's constitutional rights, it only has to be proven that that a parent's religious practices pose a risk of harm to the child. Such states include Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

3. No Harm Required. In only a few states, such as Arkansas and Wisconsin, a parent who has sole legal custody also has the exclusive right to determine the child's religious education.

Child custody court case decisions are typically lengthy and complex, and tyically deal with a multitude of legal issues. The following case summaries will generally include only with those issues in which the WatchTower/Jehovah's Witness religion was a factor. Some summaries may omit one or more issues relevant to the court's final decision(s), but not deemed relevant to the theme of this website.




                                                                                 **************

1930-40s COURT DECISIONS

**************

**************

"3. That the plaintiff has been teaching the said minor children to refuse to give allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the United States, and to refuse to defend the flag and to refuse to defend the United States against its enemies when at war; said plaintiff believes, and has also taught and will continue to teach the said children of the parties hereto to defend in times of peril only persons who believe as she does, and to this end to sacrifice their lives, if need be, but not to raise a hand in defense of their country, or the flag it represents, even in times of war when the existence of our nation is threatened. On the other hand the father objects to such teaching being imbued in their immature minds, and desires that said children be reared as loyal Americans to respect and salute the flag of their country and to defend it when called upon to do so by the Government thereof;

 

"That while the mother of said children is a moral person, the teachings which she is trying to impress upon the said minors will not be for their best interest or for their welfare. That the teachings of the father will be for their best interests and for the welfare of said children;

"That the teachings of the said plaintiff so far as the minor son is concerned has already so imbued him with disrespect for the flag and unpatriotic thoughts that when the flag is displayed he becomes ill at ease and greatly agitated;

"That the said teaching of plaintiff will not only prevent the said minors from becoming loyal American citizens, but will prevent them, should they later in life desire to join, from joining any of our leading character building groups and organizations, as well as all the leading fraternal organizations and fraternities. That such character building organizations tend greatly to prevent delinquency in children who otherwise might be drawn into such class, and they also teach other matters which are invaluable throughout life to their members. That plaintiff, if given the exclusive custody of said children, will deprive said children of the benefits of the teachings of such groups as above mentioned, and will tend to prevent said minors from associating with loyal Americans;

"That the said minor girl is too young as yet to be impressed with the teachings of plaintiff, and she will suffer no harm or detriment until she has reached the school age of six years;

"That for the reasons stated the mother is not a fit and proper person to have the sole custody of the said children, but on the other hand the father is a fit and proper person to have their care and custody after they reach school age of six years. Under the facts found it is fit and proper that the father have the custody of said minor boy for the school term; and that as soon as the minor girl reaches the age of six years that he also have her custody and control during the school term, all for the purposes aforesaid; and it is further ordered that the mother have the custody of said minors during the vacation period."

"A review of the [trial court] testimony in the case reveals that no evidence was produced by petitioner to support the allegations of his affidavit that the place where the children were living was an unfit or improper place, and as for the allegation that Mrs. Cory was teaching the children to disrespect the United States and its flag, she testified as follows:

"'I respect the Flag, and as far as flags go my pledge goes and my salute goes to Jehovah. Whether it was the American Flag or any other flag my salute would be to Jehovah and not the flag.'

 

"Under questioning by the court she testified as follows:

'Q. Mrs. Cory, I presume you do know, and it is a matter of judicial notice, apparently, that the religion of the Jehovah Witnesses is not to salute the Flag. You know that, don't you?

A. Yes. We would not salute the Flag.

'Q. You would not salute the Flag under any circumstances. You would stand up?

A. I would stand at attention and respect the Flag.

 

'Q. But you would not salute it?

A. No. I salute no flag.

'Q. You would not teach, you would not permit the children to salute the Flag?

A. I would teach them the way I believe.

'Q. In other words you would teach them not to salute the Flag, to stand up, and not salute the Flag?

A. I would teach them to respect it, but not salute it.

'Q. How about a war? Would you teach them that it was against your religion to go to war, that they should not support the war in case of emergency, war with another country?

A. That is right.

'Q. In other words, you would bring the children up so they would be I presume what we call conscientious objectors against war?

A. Yes. The Bible tells us, `Thou Shalt Not Kill.'

'Q. I am not concerned with the Bible. I am trying to find what you think about it and how you are going to raise these children. So if the children were old enough now to be called for the Service what would be your attitude on that?

A. If they were old enough it would be their decision, not mine.

'Q. You would not discourage them?

A. That would be their decision.

'Q. I am talking about you raising them.

A. I would raise them not to fight any wars.

'Q. Even to protect their own country?

A. That is right. . . .

'Q. Well, anyhow Mrs. Cory your teachings would be I presume as you say, that you would teach them to respect the Flag, but not to do anything in a military way or otherwise to protect the Flag, or to have anything to do with the Flag. That would be your teachings, wouldn't it?

A. Not to put the Flag first.

'Q. Well, put the Flag any place. According to your teachings the Flag is a piece of bunting, according to your teachings?

A. It represents the powers of this world to us.

'Q. Represents the powers of this world?

A. The American Flag would be representing the worldly element, and I believe that we should have nothing to do with the worldly element. ...

'Q. Well, if there was a parade going by, and the Flag was going by, how would you teach the children to act about that time?

A. I would have them stand at attention. ...

'Q. I am not trying to find out what the teachings of the Witnesses of Jehovah are. I am just trying to find out what you would teach these children. Would you ever fly the Flag, according to your teachings to your children, at your home?

A. We have the Flag in our home, yes.

'Q. You have it on display?

A. We have two small flags in our home. [Even the dumbest JW knows that this was a stunt perpetrated before trial in anticipation of testifying regarding such.]

'Q. And why do you put those out?

A. We respect it.

'Q. Well, in what way, Mrs. Cory, do you respect it?

A. Well, we believe, we `render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's', the way our study of the Bible has brought it out to us. ...

'Q. Well, let me ask you this - I don't want to take too long - as a matter of fact I presume from your statements and other things, that you would raise these children to respect the flag but under no circumstances to salute it, is that it?

A. That is it.

'Q. Because you think that, religiously, that it is wrong to salute anything, is that it?

A. That is it.

'Q. And so it wouldn't make any difference, no matter what circumstances existed, the children would be taught never to salute the Flag?

A. I am trying to live a Christian life the way it seems to me.'

"As for the finding of the trial court that the teachings of appellant have so imbued the minor son with disrespect for the flag and unpatriotic thoughts that when it is displayed he becomes ill at ease and greatly agitated, the only testimony upon which such a conclusion could be based is testimony of respondent and his woman friend who accompanied him when he took the children to a movie, that when the flag was shown on the screen the little boy at first clapped, but later said he wanted to go home, that 'Mama says that flag is no good.'  However, during the hearing the court interrogated the children as follows:

'Q. Jimmie, you see this flag? Do you know what it is? Don't you know what kind of flag it is?

A. American.

'Q. American Flag?

A. Yes.

'Q. What do you think about it? Does your Mama tell you anything about the Flag?

A. (Nods No.)

'Q. Do you think it is all right?

A. (Nods Yes.)

'Q. The American Flag?

A. Yes.

'Q. Well, who has been talking to you about that, your mama?

A. She don't remember.

'Q. Oh, yes, Jimmie; now you know about this Flag, don't you?
A. Yes, but I don't remember.

'Q. Don't remember what?

A. What mama said.

'Q. Don't remember what mama said. Well, do you believe in saluting the Flag?

A. I don't know.

'Q. You don't know. How old are you, Jimmie?

A. Six.

'Q. Six years old. Well, when all the children at school salute the Flag, do you salute it?

'MR. DWYER: He doesn't go to school, your Honor. He has not started to school yet.

 

'THE COURT: Q. Have you started to school?

A. No.

'Q. Does your mama tell you much about the Flag, Jimmie?

A. I don't know.

'Q. Don't tell me you don't remember, Jimmie.

A. I don't know.

'Q. Don't be scared. We are just talking it over. You know about this Flag, don't you? Don't you know anything about it?

A. (Nods No.)

'Q. How about your sister? How old is Sister?

A. Three.

 

'Q. Three?

'THE COURT: I suppose Sister is too young. Sister, do you know anything about the Flag?

'BARBARA KAY CORY: (Nods No.)'

 

"As to the finding of the trial court that the teachings of the children's mother will prevent them from becoming 'loyal American citizens,' and will prevent them from joining any of our leading character building groups and organizations as well as the leading fraternal organizations, and will tend to prevent them from associating with 'loyal Americans,' these are but generalizations and conclusions, without definition as to what constitute 'loyal American citizens,' 'loyal Americans," etc., it being assumed, apparently, that those who refuse to salute the flag and do not believe in war because of adherence to the commandment that 'Thou shalt not kill,' are for these reasons alone to be considered as 'disloyal Americans,' and not 'good American citizens.' But Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only religious group that, adhering with what we might believe to be too strict adherence to the teachings of Christ, refuse, to a greater or less extent, to participate in waging war. One need not go far back into the history of this country to find men conceded to be great Americans who were taught such principles as a part of the religious faith of their fathers and mothers and the religious organizations of which they were members. A striking example of this should occur to the mind of anyone familiar with the religious background of a living American whom history will doubtless record as one of the greatest military leaders of all time. As for the conclusion that appellant's teachings will prevent these children from joining 'our leading character building organizations' - whatever they may be - adherence to the teachings of any one religious group may have the effect of excluding its adherents from membership in organizations built upon the creeds of other dissenting religious groups, but such fact should have no bearing upon the rights of parents to bring their children up in their own faith, nor justify courts in arrogating to themselves the right to determine that the religious teachings of such parents will not be for the best interests of their children. Aside from the fact that she is a Jehovah's Witness there is no contention that appellant is not a fit and proper person to have the custody of her infant children. The court stated, as above set forth, that she is a moral person, and her teachings of the Scriptures to her children may, in themselves, be quite as 'character building' as would membership in the groups and organizations of whose benefits the trial court fears these children may be deprived if left in their mother's custody.

"The conclusion seems inescapable that appellant has been deprived of the custody of said children solely because she is a Jehovah's Witness, and, in the opinion of the trial court, the beliefs of the followers of that faith are inimical to the welfare of their children because they do not salute the flag and are unwilling to fight for their country. If it is right to take these children from their mother's custody for the reasons stated, then by the same course of reasoning we must conclude that it would be right and proper to deprive all Jehovah's Witnesses of custody of their offspring lest they become disloyal citizens. Also it would seem to follow that the teachings of this group should be prevented by the state as
inimical to the public welfare.

 

"We have been cited to no case, and believe none will be found, wherein it has been held that the courts may deprive parents of the custody of their offspring because of a disagreement with such parents as to their religious views, at least, as long as their teachings do not conflict with the laws of the land. While respondent argues in his brief that there is no religious issue in this case, and asserts that the question is whether a father should have the right to have his children taught the 'principles of good citizenship,' it is patent that both respondent and the trial court are of the opinion that the religious teachings of appellant are incompatible with what they consider the 'principles of good citizenship.'

"It is true that the trial court did say:

'Now, I don't have to decide a question of religion at all. It is a question of whether or not the mother or the father should have something to say about bringing up these children and their welfare, if it is right to teach them those things - well, that is one thing - if it is right to teach them, as I call it, non-patriotism, because after all if you are passive on these things you might as well be against them. ... I am not going to
interfere in any way with their religion, but I do say these children have a right to be brought up to choose what they want before they become a member of the faith that they have described here.

'And I am not going to ask the woman to change the religion, ... But these children are at least going to be given a chance to understand while they are young these other matters. ...

 

'I don't want her to change her religion. All I want her to do is to agree, to say whether she would agree to teach these children, like the other hundred million children are taught, to not only respect the Flag but to salute the Flag when the Flag goes by, or wherever they are so that, as I say, they could join a thousand institutions which they would not be able to join otherwise, so that they would be able to work actively for this Flag in case of danger. ...

'Let her think it over. I am not anxious to have the children taken. I want her to agree, if the children are kept with her part of the time, or all of the time, I want her to agree to teach them like other children are taught, to respect the Flag and salute the Flag, and defend the country when it has to be defended, and not be a shirker in war, not passive but active.'

 

"While the court in the foregoing disclaims any desire to interfere with plaintiff's religious views, and attempts to base his decision on 'patriotism,' it is apparent that he considers it unpatriotic to refuse to salute the flag, and believes that a mother who teaches her children that it is wrong to kill and right to refuse to participate in wars, is unfit to have the custody of her children; for only on these grounds has it found that she 'is not a fit and proper person to have the sole custody of the said children.' In so concluding we think the said court abused its discretion. Differ as we may, and, we might say, as most of us do, as to the wisdom and soundness of the reasoning of plaintiff and her fellow Witnesses, it is not for courts to say that her religious convictions and those of her associates are necessarily such as to jeopardize the interests of their children.

... ...

 

"In Stone v. Stone, ... the court had before it a situation similar to that presented in the case before us, the question being whether the trial court, in a divorce proceeding in which a decree had been entered in favor of the husband, was justified in awarding the custody of the children of the contesting parties to the father because the mother was a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, whose teachings, the court felt, were inimical to the rearing of children as American citizens. The [Washington] Supreme Court, in reversing the judgment of the trial court, stated, ... :

'Jehovah's Witnesses has existed since about 1878, and as we understand it, its members' refusal to salute the flag is not because they do not honor the flag, but because of an honest conviction, based upon their interpretation of the Bible, that saluting the flag is making it an image of the power to which one looks for salvation, and that to salute such an image ignores Almighty God, from whom alone salvation proceeds. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach any violation of the laws of the state which are in harmony with God's laws, but if the law of the state is in direct violation of God's law, they will obey God's law first and all the time.'

... ...

 

"We think that in this case the trial court - probably because of his own intense patriotism and loyalty to his country in time of war, and a not unnatural irritation at the attitude of mind of persons who, though they blandly accept the protection of a government which guarantees them the right to religious freedom, are unwilling to fight for its preservation, and who in the light of the present world conflict still insist that by inaction their rights and their lives will be preserved by a divine Providence without the necessity of fighting for them - lost sight of the constitutional provisions which guarantee religious freedom to all, and, in depriving this mother of the custody of her children because of her religious convictions, has deprived her of a constitutional right which she may not be compelled to exercise only conditionally, and in so doing has exceeded the bounds of wise judicial discretion.

 

"The order appealed from is reversed."

"Appellant is a member of 'Jehovah's Witnesses,' and apparently has been a member for some time. As such member, Mrs. Stone gives about five and three-quarters hours a week to the organization, distributing its literature from house to house, in which work she is usually accompanied by James, the five year old son. [What a crock. Stone would have spent more time than that simply getting ready, attending, and going to/from the meetings.] It does not appear that, in doing this work, she neglects her home or her family; in fact, we think all the testimony is to the effect that she maintains a good home, and that all the children of school age have attended school regularly, and are above the average of children in that community. There is not one word of testimony tending to even hint that Mrs. Stone's morals are other than above reproach, or that she has not done all that any good mother would try to do to bring up her children to be good, law-abiding citizens, unless it be the influence exercised by her over them in getting them to accept the interpretation of the Bible made by Jehovah's Witnesses, particularly as such interpretation pertains to saluting our flag, and perhaps as to voting.

"Mrs. Stone testified that there was nothing un-American [BS] taught by Jehovah's Witnesses; that it is a christian organization [BS], founded on the Bible [BS]. Mrs. Stone, in answer to a direct question as to whether she had taught her children not to salute the flag, answered:  "They honor the flag, but they don't salute the flag. Some of the children do. The older one does. I pointed out to them what the Bible says about that."

"She further stated:  "We will never tell our children to salute or not salute. We point out what the Bible says, and they take their own stand. We point out the stand the Bible takes." [Anyone who can't read between those lines is a fool - a fool wearing judges robes.]

"Jehovah's Witnesses has existed since about 1878, and, as we understand it, its members' refusal to salute the flag is not because they do not honor the flag, but because of an honest conviction, based upon their interpretation of the Bible, that saluting the flag is making it an image of the power to which one looks for salvation, and that to salute such an image ignores Almighty God, from whom alone salvation proceeds. [More BS.  This is the secondary reason they tell non-JWs.]  Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach any violation of the laws of the state which are in harmony with God's laws, but, if the law of the state is in direct violation of God's law, they will obey God's law first and all the time. [Its unimaginable that a Supreme Court Justice could actually write this, and not understand what such actually means.]

"There is no testimony that there has been any trouble at school because of the failure of the Stone children to salute the flag. [This is 1943. Where have these fools been sleeping?] Two of the older children do not salute the flag, while one of them does. The two younger children are not old enough to have any views on the question.

 

"[Mack Stone] does not believe in the above doctrine, and there has been much quarreling and discord in the family as the result of this difference in opinion. These differences were brought to a climax when respondent told the oldest daughter, Maxine, who was about to go out and distribute some of the tracts or books of the organization, that she could stay at home and take care of the house, or take her clothes and go to town and make her own living. The daughter left, and Mrs. Stone went with her, apparently coming to Olympia, where she rents a small place and has the children with her.

"There is testimony that Mr. Stone has been indifferent toward his children, and that he was not very considerate of Mrs. Stone at the time the last baby was born. It may be that this seeming indifference was in part due to the fact that Mr. Stone has worked away from home a good deal of the time. However, he seems to have provided fairly well for his family, considering his circumstances.

"While there are other things which have occurred, which, combined with Mrs. Stone's religious belief, have brought about a condition because of which both parties admit they can no longer live together as man and wife, Mrs. Stone's religious convictions and practices and the quarrels resulting therefrom have undoubtedly been the main cause of their trouble.

...

 

"We are of the opinion that the facts in this case justify the granting of an interlocutory decree of divorce to each of the parties on the ground of cruelty.

... ...

 

"We do not doubt the right of the state to suppress religious practices dangerous to morals, and presumably those also whichare inimical to public safety, health, and good order, but, sofar 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. [This BS has been quoted over and over by liberal judges over the years.]

"We cannot find in the record any testimony which would justify the court in finding that this mother is unfit to have the care and custody of her children, because of her religious beliefs, or that the children, if left with her, will be reared in an atmosphere of disloyalty to their country or its institutions.

"While we hesitate to reverse the trial court in divorce actions, especially as to the custody and control of minor children, believing that, having seen and heard the witnesses, the trial court is better able than are we to determine what is best for the welfare of the children, however in this case the ground upon which the court's conclusions and judgment are based is not, in our opinion, supported by the evidence and cannot be sustained.

...

 

"We are of the opinion that appellant, under the facts of this case, is entitled to the care and custody of the children. We may say in this connection that it probably makes little difference who has the custody of the three oldest children, as the oldest girl is now self-supporting, one of the boys is with his grandmother, and the other boy indicated that he did not care to live with either his father or mother. However, we feel that the mother should have the care and custody of the two youngest children, one of whom is five years old and the other about two years, and that it would be better to have all the children placed under the care and custody of one parent.[Mack Stone] may have the right of visitation at any and all reasonable times, and the three oldest children may have the right to visit and be with their father so long as it shall not interfere with their school work. [Mack Stone] shall not molest or interfere with appellant in the home, nor shall either parent attempt to alienate any of the children from the other parent.

 

... [Property divided more equitably.] ...

**************

RUSH v. RUSH was a 1940-1 Ohio divorce case. Limited details. In July 1940, Ida V. Rush, of Akron, Ohio, filed for divorce from her Jehovah's Witness husband, Ruel Braddock Rush. Ida Rush alleged that since her husband had converted to the WatchTower religion, and particularly since she had refused to convert, her husband had been mistreating her in a variety of ways, including refusing to speak to her, and refusing to acknowledge her presence.

**************

"History is replete with the bigotry, intolerance, and dogmatism of religious sects, and the pages thereof are strewn with martyrs who died for their faith. The divergence in creeds, the evils growing from a union of church and state, and the conflicts for supremacy waged between the two were studied and considered by the colonial pioneers who established the independence of these United States. They profited by peoples whose experiences in government had failed, as well as by the achievements of those whose governments had been more successful, and to avoid the griefs and disasters arising from the bigotry and religious intolerance of the preceding ages, they provided in our fundamental laws, Amendment 1 of the Constitution, of the United States, that the 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'

 

... ...

 

"The flag is emblematic of the justice, greatness, and power of the United States - these, together, guarantee the political liberty of the citizen, but the flag is no less symbolic of the justice, greatness, and power of our country when they guarantee to the citizen freedom of conscience in religion - the right to worship his God according to the dictates of his conscience. Beyond my comprehension are the vagaries of people who claim and accept the protection of their government in order to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, but refuse to salute their country's flag in recognition of such protection. Yet, however, reprehensible to us such conduct may be, their constitutional right must be held sacred; when this ceases, religious freedom ceases.

 

"However much we may disagree with or disapprove their religious beliefs, the failure of appellant, because financially unable, to supply greater comfort and pleasure for his daughter, together with their refusal to salute the flag, do not constitute a sufficient cause to adjudge the father disqualified and unfitted to have the care, custody, and control of his minor daughter."

**************

RECOMMENDED READING:

Jehovah's Witnesses and the Problem of Mental Illness

The Theocratic War Doctrine: Why Jehovah's Witnesses Lie In Court

Blood Transfusions: A History and Evaluation of the Religious, Biblical, and Medical Objections (Jehovah's Witnesses perspective)

Blood, Medicine, and the Jehovah's Witnesses: The Hidden History of the Watchtower's Position on the Blood Issue

<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>

JW DIVORCES - 1940s

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Free Talking Character · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com