Recognizable questions
- May parents decide what religion their child is brought up in?
- May a child say they no longer want to go to religious meetings?
- At what age does a child decide for themselves about religion?
- What if parents think differently about religion after a divorce?
- Can a parent refuse necessary medical care on religious grounds?
- And when does religious upbringing become a matter for child welfare or youth protection services?
In the Netherlands, parents have a great deal of freedom to raise their children according to their own religion or beliefs about life.
This means, for example, that parents may take their child to religious meetings, pray together, teach religious education, and set rules at home that stem from their beliefs.
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 that child’s 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 generally applies 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, where the child lives, and other important upbringing decisions as matters covered by that 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;
observe religious practices at home;
pray together;
pass on standards and rules of life from their faith.
However, the fact that someone is a minor does not mean their own opinion is legally irrelevant.
Children also have freedom of religion
Children are not only people about whom parents make decisions.
They have rights themselves, including freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
With children, that freedom is considered together with parents’ responsibility to guide them in a way that suits their increasing development and independence.
That is why there is no single magic birthday in law at which a child suddenly gains full freedom over religion.
Independence grows gradually.
Not simply: 0-12, 12-16, and fully free from 16
A commonly used age breakdown can be helpful, but it should not be made too absolute.
Younger children
With young children, parents decide a great deal.
A seven-year-old does not, in legal terms, independently get to decide that their parents may no longer raise them religiously.
But the feelings, fears, and development of a young child also may not be ignored.
From around age 12
From this age onward, a child’s opinion is given clearly greater formal weight in various areas of law.
In proceedings concerning parental authority, a judge will in principle ask children aged 12 and over for their opinion. 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 does not simply have to ignore a clear and well-considered wish of an older minor.
16 and 17 years old
A sixteen- or seventeen-year-old is still legally a minor and in principle remains under parental authority.
So parents formally retain responsibility and powers until age 18.
But a nearly adult young person naturally has far more personal autonomy than a young child.
That is why I would not write:
“From age 16, a child may decide completely for themselves about church membership.”
A better formulation is:
As a minor gets older and more mature, his or her own convictions carry more and more weight. For a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old, their personal choice of faith will in practice weigh much more heavily, even though parental authority formally does not end until age 18.
What if a child no longer wants to go to meetings?
This is legally more complicated than:
“A child cannot be forced to attend religious activities.”
After all, with young children parents may decide how to raise their child, and religious activities can be part of that.
But the situation changes when an older child consistently says they no longer believe or experiences participation as very burdensome.
Questions may therefore arise such as:
How old and mature is the child?
How strong and persistent is their wish?
How much pressure is being applied?
What are the consequences for their mental well-being?
Is this ordinary parenting, 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 may come up, for example, when a minor says:
“I don’t want to go to the meetings anymore.”
“I don’t want to go in field service anymore.”
“I no longer believe this is the truth.”
Or, conversely:
“I want to become an unbaptized publisher.”
For the law, the question is not which religion is true.
Relevant factors include parental authority, the child’s age and development, the child’s own view, and the consequences of decisions for their well-being.
A parent is allowed to raise a child in a religious way.
But as a child gets older, it becomes harder to simply treat their own convictions as irrelevant.
What if separated parents think differently?
Where parents share parental authority, both remain responsible for important decisions about 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 parental authority.
This can become relevant, for example, in serious conflicts over:
school choice;
medical care;
where the child lives;
religious upbringing;
a major religious step;
psychological help.
In doing so, the court looks at the child’s best interests and may also speak with the child, depending on the procedure and the child’s age.
So legally, it is not automatically the case that either the believing parent or the non-believing parent gets the final say.
A child does not have to be raised religiously neutral
This is important.
Dutch law does not require separated parents to raise a child without religious influence.
A JW parent may in principle share their faith with the child.
A non-JW parent may likewise explain that they think differently and make different choices at home.
The legal line is not:
“This parent is influencing the child.”
Every form of 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 are allowed to make medical choices for their child, but their decision-making freedom is not unlimited.
In the case of necessary medical care, the protection of the child’s health and life may outweigh religious objections.
The exact consent rules also depend on the child’s age.
For young people aged 12 to 16, Dutch medical treatment generally requires consent from both the minor and the parent(s) with parental authority, subject to statutory 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 on religious grounds.
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 cover this in detail in a separate article:
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 school-age compulsory from the age of 5 and must in principle be enrolled in a school and attend that school.
However, there are statutory exceptions.
Under certain conditions, parents can apply for an exemption from enrollment, for example if they have serious objections to the direction — the religious or philosophical basis — of schools within a reasonable distance. The central government refers to this as an exemption on the grounds of objection to the school’s direction.
In addition, a pupil may receive an 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 educate a child at home. However, exemptions do exist under specific legal conditions, including an exemption based on 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 can come into view when behavior leads to, for example:
physical violence;
serious emotional abuse;
neglect;
structural insecurity;
a serious threat to a child’s development.
Legally, the issue is not the label religion, but what is actually happening to the child.
And shunning of 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.
Long-term exclusion, emotional rejection, withholding necessary care, or serious social isolation can, however, be part of a situation in which there is emotional abuse or neglect.
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 sad about a child’s choice of belief.
But parental authority also means the parent remains responsible for the child’s care, safety, and development.
A minor cannot simply be left without care because he or she no longer shares the same religious convictions.
When a child is actually abused, seriously neglected, or feels unsafe at home, there are options to seek help.
If you yourself are 16 or 17 and no longer want to believe
Maybe you live with parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses and you have started to have doubts yourself.
You do not first need to know exactly what you believe before talking to someone.
For example, you can say:
“I notice that I’m experiencing a lot of tension at home because I’ve started to think differently about religion.”
Or:
“I’m afraid to say that I no longer want to go to the meetings.”
A trusted person, mentor, family doctor, or other professional can first talk with you about 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 also ask for advice 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 that a child will be placed out of home or that an investigation will begin.
Veilig Thuis can first listen and give advice.
After a formal report, information is gathered, safety is assessed, and it is considered which next step is needed. That may include advice, help, or in some situations further investigation.
Since July 2026, the renewed 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 yourself are an ex-JW parent
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 is legally important.
The mere fact that your ex-partner is a Jehovah’s Witness is not a reason for child protection intervention.
However, when concrete problems arise — for example severe anxiety, ongoing pressure, medical conflicts, psychological harm, or a child getting stuck between both parents — assistance, mediation, or legal advice may be appropriate.
In cases of joint custody, a judge can ultimately also be asked to decide on an important 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, the 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.
That is why:
“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 correct:
“You’re a minor, so your opinion doesn’t matter at all.”
The best interests of the child are broader than safety alone
In religious conflicts, we quickly tend to think only of extreme situations.
But a child needs more than physical safety.
They also need:
emotional safety;
room for development;
contact with important people;
education;
medical care;
room to develop one’s own identity;
gradually increasing independence.
Religion can be a source of community, meaning, structure, and hope for a child.
For another child, a religious situation may instead cause tension or fear.
The law does not determine which religious belief is the right one.
The legal question is mainly about the child’s rights, development, and protection.
In conclusion
In the Netherlands, parents have broad freedom to pass their faith on to their children.
But a child is not only part of his or her parents’ religion.
It is also an independent person who develops and gradually forms their own beliefs.
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 for themselves and parents no longer have any say.”
The reality lies somewhere in between.
Parental authority remains in principle in place until the age of 18.
But as a child gets older and more mature, their own voice deserves increasing 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 forbidden, but because a child has rights of their own as well.
Sources
Civil Code Book 1 - Article 247 - parental authority, care, and upbringing
Jurisprudence - Parental authority
Jurisprudence - Procedure concerning a disagreement between parents with joint 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
Government of the Netherlands - compulsory education and qualification requirement
Government of the Netherlands - When does my child not have to go to school?
Government of the Netherlands - exemption on the grounds of religion or belief
Safe at Home - What does Safe at Home do?
Safe at Home - Child abuse
Jurisprudence - Disputes over joint authority
