Judgment Of Lord Justice Ward Concerning The Family

JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 21

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 History for 1993 makes interesting but slightly
disconcerting reading. It says this:-

"In January it came to Maria's attention that a number of
our teens and young adults had some legitimate concerns
about The Family, especially regarding the role they play.
Maria wanted to hear more, and so instructed the regional
leadership world wide to gather groups of teenagers from
each area to hold open-forum discussions regarding their
desires, their needs, their complaints, etc. She also
requested that these teens write personally about the
changes that they would like to see made throughout The
Family (the problem situations most frequently cited by our
teens where the adults' tendency to talk down to them, the
adults' failure to give teens due recognition and authority
for responsibilities they were already carrying. In short,
they wanted to be treated like the responsible young adult
Family Members they now are.) All of their suggestions were
considered and taken into account. The result was a letter
from Maria, "The Personal Encouragement Revolution" (the
PER) which was published in June."

What disconcerts me is the suggestion that each area held
this forum. I assume such a meeting was held in the British
Isles. Minutes of that meeting must have been kept and
relayed to Maria. Why have I not seen them? Once again The
Family have not given me the full picture, warts and all. I
have already referred to the inadequacies of the EM
investigations. Here is another example where frankness was
probably lacking. If it was, how can I have full confidence
in the leadership? My attention was drawn to Peter
Amsterdam's summary of Summit-93 where, in listing the
benefits from persecution he wrote:-

"But now that we're involved in so many Court cases, we've
been forced to make an exception to our important lit
classification rules that forbid our giving DO lit to
outsiders. We have given some of our legal counsel nearly
full sets of MO letters, so they can properly prepare our
defence." (My emphasis)

The implications of that statement are that some of the
legal representatives do not get even nearly full sets of MO
letters and all the representatives are denied some of the
letters. Why, oh why? Because there is something to hide? Or
because they lack the maturity to trust outsiders?

PER itself was seen as the next step for the young after
School Vision and the DTR. Maria thanked those who responded
"for opening up your hearts and honestly expressing your
deepest feelings and desires and needs." I need refer to
only one of the responses that she received:

"In the past, I know it wasn't true, but I sort of felt that
"The Family can't ever be wrong." ( I don't remember ever
being told that, but that's how I felt) so therefore I took
all the blame for problems that I came across, thinking I
just had too much pride...."

The emotional development of that child was surely impaired
by having unfairly carried the burden of guilt and she
wrote,

"It was just so liberating to talk openly about things that
normally our group of teens and EAs just don't discuss."

She complaining that in times past she was not free. Maria
does seem to recognise that for she writes:-

"Now is the time we've got to loose them and let them go
free ... as Dad said in his recent letter ... we need to
think of what we were doing when we were their age and
loosen up a little and let them burn free."

She reported of the teenagers:-

"You've expressed repeatedly that you want supervision, you
want training, you want the adults help, but you just wish
they wouldn't smother you, wouldn't be so protective, so
possessive, so authoritative."

There are most important lessons for The Family to learn
from that. I am not convinced they have learnt them. There,
in a sentence, is what is wrong with Family life. The
children were protesting that too much "love you, honey" is
in fact smothering, so is "drowning them in the Word" in the
way referred to in the Heavenly City Seminar Notes; that too
little acknowledgement of personal initiatives is too
protective; that too many OHRs demanding the revealing of
every feeling and emotion is too possessive; and that
discipline unrelentingly and harshly imposed is too
authoritative. Maria lists the following major areas where
change was needed:-

(a) The older teens and EAs request that they should not be
treated like children but as responsible young adults.

(b) The teens would like to "eliminate meaningless rules,
and to apply the legitimate ones less legalistically."

(c) They would like "more prayerful spirit led application
of the Word without such legalistic interpretations that
don't allow for much freedom of the spirit. For example,
when a teen has a problem, we should not immediately assume
that their situation is exactly like Tony's was or exactly
like Techi's was or exactly like MB's was etc."

(d) The teens wished more freedom in how they witnessed
others .

(e) They would like more choice and authority in their
ministries.

(f) They would like more choice in home matters.

(g) They would like more freedom in their relationships and
more affection.

(h) They would like more music.

(i) They would like more fun and inspiration.

(j) They would like to see fewer double standards in the
home.

Maria pointed out that changes often took time and she asked
for patience but she did promise that The Family were trying
to make their life better. "Grandpa says if you stop
changing, you die, so change is good."

"Important changes in a world-wide work which affect every
member of our homes and ministries and schedules and our
witnessing and everything, are going to take some time.
Besides all that's involved in prayerfully putting these new
changes into effect, remember it also takes time for
people's old habits to change into new ones, and for their
past attitudes to reflect new ways of thinking."

The decision I have to take depends upon how far and how
fast Maria is prepared to force change and whether past
attitudes can in fact adapt to her new ways of thinking.

Some progress has been made by "The Family Discipline
Guidelines" published in June 1994. The reasons given for
this include the need to address the concerns of Courts of
Law. This is clearly aimed at me, among others!

The word discipline varies in its meaning according to its
context. It varies from merely giving instructions and
showing verbal displeasure or censure to the loss of
privileges, the imposition of additional duties and it
includes practices which have been the subject of
examination earlier in this judgment. The advice given in
this letter is as follows:-

Conversation Restriction

This should be used:

"Occasionally as a method of discipline to help check
children who have a problem with unruly speech.

"Conversation restriction should ideally only be for a few
minutes to half an hour or so (and certainly no more than 3
hours at any one time in any one day). Should repeated
conversation restriction be necessary the situation should
be taken to the child-care teamworker and counselled about
together with the childrens' parents or guardian acting on
behalf of the parents. ... Children should not have their
mouth taped shut, or suffer any other forms of physical
restraint or facial covering (such as a gauze mask) for the
purpose of discipline which prevents them from speaking, or
from breathing freely or naturally, or causes them undue
public embarrassment."

To cover a child's face like that is an appalling practice
which I deprecate and I am only relieved that no evidence
was given suggesting it had ever occurred in this country.

Time Out

This means: "placing a disruptive child in an alternative
setting away from other children where they can pray, read
the word and receive special attention and counselling." For
two year olds it should not exceed 5 minutes or so and a
child or teen should not be separated from any other members
of the home for more that 3 hours a day and preferably less
unless they pose a threat to other home members or
significantly disrupt the home's functioning. If the
situation warrants it, a pre-teen or teen (aged 12 and up)
may be separated from their peers for longer periods (no
more than 3 days at a time, as long as it is with the full
consent of the pre teen or teen, his or her parents or
guardian acting on behalf of the parents and the home
teamwork.) In order to make longer periods of time out most
effective there should be:

"positive input through word studies, personal counselling
and positive fellowship from an adult, such as one on one
reading at talk time".

Corporal Punishment

This should be the exception and should only be resorted to
if other approaches have not succeeded in bringing about the
needed improvement. The following guidance is given:-

"Babies and young toddlers - ages 0-18 months. Babies under
6 months should not be given any form of physical
correction. For children 6 months to 18 months,
circumstances might arise where it could be age appropriate,
proportionate and reasonable to smack a child under the age
of 18 months but it is hoped it would perhaps be limited to
a single light slap or tap to reinforce a needed admonition.
Children of 19 months up to 4 years should not be given more
than 2 swats on the bottom at any one time. Children aged 4
or 5 years should generally not be given more than 3 swots
on the bottom at any one time (with the hand or a
non-damaging, reasonable object, such as a light flexible
slipper). Children ages 6 and over should not be given more
than 6 swats at any one time (except in extremely serious
situations, and with the agreement of parents or guardians
acting on behalf of parents and shepherds). When going over
these guidelines, Mama said, "Some people think 6 swats is
too much, and some people think 6 swats is too little. You
can't please everybody ... You must pray with them, hear
them out, explain the problem and the reason for the
correction, then show them forgiveness, followed up with
love and encouragement. We strongly suggest that after aged
13 corporal punishment no longer be given as other forms of
correction are usually more effective for this age group.
... At least one other adult, Y.A. or senior teen should be
nearby to witness the administering of any significant
corporal punishment which is beyond simple correctional
swots. ... Any corporal punishment given a child should be
administered with love and understanding. Be sure the child
knows that you love them. Be affectionate, give hugs and
help them know that their mistakes have been forgiven and
that you have faith in them that they will try to do better
in future."

Non-acceptable forms of punishment included:-

Public Ridicule:

"No child (or adult Family member) should be punished or
disciplined or stigmatised by being made the object of
public humiliation or ridicule."

The Family clearly had not thought of that when they
published the Techi series and Tony series. It was not
applied at Wantage. Most of the complainants I have heard
felt their humiliation more painful than their physical
punishment.

Forced restraint:

"No child should be forcibly restrained or detained in any
way, except in extreme cases in which they show obvious
intent to harm or by their actions pose real and immediate
danger to themselves and others."

These rules are good so far as they go and I must consider
whether they go far enough. In what purports to be an
attempt to set out some guidelines, other passages refer to
the earlier letters on "Child care Discipline Jewels", "Kidz
Correction" and "Dad's Guidelines for Discipline". I have
already commented adversely on Berg's enthusiastic
endorsement of corporal punishment expressed in those
letters and there is little hint of recantation in 1994. It
is a pity.

I have some evidence of some other changes that are taking
place but - at least so far as I know - not yet the subject
of specific letters from World Services. They were referred
to by Peter Amsterdam in his letter to me.

The first related to The Family's educational philosophy.
Apparently Maria convened a meeting of a number of WS and
CRO educational representatives in January 1994 with a view
to improving The Family's home schooling. They made a number
of detailed recommendations which were said to be due for
publication. Among them will be encouraging the taking of
local national secondary education examinations, researching
the possibility of taking outside training in subjects where
help is needed, using people from outside the communities to
help teach specialised skills and generally the making of
greater use of local educational opportunities, excursions,
outings and facilities. There seems to be no assistance
offered to those who would wish to go on to further
education because:

"It would be very difficult for a home to provide the
necessary resources to facilitate such courses of
education."

The only solution seems to be that the child concerned, and
probably his family, should leave the community and become
TSers.

The second aspect to which he refers is the "Ministry of
Reconciliation". I have already referred to the decision to
open the doors to non-members. Amsterdam told me:

"As leader of The Family, I would like to affirm that we are
committed to a long term policy of fostering as much
openness as possible, both within our communities and in our
relations outside."

In addition The Family saw as significant the TRF supporter
programme. Initially there was some tension between those
who remained full time members and the TSers but, as The
Family began to acknowledge the support the TSers gave them,
especially in times of persecution, WS was now encouraging
The Family at all levels to have more contact with TSers.
Amsterdam wrote:

"We are presently in the process of drawing up new policy
guidelines for contact with TSers."

Another aspect of their "evolving policies" concerns the
teenagers who were leaving The Family. He wrote:-

"Some local leadership, most specifically in England, seem
to handle the departing of some of their teens quite wisely,
setting them up in apartments, giving them funds, helping
them find jobs, etc. We very much agree with this approach
and have encouraged other areas to adopt the same policy. We
love these young people. If they decide that the missionary
life in The Family is not their calling nor vocation, then
we intend to help them make the transition into mainstream
society with as few difficulties as possible. ... If any of
our young people choose to leave The Family, we intend to
respect their wishes." For those families where a teenager
moves out of a Family home, "we are presently working on
policy to make it easier for these parents and teens to have
regular contact."

He also wrote that:

"This ministry of reconciliation, along with the general
overall openness that has developed within The Family over
the last 2½ years is also touching the relationship between
Family members and their relatives. With our new openness,
Family members are more inclined to contact and visit
relatives invite them to visit the homes".

That resume' of the literature satisfies me that The Family
has undergone a series of quite fundamental changes in
recent times, these changes affecting key areas of
leadership and the style of leadership, a firm reining in of
sexual freedom, greater freedom and responsibility for the
teens, some kerbs on excessive discipline, some possibility
of outside education, and a general opening of the doors to
the outside world. I turn to consider to what extent the
theory has been put into practice.

EVIDENCE OF CHANGE EXPERIENCED BY MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS

The most noticeable example of change is BS. She has moved
from arch enemy to passionate apologist. There is such
inconsistency in her account of things that have happened in
the past - and in her case many years in the past - that I
would not rely on much she told me. She is, however, an
example of change working to bring sworn enemies together.
Even if ulterior motives are at work, she is a symbol of
reconciliation and such symbols are often important.

On a more mundane level, I heard from many who seek no
publicity or personal limelight and whose evidence is all
the more convincing for that. Here are some examples:

JG.

He was the Plaintiff's witness, one of the teenagers who
left in March 1993. He told me that in the last few years,
and since there had been so much publicity about The Family,
things had changed. "Yes, definitely," was the emphasis he
put upon it. He said, by way of example, that they were
taught not to call outsiders "systemites" but "strangers".
They took field trips to give them more contact with these
strangers. When he dealt with sexual matters, he said that:

"To continue to exist the group had to cut these things out.
I'd say these things had gone for good but with the same
person in charge I wouldn't think it possible for me to
return to them. Because of external pressures on them they
will probably remain as straight as they are. I think
they've changed because people are older and Berg knows you
can't get away with it. People do believe in good and right
and things like that and they would probably be shocked if
they ever came out again. An important change was that they
gave us (the teens) some breathing space."

SD:

He is another who left in 1993 aged about 19 or thereabouts.
He was called by the Defendants. He struck me as a
thoroughly likeable young man with his feet fairly firmly
planted on the ground. He told me he left because,

"I was just fed up with people telling me what to do. There
is nothing wrong with them but they used to tell us what
music was good or bad and I was not allowed to do things I
wanted to do like have a tattoo to smoke and drink and even
take drugs if I wanted to. The Family's idea of the End Time
was not mine. Nothing surprises me about The Family because
it is an extreme place to live, and extreme things happened
there. But I don't think there is anything wrong with being
in The Family."

Questioned about GN481 and how to make complaints, he said
that:

"If the shepherds said you were murmuring, you could ask the
next shepherd according to a Mo letter I recall. My gripe is
that it is hard for the shepherds to think they're wrong.
Now the teens tell me they are more prepared to reconsider."

In answer to questions I asked him, he told me about a
seminar in Hungary in 1992. I now realise but did not then
appreciate that this must have been one of the meetings
organised by Maria which led to PER. He told me that a lot
of the teenagers were leaving because they were so
dissatisfied by the restrictions placed upon them and the
lack of freedom. He said that since then he understood it
had gradually got better and that if he had had a different
shepherd, he would probably still be there. He told me that
the biggest changes were that the teenagers were allowed to
listen to music of their choice and that they could question
adults and if there was no satisfactory response they could
write direct to the European Shepherd whose address is on
the board of every home. He said you could write the letter
and post it without it being read. He added, however, that
if the shepherds knew you were having a hard time, you were
told you had to make your letter inspiring. Other changes he
mentioned were that the demerit system was abolished, so was
silence and callisthenics. He said if a boy liked a girl he
could speak to her though there was to be no sexual activity
under 16. If both were over 16 they had to ask the shepherd
but they could talk without permission. He said that they
could now go to the cinema and he sometimes took FC and his
girlfriend out with him and his wife. They would take them
to the pub and play pool.

"The rules have been relaxed and are not now so tight. The
rules began to be relaxed after the seminar. It used to be
that teenagers could only go out with an adult. The reason
for the relaxation is because life had become too
uninspiring for the teen and it was realised that if they
were prevented from having a beer or going to the movies
they would leave anyway."

Though he spoke of these changes, he disclaimed knowing
anything at all about PER.

MB:

She could hardly be supportive of The Family but she did
tell me that Maria and the leadership were trying "very hard
to be back in society and respected. They are trying
everything they can to look better." It is true that she had
some doubt about their sincerity and certainly some doubt
whether they would ever be able to admit that Berg had ever
done wrong.

MS:

She was of the view that the changes brought about in
relation to The Family's attitude to child sex were profound
but were only brought about because of pressure on The
Family from outside. She felt that Berg himself remained of
the same mind and that he would change his mind about the
teachings for the sake of the outward appearance of the
group. This young lady suffered as much as anyone and more
than most and it is, therefore, interesting to note that
when she finally decided to leave The Family from the home
in Scotland, she did so only or mainly because she was
bored.

CA:

She explained that in England about a quarter of the
teenagers were happy, but many had left and that there was
no real debate among them because they were scared they
would get into trouble. She was another who spoke of having
mixed feelings about The Family. She said, "I know there
were things which were totally wrong but there were also
happy times."

SPM:

As the most senior person to give evidence on behalf of The
Family he was, not surprisingly, often very much on the
defensive. At times he knew he was defending the
indefensible. I did not, therefore, gain any impression that
he personally would be in the vanguard of those rooting for
change and the likes of RB and VB, MA and LA and MM, but not
necessarily RM, were much more ready to accept and indeed
instigate change. MM told me:

"We are now looking at ourselves through the eyes of the
others outside. The unknown can make us very fearful to
opening the door and saying come on in."

The most SPM would concede was that the group had developed
and matured over the years from a younger wilder group with
less wisdom to a maturing organisation with a stable and
good leadership structure. He told me,

"Society changes, and so do we; the laws in society change,
and so do ours. We are not perfect we are always trying to
correct things that have gone wrong and are sorry when they
have."

Peter Amsterdam:

In the letter he wrote to me, he acknowledged:-

"We appreciate that a great deal of good has come from (all
the investigations and litigation The Family has been
involved in over the last 4 years.) They have resulted in
many positive changes within The Family and have set us on
an unchangeable course of more openness with non-members and
society at large. ... We have embarked on a course of
reconciliation with those we have offended and hurt, as well
with those who are seeking to do us harm. Although this is a
new initiative, it is taking hold throughout The Family and
is bringing positive results. Parents have been put in
contact with their children and grandchildren; ex-members
with Family friends, ex-spouses and children; TRF supporter
parents with their older Family teens and TRF supporters
with D.O. members. ... Realising that not all of our young
people will choose to be missionaries nor remain in The
Family, we are attempting to make it easier for those who
wish to leave to do so. ... Our history has been fraught
with controversy; we have many times not foreseen some of
the repercussions of our actions, and we realise that we
have made mistakes. Yet, as an ever growing, maturing
movement, when we recognise changes are needed, we make
them. As times have changed, so have we ... We do not and
will not revert to the practices that have been found
unsatisfactory and abandoned. ... We realise that there are
some children who were not as well cared for or as well
educated as others, some who have had adverse experiences
and are now complaining bitterly about it. Although we
believe that much of what they say is untrue or highly
exaggerated, we do acknowledge that there is an element of
truth to many of their accusations. We are genuinely sorry
for any negative experience that current or former Family
members may have undergone, and we are determined to make
sure that everything possible is done to prevent any such
things occurring in the future."

Go To Part 20 . . .

Go To Part 22 . . .