Skip to main content.
A non-profit service providing academics, religion professionals and other researchers with religion & cult news

Religion news articles about religious cults, sects, world religions, and related issues

Home | About RNB Related: Cult FAQ | Cult Experts | Apologetics Index | Cult Information Search Engine
More articles about: Jehovah's Witnesses:

Parents’ rights violated in child custody case: judge, Canada
July 1, 2004 • Thursday July 1, 2004

Calgary – The rights of a Jehovah’s Witness couple were violated when their newborn son was seized so that he could receive a blood transfusion, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Adele Kent says that Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t always wrong when they oppose blood transfusions. “Baby M” was three weeks old in August 2001 when he developed a bowel infection. His doctor believed he needed to be given blood products, but the parents wanted antibiotics used instead. Blood transfusions are against their religious beliefs.

Child welfare workers intervened, obtained a court order to take custody of the boy and he was kept for 12 days while receiving blood transfusions, then returned to his family.

The parents’ lawyer, Shane Brady, says the couple who didn’t speak English well was only given an hour’s notice of the custody hearing. He says they should have been given time to introduce their own medical experts.

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Theologically, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a cult of Christianity. The oppressive organization does not represent historical, Biblical Christianity in any way. Sociologically, it is a destructive cult whose false teachings frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse, as well as needless deaths.

“My clients argued before Justice Kent that this indicated at the very least there should be serious questions about why social services or the director of child welfare was presenting that this case had to proceed immediately and denying them the right to be represented by counsel and denying them the right to call the expert evidence of two expert neonatologists who were of the expert opinion that the child was not in the need of any transfusion and that his condition was stable,” Brady said.

He said Kent’s decision means the “best interests of the child are presumed to be with the parents.”

Baby M is now three years old, and healthy.

The parents had also asked for $75,000 in damages, but Kent said she didn’t have that authority.

info Original content is © Copyright Religion News Blog. All rights reserved.
    Do not republish or repost. Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape

share this article Share this article

tag Related Articles


Comment Comment

Join Religion News Blog at Google+ to comment, share, and follow.

RSS Feed Follow Us


Religion News You May Like This As Well

Why are you not using Nozbe?

Don't you need to get things done?

Religion News Search Search Religion News Blog