Judgment Of Lord Justice Ward Concerning The Family

JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 15

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

There are other letters where Berg dealt with murmurers. For
example, "God Hates Murmuring" written in November 1984,
another letter produced by MS. Murmurers were some of the
worst bad apples and bad apples had to be removed.
Consequently, Berg made his antagonism towards them plain
and said explicitly,

"If you don't like it here, for God's sake, get out and go
some place else where you like it better."

It is obviously right for the maintenance of good communal
spirit that any who foment insurrection should be expelled.
My concern is for the children, especially those who have
been born into The Family and who have no contact with their
natural family outside it. I am troubled that there seems a
woeful lack of appreciation just how terrifying it must be
for the young teenager, perhaps in a foreign field, to "go
some place else where you like it better" when he has
nowhere else to go. This is the grandmother's concern for S.
It is my concern accordingly. Without his maintaining good
contact with his grandmother, his natural escape route is
blocked.

It is not a surprise to me nor is it a surprise to the
leadership that joining The Family is invariably greeted by
the forsaken parents with nothing short of horror. Many an
appalled parent would find it impossible to come to terms
with such a decision; but others might subjugate their
distaste in the interest of preserving family contact. Many
of the witnesses told me convincingly of their having close
loving contact with their family outside. Whilst it might be
invidious to pick but one name from the many who gave
evidence to me, I could point to CO, father of JL as example
of the latter. To give another example closer to home, SB at
one point entertained some hope of marrying NT. He was
educated at Winchester and has a similarly conventional
English background to NT. Unlike the Plaintiff, his mother
seemed able, perhaps uneasily, to extend hospitality to SB
and NT and S without tension rendering the visits
uncomfortable. In fact, witness after witness produced
bundles of photographs to convince me of the good
relationship maintained with their system families. It all
depends on the level of acceptance, resignation or hostility
between the members and the outside families. The position
was stated in this way in The Jumbo Story part 5 written in
June 1988:

"Mama sent us some very good counsel on the danger of
keeping up close communication with relatives that are not
favourable:

"If our parents and relatives are favourable it's a
different story, as it's a opportunity for us to not only
lead them to the Lord, but feed them, etc. Other than that,
we have so little in common with our flesh family, that it's
really a waste of time to keep in close contact with them if
they're totally unreceptive."

Another form of tension, perhaps more acute, arises when a
person defects from The Family leaving close relatives in
the group. Berg's relationship with his daughter Deborah and
hers with him could scarcely be described as anything other
than poisonous. The J family are deeply split between the
anti-cult faction of mother and one daughter on one hand and
father Simon Peter, a powerful figure still in World
Services and daughter C2 on the other hand. When he
separated from his wife VJ, C2 went with him and KJ stayed
with mother. The girls had renewed some contact recently but
KJ's participation in these proceedings brought that to an
abrupt end. Father telephoned to berate her angrily about
the evidence she had filed. "What I really wanted to hear
from him," she told me sadly, "Was, "Hi daughter, how are
you?"" Although I quote him slightly out of context, I
cannot help but note the terrible irony between his rebuff
of his daughter in that conversation and words he wrote in
the Beauty and the Beast series where a child in the cartoon
says:-

"Thank you Jesus for real fathers! .. Have you got a real
father?"

KJ's answer to his question would be, "No!"

A surprising feature of the many months of evidence was the
lack of deep emotion shown by almost everybody. One
exception was AB. She broke down in cross-examination and
became very distressed because her mother had failed to make
contact with her. This was a family who had lived their life
on the run because stepfather was wanted by the American
authorities for breach of custody orders relating to his
children.

Another feature of the evidence was the uncontradicted fact
that many, many young children were separated from their
parents, and were moved from one foreign field to another.
That this was Family policy is made manifest by the letter,
"A Teen Challenge" written by Apollos from his eyrie within
World Services to his sons EG and JG both of whom gave
evidence to me, for defendant and plaintiff respectively. He
wrote:-

"As I am sure you know, we both love you very much and would
love to be with you, to fight by your side on the fields of
the world, winning souls, witnessing His word and preaching
the Gospel to all whom we could, and also to be there with
you to help bear your burdens, share lessons with you and do
all that we could to help you do your best for Jesus! But as
you also well know the Lord had a special job that he wanted
us to do, something that required me to make a choice: to
stick with and tend to you, my precious personal family, and
therefore be able to minister to you, enjoy your fellowship,
feed you what I could from the Word etc. etc. or be willing
to commit you all to Him in order to spend most of my time
down in the mines of the Word, digging up the gold and the
precious metals and jewels which can be a blessing and a
help and a strength not just to you all, but to the entire
Family. ... Of course it has cost us something to give up
you, our own dear children, and it has no doubt cost you
something to give us up, but like David said, "I will not
give unto the Lord that which hath cost me nothing!" and he
also has promised you "a hundred-fold in this life, and in
the world to come, life eternal"!!

EG's response was:-

"I don't feel in any way that you've forsaken me. But I have
to admit that sometimes, although my mind can figure out
completely why you're not here and I'm not there, I've
course miss you and there are times when I feel how much
better off I'd be living with you. Of course I miss you both
very much and the devil even uses this sometimes to try to
come in and get me discouraged. But I know the Lord has and
is getting greater victories out of it all. ... As the
evacuation of The Family in this country is well under way,
it seems a lot of other teens will be forsaking their
parents and not living in the same country as them any more,
just how I have had to do with you. So that's nice to know
that I'm not alone."

EG had just turned 14 at that time, JG was a year younger.
They were shipped off to Macau where the conditions were as
I have described and there they were left. I have seen both
boys now going their separate ways. By your fruits shall ye
know them. The fruit I saw was emotionally bruised. It would
be utterly idle to pretend otherwise.

This was a time where the "forsake all" message was being
heavily promulgated. "The Heavenly City School Training
Seminar Notes TSN No. 2" had Sara saying:-

"We are all parents these days and most of us have had to
forsake our own kids to be in a school or position. It
really costs us everything ... there is no more holding
back. If the Lord is expecting you to care for someone
else's kids and if you can love them as your own, you will
really appreciate that when the same is required of you!
Forsaking all is not exactly easy for our kids but the Lord
is even requiring it now of many of our children, even
toddlers and babies."

I must not forget that that was written at the time of the
"School Vision" and that things have moved away from that
since then.

These conclusions can be safely drawn:-

1. In the nature of their missionary endeavours,
separations are more likely within The Family than outside
it.

2. The heavy compulsion of the forsake all doctrine makes
separations in fact even more likely to occur.

3. Long separations and/or frequent separations are a
threat to childrens' security and stability and therefore
harmful.

4. The Family's position at or near (some would say
beyond) the extremity of conventional religious practice
renders it more likely that family relationships between
those within and without the movement will be fractured,
often seriously so.

5. Children who do not have a satisfactory relationship
with their wider "system" family may suffer.

6. These factors pose risks of harm to S.

SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS ON EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL
IMPAIRMENT:

1. The use of isolation and silence restriction was
frequently carried to excess and children were damaged by
their experience of it.

2. The use of O.H.R's was capable of unfair exploitation
to the disadvantage of those who felt compelled to give some
disclosure lest they be punished for pride and
self-righteousness.

3. Undue pressure was placed on children by the traumatic
testimonies and the fear that any raising of doubt would
lead to expulsion from The Family and banishment to the
system caused apprehension.

4. The children were socially isolated.

5. Forsaking all was harmful.

6. Self was subjugated to service to The Family.

PHYSICAL ILL-TREATMENT

This topic assumed more and more importance as the case
progressed. Again I begin with some analysis of the
literature.

THE RELEVANT LITERATURE

"Home Discipline" was written in March 1972. The sub-title
is, I note with approval was: "Law without enforcement is no
law at all!" He explained why. "If you don't enforce it,
your word means nothing." I shall remember that! In
paragraph 12 I found an early example of Berg's attitude to
corporal punishment:-

"Why do you think God says, "Spare not the rod for his
crying"? (Pr. 19: 18.) They start yelling long before you
sock them with rod, because they're afraid of the rod and
don't want to be spanked! A lot of these people will scream
louder before they are sentenced than afterwards, trying to
forestall punishment."

In August 1975 he wrote "Lashes of Love". There was a
revealing cartoon showing a man embracing a very young boy.
The man was holding a branch ("twig" as it has sometimes
euphemistically been called). The "switch" is gnarled where
the smaller side stems have been removed. I draw attention
to that picture because, as I later set out, it is quite
apparent to me that such implements have been frequently
used and it is an illustration of the power of the
literature to influence behaviour. I must recite several
passages. Though its authenticity was questioned, I am
satisfied it is part of Family literature:-

"We feel sorry for a child or babe or whoever it may be
because they seem to hurt so bad and they yell so loud and
you're tempted to stop the spanking a little prematurely
before they've really learnt their lesson. But don't rescue
them prematurely until you're sure the job is done. Now this
may sound cruel to you but it's the truth. ... But with the
small children who don't understand an awful lot of
reasoning sometimes, you just have to apply the rod. ...
They try to scream real loud at first to make you think
you're practically murdering them, and the whole
neighbourhood too sometimes. They'll get sympathy from the
neighbours if they can, so that you won't spank them as hard
as they probably know they need it! I use to tell Mom that
the time to stop spanking is not when they're screaming,
it's when they stop screaming and beg for mercy! I usually
used a fly swatter. It's a very nice handy weapon. ... I
usually use the handle end, and it does sting, I'll tell
you! Sometimes it leaves little red lines too, stripes, but
by their stripes they are healed! ... I would start applying
the fly swatter, and oh my, how they would scream at first,
but then as I really laid it on when they really deserved
it, then they stop that loud yelling and then they began to
really beg for mercy, I mean sincerely."

"Baby and Toddler Discipline! - begins at 6 months!" was
written in October 1983. In it he referred to smacking
Techi's hand but he also described how he used corporal
punishment when teaching at a high school. There followed
this interesting passage:-

"I even had to use a paddle on him a few times. I had a nice
great big paddle. I don't know whether you ever saw one of
those old fashioned bread boards with a handle, but let me
tell you, one whack with that thing and they felt it. ... We
believed in applying the rod, and in my case it was a big
bread board! Well, I figured it was a little bit heavy, but
it was so broad it couldn't possibly hurt'm, but they could
feel it and it sort of knocked'm off balance once in a
while."

"Child Discipline" was written in March 1976. It was a talk
given to Sara when David was 11Ú2 years old. This was his
advice:-

"You need to use something to punish kids that doesn't
injure them any, but really hurts. My children really feared
that fly swatter, I'll tell you! Like the old family belt!
... my Mother always had a little switch handy, like off the
tree, a little tree branch. And brother, did that sting ...
If he keeps persisting then just swat him good and hard ...
You've got to have a rod or a fly swatter or a little stick
or belt, something they know really hurts. ... My Mother
would sit down and cry with the whip in her hands, "This is
going to hurt me more than it hurts you." ... I do think we
ought to get up a list of standard rules of chastisement or
punishments for children ... but if they persist, sock it
to'm! But never with such harsh or severe force as to
actually injure, only hurt. Do it in love as the Lord does
and if you really love them and they know it and love you,
they'll eventually keep your commandments! And everybody
will be happier in the end!"

This was republished in 1984.

"Child care Discipline Jewels" seems to have been taken from
a collection of previous writings. It addressed the problem
that there were different standards of discipline adopted by
different families within the home."

"The answer has to be real strict discipline from the very
beginning for everyone - adults and children alike! It's
important that all the parents and children know and agree
upon all the rules the children are expected to obey so that
anyone can discipline any of the children and not just the
particular mother or father of the offending child! ...
Things have to be run like an army because you just can
always treat each child individually in a large home with a
lot of children, and the more people you have, the more
regimented and organised things have to be. ... So our
parents who won't discipline their children are just going
to have to learn to, and start now! And when they're not
with their own child, they shouldn't be hurt or sensitive
about his getting a spanking or correction from others!
They're just going to have to let the people who help take
care of him go ahead and do it because we can't put up with
foolishness and rowdiness and defiance in our children!
Thank God for the parents and helpers who we have who do
discipline and know how to apply the rod and the word. I
don't know why anybody would mind their child being
disciplined. You know that every smack they get is helping
them to be a better child in the future and it's really
worth it all. Some people go to the extremes of course and
it's all unjustified or harsh, that's something different,
but that shouldn't have to happen in our Family! Children
really need to get disciplined when they are young, and
especially toddlers! ... You have to use discipline no
matter what age they are. ... And that is also one of the
worst things you can do - to give punishment that is too
severe, too harsh, more than the crime or disobedience
really justifies. ... The best way is the love way! The best
way is the gentle way and not the breaking way and the force
way or the legal way of the old law! The best law is love
... if the gentling and persuading, the love and the
reasoning and the leading, the teaching doesn't work and
they're still stubbornly wilfully disobedient, then you've
got to apply the rod (Maria: Lord help us all to find the
right balance in these important matters of disciplining our
children)."

Finally "Dad on Kidz Correction" dated October 1985. Where
he wrote:-

"Whoever's going to be teaching teenagers is going to have
to learn that corporal punishment, except as a last resort,
is not the answer to our kind of teenagers ... There are
other ways you can correct them, I don't even like to use
the word "punish" them. That's what chastening means, it
does not only mean punishment, it means child training. The
thing that really hurts them the worst is first of all just
to displease, they don't really like to displease, and the
next worst, to be shamed before others! To have their
misdeeds brought out in the open before you is bad enough,
but if they go further, to deal with them in front of others
is even worse ... The rod of chastisement is not wrong but
it is the spirit in which it is wielded that counts ...
Children need discipline, but it must always be tempered
with love and mercy. ... Those who can't be controlled
through love have to be controlled through fear. Love never
fails! If it's real love, it won't fail even if it's
applying the rod in love. I think you should try everything
else you possibly can before applying corporal punishment.
But if all else fails, you just have to whack away! What
else can you do? You have to use force. God does! ... He'll
whack away until you repent!"

The message to be gained from the literature is that
corporal punishment is encouraged but only as a last resort,
it is to hurt but not to injure and it must always be
administered "in love".

EVIDENCE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

I am in no doubt at all that its use was widespread. This
ranged from quite savage beatings with paddles especially in
the Victor camps and in Macau where I am satisfied that
children were bruised and injured. The penalty for too many
demerits in the Jumbo camps was to be "swatted" with a
switch, which, certainly in the Philippines, was a bamboo
cane. Berg's favourite implement, the fly swatter, was in
regular use and children were regularly beaten with it.
Again I am satisfied that there were many occasions when the
beatings were more severe than was necessary. Given the
emphasis on beating until it hurt and beating until they
repent, it is not a surprise to me that many who
administered these punishments lost sight of the admonitions
not to injure. I am also satisfied that there were many
occasions when the object of public beatings was as much to
put fear into the onlookers as it was to humiliate and break
the will of the recipient. It was not infrequently a brutal
form of control.

THE RECENT APPLICATION OF THESE PRACTICES WITHIN THE UNITED
KINGDOM

THE OXFORD/DIDCOT HOME

I know little about this home. The information came mainly
from CA. She is quite a surly girl. For a long time she
seemed to wish to remain aloof from these proceedings and
was unwilling to offer any help. Finally she did give
evidence. I am totally satisfied that there was no undue
prompting by the Plaintiff to cause this. There was a ring
of truth about her evidence which has made it impossible for
me to discard it or to ignore it. She was at this home when
a young teenager aged 13 or thereabouts. She was put in
charge of the toddlers whose mothers were away on family
business. About half of the mothers seemed to have been
absent. CA reported seeing very young children suffer
corporal punishment. She spoke of a child of only 18 months
who had been bruised by her mother "Oxford" S. She is
married to WA, the father of S, and, I note a little
apprehensively, she appears prone to apply the rod quite
unstintingly.

THE TEWKESBURY HOME

CA gave evidence that during her time at this home there was
a mother who beat her children with a spoon on one side of
which was a happy face and a sad face on the other. This
evidence troubles me. The pictorial message which it conveys
is that after the unhappy beating the victim must accept a
happy face because he must accept that it was done in love.
It illustrates the power of the Law of Love to induce a self
delusion that otherwise unacceptable conduct can be cloaked
with acceptability by asserting - even believing - that it
is done in love. I have little doubt that that is how NT
herself felt when she was party to the beating of a 7 year
old girl with a switch some time in about 1991 whilst at the
home in Coggershall.

There is, therefore, evidence of young children being unduly
punished in recent times in England. It was worse for the
teenagers.

THE WANTAGE SCHOOL.

The Family decided to run a school at Wantage. Those in
charge were JD and ED who came from the Philippines and
undoubtedly imported ideas from the Jumbo. PF and SF and RM
and MM had come from the Oxford Home. Mary Malaysia, also
from the Philippines, joined later. The school ran from
about March 1989 until the lease expired at the end of the
year. I remind myself that the School Vision was published
in August 1988 and the Victor Programmes had started early
in 1989. I find that the following were features of the
school at Wantage:-

1. Secrecy: The address of the school was Selah so that
many

parents were not aware where their children were and could
not visit them. A degree of censorship was imposed through
correspondence being read.

2. Silence Restriction: This device was extensively used.
A

number of the children suffered this indignity. It was an
indignity because the children had a sign or badge which
they had to display upon which was written words to the
effect, "Don't talk to me, I am on silence restriction." The
restriction was not absolute. The children were able to
answer the adults but their talking to their peers was
discouraged. I do not find that it was rigorously enforced
and I have no doubt that it did not prevent all
conversation. It was still an excessive punishment. GK and
SW were on silence on and off for three months or so. AM,
NS, SC and EV also suffered.

3. Isolation: The last named quartet were also put on a

special programme which involved their being separated from
others in order that they might in isolation read the Mo
Letters and write their Open Heart Reports. SD acknowledged
that it was a form of Victor Programme the like of which he
had experienced in the Jumbo.

4. Open Heart Reports: These were extensively used in an

oppressive way not merely genuinely to ascertain what, if
anything, troubled the children from time to time but as a
means of control. VP was eloquent in her condemnation. She
explained that she was made to feel guilty if she did not
confess; she complained that her right to privacy of her own
thoughts was invaded and she said that it was only when she
was in bed that she could think what she wished.

5. Bubble-Bursting Sessions: Because pride and
worldliness

were such serious thoughts, the steps taken to eradicate
them were extreme. There was an occasion when EP and SC were
publicly mocked, disparaged and humiliated, the former
because of his interest in map-making and the latter for his
interests in wildlife and his desire to go down the Amazon.

There was a worse event. The children had been required to
report on each other in their Open Heart Reports. They had
to identify those of their peers who had the greatest
spiritual problems. Since the list of demerits clearly
identified those who were constantly in trouble, those were
the ones identified by the others as the foolish ones. On a
certain day the school was told there was to be no
breakfast, but they were to fast, to read the Mo letters and
write their reactions. The leaders looked solemn and an air
of tension grew. The school then assembled. AM, NS, SC and
EV were seated apart. The leaders denounced them as being
full of the devil. The leaders read the Open Heart Reports
of the other children (which were meant to be confidential)
revealing, therefore, how the other children had identified
these four. There was much shouting at them to break their
spirit and much praying and much attempting to exorcise the
devil out of them. The shepherds called on the other
children and asked why the four should not be punished.
Emotions ran so high that most were in tears. The quartet
were eventually led away. Their hair was cut. Much time was
spent at the hearing to try to establish whether their hair
was shaved or merely shortened. I find the latter. It did
not much matter, because the purpose of the haircut was not
to improve their looks but to humiliate them, to mark them
out as examples and to punish them. The boys were taken off
and beaten. All children present were demeaned by this
wholly unnecessary excessive bullying tirade. Its emotional
intensity was unacceptable.

6. Corporal Punishment. I am in no doubt at all that this
was excessively applied. AM was bruised from above the knees
to his lower spine following the haircutting incident. His
mother MM denied that her son was bruised. I am in no doubt
that he was. NS and SC were also beaten. They were beaten
with a paddle. SD was asked by his father to make it. It is
the same sort of implement that is used throughout The
Family. The paddle had become a feature of English Family
life as well. Another boy regularly beaten was GK. He was
14. His crime was bed-wetting. There was a total failure
within The Family to appreciate that this boy was a
seriously emotionally disturbed child who had undergone some
appalling experiences in his childhood. He had witnessed and
was clearly still suffering from his brother's drowning. SF
did not appear to know this. No attempt was made to treat
him for emotional damage evidenced by his enuresis. Instead
he was punished for it. Without doubt he was ill treated by
The Family.

7. Callisthenics: This involved running and some form of
"squat walking" in laps around two trees about a football
pitch apart. For some this was a difficult, painful task. It
was the punishment imposed for achieving a lower level of
demerit marks. The demerit system and the increasing levels
of punishment was again an importation from the Jumbo.

8. Emotional Pressure: The pressure to conform was great.
There was, for example, an occasion when they had to read of
the difficulties that Davidito was having. They all had to
pray for Father David in his struggles to cope with
Davidito's failure. It became so intense that most of them
were in tears.

Go To Part 14 . . .

Go To Part 16 . . .