Wed 24 Aug, 2005 05:20 pm
Question About Article on Child Abduction
I have a question about an assertion toward the end of the article on child abduction. The text I am wondering about states:
"Although official Family spokespersons have rarely made any public statements about specific child abduction cases involving its members, there is some evidence that the Family's policies and policies regarding child abduction and child custody began to change in the mid-1990s. [...] Section 60, [of the Love Charter] Permanent Marital Separation Rules, states that couples with children must come to a mutual written agreement regarding the separation and the custody of the children and that obtaining a legal divorce and child custody order is optional. This policy sepcifically stated that it only applied to marital separations after February 1995. The June 2003 amendments state that if the parties involved cannot reach a mutual agreement and "opt to use the court system to settle the matter," they must "relinquish Charter membership until the matter is settled.""
The context in which this is quoted seems to imply that the policy applies to disputes where one of the parents may have left the Family. Is this the case? I wonder how this is supposed to work. How does any "must" mandated in the Charter apply to somebody who is not a Family member?
The Family has stated before that "as a church" it washes its hands of any question of (outside) law as being not within its jurisdiction. Surely The Family does not claim that its Charter applies to outsiders? At what point does it cease to apply, in the Family's view?
If not intended to imply that the policy applies to disputes where one of the parents may have left the Family, I think the passage could use some clarification.