Winning in Court

SAMPLE JUDGMENTS RENDERED IN CASES IN WHICH DUANE MAGNANI
HAS CONSULTED/AND OR GIVEN TESTIMONY

1. SOLE LEGAL CUSTODY: The courts have recognized that Jehovah’s Witnesses and non-JW custody disputes are not effectively decided by joint custody judgments.

2. ISSUE: The negative and isolationist world view of the JW parent results major detrimental effects upon the child.

3. RESTRICTIONS: JW parents are almost universally enjoined from indoctrinating the child into the religion due to the endangerment factors undermining the “best interests” of the child and the relationship with the non-JW parent.

 In all cases, the religious factor (even when put into secular language) was the deciding factor in ruling in favor of the non-JW parent. In the great majority of these cases, Duane Magnani gave testimony on the beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The following quotations and summaries are taken from court decisions in these cases (note that while these cases are public record, personal names and some documentation has been deleted simply for privacy purposes):

CASE ONE: J E v. R E, The District Court of Johnson County. Judgment was for R E, the respondent, due to the Court's view:

Joint custody of said minor child is not in the best interest of said child, 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 should be granted to the respondent-father, that petitioner 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 restrained from indoctrinating or attempting to indoctrinate the minor child in the restrictions and prohibitions of that religion; that 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 that they will just "be dust"....

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3. A lifestyle or the practice of beliefs which endangers the physical and emotional development of a child is not in the best interests of the child as a matter of law. See LaDoux v. LaDoux, 234 Neb. 479, 452 N.W.2d 1 (1990)

(Note: In our special video presentation Battling over the Children, Diane LaDoux recalls: “The court said my children would be harmed by my JW ex-husband’s beliefs since they were not mine. To allow that, the court said, could be disastrous to my children. I thank God that the Nebraska supreme court cared about my kids.”)

CASE TWO: T S v. M S, In the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of, In and for the County of, Case No. Judgment was for M S, the defendant.

• P. 39 (8) "The Court does conclude, however, that there is clear evidence that the religious differences of the parents has affected and will continue to affect the well being of the children... there are some practices that are so detrimental to the best interest of the children that the Court cannot permit them, whether characterized a 'religious practice' or otherwise. For example, the children cannot be taught that their father will or may die soon, regardless of whether that teaching comes because he is not of the Jehovah's Witness faith, or because Armageddon may come soon, or for any other reason. The only logical effect of such conduct (whether well-meaning or otherwise) is to cause the children to withdraw from their father, and cling to their mother as the only likely survivor of some upcoming catastrophe.

CASE THREE: M E v. J E, Tenth Judicial District Court, County of, State of, Court File No. Judgment was M E for sole legal custody.

Generally, the parties are able to cooperate and communicate in regards to the rearing of the children. However, conflict arises regarding the religious upbringing of the children. Because of the extreme differing religious beliefs of both parties, it would be very difficult for the parties to cooperate sufficiently regarding major decisions such as education, medical needs, religious and cultural instruction. Therefore, joint legal custody is not in the best interest of the children. (p. 12)

Respondent, his family and friends shall refrain from any religious instruction or practices from their faith directed towards the minor children. (p. 18)

CASE FOUR: C H v. A M, Twenty Fifth Judicial Dist Ct, Judgment was for C H, "awarding sole care, custody and of the two (2) minor children".

The Jehovah's Witness "father is prohibited from preaching to or witnessing with the children". FURTHER:

The Court further finds that the distrust expressed by E and J arise out of the practice of the beliefs of the Jehovah Witness faith by the father.... The Court finds that the manner in which the father and his present wife have chosen to practice the Jehovah Witness faith has a detrimental psychological effect on E and J.... Again the Court does not quarrel with Mr. M's right to express his belief, however, the Court does take issue with the effect Mr. M's expression has had on E and J....

Judgment:

Mr. M will be prohibited from taking the children to witness with him during the exercise of his visitation, he will further be prohibited from preaching or witnessing to E and J regarding his beliefs as a Jehovah Witness nor will he allow anyone else to do the same.

CASE FIVE: J H v. L D, Superior Court of, County of. 

Restrictions--Under the heading--Jehovah's Witnesses:

The children are prohibited, during the year 1987, from attending any gathering, whether formal or informal, of Jehovah's Witnesses, except as stated hereafter, including any meeting at Kingdom Hall, at the home of the mother, or any location whatever. The children are not to participate in any formal Jehovah's Witness services, liturgies, discussions, or gatherings for any other Jehovah's Witness religious purpose.

During proceedings the court stated regarding my testimony after it had been objected to:

Well, if you have where both parties are married and there is no divorce, and they're both Jehovah's Witnesses, I guess it's not a concern of the Court, but once you have a divorce and this Jehovah's Witness, by the way testified yesterday, her present husband is now divorced and she's divorced, the Court has to decide on comparative fitness of the two parties to live in the world which they find themselves, and already the stepfather has told me he doesn't believe in college, children can't participate in school, can't even date, can't be a homecoming queen, can't be a cheerleader, can't compete in sports, they can't belong to any clubs in school, they're discouraged from dating.

It looks to me like the Court would be responsible to hear as best he can as much as he can about the life-style that these children will be forced to now live....I am still overwhelmed with the idea that they would discourage education other than it's a method that if you learn too much you might throw the traces off and decide you want to be something, be somebody, because there is no way a Jehovah's Witness can ever be a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher or anything else, because if they discourage going to college you can't qualify. You've limited these children, and you're asking me to limit them, to handicap them, to stunt them, so-to-speak, to compete in the world in which they find themselves....So, therefore, I think in considering that in a competitive world in which America is, I ought to hear something about where you're asking me to leave these children and be exposed to. I am just going to have to hear it. (Transcript, pp. 85-87)

After hearing more testimony regarding lifestyle, the court stated:

The only thing I can tell you, I consider, personally, nothing more responsible than my job in deciding the welfare of these children. These children are the most battered and abused children by their life-styles alone that I've ever had in this court, that I've ever been associated with, and I'll tell you that right off. Child abuse is not only hitting and beating, sexually fondling, scolding in an improper manner, denying opportunities to progress in life, all these are systems of abuse. (Transcript, p. 294)

So, I can't act in the best interest of the child unless I know the life-style of these kind of folks. As long as it is addressed to that, I want to know what it is. (Transcript, p. 304)

Judgment:

J and G A both are enjoined permanently from discouraging the children from seeking any normal social and educational advancement and from talking disparagingly of G G, their father, in this matter. (Transcript, p. 791)

I may state for the record that, Mrs. A, your home comes as near close to being what the Court would define as unfit to raise children that I've encountered. I have no doubt you love your children. (Transcript, p. 792)

I think under the law to put them there [with J A] would be--would be dooming these children to just really a life of mediocrity. I hesitate to use the word unfit because in my own mind I am convinced she loves her children.I think under the present circumstances they would have no chance as the Courts have told us to try to give these children an opportunity to advance. (Transcript, p. 795)

CASE SIX: K H v. E H, Judicial District Court for the, State of

LAW

In actions to alter or change an existing custody decree the proponent of change must show that a change of circumstance has occurred such that the continuation of the present custody arrangement is so deleterious to the child(ren) as to justify modification of the custody decree or that the harm likely to be caused by a change of environment is substantially outweighed by its advantages to the child.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few problems between M and H in the rearing of their children until approximately three (3) years ago, when M began exploring a change of religion, which she adopted. Following her conversion she remarried. Her current husband and stepchildren are practicing Jehovah's Witnesses, as is she. Her children are baptized Catholic and were practicing Catholics until about three (3) years ago. They were, until January of this year being taught both Jehovah's Witness and Catholicism - Jehovah's Witness with the mother (at least four (4) times a week) and Catholicism while with the father. Jehovah's Witnesses religious teachings directly contradict the previous religious teachings of the children prior to 1993. The pressure being placed upon these children is tremendous and continuous. They have no where to go for respite. Court intervention is absolutely necessary if these children are to have a chance for a normal mental and physical development. The Court agrees with its mental health expert in this regard and will follow his recommendations and the totality of the circumstances as elicited at trial. The Court feels this to be absolutely in the best interest of the children. (pp. 7-8)

JUDGMENT

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there has been a change of circumstances since the rendition of the last Judgement in this case dealing with custody of the two minor children;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the previous custody agreement rendered on March 7, 1988 is modified as follows:

1. Sole custody of both children is awarded to the father, E H. He shall have all of the power and authority permitted by law as sole custodian of the children. (p. 9)

CASE SEVEN: P S v. J S, District Court, County of. Quoting from pages 10-11 of the Court's ruling:

• And the Court finds that there is a significant probability, if they are raised predominately by and if they are in the custody of the respondent, that there will be a degree of isolation of these children from their peers, from the community, from school activities, a degree of alienation from the other parent.
  
  In other words there is a significant likelihood from the evidence that there will be some degree of developmental or emotional developmental difficulties and deprivation for these children by virtue of the actions of the respondent based on her beliefs as have been testified to by her and by others.

•  Given the choice of a good parent who has that baggage and a good parent who does not have that baggage, the Court is inclined to choose the parent that does not have the views that would lead the parent to the conduct that would have this impact on the children.

•  Another issue is the potential for harm relating to health care, specifically transfusions and things of that nature. The likelihood that such would be needed is small. The degree of significance if it is needed is large. In other words the result could be catastrophic.

•  The testimony of the respondent, I think, was clear that she would put her religious beliefs in practice even at the risk of her children's health. She -- that does not in one -- for one whip mean that she loves them less, but it just means she believes she's doing right by doing that. I think it's clear that that is her view, and I think that that is something that the Court must consider and has considered.