TrueTomHarley

It is a big world and I have not seen everything. I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

Though some might say it is a matter of semantics, I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.
I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true.
 
I rather doubt this, too, if the child was the minor you imply he/she was. If I recall, when the subject of df'd family members was discussed in literature, it was a given that association would take place with a minor, but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

Perhaps, but it will have to come from someone else. I consider the reconciliation of the two statements plain as day, unless someone is deliberately trying to twist things to support a conclusion he has already come to. 
It might also be incomprehensible for someone just plain stupid, but I do not regard you as stupid, so I am reduced to the first possibility. At any rate, it is a game I do not feel able to play - repeating what I have already said.
 

Hmmm. Not only what you say, but also this description of the plaintiff:
"He contended his wife was a messy housekeeper and that caused his angry explosions of verbal abuse."
Today one does not pass Go nor collect $200 after such an incident. Abuse is a big no-no. With but minimal fabrication, one can imagine his favorite Elvis song: "Get out in that kitchen and rattle those pots and pans!"
 

If it is one of those frustratingly hard to pin down situations, there is no reason not to pin it down your way, whatever you decide that is.
Among the reasons we are asked to respect the decisions of a judicial committee is that they have had opportunity to examine everything relevant and will know the situation better than us. In the case of a close family member, this is rarely true. Thus:
One factor a family member might know of is the one you suggested - a person who no longer practices anything wrong but declines to rejoin the congregation. Reasonably, that could have a bearing on one's conscience. 
 
Take the organization at their word. Go on vacation with them if your conscience permits it, perhaps because of the situation already described. If it raises eyebrows, and you wish to explain, do so. At worst there is some peer pressure. Perhaps one may not be considered 'an example' and as such, may lose or not be considered for privileges. So be it. They are voluntary things anyway. If they disappear over such a thing, they disappear. It is a choice you can make.
Some of the eyebrow-raising, in the above scenario of one who desists wrongdoing but does not wish to return, will have to do with separateness as much as prior congregation discipline. Separateness was a real concept in Hebrew times - there is no reason to think it is less so in modern times.  Our people are taught the Bible principle that separateness is a good thing - remain separate from the world lest its influence gradually seep back into us, and through us, the congregation. There is no reason for the GB to underplay that concept just because it is not popular. A person today might think it narrow-minded or judgemental, but there is no way it is not scriptural. 
One might get experience pressure (and who is to say that is such a horrible thing? - people have been meddling in each other's affairs since the beginning of time), but the point is, there is no actual sanction over it. Do it if you want to.
One reason no one would be judged over yes/no on fractions is that they would not know about it. I know of no one else's stand on fractions other than my own and my wife's. It is the same with your conduct with a df'd family member. Discretion helps the medicine go down. 
Admittedly, the tone of theocratic counsel is toward firmness. It is: 'Consider that the counsel of df ones applies to a relative, unless you can think of why it wouldn't' - instead of the other way around. Nonetheless, based upon factors that only a family member would know, one might adhere to avoiding association with a df'd relative to a lesser extent than a non-related congregation member.

Read all comments again and you should be able to reconcile what was said. It is not hard.

It is a big world and I have not seen everything. I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

Could you explain this again, please?
The problem may have something to do with  Corinthians 2:14...
"But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually"
Whoever suggested that Kingdom Halls carried the designation of "Gun Free Zones" anyway? Didn't that just come from your own head?

What this case illustrates has nothing to do with guns or no guns.
What it illustrates is that the world continues to go to hell in a hand-basket and that the stupidist thing anyone can do is to criticize non-stop the Witness organization that educates people as to the significance of it. 
Incredibly, I know of some who are that stupid.

It is a big world and I have not seen everything. I can believe age 10 or early teens without a problem. But not 6.

Though some might say it is a matter of semantics, I say the Christian congregation does not tell Witness families not to associate with df'd children. What they do is point out that the principle of not associating with a df'd person is not negated merely because that one is a family member.
I doubt it. Not that you 'recalled' it that way, but that it was true.
 
I rather doubt this, too, if the child was the minor you imply he/she was. If I recall, when the subject of df'd family members was discussed in literature, it was a given that association would take place with a minor, but with an adult it might be possible to have almost no contact.

"Beware, my brothers. In the last days there will be false apostates who deceive with their false stories."

I think I may have something mean to you long ago when you first came online here. I take it all back. 
The loyal brothers in the bunker video didn't exactly blow away the invaders with their tommy-guns, did they?
 

@TrueTomHarley yes our desire to be "slow to anger" and not loving violence sets us apart. It doesn't make sense from a worldly perspective!! Although I don't judge a Christian that carries a gun, I think of how Jehovah God asked the Israelites to go into battle with no weapons. What a message sent to the nations that God has a people that rely on HIM and not physical weaponry. I think of the future when nations will turn violent against us. Will we think this is our fight? No. Jehovah says vengeance is his. Jehovah will protect his people pure from the bloody violence of this world.

It wouldn't have been if Quick-Draw McGraw was there. What a grand witness that would have been.

Everyone is grappling with this in diverse areas and many do not handle it especially well. In the world of current events, it results in charges of fake news for what are sometimes just different points of view. In science and medicine, the internet results in 'anecdotal reports,' which science hates because they are not something their system is able to assess or repeat.

Everyone is grappling with this in diverse areas and many do not handle it especially well. In the world of current events, it results in charges of fake news for what are sometimes just different points of view. In science and medicine, the internet results in 'anecdotal reports,' which science hates because they are not something their system is able to assess or repeat.

Aye. I too worked in the Art Department until me mates, what I thought was loyal, threw me under the ship in the Great Purge. Why, you say? For airbrushing feet in the songbook. Seas were rough then, I tell ye, but I never thought they would hurl me over the edge as the done me roommate Jonah. I hate em. I hate em. I hate em.
They weren't phony feet, I tell ye! I done me research. It was Stumpy McLevite. He was a shorty, as they say, and his head ended at most people's chest.
I'll get even, though. That one was a phony but I airbrushed thousands of real ones. I have them stored in a secret compartment in the Great Pyramid, right over the grand ballroom. Hehehe, nobody will ever find them!!!

I was about to explode over this but then I calmed down. I began to think it was not intended the way I, at first, took it. No matter. It lays groundwork for a good post:
After correctly assessing @Arauna's gifts, Srecko suggests she "could be very effective in a career or in volunteer work where you are handling people and serving in a humanitarian way." Oh yeah! Go for it Arauna! Why do you waste your time here? Ycu could amount to something. Your gifts could be useful. You could help fix the world! It's almost there; your talents might tip the balance. [okay, okay, so maybe Srecko was not recommending a career in the world but merely acknowledging she would be valuable anywhere, including right where she is.]
She could be one more talented person fed into the ever-open maw of a world that consumes them all without response.
Srecko is another strange bird to me - a lot of them are. It must be me. They are all normal and I am the weirdo! But he alternately says things very perceptive and very obtuse - confusing true tyranny with the traffic cop's direction to walk in the crosswalk. I can't figure it out.
If you leave God's congregation, you leave it. We all have free will. But it seems that if you do so you should take ownership of the world you have chosen. When you see mayhem on the TV - the fruitage of man's independence from God - embrace it! It's yours.  Witnesses will take ownership of Jehovah's organization, imperfect though it is. The only significant way I can picture a human organization doing much better is to banish the humans. You should take ownership of what you have chosen.
There is only one significant advantage from casting off the Christian congregation that I can picture - the delirious freedom of going where no one can tell you what to do! You can be frreeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It is intoxicating - like a drug. All other considerations - material and spiritual - go out the window!
And yet even that is not true - that you go where no one can tell you what to do. It may be true in the human sense, but that is the petty sense. By giving up on the sure resurrection hope, old age and death will surely tell you what to do. By giving up on the 'wisdom from above,' the 'schemes and trickery of men will surely tell you what to do,' for the air has authority. By giving up on the Bible's complete explanation of suffering, the 'shit happens' outlook of the world will surely tell you what to do.
By the time you pay your new master his dues, God's congregation and the GB will look positively like doddering indulgent grandparents in comparison. Witnesses sacrifice some petty freedoms for the sake of the large ones - no Witness would ever say otherwise. If you lose all faith in God's promises, however, those sacrifices seem for naught and people start complaining. It is no more complicated than that.