Judgment Of Lord Justice Ward Concerning The Family

JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 20

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

THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE

I was left in no doubt at all that the Plaintiff deeply
loves her daughter and is saddened by the thought - which
she does not accept - that NT may not love her. They view
their relationship differently. I suppose most mothers and
daughters do. There were undoubtedly times when things were
fraught between them and she told me, and I accept, that at
times both mother and father found NT hard to handle. Mother
is more forgiving of daughter than vice versa.

NT cannot fully appreciate the reasons for and the
consequences of her parents divorce but I was satisfied by
the Plaintiff that it was a very difficult time indeed for
her.

Knowledge of NT's joining The Family was a surprise but NT's
letters were loving and she seemed genuinely happier than
she had been. As knowledge of The Family grew, so did the
Plaintiff's concern. I am quite satisfied the Plaintiff was
genuine in arranging the luncheon party at which NT was
introduced to VJ and KJ. The purpose was to open NT's eyes
to past abuse. It was left to KJ to explain this. KJ was a
teenage girl and could not possibly have posed a threat.
NT's uncle was present. He was independent and there to see
fair play. In no sense at all could this have been
interpreted as an improper meeting. It inevitably had that
effect. Because that effect was inevitable, it is pointless
to lay blame for the deterioration of the relationship
between mother and daughter. The fact is that The Family saw
this as another attack upon themselves and they closed
ranks. Against that background it is significant to note
that when NT had her baby, she did telephone her mother. She
did not telephone her father. Although father is now seen in
a much more favourable light than mother, because he does
not condemn The Family, the relationship is not as close as
both would believe.

I also wholly acquit the Plaintiff of any attempt to
"kidnap" CT. She was certainly anxious to make contact with
him. She was certainly in touch by now with the anti-cult
movement. She dearly wished both her children to leave The
Family. But she was not a party to any improper means of
achieving that object.

The Plaintiff has conducted herself throughout this long,
draining hearing with a dignity that commands my admiration.
I allowed her the opportunity to speak from the witness box
to NT. It was an emotional yet tightly controlled appeal. It
was a protestation of her love for NT and her confidence in
NT's ability to care for her son. Her appeal was in effect
only for NT to open her eyes. I fear a cold heart had
chilled NT's sensibilities. NT sat stony-faced. It was a sad
moment.

The case as it was originally pleaded included allegations
that:-

-members were encouraged to lie, maintain secrecy and regard
the system with hatred and fear.

-separation of spouse from spouse and parents from children
was widely practised.

-the result of FFing was a number of children who did not
know their fathers;

-neither did many children born of sharing.

-children were more children of The Family than of the
parent

-children were harshly disciplined by withholding food,
excessive corporal punishment, silence, humiliation,
bullying by adults

-children were deprived of a full and proper education or
access to information from newspapers, radio and television

-promiscuity was encouraged

-child sexual abuse had occurred

-Flirty Fishing and dancing have been encouraged

-The Family were intolerant of those who suffered disability

-The Family discouraged proper medical treatment

-NT's capacity for making independent choices and judgments
was nullified.

The grandmother's earnest wish is that NT leave The Family.
She was at one time minded to suggest that it would be
satisfactory if she lived outside a communal home and
remained within the group as a TSer but she no longer
advances that case. She is driven reluctantly to ask that
she be given care and control of S. Her proposal is that he
should make his home with her in Kenya. She has all the
material comforts and the finance to make that possible. He
will be cared for by a nanny. In time he will return to
England to be educated. She would hope and expect that NT
will maintain contact.

I am quite satisfied that in many respects the plan advanced
by Grandmother is satisfactory. He will be physically well
looked after. He will be loved by his Grandmother. He knows
her sufficiently and he will settle in time in her home. I
am now satisfied that the Plaintiff will not abandon her
responsibilities but will honour them with the same steely
determination that has characterised her pursuit of her
claim. She will do so despite the fact that at the age of 58
it will not be easy to do so.

NT's EVIDENCE

It is important to gauge to what extent, if at all, NT's
case and perceptions have shifted. This is how she stated
her position in her first affidavit sworn in June 1992:-

"I believe that my mother's application is ill-founded and
based on fears and concerns that are not well based in
reality and have been exaggerated, possibly by people with
the deliberate and financial interest in causing people like
myself in the Christian fellowship of which I am member
problems. ....I ask to be free to make the decisions that
every adult parent is free to make about how they choose to
live their life and bring up their children, and I ask this
Court to reject my mother's application which effectively
would, for years to come, impose restrictions upon me that
are neither just nor necessary and would severely restrict
my basic human rights to freedom of religion, association
and the right to bring up my own children."

In her answers to the Official Solicitor's Interrogatories,
she denied substantially the allegations of inappropriate
sexual behaviour and could not countenance the possibility
that any over severe discipline had been exacted against the
children.

On day 63 of the hearing she began her evidence. 54
witnesses had preceded her. She heard most of them. She
started by telling me that she wished to remain in the
Family and that nothing she had heard or read had caused her
to change her views about Father David. The videos of the
young children dancing were:

"A sad mistake but my mind is so full I cannot accept that
it was done for sexual gratification. If they were sick and
perverted and disgusting I would be extremely concerned.
...But I think they were naive and innocent sad mistakes."

As for MB's allegation that Berg had masturbated her and
attempted to have sexual intercourse with her, she said that
if that were the case she would be concerned. She could not
say that the allegations were not true, she hoped they were
not true. She would certainly be upset if Berg had been
going around having sexual contact but she did not believe
he was a pervert and that he would have harmed anybody.

"Everything I've read has taught me that he loves people. I
do not believe he is a pervert."

She did not believe that sexual activity with children had
in any way been encouraged by the leadership though she
acknowledged that the publication of the Davidito story was
a "serious misjudgment." As for the Victor Programmes and so
forth, these were done at a "experimental stage" but, "we've
learnt - it's now history."

She did not see that the children within the Family were in
any way socially deprived: in fact, the Family was the best
place in the world to bring children up because there S
would know God. He would learn that "David Berg was a good
man with good fruit."

Dr Heller's evidence was interposed. NT listened to it. She
returned to give evidence. She immediately reasserted her
belief in the Law of Love and her belief that if any child
had been abused it was not in accordance with the Law of
Love. Berg was certainly not to blame for anything except
perhaps the Davidito book. She could not accept that any
abuse had occurred because of his teaching. She did not
believe that Berg had seen the video on which the young boy
and young woman speak of their sharing. If he had seen it
she believed he would have stopped it. If that had been
Sally's interpretation of the Law of Love, she had got it
wrong. NT was wholly unable to explain why the 24 year old
woman concerned, Sally, said in the video, "Hi Dad and
Maria" before going on to chorus "Amen" to the boy J1 and
Berg's grandson H1 having the chance to share with her.

Various passages from Davidito were put to her and she
observed that if Berg had thought it was wrong and harmful
he would have stopped it. "I love him and trust him".

Then Dr Cameron gave evidence and NT listened but probably
did not hear. She still could not bring herself to condemn
Berg.

"Very possibly his judgment has been wrong."

"I don't think his judgment was impaired, I say he has made
a mistake. I don't think this led The Family astray and it
is another matter whether some did go astray. If the people
had correctly followed the Law of Love letter, this wouldn't
have happened."

She asserted:-

"Mistakes in the past are past because we have learnt from
them. They are not in my group today. It is not necessary to
know the past because I know the people today, I know the
motivation today, I know the rules agreed today."

NT was subjected to a persistent cross-examination and most
of the offending literature was put to her. She continued to
assert as I noted it:-

"Not Father David's fault if people acted wrongly under the
Law of Love. He is responsible for the Law of Love not for
the wrongful application of it. I do not accept that his
writings have caused anyone damage - on the contrary he has
effected miraculous changes to thousands of lives because he
has given us through his writings a personal relationship
with Jesus we would never otherwise have had."

She became exasperated at having to answer:

"Silly questions which have nothing to do with the Family
today. What bearing has it to do with my case, the way I
bring S up. Such a waste of time and pain in the neck
however much we say it was a mistake and it won't happen
again."

She had no worries about those who were in power.

NT was more forthcoming in acknowledging that serious harm
had been caused to the teenagers subjected to excessive
discipline. She saw no reason not to trust S to MM's care
even though she had been in charge at the time of the
horsewhipping incident. Despite those concerns she had not
discussed these matters with RM and MM and had only talked
generally to RB and VB and MA and LA. For NT no alarm bells
rang suggesting there were risks for the future because she
believed the lessons had been learnt from the mistakes that
had been made.

"People know when they have made a mistake and they want to
learn and to change, therefore S is not at risk."

NT freely admitted that when she was in charge of a seven
year old girl who had "quite a lot of problems," she was
present when Heidi administered two swats with a switch cut
from the garden. She also admitted that she had seen a fly
swatter being used in the past. Either her recollection had
not been as good or she was not as frank when she came to
complete her answers to the interrogatories which denied any
such activity! The truth is, I find, that she has changed
her position a little and acknowledges that she is older and
wiser today.

As for her attitude to her mother, she was ambivalent. She
is certainly very angry and bitter. One should not be
surprised at that reaction. She protested at times that she
did not love her mother but I felt it was a hollow angry
protest. The truth is both these parties know of their
affection for each other and each would dearly like to be on
good terms. The litigation is an inevitable but awful
stumbling block. I am inclined to believe NT when she says:-

"I want to be able to have a relationship with my mother.
The shepherds are not counselling me not to - they counsel
me to set aside the bitterness."

I find that there was at least one occasion when prayers
were said against the grandmother but more usually the
prayer is that the Plaintiff's case be lost and that NT
triumphs. She felt unwilling to stay in the guest house back
home in Kenya but hoped with time that the relationship
would improve and hostility subside so that she could visit
her mother in Kenya. I very much hope that that will come to
pass, whether S lives with his grandmother or remains with
his mother. Both mother and daughter know perfectly well
that, hugely difficult though it would prove to be,
nonetheless somehow anger and suspicion must, perhaps
gradually, be cast aside after this judgment so that S may
know and love each of them without anxiety.

A most important fact emerged after NT had concluded her
evidence. She had become pregnant. For all of us involved in
this case, be it the parties in particular, or the Court
Usher, my clerk and the ladies who type this judgment, the
hearing has been a strain. It has been shown on the faces of
mother and daughter and they have drawn deeply on the
reservoirs of their inner strength. Of course they could not
cope alone. Each would have needed some support from friends
and loved ones. NT has had other pressures to cope with.
When it emerged that SPM had been "sharing" with her at the
same time as WA, I ordered that blood tests be taken to
determine the paternity of S. That took long weeks. It could
not have been easy for NT. She was living in London, under
attack from the Official Solicitor for failing to heed Dr
Cameron's advice to ensure that S lived with her. He was
back at the Ward's home being cared for by The Family and
particularly by SB whom NT then seemed to have every
intention of marrying. That was not to be. The relationship
broke down for reasons which have not been explored and as a
result S lost the person he had grown to know as "daddy". He
has no knowledge of and little contact with WA who is his
real father. WA has now set up with "Oxford S" against whom
CA made her accusations. In the circumstances I should be
relieved that there is not much, if any, paternal contact.

Under that sort of strain I can whole heartedly sympathize
with NT's desire for support, and for a friendly shoulder
upon which to cry. She turned to RB. With his wife's, VB's
consent, a "sharing" weekend was arranged and NT and RB went
to a hotel "to get away from it all." They had sexual
intercourse. NT became pregnant. Her son, S2, was born on
5th January 1995.

I take no high moral objection to this conduct. This is not
a Court of Morals. It is a Family Court sadly well used, day
in and day out, to dealing with children of mothers who move
from one relationship to another often with much less excuse
than NT can offer. The sad experience of the work in The
Family Division is that the children born in this way suffer
because they often do not know their father, have little
real meaningful contact with him, live with the confusion of
different father figures moving in and out of their lives
and the lives of their siblings. Nevertheless by her
choosing to behave in this way, NT does reduce her
capability of meeting her children's needs and increases the
harm which her children will suffer and are at risk of
suffering, important criteria for me to bear in mind when
considering the check list factors set out in Section 1(3)
of the Children Act 1989.

EVIDENCE OF CHANGE

The judicial function is to find the facts of past events
and assess the risks of what lies ahead in the uncertain
future. That task has obviously been made immeasurably more
complicated in a case like this where one is endeavouring to
place one little boy frozen at a moment of time in an
organisation which has developed and shifted as much as this
one.

Before embarking upon the task of gazing into the crystal
ball of the future, I must, but briefly, remind myself of
recent trends, developments and changes. I take it as The
Family see it and present it to me in their "History of The
Family" from 1978 to 1993 which World Services prepared for
the purpose of being exhibited to SPM's affidavit in answer
to the Official Solicitor's Interrogatories. The key
features are these. In 1979 "anti-cult hysteria" drove The
Family underground. The "mobile ministry" began. In 1981
there was a concerted missionary migration to Central and
South America but especially to the Far East. In the
December 1982 letter, "Anywhere with Jesus" Berg had to
justify those frequent moves and he did so in these terms:-

"So these psychologists who say, "Oh no, no, no, you mustn't
change houses, you mustn't move your children too often from
one city or state to another, it's hard on them
psychologically to uproot them and tear them away from their
accustomed surroundings, it gives them a feeling of
instability and insecurity!" - that's the lies of the Devil,
absolutely of the Devil, because it's the best thing in the
world for 'em! ...It's far more important for us to be
attached to each other and to the Lord, then it doesn't
matter where we are".

The children were necessarily becoming the focus of
attention, because at the end of 1983 children within the
group for the first time outnumbered the adults.

In 1984 The Family began to send mission teams into China,
the Soviet Union and other countries in the Eastern block.
This was the year Debra Davies published her revelations
about The Family and there was intense focus on them
accordingly. 1985 saw the realisation that the children born
into the movement were becoming their first home-spawned
teenagers bringing with them all the difficulties that
adolescence inevitably involves. 1986 was the year of the
Mexican Teen Training Camp and allegedly the beginning of
the awakening of the realisation that sexual abuse was
prevalent. Thus began the earnest addressing of teenage
problems. In 1988 the solution was seen to be in "the School
Vision" to be:

"The education of our children is getting to be a monumental
thing, a desperate need, really ... One of our biggest jobs,
if not the biggest job we have now, is to take care of our
children."

It was also the beginning of a campaign to fight for the
children. This arose from an ABC television programme and a
member's success in the courts of the United States in
securing an order for the custody of his three children who
had been "cruelly abducted" from him by their ex-member
mother. Berg wrote:-

"We're going to put them (our detractors) on notice that
they're going to have a fight!... We are going to put them
on notice with a declaration of war that if they come to try
to steal away our kids, we are going to fight and be violent
if necessary, and lay down our lives for our sheep!"

It was good fighting talk - and none the worse for that -
but I very much doubt whether the threat of violence was
ever intended and there is no scintilla of evidence to
suggest that it was, still less is, Family tactics. The
leadership have shown greater responsibility than is
literally conveyed by that message. I believe them to be
even more responsible today than they were then.

In 1989 the problems experienced with their children led to
the establishment of the Victor programme for teens. It was
the beginning of one of several experiments with their
youth. By the end of 1990 the experiment of the School
Vision was recognised (but not acknowledged to be) a
failure. It was a significant year in other respects. The
"summit-90" attended by the leaders set as its main goal the
need to become "better shepherds". To achieve that they
probably effected a subtle coup d'etat, which, whether
intended or not, removed dictatorial power from Berg and
established the notion of teamwork from top to bottom. It
put power in the hands of the team and removed power from
individuals. It was the beginning of the end of Berg's
supremacy. Equally importantly, "teamwork" decisions were
taken by the team after long deliberation and prayer and
after a process of consultation with the lower echelons by a
process in which all were encouraged openly to discuss "the
shepherding weaknesses of all the leaders present." As so
often happens with Family schemes, this acknowledgement of
NWO's (those areas of personal weakness which "needed work
on") led to misinterpretation, misapplication and potential
of abuse as the NWO's joined the OHR's as another means of
enforcing control.

1990 saw what The Family regarded as the beginning of
"state-sponsored persecution" when 22 children were removed
by the authorities in Spain. A second summit was held that
year concentrating on the problems The Family were so
obviously having with their children and this paved the way
for Maria to institute the Discipleship Training Revolution
in 1991. What is significant about the DTR is that Maria was
very much in charge of it, acting not autocratically but
after a real attempt at wide consultation. She wrote:-

"It's obvious that "something's gotta give", and something
has got to change! If we want to avoid having all our JETTs
and teens becoming dissatisfied, confused and rebellious
"problem cases," I think we're going to have to re-evaluate
our entire structure and consider revamping and overhauling
our entire present method of handling them!"

So began another experiment. I have dwelt at length on
unsatisfactory consequences of the programme she instituted
which included having a Victor programme in every home. To
concentrate on that aspect would, however, be an unfair and
wholly biased reflection of all the changes she was seeking
to effect. She wished to set up a child-care teamworker in
every community to represent the needs of the children of
that home in order to help raise the level of child-care
awareness in the home. She decreed that child-care or
parenting meetings should be held weekly. Whilst I applaud
the intention to have a forum in which matters affecting the
children could be discussed, my heart sinks at the stifling
pressure this puts upon everybody. My heart sinks at all of
this public baring of the soul this public beating of the
breast, but I do not doubt Maria's good intention.

She achieved much good by the DTR because she insisted that
there must be a "Family time" when parents spend at least an
hour of each day with their children and a family day "to
enjoy a day of fellowship and play, witnessing or outings -
whatever they can do to spend quality time together." This
is important. It is a recognition of the importance of
Family life within communal life. It is a far cry from "One
Wife" and earlier attempts to undermine the cohesion of the
nuclear Family in order to strengthen the communal tie.

The communal need was not overlooked in the DTR. For the
sake of uniformity leading to good order, there had to be
"united home discipline standards" for children and adult
alike I have already dwelt at length on the abuses which
have occurred when discipline which ought to be in the hands
of the parents was surrendered unquestioningly to others.

Finally the DTR began to lay down mandatory guidelines for
home schooling.

Another significant development in 1991 following the second
summit was the decision that the teens and young people
"should be given more opportunity to witness and share their
faith with others and have more contact with their peers
outside of the community." That was translated into action
with the establishment by the teens of their own
communities, coffee shops and outreach centres. It was also
decided that The Family communities world wide should begin
"opening up more to outside parties who were interested in
The Family and our way of life."

By 1992 the striking feature of Family life was that two
thirds of the members were now children. It was the year of
"unprecedented persecution". This case had begun and in
Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, 142 children were removed
from their homes by the authorities. There was "media
persecution" in Japan. It is important to note the reaction
to that perceived persecution. One is that The Family are
now facing their detractors submitting themselves to and
acting within the law. NT came back to the jurisdiction no
doubt because this Court's remedies are extensive and
because I threatened to involve them, but no doubt also
because she was encouraged by the leadership to do so. The
other reaction has been confirmed by the conclusions of the
"Summit `93" that:-

"It's easier to have faith and endure persecution when you
realise the Lord has a plan in it for us, and is allowing it
for our own good. He said a number of times not to fear,
that it's all part of His plan and there is a purpose in it
- to strengthen us, purge us, draw us close to Him, and
force us out into the open so that (we) can be seen by the
whole World!

This is a new day and the Lord has shown us that he now
wants us to go on the offensive. This has resulted in a
change in the type of media coverage we now receive. Since
we are standing up and proclaiming the Truth in the face of
persecution, we are getting a much fairer and better
representation of our Message in the press. As the media
people begin to meet and interview our Family members, visit
the homes, and read our statements, many of them are seeing
that we truly are innocent of the lies and accusations
against us, and their articles and stories portray this. ...
Now that our homes in many countries are presenting
themselves openly as The Family, it has caused us to improve
our sample and presentation to the public, and do more to
really minister to people. The Family is being credited with
and becoming known for our sincere and successful ministries
of singing in orphanages, ministering to juvenile
delinquents, assisting in relief efforts in disasters,
feeding the homeless, and reaching and caring for the needy
in countless ways."

As a result of decisions there taken, The Family launched a
world wide campaign to establish contact with religious
scholars and sociologists and, at a local level, with
Christians of other denominations. In the History from which
I am taking this information, World Services wrote,

"though still in its infancy, initial reports on this new
ministry are overwhelmingly positive".

Go To Part 19 . . .

Go To Part 21 . . .