Minors and religion: rights and boundaries in the Netherlands

Recognizable questions May parents decide what religion their child is raised in? May a child say that they no longer want to attend religious meetings? At what age does a child decide for themselves about religion? What if parents after a divorce think differently about religion? Can a parent refuse necessary medical care on religious grounds? And when does religious upbringing become a matter for support services or child protection? In the Netherlands, parents have a great deal of room to raise their children according to their own religion or worldview. That means, for example, that parents are allowed to take their child to religious meetings, pray together, teach religious instruction, and set rules at home that stem from their convictions. But parental authority is not unlimited. Under the law, parents not only have the right to raise a child, but also the duty to promote their development and well-being . The central legal question is therefore not only: “May parents pass on their faith?” but also: “How far may that religious upbringing go when a child gets older, starts thinking differently, or is affected in their development or safety?” What does parental authority mean? Parental authority applies in principle until a child turns 18. Whoever has authority has the right and the duty to care for and raise the child and to make important decisions for the child. The judiciary, for example, cites school choice, residence, and other important upbringing decisions as matters that fall under parental authority. Religious upbringing is in principle part of that. A parent may therefore, for example: take a child to a church, mosque, synagogue, or Kingdom Hall; teach religious stories and beliefs; follow religious practices at home; pray together; pass on norms and rules for living from the faith. However, the fact that someone is a minor does not mean that their own opinion is legally unimportant. Children also have freedom of religion Children are not only people about whom parents make decisions. They have human rights of their own, including freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. For children, that freedom is considered together with parents’ responsibility to guide them in a way that fits their increasing development and independence . That is why there is no single magical birthday in law at which a child suddenly gets complete freedom over religion. Independence grows gradually. Not simply: 0–12, 12–16, and fully free from 16 onward A commonly used age breakdown can be helpful, but it should not be made too absolute. Younger children With young children, parents determine a great deal. A seven-year-old does not legally decide on their own that their parents may no longer raise them religiously. But the feelings, fears, and development of a young child may also not be ignored. From around age 12 From this age onward, a child’s opinion in various areas of the law is given clearly more formal weight. In proceedings about parental authority, the court will in principle ask children aged 12 and older for their view. The judge ultimately decides based on the circumstances and the child’s best interests. That does not mean: “From age 12, the child decides for themselves about religion.” It does mean that in a dispute, a judge cannot simply disregard a clear and well-considered wish of an older minor. 16 and 17 years old A 16- or 17-year-old is still legally a minor and in principle still falls under parental authority. So parents formally retain responsibility and powers until age 18. But an almost-adult young person naturally has much more personal autonomy than a young child. That is why I would not write: “From age 16, a child may decide entirely for themselves about church membership.” A better formulation is: As a minor gets older and more mature, their own convictions carry increasing weight. In the case of a 16- or 17-year-old, their personal religious choice will in practice weigh much more heavily, even though parental authority formally ends only at age 18. What if a child no longer wants to attend meetings? This is legally more complicated than: “A child cannot be forced to attend religious activities.” With young children, after all, parents are allowed to decide how they raise their child, and religious activities can be part of that. But the situation changes when an older child consistently indicates that they no longer believe or experiences participation as very burdensome. Then questions may arise such as: how old and mature is the child? how strong and lasting is their wish? how much pressure is being applied? what are the consequences for their mental well-being? is it normal upbringing or coercion that becomes harmful? do both parents agree? So there is no simple Dutch rule: “From age X, a child never has to attend a religious meeting again.” The specific circumstances are decisive. And among Jehovah’s Witnesses? Within a JW family, this can come into play, for example, when a minor says: “I don’t want to go to meetings anymore.” “I don’t want to go in field service anymore.” “I no longer believe this is the truth.” Or, on the contrary: “I want to become an unbaptized publisher.” For the law, the issue is not which faith is true. What matters includes parental authority, the child’s age and development, the child’s own views, and the impact of decisions on their well-being. A parent is allowed to raise a child in a religion. But as a child gets older, it becomes harder to simply treat their own convictions as irrelevant. What if separated parents think differently? With joint parental authority, both parents remain responsible for important decisions concerning the child. If they cannot agree on an important parenting decision, they can ask the court to make a decision through the dispute-resolution procedure for joint authority. That can become relevant, for example, in serious conflicts about: school choice; medical care; where the child lives; religious upbringing; a major religious step; psychological help. The court looks at the child’s best interests and, depending on the procedure and age, may also speak with the child. So legally, it is not automatically the case that either the believing parent or the non-believing parent has the final say. A child does not have to be raised in a religiously neutral way This is important. Dutch law does not require separated parents to raise a child without religious influence. In principle, a JW parent is allowed to share his or her faith with the child. A non-JW parent may likewise explain that he or she thinks differently and make different choices at home. The legal boundary is not: “This parent is influencing the child.” Every upbringing influences a child. The more relevant question is: “Is the child’s development, safety, or freedom being seriously harmed?” Medical care and religion Here the limits of religious upbringing can become very clear. Parents may make medical decisions for their child, but their decision-making freedom is not unlimited. In cases of necessary medical care, the protection of the child’s health and life may outweigh religious objections. Moreover, the exact consent rules depend on the child’s age. For young people aged 12 to 16, Dutch law generally requires that both the young person and the parent(s) with authority give consent for medical treatment, subject to legal exceptions. From age 16, a young person generally decides for themselves about medical treatment. This is relevant, for example, when parents object to a blood transfusion because of their faith. In an acute or life-threatening situation, doctors and, if necessary, the court can take measures to make essential care possible. That is why I would address in a separate article in more detail: Blood transfusions, minors, and Jehovah’s Witnesses: who decides? Education and religion The original sentence about homeschooling also deserves correction. In the Netherlands, children are subject to compulsory education from age 5 and must in principle be enrolled in and attend a school. However, there are legal exceptions. Under certain conditions, parents can for example request exemption from enrollment when they have serious objections to the direction — the religious or philosophical foundation — of schools within reasonable distance. The Dutch government refers to this as an exemption due to objections to the direction . In addition, a pupil may receive exemption from school attendance for certain religious obligations. The Compulsory Education Act explicitly mentions duties arising from religion or belief. So not: “Homeschooling for religious reasons is prohibited.” But: The Netherlands has compulsory education and no general free right to homeschool a child. However, there are exemptions under specific legal conditions, including an exemption on account of objections to the direction of available schools. When does religious upbringing become harmful? Religious upbringing is not child abuse in itself. Even a strict or conservative religious upbringing is not automatically abuse in legal terms. The line may come into view when behavior leads to, for example: physical violence; serious emotional abuse; neglect; structural insecurity; serious threat to a child’s development. In legal terms, the issue is not the label religion , but what is actually happening to the child. And shunning a minor child? Here too, I would change your original wording. Not: “Shunning a minor child is legally neglect or abuse.” That is too absolute. However, prolonged exclusion, emotional rejection, withholding necessary care, or severe social isolation can be part of a situation in which emotional abuse or neglect is present. The circumstances are decisive. A religious reason does not automatically make harmful behavior legally permissible. But the word shunning by itself also does not determine whether there is legally child abuse. “If you no longer believe, you no longer belong with us” For a minor, religious rejection is especially hard. A parent may be disappointed or saddened by a child’s choice of faith. But parental authority also means the parent remains responsible for the child’s care, safety, and development. A minor therefore cannot simply be left without care because he or she no longer shares the same religious beliefs. When a child is actually being abused, severely neglected, or feels unsafe at home, there are ways to seek help. If you are 16 or 17 yourself and no longer want to believe Maybe you live with parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and you yourself have started to doubt. You do not first need to know exactly what you believe before talking to someone. For example, you could say: “I notice there is a lot of tension at home because I’ve started thinking differently about the faith.” Or: “I’m afraid to say that I no longer want to go to the meetings.” A trusted person, mentor, GP, or other professional can first discuss with you what is going on. If you are afraid at home, are being threatened, abused, or are under severe pressure, you can also ask Veilig Thuis for advice. Veilig Thuis is the Dutch advice and reporting center for domestic violence and child abuse. You do not first need to be sure that there is legally abuse; you can ask for advice even if you are unsure. Veilig Thuis can be reached free of charge 24 hours a day at 0800-2000 , and advice can be requested anonymously. What does Veilig Thuis actually do? A call to Veilig Thuis does not automatically mean a child will be placed out of the home or that an investigation will begin. Veilig Thuis can first listen and offer advice. After a formal report, information is gathered, safety is assessed, and it is considered which next step is needed. That may be advice, help, or in some situations further investigation. Since July 2026, the updated national protocol has also more explicitly described how children themselves are involved in the assessment. Veilig Thuis states that children from the age of four are in principle spoken to. If you are an ex-JW parent yourself When you have left Jehovah’s Witnesses and the other parent is still a believer, both parents may think very differently about what is good for the child. Try to distinguish between: “I think this religious upbringing is wrong.” and: “My child is concretely being threatened in their development or safety by this.” That distinction matters legally. The mere fact that your ex-partner is a Jehovah’s Witness is not a reason for child protection services to get involved. However, when concrete problems arise — for example severe anxiety, structural pressure, medical conflicts, psychological harm, or a child being caught in the middle between both parents — support services, mediation, or legal advice may be appropriate. In cases of joint custody, a judge can ultimately also be asked to decide a major dispute between parents. Does a judge listen to the child? Yes, but listening is not the same as automatically giving the child what they want . In custody proceedings, a judge will in principle ask a child aged 12 or older for their opinion. The older and more mature the child is, the more important his or her opinion can generally be. But the judge remains responsible for the decision. So: “I’m 13, so I decide for myself which parent I live with and what religion I follow” is legally too simplistic. But neither is this true: “You’re a minor, so your opinion doesn’t matter at all.” The child’s best interests are broader than safety alone When it comes to religious conflicts, we quickly think only of extreme situations. But a child needs more than physical safety. They also need: emotional safety; room to develop; contact with important people; education; medical care; room to develop an identity of their own; a gradually increasing degree of independence. Religion can be a source of community, meaning, structure, and hope for a child. For another child, a religious situation may instead trigger tension or fear. The law does not determine which religious belief is the correct one. The legal question is mainly about the child's rights, development, and protection. In conclusion Parents in the Netherlands have broad freedom to pass on their faith to their children. But a child is not only part of their parents' religion. They are also an independent person who develops and gradually forms their own convictions. That is why both extremes are too simplistic: “Parents may decide everything as long as it is religious.” and: “From a certain age, a child may decide everything entirely on their own and parents no longer have anything to say.” The reality lies somewhere in between. Parental authority in principle continues until the age of 18. But as a child gets older and more mature, their own voice deserves increasingly more weight. And when religious upbringing turns into serious unsafety, abuse, neglect, or a threat to development, the government can intervene — not because a particular faith is prohibited, but because a child has rights of their own as well . Sources Civil Code, Book 1 - Article 247 - parental authority, care and upbringing Case law - Parental authority Case law - Procedure concerning a disagreement between parents with joint parental authority Civil Procedure Code - Article 809 - hearing minors UN Convention on the Rights of the Child - Article 14 - freedom of thought, conscience and religion European Convention on Human Rights - Article 9 - freedom of thought, conscience and religion Compulsory Education Act 1969 Central Government - Compulsory education and the duty to obtain a qualification Central Government - When does my child not have to go to school? Central Government - Exemption on grounds of religion or belief Safe at Home - What does Safe at Home do? Safe at Home - Child abuse Case law - Disputes over joint parental authority