Mother not allowed to force her religion on her children

Falcata · Post by **Falcata** » 2003-05-08 04:08am

This is an interesting article I found in the local newspaper, I haven't found an english version of it anywhere on the web so I'll do a quick and dirty translation. I've added the version i found on the local teletext below for dutch speaking people it doesn't contain as much information as the newspaper article though.

A mother has had her parental authority over her children removed because she was putting too much religious pressure on them. She's a member of a sect of catholic dissidents created by monseigneur Lefebvre. Appearantly she had her house filled with crosses and statues of mary and she had forbidden her children from singing certain songs at school because of their satanistic content. She also tried to exorcise a demon out of one of her children.

Now she's only allowed to have contact with her children if she doesn't try to force her believes on them, every time she does try she has to pay a 125€ fine.

MOEDER MAG GELOOF NIET OPDRINGEN

Het Gentse hof van beroep verbiedt een
moeder om haar conservatieve geloof op
te dringen aan haar drie minderjarige
kinderen. Ze moet 125 euro betalen per
inbreuk.

Volgens de Juristenkrant is het de
eerste keer dat in een dergelijke zaak
een dwangsom wordt opgelegd.

De moeder is lid van de sekte die de
dissidente katholieke monseigneur
Lefebvre volgt. Het Hof vond dat ze
haar kinderen in de war bracht.

Het ouderlijk gezag gaat nu naar de
vader. De moeder heeft enkel recht op
persoonlijk contact als ze de kinderen
haar geloof niet opdringt.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-05-08 04:51am

She would have to do a whole hell of a lot more than that to get her kids taken away in the U.S.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 04:58am

As much as I dislike religion, that sort of thing is just wrong. Acceptable grounds would be refusing medical treatment for the kids in favor of prayer-"healing" and stuff like that which puts them in direct danger, but not this.

Edi

Falcata · Post by **Falcata** » 2003-05-08 05:32am

personally I consider trying to exorcise a demon out of one of your children to be acceptable grounds.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 05:36am

That's pushing it, yes, but without details, it's hard to call accurately. If it posed a risk to them (in the way she conducted it), then yeah, otherwise no.

Edi

Falcata · Post by **Falcata** » 2003-05-08 05:56am

Neither article mentioned anything about physical harm, it did mention that it "confused" the children. I think the things she did were considered to be a form of mental abuse by the court.

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2003-05-08 06:24am

She also tried to exorcise a demon out of one of her children.

That's extremely frightening to the child. Imagine your mother shouting down at you, "I cast you Satan, in the name of Jesus!" It doesn't mention it in the said article, but basically I imagined it to be so nonetheless. I think that even if she didn't do it like that, even implying to a child that he has the devil in him (or the presense of demons) is enough introduce a lot of emotional disturbance.

I had mild brush with this sort of thing when I was a kid. Some pastors came over to my house, and they proclaimed that a picture that was hanging on the wall had the mark of the devil in it (his face actually, it's one of those abstract art pics). I had nightmares for weeks after that.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 06:27am

On second thought, yes, it'd be grounds for taking them. Thanks for bringing things into perspective, Raven.

Edi

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 06:28am

Let me guess: The country that took place in is overly liberal/PC? Many, many things can be constured as "mental confusion." Like it or not, parents, to really be parents, have to force things on thier children. If the family is religious, so be it; why should the government bother them? This reminds me of how some places'll try you for spanking your kids. "Abuse," they say.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 06:32am

Ravencrow wrote:
She also tried to exorcise a demon out of one of her children.
That's extremely frightening to the child. Imagine your mother shouting down at you, "I cast you Satan, in the name of Jesus!" It doesn't mention it in the said article, but basically I imagined it to be so nonetheless. I think that even if she didn't do it like that, even implying to a child that he has the devil in him (or the presense of demons) is enough introduce a lot of emotional disturbance.

I had mild brush with this sort of thing when I was a kid. Some pastors came over to my house, and they proclaimed that a picture that was hanging on the wall had the mark of the devil in it (his face actually, it's one of those abstract art pics). I had nightmares for weeks after that.

With all due respect, nightmares brought on by house guests barely constitutes as abuse.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2003-05-08 06:33am

Things like this make me wonder what else will cause a court to intervene ina fgamily and take your kids. With this shit going on, pretty soon you will not have *any* authority over your kids.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 06:38am

UltraViolence83 wrote:With all due respect, nightmares brought on by house guests barely constitutes as abuse.

No, that doesn't qualify, but if the mother is consistently doing something that does give her kids those same kind of nightmares, it does qualify as abuse. Learn to read, UV. Ravencrow is making a point of how that sort of things can affect children, and I can only imagine how much worse it would be if it's your own parent doing something like that. I know I'd have been scared shitless if my mom and dad had done something like that when I was small.

Edi

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 06:39am

Exactly.

I know it leads to a slippery slope, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. As the right gains more power, the left grows more fanatical, and vice versa. I'm not ready to let Johnny Fed take care of my children. Ever. If laws are ever implemented to outlaw yelling at your kids, I'm moving to a sane country.

Why the hell should the government intervene with family affairs anyway? Except for absolutely extreme circumstances, I'm not for taking kids away. Homeless? No. Poor? Hell, no. Parent(s) drug addict? No. Horrible case of child neglect/abuse to the point where anyone at all can see that the parent(s) have no caring attitude toward their own offspring? Yes.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 06:41am

EmperorMing wrote:Things like this make me wonder what else will cause a court to intervene ina fgamily and take your kids. With this shit going on, pretty soon you will not have *any* authority over your kids.

You really have to be very, very fucked up for having your kids taken away from you for the reason stated in this case, at least on this side of the Atlantic. But given all the news related to events like this, like the Texas case over the photos, the Ohio case and now this last one, it tends to start people wondering...

Edi

Ravencrow · Post by **Ravencrow** » 2003-05-08 06:43am

With all due respect, nightmares brought on by house guests barely constitutes as abuse.

That is true, but that is not my point. My point was to refute those who say that trying to perform exorcism on children is not a big deal. I know I am not wrong to say that things like what this mother does (can) frighten them.

You do know there are such things as Christian/Catholic 'extremists' don't you? And the things they do their kids can be considered as mental and emotional abuse in the most extreme cases. That could well be the case.

However, I cannot gauge from this article alone the severity of her said acts because this article does not elaborate so.

[/quote]

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 06:44am

What is this Ohio case? I live in Ohio. I know of no case.

My theory on strict child-abuse laws: Lawmakers are pussies and want to enforce their doctrine of the pussification of America on all of us. Have a nice day.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 06:46am

EmperorMing wrote:Things like this make me wonder what else will cause a court to intervene ina fgamily and take your kids. With this shit going on, pretty soon you will not have *any* authority over your kids.

Well, that's over in Europe. I've seen some crazy laws in France. It doesn't surprise me that it would reach elsewhere.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 06:51am

UltraViolence83 wrote:Exactly.

I know it leads to a slippery slope, but it's not a risk I'm willing to take. As the right gains more power, the left grows more fanatical, and vice versa. I'm not ready to let Johnny Fed take care of my children. Ever. If laws are ever implemented to outlaw yelling at your kids, I'm moving to a sane country.

Nobody is suggesting that yelling at your kids be made illegal. It needs a lot more for something like this case to happen.

UltraViolence83 wrote:Why the hell should the government intervene with family affairs anyway? Except for absolutely extreme circumstances, I'm not for taking kids away. Homeless? No.

Being homeless and having kids who have to share that is a rather extreme circumstance. Case-by-case review of course, you can't just make sweeping blanket statements. I know that if I had kids and ended up for some reason (whether my own foolishness or things outside my influence) homeless and penniless, I'd sure as hell not want my kids to suffer through that. It'd be time to ask my sister and my parents to take care of them while I worked out my own problem of homelessness.

UltraViolence83 wrote:Poor? Hell, no.

Agreed. That's never a good enough reason. Not alone, it needs something serious to accompany it (such as homelessness or drug abuse).

UltraViolence83 wrote:Parent(s) drug addict? No.

I disagree. That can be grounds for taking the kids away. Case by case review again, but it is generally not good for kids to grow up with their parents stoned and dead to the world at every turn. People here don't get their kids taken away for smoking weed, but if they're hard drug addicts and dealers who are obviously completely hooked on the stuff, the kids will be taken away, and you won't find much sympathy for the fuckers.

UltraViolence83 wrote:Horrible case of child neglect/abuse to the point where anyone at all can see that the parent(s) have no caring attitude toward their own offspring? Yes.

This condition is often associated with the drug addict types, especially hard drug (speed, heroine, cocaine, crack etc) addicts.

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 06:53am

UltraViolence83 wrote:What is this Ohio case? I live in Ohio. I know of no case.

Looky here. That should set you straight.

UltraViolence83 wrote:My theory on strict child-abuse laws: Lawmakers are pussies and want to enforce their doctrine of the pussification of America on all of us. Have a nice day.

Your opinion, yes. Whether or not it has anything to do with facts is another issue entirely.

Edi

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 07:03am

Sick. Give the whores a hot butter enema.*

My opinion was also made in jest. Just things to look out for, you know.

*New torture I invented!

Falcata · Post by **Falcata** » 2003-05-08 07:13am

Let me guess: The country that took place in is overly liberal/PC?

Belgium

Like it or not, parents, to really be parents, have to force things on thier children. If the family is religious, so be it; why should the government bother them? This reminds me of how some places'll try you for spanking your kids. "Abuse," they say.

Ofcourse parents have to force things on their children, and I have no problem with giving kids a good spanking if they do something wrong, I know I've had quite a few when I was a kid.

But imho there is a big difference between spanking your kid when he does something wrong or claiming that these bad actions are the result of satan housing in his body and trying to cast him out.

Imagine that you're a kid and your mother tells you that you cannot sing the same songs as that other kids in a school play because they are evil. Or being called satan himself when you do something wrong after which some scary ritual that you do not understand. These things are not good for the mental health of a young child.

You really have to be very, very fucked up for having your kids taken away from you for the reason stated in this case, at least on this side of the Atlantic. But given all the news related to events like this, like the Texas case over the photos, the Ohio case and now this last one, it tends to start people wondering...

As stated above this happened in Belgium, not in the USA.
Also, the state didn't take the kids away, the articles were a bit vague about that stating only that the father was now the only one with parental authority over the kids.
I'm assuming that the parents are divorced and that the children now live with their father rather then their mother.

bleh just noticed internet is down here so I'm posting this with some delay when it's up again.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 07:28am

Yeah, well, I figured it must have been something like that, they usually don't just snatch your kids away, but give custody to relatives first...

Edi

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 07:32am

Falcata wrote:But imho there is a big difference between spanking your kid when he does something wrong or claiming that these bad actions are the result of satan housing in his body and trying to cast him out.

Imagine that you're a kid and your mother tells you that you cannot sing the same songs as that other kids in a school play because they are evil. Or being called satan himself when you do something wrong after which some scary ritual that you do not understand. These things are not good for the mental health of a young child.

How is telling your child to not sing certain songs bad for their mental health? I wouldn't care after awhile if that happend to me.

Still, it doesn't count as abuse unless it is very insane. Like telling your kid maggots live in his brain put their by Satan because his older sister listens to Slipknot, and then trying to beat them out with a 2x4.

It's just me, though. I don't really consider psychology as "abuse." I'm more on the physical side of things. Psychological abuse, in my opinion, is too subjective to be handled by the government.

By the way, I'm not condoning the horrifying accounts of abuse, both psycho and physical, I'm reffering to the "minor" grey areas which I don't think the law has any business trodding over.

For more child abuse fun, look up the Good Revered Fred Phelps!

Post by **Edi** » 2003-05-08 07:37am

UltraViolence83 wrote:How is telling your child to not sing certain songs bad for their mental health? I wouldn't care after awhile if that happend to me.

Still, it doesn't count as abuse unless it is very insane. Like telling your kid maggots live in his brain put their by Satan because his older sister listens to Slipknot, and then trying to beat them out with a 2x4.

It's just me, though. I don't really consider psychology as "abuse." I'm more on the physical side of things. Psychological abuse, in my opinion, is too subjective to be handled by the government.

By the way, I'm not condoning the horrifying accounts of abuse, both psycho and physical, I'm reffering to the "minor" grey areas which I don't think the law has any business trodding over.

For more child abuse fun, look up the Good Revered Fred Phelps!

Psychological abuse is a serious issue, and it can produce some very fucked up people. It's more difficult to identify from external signs than physical abuse, but its effects are just as serious, and often longer lasting. You can't just draw a hard and fast rule, which is why each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

Edi

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-05-08 07:51am

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on that. I just get worried whether or not it'll get out of hand someday. (The definitions of "abuse," I mean.)