Endangerment has to be a very specific threat, not a general belief in or membership in that cult. The parents are members and must abide by the rules which seem to indicate a particular lack of control over their children’s marriage decisions. The endangerment argument is invalid if the bride is 17 or the pair are 3 or less years apart (as I understand it). But endangerment would also be invalid if the threat of marriage is nonspecific (i.e. the parents are simply cult members). That would be collective punishment and highly infringing on freedom of religion.
I agree with all these points. They are well-put.
We likely disagree on whether endangerment exists in this case. Obviously I think it does.
As a broader point to my posts here, I think this is the legal argument/case the state should have been making. Perhaps they did more than I know and were unsuccessful.
Taking this position, seeing if their case can be proven under these conditions, I think we both would agree, would at least put the state on solid legal ground and stay far away from questions involving beliefs and religion.
thanks again...
I don’t think these kids are in any real danger. Statistically, are in more danger of abuse as long as they are in foster care among people they don’t even know. No doubt they want to go home to their families. They’ve been through enough.