Judgment Of Lord Justice Ward Concerning The Family

JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 1

Click Here For A Warning Concerning This Judgment

THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD IN THIS CASE WHICH
HE GAVE IN CHAMBERS ON THE 26TH MAY 1995 BUT WHICH IS BEING
HANDED DOWN IN OPEN COURT TODAY. IT CONSISTS OF 295 PAGES
AND HAS BEEN SIGNED AND DATED BY THE JUDGE.

THE JUDGE HEREBY DIRECTS THAT NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT
NEED BE TAKEN AND THAT THE VERSION HANDED DOWN MAY BE
TREATED AS AUTHENTIC.

THE JUDGMENT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED ON THE STRICT
UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ANY REPORT OF IT NO PERSON (OTHER THAT
COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND THOSE PERSONS
IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE JUDGMENT ITSELF) MAY BE IDENTIFIED
BY NAME AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THE ANONYMITY OF THE CHILD, A
WARD OF COURT, AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY MUST BE
STRICTLY PRESERVED.

SIGNED:

THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD DATED 19TH OCTOBER 1995

W 42 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY DIVISION

PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IN THE MATTER OF ST (A MINOR)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT 1991h

Lord Justice Ward

PREFACE

For reasons set out in my judgment, I have permitted the
publication of this judgment in order that the media, who
are aware of these proceedings, may legitimately publish
matters which seem to me undoubtedly to be matters of public
interest. There is, however, no legitimate public interest
in the identity of the parties to these proceedings and I
have accordingly granted an injunction to which reference
must be made for its full terms and effect but the general
tenure of which is to restrain any publication which will
identify or which is calculated to lead to the
identification of the child who is and will remain a ward of
court or of the parties to these proceedings or of the
address in Leicestershire as being the home where the child
is living. In the course of the hearing I received much
evidence of and affecting other children whose identity is
confidential to these proceedings and must likewise not be
disclosed except under the initials given to them in the
judgment. I also received evidence from a number of adults
some of whom have already publicly disclosed some details of
the life within The family. Others have maintained their
silence. As I explained to all witnesses, the evidence they
gave me was confidential to the proceedings and I would
respect that confidentiality. Accordingly those witnesses
are also named by initial only and the identity of those
witnesses is likewise protected from public disclosure
unless and until that witness freely and not under pressure
expressly waives that privilege. If, therefore, the media
consider that there is any more to tell then I am about to
unfold in a lengthy judgment, then I hope they will conduct
there further enquiries discretely and responsibly and above
all mindful of my injunctions which they must please
respect.

The parties will find at the back of this judgment a list
which may be unfolded which will identify for them the names
of those who appear in the judgment under initials only. For
the preparation of this schedule and for so much other work,
I pay tribute to and give thanks for the industry of Mr
Marcus Scott - Manderson.

JUDGMENT

I began to write this judgment on the first day of the new
legal year after the service for the Judges at Westminster
Abbey and with the words of the lesson read by the Lord
Chancellor ringing in my ears. From Romans xiii: 10 "Love
worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the
fulfilling of the law." The Dean's prayer for the Judiciary
was that they "may be granted the Spirit of Discernment and
the Spirit of Love that they may boldly, discreetly and
mercifully fulfil their sacred duties, to the good of Thy
people and the glory of Thy name." It all seemed so
apposite, for this case is - or at least it professes to be
- all about love. Love is, of course, an old, old story. "
Amor omnia vincit et nos cedemas amori" - love conquers all,
let us surrender ourselves to love - wrote Virgil; "Love is
all you need," sang the Beatles. If the theme was timeless,
so seemed this case, especially in my many moments of
exasperation during the hearing and in the months it has
taken to complete this judgment. It has needed the noble
subject of love to expiate the ignoble distinction of being
the longest wardship ever tried and I hang my head in shame
to publish the fact that this hearing lasted 75 days and
that is has taken me nigh on a year to produce this
judgment.

These long months have been spent trying the issues joined
between the Plaintiff Mrs T., a grandmother, and the
Defendant NT, her daughter, each so strongly imbued with
that instinctive love for her offspring, and in
grandmother's case also her offspring's offspring, that each
has never flinched or contemplated surrender in this titanic
struggle to secure the care and control of the much loved
child in question, the Defendant's son, S. At no time has
there been any issue about this young mother's ability
properly to love her child and to attend to all his physical
needs and the only harm from which grandmother seeks to
protect him is the harm she alleges he will suffer from
remaining with his mother as faithful members of what is
popularly but inaccurately known as a cult, the Children of
God, now known as The Family of Love or simply as The
Family. This new religious movement, which is a preferable
expression to "cult," was founded and led by David "Moses"
Berg. They live by the Law of Love, the central principle of
which is:

"Now all things are lawful to us in love, Praise God! As
long as it's done in love, it keeps God's only law of
love."(The writings are invariably given some emphasis which
I intend not to repeat throughout this judgment save
exceptionally.)"

This is another notion of love which I have had to
investigate. Much time has been devoted to identifying the
extent to which, if at all, sexual excesses have flowed from
the freedoms conferred by the Law of Love, and the extent to
which inappropriate methods of discipline and control have
been imposed upon the members of the group, particularly the
children, all in the name of Love on the basis commonly, if
not accurately, attributed to Saint Augustine," Ama et fac
quod vis" - "Love and do what you will." The Defendant's and
the group's love for their leader, "Father David" is so
resolute that the Plaintiff invites me to consider whether,
as Portia mused, "Love is blind and lovers cannot see the
pretty follies that themselves commit".

The mother claims the inalienable right to love her God as
she chooses, which is a love she submits brooks no
interference from a Court of Law because she is entitled to
the fundamental freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion.

I feel somewhat caught in the spider's web of which the
Canadian Chief Justice Lamer wrote in his Alexander Thane
Lecture in Law when dealing with the difficulty Judges face
in deciding issues of social policy:

"I sometimes think of these sorts of cases as being somewhat
like a spider's web. If you pull on one strand of the web,
the entire structure moves, but not necessarily all in the
same direction. The implications are widespread and, at
times, hard to foresee."

Let me now identify some of the main strands of this
spider's web.

The child concerned, S, was made a Ward of Court 8 days
after his birth on 10th February 1992 when his maternal
grandmother issued an Originating Summons in Wardship, the
Defendant to which, as I have indicated, was her daughter,
NT. It was my unhappy lot to be the Applications' Judge when
grandmother applied for Orders directed to the Tipstaff to
seek and find S. I soon invited the Official Solicitor to
act as his guardian at litem and I am most grateful to him
for invaluable assistance. The Plaintiff's has voiced her
anxieties about the practices of the Children of God because
the group has, over the years and on several continents,
excited the attention of the police, the Courts and,
inevitably, the media. Even as this case has been
progressing, there have been newspaper articles and
television programmes about them. The media know about and
express interest in the outcome of these proceedings.
Because S is a Ward of Court, I would be entitled to give
this Judgment in camera in order to preserve the
confidentiality not only of my Ward and the parties but also
the many witnesses who have given evidence and who were
reminded and perhaps consoled by me that it would be a
Contempt of Court to publish information relating to these
proceedings. That is not to say that they are prohibited
from telling their life's story but they are restrained from
relating it with reference to these proceedings. In deciding
whether to exercise the power I undoubtedly have to give
judgment, or a resume of my judgment, in open Court with
liberty, therefore, to publish it, I have regard to the
following matters:-

(a) The high level of rumour and speculation about the
activities of the Children of God.

(b) The proceedings that have been heard in and are still
pending in other jurisdictions.

(c) Matters of public importance touching on religious
freedom and education.

(d) The time and expense incurred in this hearing, some
of it - but happily not all of it - a drain on the public
purse.

(e) The implications of this Judgment for the other
parents and children within The Family in the United Kingdom
and for the local authorities and education authorities in
whose area they live - even though these findings are of
course not binding on any of them.

In the light of those considerations, I conclude that the
public interest is best served by this Judgment being
delivered in Open Court, subject, however, and the media
must please take note, to restrictions I have placed by way
of injunction of general application to restrain any
publicity which identifies my Ward or the parties to this
dispute or even the identity of children and of the
witnesses who gave evidence - all of whom are referred by
initials - unless they expressly waive the privilege of
anonymity. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the effect of
the media descending upon the home in which the child lives
- " doorstepping" is, I believe, the colloquialism for this
journalistic technique - will be grievously upsetting to the
members of the community in which my Ward lives, and will
accordingly upset and cause harm to my Ward. The group see
that as "persecution" and I agree that "doorstepping" would
be exactly that. I very much hope the media will not find it
necessary to intrude. The leaders of the community have
expressed their willingness to make arrangements for a news
conference and I welcome that but I repeat that the
anonymity of the parties, the child and the witnesses must
be respected. There is surely enough of a story in, and the
public interest must be sufficiently satisfied by reporting
the facts I am about to set out.

THE PARTIES

I ask the media please to respect the privacy of the parties
who in wardship proceedings ordinarily would not suffer
delicate details of domestic differences being disclosed to
the general public and I invite, and having invited, I
expect the media to be discreet in their reporting of this
part of the Judgment.

The Plaintiff is a lady some 58 years of age. She married in
1966 and two children were born of the marriage, NT who is
not far short of her 28th birthday and CT who will soon be
26. Both sides of the family seemed comfortably placed and
they lived an easy life in Kenya. When NT was about 10 she
was sent to boarding school in England, as was CT in due
time. It was a conventional step to take, one which I am
sure was genuinely believed by both parents to be in the
childrens' interest, but the separation of these young
children from their parents and the deep unhappiness it
caused them, has an ironic edge to it considered against
certain Family practices I have heard so much about. This
marriage was not a happy one. The Plaintiff and her husband
separated in 1981 and were divorced in 1982. It was an
acrimonious, bitter divorce which took its toll upon the
Plaintiff and no doubt on all the other members of the
family and they all still seem to suffer.

In 1983 the Plaintiff's stepfather died. He was a wealthy
man who set up a series of Trust Funds from which the
Plaintiff and her children, among others, have benefited.
Each of them has a substantial private income which has
taken them way outside the Legal Aid limit. For a long time
both mother and daughter were represented by solicitors with
Leading Counsel and Junior Counsel. By October last the
Plaintiff had already been forced to dispense with Leading
Counsel and the Defendant's Leader availed of the
opportunity to make legal submissions to me in the course of
that long directions appointment and I gave a separate
Judgment, which may now be reported, when I refused to
discharge the Wardship. When this hearing began in January
1994, the Plaintiff had to appear in person. I gave leave
that she might be assisted by Miss Jenny Kent, who
conveniently had knowledge of the case having worked on it
as the pupil of Counsel who had been acting for the
Plaintiff. Miss Kent who has had perforce to serve much of
her pupilage having effective conduct of this case, not with
right of audience but only as the "McKenzie friend." The
first time she rose to her feet as a fully fledged barrister
was to make the closing submissions on the Plaintiff's
behalf. What an ordeal. But how well she did it! She won my
unreserved admiration for a most polished maiden speech.

It had seemed that the Defendant would also run out of money
and appear in person. Mr Richard Barton, not greatly senior
to Miss Kent, had some earlier knowledge of the case as the
Chambers' Devil, and appeared on the first day of the
hearing applying unsuccessfully on behalf of other members
of the community to be joined as parties. He was, however,
retained by the mother. He was immediately thrown in the
deep end, given precious little time to prepare but he has
kept his head above the water - and at times below the
parapet - in a way which has also won my admiration.
Tributes to Counsel would not be complete without my
acknowledging the great help I have received from Miss
Pamela Scriven QC and Mr Marcus Scott-Manderson ably and
fully instructed by the Official Solicitor. Mr Roderick Wood
QC breezed in grandly at the end to make an erudite
contribution on the law as amicus curiae, having the
assistance of notes mainly made by Miss Rachel Platt, at
least until she went off to get married! .

I have interrupted the story. NT had an unhappy and a
troubled time at school and did herself little credit until
her third year. She then settled and showed her mettle. It
was difficult for her because she was witness to the
parental arguments during her school holidays, conscious of
her father's infidelity and deeply upset by these troubles
at home. At 16 she was caught smoking and was expelled.
Grandmother, naturally protective of her daughter, was more
angry with the headmistress than with NT.

CT was no more happy. His misfortune was to witness a master
at his preparatory school indecently assaulting a friend. He
knows, and his sister knows, what a searing and abusive
experience that was not only for the victim but for the
observer. That knowledge should have induced some sympathy
for some of the witnesses called by the Plaintiff but the
connection did not seem to be made despite my prompting. The
Plaintiff's response on learning of this indecency was
wholly predictable: she removed CT at once. Again the
parallel with this case is not acknowledged by either of her
children. In due time he went on to public school and then
to art school. He, too, was unsettled by his life's
experiences and was without purpose or direction.

His father had not set him a good example. He is a man of
great charm but his lifestyle has defied the convention of
his class, upbringing, and military service. He remained in
Kenya after the divorce living in a "camp" with a
girlfriend. I have the impression of a fairly lax, free and
easy mode of life but the detail does not matter at all. He
is too much of a rouŽ to be a good really father, but as he
gave evidence, I warmed to him more than I had thought
likely. It is not at all surprising to hear NT declare that
she was much closer to her father than to her mother, nor is
it a surprise to me that CT felt more comfortable with his
mother than with his father. It is sufficient for this
judgment to express the finding that each of these parents,
so utterly different in temperament and outlook, established
enduring attachments with each of the children. In
particular I find that no matter how frequently over the
years mother and daughter clashed and opposed each other in
the manner of like poles in the magnetic field, they have
loved each other with a strength which has survived despite
NT's protestations of a present deep antipathy and hostility
which she has even described as hatred for her mother
because of the action taken by her mother in these
proceedings.

1986 was another unhappy year for the family. The strain of
the matrimonial difficulties, the struggle to keep the house
for the family and to preserve some security for them took
its toll upon the Plaintiff who suffered a deep depression
and made a serious attempt upon her life. NT having obtained
her qualification in business studies, found her employment
as a temporary typist singularly unfulfilling and she
returned to Kenya where things were no better. "Everyone",
she said, "seemed to live rather shallow lives dominated by
sex and drugs." The Plaintiff may rue the day she suggested
to NT that they attend a meditation course. Father and his
girlfriend joined in. It did not appeal to the Plaintiff but
it had a very great attraction for her former husband who
became an acolyte of a Gurumayi to whose Ashram he retreated
for instruction. His 21st birthday present to NT was a
holiday in India to join him near Bombay. She went. She
stayed, but it did not seem to be exactly her cup of tea.
Nepal beckoned. Her modest resorting to drugs gave her
respite from the emptiness of her existence. It was an
emptiness just waiting to be filled. Little imagination is
needed to complete the rest of the story. Members of the
Children of God were laudably engaged in their ministry to
spread the gospel of Christ along the hippy trail to
Kathmandu. They invited NT to pray that the Holy Spirit
might come into her life. Deeply sceptical if not also
forthrightly hostile to the idea that Christianity offered
any salvation, she nonetheless joined in prayer. The prayer
was answered. She was reborn. She forsook all and joined the
group.

This laconic account is not intended to conceal how
momentous an event this was - and is - in the life of this
young lady, nor do I wish to denigrate the similar occasion
for other members of the group or for so many others of
different persuasions who have experienced the cataclysmic
joy of becoming what is sometimes disparagingly called
"reborn Christians". The change in their life is the obvious
evidence of their conversion but the light in their eye is
more compelling testimony of the power that drives them
onwards. For those, like this Plaintiff, who do not follow
suit, the change is often totally perplexing and
incomprehensible.

Meanwhile CT had returned to Kenya and sought his solace in
heroin. In the summer of 1988 he travelled to India to visit
NT whom he found to be a much changed and improved person.
At the instigation of The Family, he, too, accepted Jesus
into his heart.

The Plaintiff and her children corresponded on affectionate
terms, NT showing more affection than had been her wont. She
returned to London early in 1989. She and her mother met
with some regularity. Some time in about 1990 NT took her
mother to a house in North London and the Plaintiff had the
distinct feeling that the house was on show to outsiders. NT
did not disclose that she lived elsewhere. In July 1991 NT
accompanied by a member of the group visited her mother and
told her she was pregnant. Again she was not frank as to
where she was living. Shortly afterwards the Plaintiff
learnt that the group whom NT had described as being
"Heaven's Magic", was in fact the Children of God. What she
learnt about them from disaffected former members filled her
with absolute horror.

At a meeting at her home arranged in August 1992, the
Plaintiff introduced NT to former members with close links
to so called anti-cult organisations. The daughter of one of
them, NT, a young teenager 15 years of age, spoke of her
unhappy experiences and later repeated them to me in
evidence. NT was unimpressed. The relationship between
mother and daughter was fractured and so far there has been
little time of healing.

CT had travelled with The Family to Thailand and cancelled
his mother's proposed visit to him for fear that she, with
the assistance of the anti-cult organisations, would kidnap
him and 'de-programme' him against the contamination of his
'brain-washing' by David `Moses' Berg and his followers.
These events have assumed enormous significance in the minds
of NT and CT. Of course they are right to believe that their
mother was intent upon persuading them to leave their group
but I am totally satisfied that she did not plan any
kidnapping or anything of the kind and no sinister plot for
'de-programming' existed at all.

On 13 December 1991 NT telephoned her mother to say she
would contact her when the baby had been born. She wrote
saying that she did not wish her mother to be in England for
the birth. In fact NT, fearing her abduction, went to
Scotland where S was born on 10 February 1992. It is not
insignificant as a pointer to the true relationship which
exists between mother and daughter that NT confided the fact
of S's birth to her mother, not to her father. It is also
noteworthy how involved the plaintiff was in these events in
contrast with the new grandfather who knew nothing of the
birth of his grandson until that information was conveyed to
him a month later at a cocktail party.

The Wardship proceedings were started. The information
placed before me led my taking the most unusual step of
ordering that if S were found by the Tipstaff he should be
removed from his mother and placed in the interim care of
his grandmother until I could deal further with the matter.
It was an unfortunate consequence of that order that the
police attended, as agents for the Tipstaff, at a home where
the Defendant had been living in Essex and that 'raid'
naturally caused fear and alarm to the adults and especially
the children, who lived in that community. I regret that it
happened and with hindsight I regret making that order.
After various attempts had been made to enforce the order,
NT made contact with solicitors in a way which satisfied me
I could trust her to remain within the jurisdiction whilst
these serious matters were investigated. I discharged the
order giving care and control to grandmother and placed my
trust in NT to look after her child and to keep him here. My
trust in her has been repaid not least to the extent that I
can be satisfied that S has been well cared for and has
grown into a delightful little boy. To be fair to the
plaintiff, I should also emphasis that it is has always been
her case that NT has all the qualities of a good mother and
the plaintiff's only complaint about NT is her continuing
membership of The Family.

THE CHILDREN OF GOD

Their founder and their leader was David Berg. He was born
in February 1919 in California of parents both of whom were
Evangelists. In his teenage years, he spent much time
travelling with his mother as she fulfilled her pastoral and
preaching duties. His mother seems to have been a powerful
influence on his life. He was drafted into the army but
invalided out after a severe attack of double pneumonia
which took him so close to death's door that he vowed to
serve the Lord if he were spared. He has honoured his
promise. He married in 1943. He had four children, Deborah,
a disaffected member and now an arch enemy of the group. His
second child was Aaron who died in a climbing accident
leaving a daughter MB. Hosea and Faithy remain loyal to the
group.

In about 1953 Berg and one Fred Jordan, a well known
Evangelist of the time, travelled the United States
preaching and witnessing on a person to person basis. They
pioneered television evangelism. They parted company in
1965. In 1966 Berg, then "Uncle Dave", established "Teens
for Christ" and in 1968, a ministry for hippies in
Huntington Beach near Los Angeles. Young people, students
and even graduates, drop-outs and hippies were attracted to
him. He was powerfully charismatic. As the young flock to
him, parents began to rumble with discontent. As the group
staged public demonstrations to condemn the evils of
American society, they attracted the attention of the press.
In 1969, a journalist dubbed them 'The Children of God' and
the name stuck. The group travelled through the United
States and Canada in caravans and during this period Berg
became known as "Moses". He travelled abroad in 1970 and
began to write his "Mo letters." The group was expanding
rapidly as more and more young adults, often from prosperous
homes but varying religious backgrounds, joined the communal
life which was in such stark political contrast with the
individualism of middle class American society.
Relationships with established pentecostal and evangelical
churches were fractured. The movement had become
revolutionary and they proclaimed themselves as such. In
1970 Berg received what became known as the 'All Things'
revelation which was based largely on the scripture, 'All
things are lawful unto us' (1 Cor. 6:12). 'All Things' meant
exactly what it said and out of this evolved the fundamental
article of faith that all things, including, notoriously,
the enjoyment of sexual freedom, were lawful to those who
were motivated by love.

In its early practical application this freedom was granted
so that a member, who was required to go on an outreach team
to open up a new community, leaving his wife behind, might
have his sexual needs satisfied by one of the other woman
going on that expedition. At first the freedoms were granted
only to the leaders at the Texas Soul Clinic who enjoyed the
practice known as sharing, i.e. the free sharing of sexual
favours, which favours were to be bestowed sacrificially,
unselfishly and in love to meet the desperate need of
whomsoever sought that favour. As leaders left the TSC to
establish their own communities they took the liberties with
them and misused them. Berg made proper attempts to rein in
these excesses.

The movement was growing rapidly. What had begun with one
home for about 50 members in Huntington Beach in 1968 had
grown to about 300 in 1970, 1500 in 1971 and by 1973 there
were 2244 members in 180 homes. The sexual revolution
continued to be promoted as Berg challenged the restrictive
attitudes towards sex fostered by many churches and still
held by many of his members. A number of important letters,
known as "Mo Letters", were written in this period. "Moses"
was a name taken by Berg perhaps because Moses was both
pastor and prophet. Others in the group assumed biblical
names. Of these letters, 'The Art of Oh' and 'Mountain Maid'
extolled the wonders of love, sex and the beauties of the
female form; 'Revolutionary Women' informed the reader that
sexual attraction was natural and God-given and in "Come on
Ma! - Burn your Bra," nudity was encouraged. In
'Revolutionary Sex' no sexual activity, except sodomy, was
to be regarded as sinful. In 'One Wife' the theme that
sexual relations outside of monogamous marriage could be
permissible, was such a revolutionary view, except to the
leaders accustomed to sharing, that most of the flock failed
to see the message.

Late in 1973 while living in London, Berg and his soi-disant
"second wife", Maria came across lonely members of their
dance club and began using her sexual charms - and sexual
intercourse - as a means of witnessing to and showing them a
tangible sample and proof of the sacrificial love of God.
This became a major but infamous ministry. A series of
letters encouraged the women - and the men - to engage in
'Flirty Fishing', and become "hookers of men for Christ."

The organization of the Children of God was in the hands of
a World Council of Ministers appointed by Berg but mainly
drawn from his family. There was a structure of ministers,
bishops, regional shepherds, district shepherds and finally
colony shepherds. The original big 'blobs' were broken down
into smaller colonies and each colony tithed 10% of its
income derived from the sale of its pamphlets and posters
and - not unimportantly - the 10% of the monies received in
consideration for the Flirty Fishing activities in which so
many of the women had become engaged. By 1978 there was a
strong feeling that some of the leaders were using the
colonies' income to support their own private life-style,
forcing the ordinary members into more penurious
circumstances. Berg struck. The leaders were dismissed. In
the RNR, the Re-organisation Nationalisation Revolution
letter, Berg took over as 'a one-man band dictatorship' with
supervision for the local homes coming "straight from the
top, primarily direct through the letters, with exactly what
to do and what not to do." The dismissal of the leaders had
two important consequences. Firstly the deposed Jethro and
Deborah Davis became the focus of a growing campaign against
the Children of God. Secondly without direct leadership,
many homes broke up and the members dispersed even though
they still continued to receive the Mo letters.

Go To Part Two . . .