Loading...

Friday, 4 April 2014

PBCC elders continue to cause detriment and harm to ex-members today Friday 4th April 2014

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY AGREEMENT

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN

 

 

 

Applicant

 

and

 


 

Respondent

 

Children:

 


 

 

1.
It is hereby agreed between the parties to this agreement that the above named children will continue to remain living in the shared care of both parents and that the parties will agree between them in a collaborative fashion the respective times that the children will spend with each parent.
2.
The parties agree that the practical arrangements and details of this collaborative shared care arrangement will be agreed and facilitated by them with the wishes and feelings of the children being paramount.  
3.
Both parties agree that the above named children continue to attend the Brethern School and Church and continue to have contact with other family members.
4.
The parties agree that they will endeavour not to expose the children to people and situations that they feel uncomfortable with.
5.
Should there be any significant change in the personal circumstances of either party at any time in the future then this agreement can be revisited and reviewed accordingly.
6.
The parties agree that should a circumstance arise in the future where neither party is in a position to care for the children then the children’s grandparents  will assume responsibility for the care of the children.

 

 

 

 

Signed:  ------------------------


 

 

Witnessed by: __________________________________________

Name:

Address:

Occupation:

 

 

Signed:  __________________

 



7 comments:

  1. Don't sign this anyone. It's the kind of document that drives lawyers mad!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This agreement will not do, and no one should dream of signing it.

    “the wishes and feelings of the children being paramount” is not a criterion that the law would support. “The best interests of the children” is the main criterion that a court or a good parent would use, with wishes and feelings only part of the consideration.

    What if the children’s wishes and feelings were partly shaped by being indoctrinated with the appalling teaching of BDH that if someone leaves the Hales Brethren then their eternal salvation is very much in question? What if they stuck with the Brethren just because of irrational fear of Hell? Then their wishes and feelings would not coincide with their best interests.

    Whatever the parents or the children want, it would not be reasonable to agree unconditionally that the children must continue to attend the Brethren School and Church. What if the school and/or the church changed, or if the children matured intellectually? What if they wanted to go to University?

    The informal fostering arrangement in the last clause is questionable. The informal fostering arrangements that Brethren often made in the past when parents were “shut up” and the children taken away to unrelated Brethren’s homes were definitely illegal, and some of them had very unhappy consequences too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the PBCC had taken the Charity Commission's guidelines seriously and had addressed them as they agreed to do, this document would not be necessary. It is simply further evidence that the PBCC are not complying and have reneged on the deal they made with the Charity Commission earlier this year to gain charitable status for the Preston Down Trust. It will surely be their arrogance that finally brings them down.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No-one should sign an agreement with the EB (or any church) - whether about family or employment - without their own independent lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to be clear, is this document recent, post 9th January 2014 ?

    Charles.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What if the grandparents are 'out'?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Should the line reading 'children continue to attend the Brethren School' carry the proviso that the children must not have a facebook page?

    ReplyDelete