Individuals can take causes of action against the church if they feel that the church has not acted in good faith or in contrary to the law. An individual can sue the church for defamation and invasion of privacy. This can happen if the church advices other people to shun an individual because of deliberately rejecting the doctrines of the church. This is well exemplified by the Paul vs Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York. If the church signs an agreement with an individual and fails to live up to the requirements of the agreement then the concerned individual can take legal action against the church for breach of agreement. In the case of Andrew Lee vs Church of Scientology, the plaintiff took a cause of action accusing the church of malice and oppression. The church can also be sued by an individual is it carries out practices and rituals to a minor without obtaining the consent of the custody parents. In such a case the parents can accuse the church for malice and misrepresentation. The act of a church towards an individual making him or her suffer from emotional tension can also result in a court case in which the church can be sued fro inflicting emotional distress on the concerned individual.
Legal action should be taken against the church for inflicting emotional distress on the parents of Rob Jr.This can be argued in the light of the church taking advantage of the minor to brain wash him and making it look as if his parents were not giving the child the right advice and direction. The fact that the church undermined the parents of the child means that the church made them suffer emotionally.
The church can be said to have disregarded the Childs sensitivity to emotional distress in the parents. The child was ignorant of the fact that the child would not feel to have caused emotional problems in the parents.
Another cause of action against the church would be that of using undue influence to gain control over the child decisions. It is clear that such a child was not in a position to make sound informed decisions concerning his life. The church therefore must have taken advantage of the child and tricking him into staying in the church for all that time against the will of the parents.
Action may also be taken against the church for inciting RobJr against the parents. By advising the child to write a letter to the parents telling them that the church was his new family is an indicator that the child had been tricked and incited against his legal parents. This goes against the law and therefore action has to be taken against the church and they have to compensate the parents for the damages they suffered as a result. It is important to mention that the family and specifically suffered in terms of their reputation as because of the actions that were taken by the church prompting the child to behave in the described manner. The church therefore has to be sued and made to pay for the damages that were inflicted on the parent’s reputation in the society.
As for the action against incitement, the plaintiff must substantiate on the fact that their own child was influenced by the words of the defendant into staying with the defendant. Had it not been the words of the defendant then the child would not have chosen to shun the parents and opt for the church as a new family ( Linda et al , 2008 p. 11). The parents in their defamation course of action have to prove before a court of law that indeed the church had the intention of tarnishing the name of the family and specifically the parents of Rob Jr.That the actions of the church made the society to have a negative attitude towards the parents. This can be viewed by some people in the sense that the parents had neglected the child when it was not true.
The church must have committed a conversion tort by denying the parents their right to safe custody of their child. The parents in this case can be said to be the legal owners of the child. They were deprived the right to take care of the child by the church. The church must have had the intention of depriving the parent’s possession of the child and might have done it for the sake of the benefits of the church only. The child in this case must have consented to the actions of the church without prior knowledge of the consequences the actions could lead to. The plaintiff in this case must therefore provide proof that indeed the defendant had the intention of keeping the child away from them for selfish benefits.
Defamation action against the church has to be proved by the parent. This has top be done in the light of the image of the parents in public. This has to be undertaken also in the protection of public interests ( Linda et al , 2008 p. 4).
References
Linda L Edwards and J. Stanley Edwards,(2008)Tort Law for Legal Assistants (3rd ed.) ISBN: 1401812740