A B.C. provincial court judge has ruled two devout Jehovah’s Witnesses to stop taking their granddaughter to religious services.

The grandparents had sought unsupervised contact with their four-year-old granddaughter every weekend and on school breaks, but Judge E. M. Ritchie turned down their application in a recent decision because the pair had repeatedly exposed her to religious teachings against the wishes of her mother.

“There are many people with strongly held religious views that do not discuss those views in front of others, and specifically not in front of other people’s children,” Ritchie wrote. But these grandparents “do not appear to be capable of not exposing (the child) to their religious beliefs.”

The child had spent days at a time with her paternal grandparents from a “very young” age, according to the decision. While the mother is the sole guardian of her child, she had felt it was important that her daughter spend time with them.

From the time the child was a baby, the grandparents brought her to services at the Kingdom Hall. They had not asked the mother’s permission to do so, and while she knew and did not like it, she said nothing at first. But eventually she told the grandparents to stop.

A few months later her daughter told her they had taken her to the hall again. The child’s grandmother explained her granddaughter had “begged to go to Kingdom Hall” and missed the place. Besides, she said in a text message, she did not agree with the mother’s decision.

The mother then barred the grandparents from seeing the child on Sundays, as a way to keep her daughter away from the religious teachings. But the grandparents brought her back to the Kingdom Hall anyway, saying “that is what the child wanted,” Ritchie wrote.

After the mother further restricted the grandparents’ time with the child, they warned she might grow to hate her and the pair filed the application for unsupervised access.

The grandparents argued their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated, claiming it entitles them to express their views on religion to their granddaughter. It was an argument Ritchie swiftly brushed aside in the ruling.

“This is not a Charter case. No one is questioning the applicants’ right to practise their religion. This dispute arises from the applicants’ refusal to accept that they have no say in the religious and spiritual upbringing of (the child).”

Ritchie said the grandparents viewed the mother’s attempts to restrict her daughter’s exposure to their faith as a reflection of her prejudice, as confusing for the child and an attempt to punish them.

“It is clear from the testimony of the applicants that they firmly believe that they know what is in the best interest of the child,’ Ritchie wrote. But the grandparents “are not guardians and they do not have any parental responsibilities,” he said.

“Unless and until the applicants satisfy (the mother) or the court that they can respect and comply with (her) parental decisions on religion, their time with (the child) must be supervised and limited.”

mrobinson@vancouversun.com

===

Click here to report a typo or visit vancouversun.com/typo.

Is there more to this story? We'd like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. CLICK HERE or go to vancouversun.com/moretothestory