Complete Judgment of Lord Justice Ward

From XFamily - Children of God

Editor's note: See Judgment of Lord Justice Ward for additional information and press coverage. After receiving a copy of the original 295-page Judgment, xFamily.org editors have determined that the Judgment text below was edited to remove the full legal names of certain individuals (including Jeremy Spencer, Paul Peloquin, Michael Gilligan and Dawn Gilligan) whom Lord Justice Ward identified by full name in the Judgment itself. It also appears that other minor changes were made resulting in some text and formatting that does not match the original. The xFamily.org editors did not make these changes and only became aware of them in early October 2007. As time permits and to the extent possible, xFamily.org editors intend to correct this and restore the text below so that it matches the orginal.

• Scan of Judgment of Lord Justice Ward (296 pages, 25MB) Also available in: medium quality (59.1MB), high quality (217MB) — 1995-10-19
• Alternate version of Judgment of Lord Justice Ward (97 pages, 481k) – 1995-10-19 — Two-column version with extra section titled "THE END RESULT" that is not found in the original 295-page Judgment. xFamily.org editors are seeking both more information (including whether it is actually formally part of the Judgment) about this section and a copy of the original document in which this section appears.

---

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

Contents 1 PREFACE 2 JUDGMENT 3 THE PARTIES 3.1 THE CHILDREN OF GOD 3.2 THE ANTI-CULT MOVEMENT 3.3 THE JOINDER OF ISSUE 3.4 THE BASIC LAW 3.4.1 The Disputed Issues 4 AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FAMILY 4.1 CONTROL 4.2 THE MO LETTERS 4.3 GROUP LOYALTY AND OBEDIENCE: 4.3.1 MO - the End Time Prophet 4.4 OBEDIENCE, CRITICISM AND "MURMURING" 4.5 THE ROLE OF THE MO LETTERS 4.5.1 (a) January 1978 the RNR letter. 4.5.2 (b) May 79: You Are What You Read 4.5.3 (c) Also May 79; "Book Burning - You are What you Read: Part 2. 4.5.4 (d) August 1989 "D.O. is for DOers." 4.5.5 (e) September 1989 Heavenly Security - Part 3 4.5.6 (f) February 1992 (which is when the Ward was born) Summit 92 - "Our Problems and the Lord's Solutions" 4.6 THE FAMILY'S VIEW OF THE OUTSIDE WORLD 4.7 THE FAMILY'S PERCEPTION OF PERSECUTION 4.8 THE FAMILY'S ATTITUDE TO LIES AND DECEPTION. 5 SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR 5.1 GENERAL ATTITUDES TO SEXUAL MATTERS: 5.2 THE LAW OF LOVE 5.3 THE EVIDENCE ON SEXUAL ATTITUDES GENERALLY 5.4 FLIRTY FISHING (FFING) 5.5 THE EVIDENCE ON FFING 5.6 SHARING 5.7 THE ORAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO SHARING 5.8 INAPPROPRIATE VIDEOS AND DANCING 5.9 THE ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE DANCING 5.10 SEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN CHILDREN 5.10.1 The issue joined between the parties 5.11 THE LITERATURE 5.11.1 "Revolutionary Sex," March 27th 1973 5.11.2 Child Brides - 4th April 1977. 5.11.3 "My Childhood Sex" - June 1977 5.11.4 The Davidito Book 5.11.5 Teen Sex 5.11.6 "Questions You Always Wanted To Ask." 5.12 THE ORAL EVIDENCE ABOUT THE SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF CHILD WITH CHILD, AND AMONG THE TEENAGERS. 5.13 CONCLUSION: 5.14 CHILD/ADULT SEX 5.14.1 The issues joined between the parties 5.15 THE LITERATURE 5.15.1 "Revolutionary Sex," March 1973. 5.15.2 Little Girl Dream, October 1976 5.15.3 "My Childhood Sex" - June 1977 5.15.4 The Davidito Book 5.15.5 The Devil Hates Sex. May 1980. 5.16 THE ORAL EVIDENCE OF CHILD / ADULT ABUSE. 5.17 THE FAMILY'S RESPONSE TO THIS ABUSE 5.18 CONCLUSIONS 5.19 INCEST 5.19.1 The Literature 5.19.2 The oral evidence 5.20 THE LEADERS' INVOLVEMENT IN SEXUAL ABUSE 6 MEDICAL NEGLECT 7 IMPAIRMENT OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7.1 THE ORAL TESTIMONY ON MATTERS OF EDUCATION: 8 IMPAIRMENT OF EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL OR BEHAVIOURAL DEVELOPMENT 8.1 THE PHILIPPINES JUMBO 8.2 THE TTC IN JAPAN 8.3 MACAU 8.4 SILENCE RESTRICTION 8.5 ISOLATION 8.6 HARD LABOUR 8.7 CONCLUSIONS 8.8 THE VICTOR PROGRAMMES 8.9 SEPARATION OF CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS AND THEIR WIDER FAMILY 8.10 SUMMARY OF MY FINDINGS ON EMOTIONAL, SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOURAL IMPAIRMENT: 9 PHYSICAL ILL-TREATMENT 9.1 THE RELEVANT LITERATURE 9.2 EVIDENCE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT 9.3 THE RECENT APPLICATION OF THESE PRACTICES WITHIN THE UNITED KINGDOM 9.3.1 THE OXFORD/DIDCOT HOME 9.3.2 THE TEWKESBURY HOME 9.3.3 THE WANTAGE SCHOOL 9.3.4 BURNT FARM 9.3.5 TEWKESBURY 9.3.6 RUGBY 9.4 OTHER VICTOR PROGRAMMES 9.5 RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE EXCESSES. 9.6 S's DAY TO DAY CARE: 9.6.1 The Local Authority's Investigations 9.6.2 Other Investigations 9.6.3 Police Enquiries 9.7 THE EXPERT EVIDENCE 9.7.1 Professor James Richardson 9.7.2 Dr Susan Palmer 9.7.3 Dr Gordon Melton 9.7.4 The Reverend Dr. David Millikan 9.8 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC EVIDENCE 9.8.1 Dr Lawrence Lilliston 9.8.2 Dr Michael Heller 9.8.3 Dr. Hamish Cameron 9.9 THE PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE 9.10 NT's EVIDENCE 9.11 EVIDENCE OF CHANGE 9.12 EVIDENCE OF CHANGE EXPERIENCED BY MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS 9.13 THE OPINION OF THE EXPERTS ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF CHANGE 9.14 MY FINDINGS 9.15 THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR'S CASE 9.16 THE LAW 9.16.1 1. The mother's "right" to bring up her son. 9.17 2. The Court's Approach to Religious Controversies and Moral Dilemmas: 9.17.1 3. Religious Tolerance and the Law 9.17.2 4. Religious Freedom 9.17.3 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: 9.17.4 6. On the Law Generally 9.18 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 9.18.1 1. An Assessment of The Family 9.18.2 2. Sexually Inappropriate Conduct 9.18.3 3. Educational Neglect 9.18.4 4. Medical Neglect 9.18.5 5. Emotional, Social or Behavioural Harm 9.18.6 6. Physical Ill-treatment 9.18.7 7. Change 9.18.8 8. NT 9.18.9 9. The Plaintiff 9.19 CONCLUSIONS

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:-

1. The high level of rumour and speculation about the activities of the Children of God.
2. The proceedings that have been heard in and are still pending in other jurisdictions.
3. Matters of public importance touching on religious freedom and education.
4. The time and expense incurred in this hearing, some of it - but happily not all of it - a drain on the public purse.
5. 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 roué 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.

In April 1981 Berg began the "Fellowship Revolution", reconstituting the homes under the name 'Family of Love' since shortened to 'The Family'. There has been much semantic posturing, much muddying the waters, and much waste of time over the issue of whether or not the Children of God still exist. These diversionary tactics were deployed to obfuscate the real issue which is whether or not the current leadership are responsible for what happened during the period up to the RNR, during the interregnum until the Fellowship Revolution in 1981 and for the organisation since then. I am totally satisfied that there was a continuous line of top leadership with David Berg and Maria at the helm regulating the affairs of the group which despite changes of name and shape, remained one and the same. The Mo letters relevant in the early days of the Children of God remained as relevant after the RNR and they continue to be relevant today. The name may have changed; various echelons of the leadership chain may have altered; but the command remained with Berg, Maria, and his inner cabinet. I find that it was a disingenuous attempt to distance them from their responsibility both for what is and for what was. This abject failure to acknowledge responsibility has diminished the trust I feel able to place in the leaders of the organisation.

Until recently, the leadership structure had Berg at its head. He died in November 1994, after the conclusion of the evidence. Maria, who for some years has gradually been assuming much greater prominence and who has been groomed as his successor, probably is now in charge. Berg and Maria were served by 'World Services' (WS), the administrative branch of which has Peter Amsterdam and Gary as the senior personnel. The American, Pacific and European Central Reporting Organisations, the CROs, report to W.S. Josiah (Paul Pelloquin) heads EUCRO (the European Organisation) in "team work" with Dawn Gilligan, Philip and Galileo, and with Lisa having succeeded Mary Mom as head of the "childcare team work." They preside over "national shepherds", SPM, being the national shepherd for the British Isles. There is an established team work for childcare in the British Isles and that has been assigned to Heidi, SPM's wife and to JL. Beneath SPM are various district shepherds, local area shepherds and home shepherds. They all work "in team work" and the teams are elected by the members over 16 years old voting by secret ballot. The purpose of 'team work' is to spread the burden and responsibility of decision making and to provide checks and balances against abuse.

Another branch of the main administrative organisation is the "Creations Department", which disseminates the group's publications. This department is headed by Apollos (Michael Gilligan) and Pathway who report directly to Maria. I know little about the financial management and have some evidence that the organisation has acquired considerable wealth through Flirty Fishing, through its publications and recently through its expanding video ministry. The ordinary homes are kept in anything but the lap of luxury. Though it is not material for me to make findings about The Family's wealth, I am quite satisfied that within the homes in this country, there is no surplus of money and the members, including their shepherds, live communally to a physical standard of comfort which might be perfectly satisfactory and meet the welfare of the children within the group but it is by no means lavish.

The present membership of The Family is approximately 12,000 in homes spread across the globe. Berg and Maria withdrew from the world sometime in about 1970 and their whereabouts and the whereabouts of World Services and Creations is a closely guarded secret to which I have not been made privy. SPM has, however, revealed to me the addresses of the several homes in England and Wales which addresses shall not be disclosed without my permission. There are 194 children below 16 years of age and 101 members 16 years and older in the British Isles. That SPM should vouchsafe this information to me is to his credit and I take it into account in his favour when assessing the degree to which he can be trusted by the court.

There are various categories of membership. The full members have access to all the literature much of which is marked DO for "Disciples Only". The new disciples are the 'babes' who for a number of months are denied the "strong meat" of the Mo letters. Catacombers are on their way into the group and have restricted access to the literature being allowed "the milk" but not the 'strong meat' which has included some of the more salacious sexual material. DFers do not wish to become missionaries but desire some fellowship with the family and receive a restricted category of literature and known as the "Daily Food". Another publication, "Love is News" is available for another category of supporter known as the LINers. Kings, supporters and provisioning contacts donate money and provisions. In 1089 The Family introduced the Turf-Supporter Programme. The TSers are members who were at one time full disciples but no longer live in a Family home. They no longer receive the DO literature but receive DFO material ("Disciples and Friends") as well as GP ("General Public") publications. Mr Barton submits, I find persuasively, that the fact that The Family have encouraged this "pressure valve" to allow those not able to make the necessary commitment to remain in some fellowship with the main body is compelling evidence that this is not a pernicious cult.

THE ANTI-CULT MOVEMENT

Not all who leave The Family show intense hostility to them. Of course some are embittered by their experiences but others feel nostalgia and affection for the good aspects of life in the community. The expert evidence satisfies me that the majority look back more in sorrow than in anger. On the other hand, there is a vociferous minority who, no doubt with good cause, are deeply antagonistic. Many are involved in or used by the anti-cult organisations. I have become acutely aware of the violent, almost paranoid, mutual hostility and fear between some of these organisations and The Family. Because of the passions aroused, I have been on guard against attempts to deceive me by distortion and exaggeration of the truth. I am alive to the possibility that there has been a cross-fertilisation of the evidence so that hearsay evidence has been falsely dressed up in the guise of personal experience. It is plain that the Plaintiff has had the support of the anti-cult movement in procuring a considerable body of the documentary evidence which has been placed before me. At the end of the day there is very little live challenge to the authenticity of that evidence even if the manner in which it was obtained is open to question. The suggestion is made on behalf of The Family that the Plaintiff is a mere tool and dupe of the anti-cult movement. I reject that submission. She is a remarkably strong and determined lady who, having embarked upon this campaign has carried it through when many lesser individuals would have folded under the strain. NT is no less obdurate and her love/hate relationship with her mother is a demonstration of the observation I make that whilst there is much about both of these ladies which commands my admiration and my respect, each of them in their way and particularly in their dealings with each other, can be jolly difficult!

THE JOINDER OF ISSUE

As I have already made clear there is not and there never has been any attack at all upon NT's ability to provide proper physical care and to give all proper love and affection to her son. If the child is to be removed from her care, it is only because of her adherence to The Family and because the practices of The Family are harmful to this child. The issues have changed form and substance since the inception of the proceedings. The initial complaints were of sexual improprieties and brain-washing. Happily I was able to contain the latter issue and eventually remove it altogether from the forensic arena, no doubt to the dismay to the anti-cult movement and perhaps to the plethora of experts who would have placed their great learning before me but left me not much the wiser for it.

As more information came to light the scope of the enquiry expanded into issues of education, medical neglect, isolation both from the outside world and from members of the natural family. Still later and indeed even as the evidence was unfolding, the spotlight turned to the methods of control, physical and emotional, deployed by The Family on the errant members, adult and child.

I refused an application by several members of the home in which NT lives to be joined as individual parties because they considered my decision might impinge upon their children. The Family as an entity of its own is not a party. I feel in no way precluded from making findings of fact about The Family, their creed and their practice for I am quite satisfied that NT and they have had every opportunity to lay before me whatever evidence they would have wished. The reality is that to all intents and purposes they have controlled the litigation. The recent literature is littered with examples of the keen involvement of Berg, Maria and World Services in all aspects of this litigation. SPM has sworn 11 affidavits and answered interrogatories on oath. I have over 250 pages of written testimony from him and the material exhibited to his affidavits runs to some 500 pages. His last affidavit placed before me a letter from Peter Amsterdam with numerous annexures and Peter Amsterdam writes that "Senior leadership, including Father David, have read, made additions to and agreed with all of this material." I made it abundantly plain that I would have derived great help from hearing Peter Amsterdam whose unsworn testimony does not carry great weight, being in the nature of hearsay evidence untested by cross-examination. He was offered every opportunity to come to give evidence and be cross-examined and I assured him every protection should he have done so. He declined. It was an unwise decision for he must have known the importance of a senior member of The Family attending to allay my fears and to set the record straight. He surely appreciated that he laid himself open to legitimate fair comment that he must have something to hide. It is equally noteworthy that the leaders on the EUCRO teamwork and childcare Heidi were conspicuous by their absence.

I have taken a long time to prepare this judgment and I am embarrassed and extremely sorry for the delay. I felt it necessary to read and re-read the evidence with an open mind uncontaminated by the lurid features of The Family's past. There are more than 10,000 pages of often closely typed written evidence, about 6000 pages of which were introduced in random order during the course of the hearing. I have looked back carefully over over 2000 pages of my own notes of the oral evidence. The written arguments submitted by all counsel were lengthy but invaluable. That all took time but it was an essential task. I confess I have not found the reading or the deciding easy. I knew the case would be difficult from the moment it started. I only reached a clear conclusion after completing this re-reading during the long vacation. I am very grateful to the President of the Family Division - and to the Clerk of the Rules - for giving me some time off but it was not enough for me to complete the task. Ordinary judicial duties in London, on circuit and in the Court of Appeal eat into spare time. Since hardly a page of this judgment is drawn from any one source, I have had to have constant access to 15 notebooks and 25 various ring-binders of evidence, submissions and notes. So it was hardly possible to dash off a sentence here and there!

The order in which I have approached my task is to remind myself of the basic theme of the law, to identify the issues in dispute, make findings of fact of matters past and present, assess future risks ,and, having directed myself more fully as to the law, to reach a conclusion.

THE BASIC LAW

My duty is clear. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 prescribes:-

"When a Court determines any question with respect to the upbringing of a child ... the child's welfare shall be the Court's paramount consideration."

Among the circumstances to which I am required to have regard by virtue of Section 1(3) of the Act are whether the child is at risk of suffering any harm and how capable not only his parents, but any other person in relation to whom the Court considers the question to be relevant is of meeting the child's physical, emotional and educational needs.

The mother wishes to continue to live within the group with the result that the child will come into contact with and will from time to time be in the care of other members of the group who will come and go. In order to assess the risk of harm to this boy I have to assess the risk of harm to a child being brought up within the Family. To assess the risk of future harm, I must first make findings of fact as to any harm which has in the past befallen children living in the Family. The law is clear that all matters of fact must be established on a balance of probabilities but the more serious the allegation the more convincing is the evidence needed to tip the balance in respect of it: See Re M (1994) 1FLR 67, Re W (1994) 1 FLR, and most recently Re H & R, Court of Appeal 14th December 1994. When assessing the risk of future harm I need to be satisfied that there is a real and substantial risk of harm, not a fanciful speculative risk. See H v H (Minor) (Child Abuse:) (1990) Fam 86.

The Disputed Issues

I categorise them under these headings:-

1. An assessment of the Family
2. Sexually inappropriate conduct
3. Medical neglect
4. Impairment of educational development
5. Impairment of emotional, social or behavioural development
6. Physical ill-treatment.
7. Changes made and likely to be made

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FAMILY

I have had perforce to look back over 25 years of The Family's history. I have already given an outline of its development and its structure. It is necessary to look a little more closely at some of those matters for I must not fall into the trap of attributing collective responsibility to The Family as a group when the faults and failings are those of an individual or individuals or even a commune or more than one commune. I have not been given information as to the number of people who have been members of The Family during these past 25 years but since there are about 12,000 current disciples, many, many thousands of many different nationalities must have belonged to the movement over the years. They have lived in communities large and small and in countries near and far. It is, therefore, necessary for me to concentrate on:-

1. how control was exercised by the leadership;
2. how loyal and obedient the flock were;
3. what their view of the outside world was and to what extent they sensed persecution;
4. Whether they were prepared to deceive.

CONTROL

As I have already indicated, by 1975 the main world headquarters were in London with missionary colonies established throughout the world. Each area was represented in London by an "Ambassador" who received reports from the home areas on their missionary activities. They were, however, isolated from that home base and the organisation was top heavy. The "New Revolution" created smaller colonies and a more closely involved role for leaders working in a "chain of co-operation". It had broken down by 1978 when Berg declared the RNR and sacked the leaders. He, with his inner cabinet, was in sole control. "Visiting servants" visited the homes to advise and encourage but they had little or no authority. Following the mass suicide at Jonestown, huge media interest inevitably turned against any cult and the already infamous Children of God dropped their name as they entered another revolution, this time the Nationalised Reorganised Security-wise Revolution which had the practical effect of dispersing many of the members back to their home country. The Family of Love was born out of this. The Fellowship Revolution followed in April 1981 creating the present day structure, with a pyramid of leadership this time elected by the members rather than imposed from above. They kept in touch by home meeting home with local area fellowship meetings and national area fellowship meetings. That, more or less, remains the position today. There is, therefore, some force in the point that for a period between February 1978 and April 1981 the leadership's control was lax, and in places may have been non existent and members were therefore much more at liberty to follow their own devices - and desires!

That, however, is not the whole truth. All disciples kept in touch with Berg through his Mo letters. The RNR declared:-

"22. We think the colonies can do better on their own under our direct personal supervision straight from the top! I think the letters are going to be the leaders and will be obeyed better if they don't have any upper officers interfering.

34. Then we can directly supervise your local homes straight from the top, primarily directly through the letters with exactly what to do and what not to do".

THE MO LETTERS

The unknown author of a document "Understanding and Interpreting Father David's Letters" tells me that:

"Father David's more radical articles could be likened unto cayenne pepper. Used properly, they add a distinctive flavour, but they are not intended as a main course."

I am not consoled. Having been looking at Mo letters over the past 2½ years and in particularly in the past months of preparation of this Judgment, I fear my digestive system will never recover. Mo likes to use them to:

"shock people, challenge them, stir them up, arouse them, awaken them out of their lethargy, even" - he must have me in mind - "cause them to explode over something I have said, at least get them to do something to spur them into action one way or another."

Some of his letters are indeed truly shocking. Some are blasphemous and obscene. By way of tiny example:-

"A Penis? or a Sword!" July 1976 (now thankfully withdrawn from circulation) -

"God enjoys fucking you with his word, just like I am enjoying it right now! I am fucking you (Maria) with the word of God, and I enjoy it because you are receiving it."

"My childhood sex" (June `77 and August `78) - an authoritative letter according to The Family's expert witness -

"I can remember at the age of 4 I was very very interested in little girls and what they looked like down there. I wanted to examine them, and most of them seemed to like having me examine them, if you could get away with it when no adults were around, and play doctor and nurse. (SARA: That proves how sexy the holy spirit really is! Because you were filled with the Holy Spirit from your mother's womb, yet as far back as you can remember you were always interested in girls and sex ....) Fascinated! and why not? Sex is a creation of God, created for us all to enjoy, even children!"

I must deal with the sexual aspect in more detail later and for the moment concentrate on the reference to the sexy Holy Spirit This takes on a different significance as soon as one looks at "The Goddess of Love" letter. It has a drawing of the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit is drawn as a voluptuous lady naked save for the string of beads and two hearts covering her nipples and a string of beads around her waist with a heart covering her genital area. She is lying on her heavenly bed her arms outstretched to receive her man, her legs drawn up and wide open ready for sexual intercourse and the commentary explains

"So why not picture God's love, His Spirit as a real person? which She is!." The words attributed to her are "Come! I am out of this world! Receive me !I am God's love! His Queen of love! You need me! Take me! I'm yours! Take me! I am your love gift from God! I am all yours for the asking!"

It is the most revolting drawing.

I need not dwell long upon such passages as appear in "Afflictions", November 1976, since withdrawn, where reference is made to Christ suffering venereal disease from his sexual contact with Mary Magdalene and other known prostitutes.

Many would find these writings blasphemous, which is strictly not a matter for me to decide. It is, however, appropriate for me to make the finding that some of the material is highly offensive to right thinking members of society.

It is essential but difficult in a case like this to retain a proper sense of proportion. I am told, and I am prepared to accept that letters on sex, nudity and FFing comprise only 15% of his literary outpouring, that far the greater proportion of his letters deals with inspirational themes and bible studies, the End Time, heaven and eschatology. He wrote on current events, politics and economics, on the administration of the organisation, on outreach and witnessing, on childcare and Family life. That material ranges from the profound to the banal. Of course, therefore, the letters vary in impact, importance and application. What has to be determined in this Court is how the disciples understood and applied the letters on sex, discipline, education etc.

GROUP LOYALTY AND OBEDIENCE:

MO - the End Time Prophet

Father David had two roles in The Family, one as its administrative head and the other as its spiritual leader. Age and failing health, and possibly other factors, gradually reduced his administrative duties. He changed from friendly Uncle Dave to stern but loving Father David and then Grandpa. That notwithstanding, as Peter Amsterdam wrote to me in May 1994, his "role as spiritual leader has remained constant". He said:

"The Family holds Father David to be a prophet of God. It is part of our religious belief that Father David often "speaks by divine inspiration". He is a "person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression," and is a "predictor". He is also "the chief spokesperson of a movement or cause." We also believe that he is inspired in his "forth telling". By both our sincerely held religious beliefs and a definition of the word we rightly consider Father David a prophet".

"We revere and love him because of the profound effect he has had upon our lives, and we credit him with having created an organisation that allows us to live our religious faith and to accomplish what we feel is a great deal for the Lord."

Those sentiments have been echoed time after time in the evidence to which I have listened. His disciples did revere and love him. He is, said the expert Doctor Susan Palmer, an icon. To the faithful members he is a godly person. Some of the Plaintiff's witnesses who have now left the movement, though they are still supportive of their friends who are in it, were less flattering and I recall SD, whose evidence was refreshingly candid, telling me, with all the innocence of youth, that:

"He's a nice guy who has dedicated his life to help others to reach a goal in life but he is a few straws short of a bale."

What is significant for the purpose of this Judgment is my clear finding that this mother loves him and venerates him and so do the national shepherds and the home shepherds and such is that unquestioning devotion that they cannot bring themselves to contemplate any ill of him. Their loyalty is total.

Amsterdam explained it:

"To understand Family members' reluctance to speak disparagingly of Father David, one must bear in mind that Family members love him and are deeply appreciative of the extremely salutary effect he and his ministry have had on their lives....Although most people respect and love their fathers, in most cases they will admit their fathers are flawed individuals and not above criticism. Some may even openly voice that criticism amongst members of their own family. Nevertheless, most family members would naturally come to their father's defence and close ranks with other family members should that same criticism or worse originate from an outsider. I believe this is the position adopted by those Family members who have testified in these proceedings."

OBEDIENCE, CRITICISM AND "MURMURING"

The members of The Family live communally. Communal life breaks down unless its members accept a large measure of discipline and refrain from carping criticism because it is destructive. I understand that. Every institution needs its rules and regulations and depends upon the members' compliance be it at school, in the army or in a learned profession. So it is with The Family. The army metaphor is not uncommon in their writings, e.g. in July 1989 Berg was writing:

"We are a very select army, we are God's crack troops. We are the tough uncompromising insistent members of Christianity who refuse to compromise! We are strictly loyal to our leader Jesus Christ and our officers! We are willing to obey tough rules and undertake tough assignments."

When facing the need to tighten up The Family in July 1989 and listing the various offences and sins for which the guilty parties might even be excommunicated he included:-

"2. Unbelief in the letters. People who are ashamed of what we believe and ashamed of what I write ought not to be in this army, they ought not to be with us! If you want to be part of this man's army, you had better believe what I have to say and what I have said and what God has given me and shown me; or for God's sake, get out.

3. Critical of Dad, Family or the letters. We don't believe in supporting people who don't support us and our works and our ways.

4. Murmurers, troublemakers and bad apples. Excommunicate them.

5. Weak sisters and brothers .... who poisoned the minds and hearts and spirits of others ... get rid of them.

6. Failure to obey Family rules: people who don't obey, people who ignore the Letters, who ignore all my extensive counsel and advice on security, they don't even belong in The Family! Give me obedience and absolute adherence to the rules of The Family or get them out!

7. Failure to obey leadership: insubordination and rebellion against leadership cannot be countenanced in any man's army. ... If people don't obey and don't do what they are told to do and don't follow the Letters and disregard leadership and disrespect all the laws and rules, they are not one of us! We can't have disobedient rebellious wilful stubborn soldiers who can't take orders and even follow suggestions, not in this man's army."

This reference to a suggestion confirms evidence I received that "a suggestion is an order in love." In order fully to understand the significance of this document I must point out now that offence 14 is "sex with minors" and offence 17 is "excessive reading of worldly books, magazines....spiritual junk food."

In October 1991 (GN 482) Dad blasted a young man Tony or Zack Attack. The letter is called "Grumblers Get Out" and that is the strong message of the communication. A month later in GN 485 excommunicable offences were divided into those which were "spiritually polluting problems", namely a chronic murmuring and voicing doubts; those which were "physically polluting problems" which are (a) sodomy and (b) sex with outsiders and thirdly "security risks" which were (a) taking illegal drugs (b) having sex with minors (c) repeatedly yelling and going into angry rages and (d) giving DO literature to outsiders.

THE ROLE OF THE MO LETTERS

SPM produced for me Creations' advice to The Family's lawyers who have been "blown away by a sudden dose of Mo letter shock". That document points to the need "rightly to divide the word" and not to give every letter literal interpretation. It must be obvious that the threat of excommunication for failure to obey a Mo letter is hardly likely to apply when the subject of the Mo letter is "how to clean a swimming pool" or even when the stricture is against being longer than three minutes on the telephone or using more than three pieces of toilet paper! In interpreting the letters it is, therefore, necessary to bear in mind the intended shock treatment because as Berg writes,

"I'm an extremist, a radical, a fanatic, and in order to pull some people half way, you have got to go all the way in the opposite direction! Then you pull some of the people too far and you've got to go to the opposite extreme, the other way, to try to get some of the extremists back on centre again! Till finally, like a pendulum, you sort of get to where you are more in the middle and more on centre than the opposite extreme".

This letter written in January 1982 is an echo of the "shock treatment" letter he wrote in March 1971. I shall assume, therefore, that he was well aware of this pendulum effect, and that he intended to bring it about when he wrote the letters, about which more later, conferring sexual freedoms upon the former hippy members who had forsaken sex or the straight-laced members who had grown up in a strict Evangelical tradition where sex was regarded as "dirty". The document "Understanding and Interpreting Father David's Letters" informs me that they are "a continually expanding collection of writings and are intended to be read and understood in context, as a body". I shall, therefore, endeavour to follow the instruction and look at the collection of letters on sexual freedom in the context of the whole philosophy they were expounding. I will bear in mind some are just:

"fun and entertaining, some informative, some mysterious, some practical instructions, some prophetic, some correctional, some are personal commentary, speculation or opinion, some are meant for the moment, others are eternal, some are divine, and others are just Dad".

In his letter "Bearing False Witness" Berg acknowledged that he "could be wrong when it's only my personal opinion and it's not the word of God... Unless I say, "God said it!", I could be wrong." I must assume he had that in mind when he wrote "God's Only Law is Love", July 29th 1977, because that letter is about "what the Bible says about true free love." At the end of the day, however, I must accept, and the evidence laid before me confirms that I should accept that any "application of counsel contained in the Mo letters is a matter of personal faith and conscience." Nevertheless in judging the extent to which ordinary members are free to act according to their faith or to listen to their conscience, I must assess the extent to which the letters have fortified that faith and shaped the individuals conscience.

In that regard I note a consistent thread from the following letters:-

(a) January 1978 the RNR letter.

"We have heard of quite a few instances where leaders have changed the meaning of my letters by their actions or verbal interpretation. My letters mean exactly what they say, literally, and they don't need explaining away, spiritualising or re-interpreting by anyone!"

"The letters are going to be the leaders and will be obeyed better if they don't have any other officers interfering."

(b) May 79: You Are What You Read

SPM says this letter is of continuing relevance. Timothy, a member of Berg's household, is being told not to read "those ridiculous text books in college full of lies and distortions of man". Even if they were not lies, "it was just a waste of time on foolishness." He says:-

"I don't see what business you've got being in our Family if you are not interested enough to read the Mo letters, including the old ones to see where we came from and how we got this way."

"I am God's man for this hour and I am the prophet of God for you, and you had better believe it or you are in serious spiritual trouble."

"This is the time when you ought to be studying your bible and Mo letters, the word of God, and not wasting your time on ridiculous words, lies, deceits and distortions of man and the devil."

(c) Also May 79; "Book Burning - You are What you Read: Part 2.

This continues his talk to Tim and the theme is the same. He says:-

"Why don't you read the old letters that you have never read? You will find there is a lot of truth in every one of them. If you find anything wrong with them, please let me know. If you are right, I'll be glad to correct it. .... You either believe the letters or don't. Don't tell me, "I believe parts of it, I believe some of it" .... You can take it or leave it. But if you want to survive in this Family you better take it! Or leave!"

(d) August 1989 "D.O. is for DOers."

I have already quoted from this letter which lists the excommunicable offences.

(e) September 1989 Heavenly Security - Part 3

This lists "personal problems" which include worldliness (which means hankering for the world outside), murmuring (voicing doubts or criticism) and backsliding. A backslider is "anyone who says that they don't accept the letters." They are scorned as "God's vomit".

(f) February 1992 (which is when the Ward was born) Summit 92 - "Our Problems and the Lord's Solutions"

Whereas the letters "You are what you read" are clear expressions of opinion and, according to the passage I have already cited, could be wrong, what is reported in this Good News 495 is the word of God speaking through prophecy. This letter should therefore command obedience from the faithful. It contains these passages:-

"Over and over again the Lord emphasised the point that he had already given us the direction we need through the words of David. The main message ... was that we should go back to the basics, back to the plan he has so clearly revealed to Dad, and obey and do what is already written. During the last meeting the Lord said: "... Doth thou not see that obedience unto the words of David is the key?..." He seemed to want to re-emphasise to us all, through these prophecies, the importance of reading obeying and living the Letters."

The words are capable of wide application, as I am sure they were intended to be, but the narrower issues which confronted that summit meeting related to the progress of the DTR, the Discipleship Training Revolution, to deal with the difficulties being experienced with the young at that time, 1991. The message to the Teens is to obey.

It is difficult to come to an easy or confident conclusion about how influential the letters were. SPM, on behalf of The Family, conceded that they were influential but asserted that the members were at liberty to disagree. The expert Doctor Millikan was is convinced that members believe they have freedom to make their own assessments, which must be right, but the heavy emphasis on obedience leads me to conclude that the choice will be exercised in favour of submitting to rather than rejecting Berg's writing. I agree with Doctor Millikan when he writes:

"but they also live with a belief that gives them no expectation that David Berg could ever lead them astray."

I bear that conclusion in mind when I assess the influence the writings have had on the sexual mores and practices of The Family.

THE FAMILY'S VIEW OF THE OUTSIDE WORLD

I read in their "Statement of Faith" that through Adam and Eve's fall from grace through sin, all mankind are now sinners absolutely unable to attain to righteousness without the saving power of Jesus Christ. They see Satan as the usurper who now rules as an unholy God of this world. He is an active force for evil in the world. They follow Biblical teaching literally on this matter. They believe that Satan actively subverts the lives of those who do not know Christ as Saviour, that he continues to harass the lives of those who are saved and to undermine their faith and obedience to God. So, writes Dr Millikan, "there is great emphasis within the literature of The Family on trust, obedience, "resting in the Lord" and "yieldedness." Since the world is essentially hostile to the Gospel and to all who are its representatives, they reject "the unchristian pursuits and practices of the world" and believe they should "avoid conformity with worldly attitudes." In their earlier literature they painted horrific pictures of the system and the systemites and the literature abounds with the "traumatic testimonies" of those who leave the group and come to unspeakable harm when in the world.

THE FAMILY'S PERCEPTION OF PERSECUTION

They believe that Christians who actively witness and live for Jesus Christ will receive persecution. Quite the most frightening persecution has been the action taken by the authorities in Argentina, Australia, Spain, France, and by me. Persecution was the main matter of discussion at their summit '93 and GN 539 of February 1993 acknowledges that benefits have flown from the Court actions taken across the world because "all things work together for good to them that love God" and that "includes persecution."

THE FAMILY'S ATTITUDE TO LIES AND DECEPTION.

One cannot have listened, as I have listened to over 30 members of The Family without being impressed by and in many ways filled with admiration for their total dedication to their discipleship, to their belief in the teachings of their master, Jesus Christ, and to their spreading of His Gospel. Believing, as they do, in an active Satan, their inclination is, as Berg expresses it: "for God's sake, speak the truth". They are, however, a beleaguered group facing what they consider to be persecution by this litigation. Consequently, they permit an exception to telling the truth when doing so will result in tragic consequences to The Family. In his letter to me, Peter Amsterdam defines that as "being injury, loss of life, severe loss of freedom, or permanent cessation of one's ability to preach the Gospel." that is not necessarily a complete list of occasions when deception is permitted. In "Deceivers yet True", June 1979, Berg seemed to countenance deceit and sometimes outright lies to accomplish God's purpose. In an undated "Deceivers yet True" comic for children, the stories depicted:

"show that the Lord allowed His people to deceive their enemies - and even tell them outright lies - when it was necessary to save His work or the lives of His people."

Caution is urged before doing so. In "More Examples of Deceivers Who were True" The Family were told:-

"We're in a dangerous war and when it is necessary to protect the security of the Lord's work and his children, you may have to lead people to believe that something is a certain way when it's really not that way."

There are, therefore, words of much wider application than Peter Amsterdam suggested and they are certainly wide enough to cover The Family's approach to this litigation.

That is made clear from a letter from Creations to those then involved in the Australian litigation. The Creation team were then in April 1992 creating valuable guide lines on how to tackle tricky questions and answer the accusations that were being made against The Family. In separate publications, one for adults and early adults only and the other as required reading for teens aged 14 and up, "False Accusers in the Last Days" The Family were prepared for having to make the choice between believing God's word or man's word. They were warned of the enemy's dirty tactics and his goal of trying to discredit Dad, the Word and The Family. Advice on how to handle accusations, controversies and concerns was set out in a 48 page document for the adults, "Contending for the Faith" and in 56 pages of "Wise Witnessing Replies", required reading for all over 11 years of age. I find that a huge effort has been made to prepare The Family generally and to prepare the witnesses specifically in how to deal with the challenges to their way of life. The fact that they have been prepared does not, of course, mean that they have been prepared to lie and Peter Amsterdam wrote that as yet unpublished remarks from Maria were passed on to those involved in this litigation to this effect:-

"The Court is a place where they must be honest no matter how embarrassing or threatening to The Family they feel their answers are going to be ..... I would rather have then saying something that would supposedly "hurt" The Family than to ever perjure themselves and destroy their credibility."

Nonetheless, I regret to find that in many instances there has been a lack of frankness and a failure to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. By way of example:-

1. Answers to the Official Solicitor's interrogatories were less than full and frank in material respects which I will deal with later.
2. EM who has important child care responsibilities, was frank enough to admit that she would lie to protect the children and I regret to find that is at times exactly what she did.
3. The Family's Australian lawyer considered it appropriate to make a video recording of conditions in various homes in various countries to place before the Australian Court as evidence of what life was like in a typical home. MA was recorded saying that "The barrister has asked me to describe the surroundings of the 27½ acre plot that we live on." He continued, "We live in a very productive part of England ... When we first moved in, this place was completely overgrown and unusable ... We have managed to clear it and make it a place for the children .... In the back garden over here we have our fourth daughter KAS playing with the ferrets." No one listening to that recording could think otherwise than that that was MA's home. It was not. His wife LA told the listener that "in all my experience all these years in The Family, I have found the children to be happy well adjusted children." She said the same to me in her affidavit sworn in these proceedings and repeated that all children she has met were happy and well adjusted. There was no mention of the Victor programmes to deal with difficult children that had been running in her homes as well she knew.
4. In another video prepared for the Australian Court, film was made of a home in Denmark and the children were asked, more than once, whether they had heard of silence restrictions. No one raised a hand. SC remained mute. He knew about silence restriction. He had been on silence restriction himself. I had been impressed by his evidence until that point and there was much about him which was likeable. When pressed about this discrepancy, he tried at first to shrug it off as not being a "life or death situation." When pressed he explained that he had not told the truth because of his embarrassment for he had no wish to explain why he had been placed on silence restriction and that he was "a rotten apple." What is disturbing, therefore, about this evidence is not only the lack of frankness in presenting material to another Court but also the psychological pressure that had been put upon the boy by the experience of being put on silence.
5. Another transcript prepared for Australia included an apparently enthusiastic JG telling the Australian Court how happy he was. He was not happy. He lied because he could not stand up to the shepherd and tell them that in fact he wished to leave The Family. It is again an example of a lack of candour together with emotional pressure being put upon the young members of the group.
6. In September 1990 a boy SM ran away from a Family home, Burnt Farm in Hertfordshire. He was apprehended at Ramsgate trying to cross the Channel. When the Social Services Department investigated the matter, and called Burnt Farm, a shepherd, RM, denied that he had anything to do with the Children of God, It was a blatant lie. Significantly, also, the home was closed in a hurry and the members dispersed. Could there be a clearer example of Deceivers yet True? From the children comic I quote:-
   
   "If you knew that enemies would persecute you and your Family and all your brothers and sisters and chase you out of their city, if you didn't have to, would you tell them who you are?" (Their emphasis.)

It is an example of a practice I find to have been widespread. "Selah" is a word known to all members of The Family. It means secret. The system must not know it. It is an attitude of mind which prepares them to hide, run away, remove the trunk with The Family literature, take their packed "flee-bag" containing a minimum of essential personal possessions and escape. Things have probably changed over the past 4 years. The Family are more open. The best evidence of that is their willingness to contest this litigation. It was a matter which was the subject of the Summit 93. But even now, The Family still cannot be fully frank, even with their own lawyers. They write:

"We have given some of our legal counsellors nearly full sets of Mo letters so they can properly prepare our defence." (The added emphasis is mine.)

They do not trust even their own lawyers. They do not fully trust their own experts and I gained the impression that Doctor Millikan was less than pleased and Doctor Heller was certainly deeply dismayed because be felt he had been misled by The Family.

These are worrying examples and they are not the only ones of the ingrained habit of lying if they have to and of telling half the truth if they can get away with it. I shall in due time have to give careful consideration to the extent of change within The Family and to the crucial question of whether I am able to trust them.

As I begin the process of evaluating the evidence and arriving at decisions on the disputed matters of fact, I remind myself again not only to be on guard that pressures from the anti-cult movements may have caused distortion of the Plaintiff's evidence but also that the examples I have set out above demonstrate to me quite clearly a pervasive tendency on the part of The Family to be economical with the truth. I turn, at last, to deal with the disputed matters of fact.

SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOUR

I shall judge the oral evidence I have received against the background of Family literature.

GENERAL ATTITUDES TO SEXUAL MATTERS:

Berg was born in 1919. He married mother Eve in 1943 when he was about 24 years old. He met Maria in January 1969 shortly before his 50th birthday. He has written that he had been faithful to his wife for 25 years "until that faithfulness began to stand in God's way and hinder the work. So then God had to raise up someone who could fit the bill in this great new ministry in our lives ... The answer was Maria." So began their menage a trois. This ran counter to the prevailing sexual mores of the group. It was primarily a group of hippies who by all accounts had had their fill of the promiscuous life which the permissive sexual age had opened up to them. The "Revolutionary Rules", which I have not seen, had been written in 1968 and outlined the basic requirements for membership. Those rules clearly stated, apparently, that no dating, kissing or sexual involvement whatever was allowed outside monogamous marriage. I am not sure how Berg managed to make himself the exception to the rule but he found some scriptural justification for it. The "All Things Revelation" that "All things are lawful unto me and that to the pure all things are pure", was set out in a letter "The All Things Tree" which has not been disclosed to me. Those texts were constructed literally in order to confer freedom to engage in sexual relationships outside marriage - even if at that time only the leadership enjoyed the privilege. By 1973 The Family was being exposed to more revolutionary sex teaching that

"the normal, healthful, natural God-created, God-given and God-permitted attitude to sex should be absolutely no different from our attitude toward any other normal physical activity such as eating, exercising or even sleeping. ... If it is in love it is lawful as far as God is concerned."

Berg informed his followers that he found little girls just as fascinated with his erections and quite as willing to feel them as he was to attempt to explore their bodies. He had his first intercourse at the early age of 7. An older boy taught him to masturbate at the age of 8. He wrote:-

"Children should be taught the same: that there is nothing wrong with their bodies, and nothing evil about sex and nothing catastrophic about masturbation, but that all are perfectly normal necessary natural and God given natural physical functions, but that Our bodies in no respect must ever be abused or misused or overused or used in such a way as to offend or hurt others or the uninitiated unenlightened unliberated or sexually uneducated or inexperienced. They should be encouraged in nude mix bathing and nude mix play where socially, legally and climatically permissible and acceptable and advisable. They should also not be prohibited from mutual sexual examination, experimentation or interplay when playing or sleeping together where legally possible and social and housing conditions permit. ... But it must be made very clear to your children that such sexual freedom must never be indulged in or practised openly in the presence of visitors, strangers or uninitiated relatives and friends who have not been properly re-educated in the revolutionary sexual freedoms of natural living. From personal experience I can tell you that I have accomplished much more and done greater things and achieved greater success in God's work since I have become more sexually liberated and enjoyed greater sexual activity than ever before."

The message of this letter is in its conclusion:-

"Hallelujah, I am free - Jesus gives us liberty - Amen? - Now try! - You'll like it! - and thank God for it! Amen? Its a revolution! - For Jesus! Power to the people! - Sex power! - God power! - Can be your power! Amen? - Be a sexual revolutionist for Jesus! Wow! There we go again! Hallelujah! Are you comin'?"

Later he wrote "Come on Ma Burn your Bra" in which he told the young:

"We have a sexy God and a sexy religion with a very sexy leader with an extremely sexy young following! So if you don't like sex, you better get out while you can."

He was paving the way for sharing and Flirty Fishing.

THE LAW OF LOVE

His philosophy was encapsulated in "The Law of Love" written in March 1974. The copy exhibited to the Plaintiff's affidavit contains a singularly disgusting picture. I find it blasphemous. In the background was Christ crucified, "God's lamb." Lying in similar cruciform position on her back was a naked lady with a large nail driven into her vagina ("Your lamb?"). The captions were, "Can a couch be your cross? Are you willing to be nailed? The law of love!" A similar picture appeared some 4 years later in the letter "You are the Love of God", written to encourage Flirty Fishing, with this passage:-

"Every one of you girls who spreads out your arms and your legs on the bed for those men are just like Jesus, exactly like Jesus."

"The Law of Love" is another letter on "All things" He wrote in March 1974:-

"We are the last church! We are God's last church, the last step in God's progress towards total freedom for his church and the last chance to prove that the ultimate church can be trusted with total freedom in this last generation".

To understand that one has to remember that Berg is the End Time prophet who will lead his people into the millennium where they will enjoy a thousand years of sexual freedom. Then followed an important passage:-

"This last generation of the church will probably have as much trouble in handling such freedom as did its first generation. It's like giving a growing child a little more liberty at each new stage of development, a little more complicated and possibly even more dangerous toy" (his emphasis but also mine!) "ushering in a new stage of growth and responsibility to see if he can be trusted with it. If he uses it wisely, he will be given more. If he plays with it foolishly and dangerously it may be taken away from him.... Can you handle this new toy safely so as to bring joy and pleasure to yourself and others around you without endangering anyone or harming anyone or infringing on anyone else's freedoms and others rights? Can you be trusted with it, or will you abuse it and use your liberty as licence to do wrongfully and lustfully instead of rightfully and lovingly? Will you use it to heal and help or harm and hinder? The answer is up to you. Are you so ruled by His love that he can liberate you from the rules or do you have to be kept under the law of works because you cannot be trusted with the liberty of his grace? The answer is up to you."

He went on to draw a crucial distinction between lust and love:-

"Lust is merely to gratify your own selfish appetite, like eating a meal. You may need it, but if you are stealing it from someone else and taking the food out of their mouth to stuff your own, this is selfish lust, not love! But if you are taking the food out of your own mouth and giving your own meal to satisfy and feed another who is hungry and starving for love and needs it desperately and might not survive without it, then this is real love.... Can you handle it? Are you revolutionary enough? We shall see!"

We shall indeed!

On July 29th 1977 The Children of God published the letter "God's Only Law is Love! - What the Bible says about true free love! " (his double emphasis.)

"All things are lawful for me including our sexual freedom, as long as it is done in the unselfish, sacrificial love of God. No, we do not have to keep the Ten Commandments! For us they are no more! for us they are gone forever! Thank God! We now only live to keep God's law of love, his only law - love! For the laws of Moses are no more to the believer in Jesus! We now only have the law of Jesus, God's only law, his love! - a stronger law than Moses' is! Therefore whatsoever you do in the unselfish sacrificial love of Jesus is right and lawful! Whatever you do in love is the law - and that's all, that's it! God's only law is love! We are totally utterly free of the old mosaic law, thank God! we are delivered from the old mosaic law and are no longer bound by it - we are free! 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!"

It is difficult to reconcile this freedom with The Family's attempt to answer "Interviu's 202 Lies about the Children of God" written on 12th June 1977, i.e. six weeks before this letter explained to his disciples what the bible said about true free love. There the answer was given:-

"Lie number 19, they say "we enjoy free love": we have condemned "free love" in any of our homes or colonies and have forbidden any kind of what is normally known as free love among certain communities, meaning total promiscuity, in which we do not believe."

No doubt the pedant within World Services would contend that The Family do not believe in "total promiscuity" because it would no doubt be defined by The Family as sexual activity born of lust. But The Family do believe in sexual activity freely enjoyed by consenting parties who can convince themselves that they are each sacrificing the sanctity of their body in order "lovingly" to satisfy a need of the other. In its way this is an example of dissembling the truth - deceiving yet true.

On 20th May 1980 Father David wrote "The Devil Hates Sex! - but God Loves It!" The Family were coy about producing this letter. It came very late in the day and was produced from the archive of Dr Melton. One can understand the reticence. There are passages on incest and "child sex". Mo's theology is that God made Adam and Eve male and female, not the devil.

"God blessed them and said, be fruitful and multiply!" - in other words, "go to it, start fucking! right out here in the open, in public, in the garden, on the grass!" I suppose some narrow-minded blue-nosed church people would say, "Oh yes, but that's before sin entered in. That's before they discovered sex and how wicked it was! - and after all, that was also really in private because there wasn't anyone else around yet!" Boy oh boy oh boy! that makes me so mad. The thing that makes me mad is that man has allowed the devil to deceive him like that and has been such a stupid idiot as to believe the devil's lies that sex is evil and sex is the worst sin of all and must be the most prohibited. The devil would certainly like to prohibit it completely if he could, and he has restricted it so that things have not moved as fast as they should have..... The only way to get free of (the devil) and his lies and his prohibitions and guilt complexes about sex is to get rid of his lies and his lying propaganda, his anti-sex propaganda, and believe the Lord and his word and his creation and God's love and his freedom! - that there is nothing in the world at all wrong with sex as long as it's practised in love, whatever it is or whoever it's with, no matter who or whatage or what relative or what manner (my emphasis) - and you don't hardly dare even say these words in private. If the law ever got a hold of this, they would try to string me up! They would probably lynch me before I got to the jail! When Paul said "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient" (1 COR 6: 12), he was as good as saying, "I can indulge in any kind of sex I want to, but I've got to watch out for the system because its against the law!" (Maria: At least not let'm find out if you do it!)... We are free in privacy, and that's about all, and we mightn't be free if they discovered what we do in private!... There are no relationship restrictions or age limitations in his law of love.... If you hate sex you are one of the devil's crowd! If you think it's evil, then God and love are evil, for he created it! Come on, let's love and enjoy it like God does! he loves it.!"

I have added that the emphasis in these passages. They need to be emphasised. The meaning is perfectly plain. Berg advocates the enjoyment of this new freedom to engage in sexual activity with whomsoever one desires regardless of the age of that person or the closeness of the relationship to that person subject only to such restraint as is encapsulated in the admonition that the activity must be engaged in love and that is to say "without endangering anyone, or harming anyone, or infringing on anyone else's freedoms and other's rights", quoting from the original Law of Love.

THE EVIDENCE ON SEXUAL ATTITUDES GENERALLY

No witness called on behalf of the Defendant has repudiated the Law of Love. It is the cornerstone of The Family's creed. NT's closing words to me were to plead with me not to denigrate the Law of Love. It was an extraordinary observation from her. I would have expected her to plead with me not to remove her son. Many mothers, often totally hopeless mothers, have begged for that mercy. But NT did not. It was as if the integrity of the Law of Love was more important to her than S. Where is her sense of priorities?

The oral evidence was overwhelming that the members of The Family generally adopted a freer lifestyle than was the norm in any of the countries in which they live. I am satisfied and I find that the attitude of the members of The Family towards all forms of a sexual conduct was that it was a God-given gift to be engaged in without embarrassment. Nudity was not uncommon and sexual activity was not discreet. I find the Law of Love to be a pernicious doctrine because in liberating the ordinary sexual inhibitions, the Law of Love empowers those with strong sexual urges but poor judgment to act indiscriminately and it put pressure upon the weak to succumb to that which does in fact harm them and infringe their freedom. In short the Law of Love was liable to be abused and was calculated to be abusive.

FLIRTY FISHING (FFING)

Whilst living in London late in 1973, David and Maria went ballroom dancing. Many at their dancing club were lost and lonely. It was an opportunity to witness to them. Recollecting how in the Gospel of St. Matthew 4:19, Jesus said to his disciples, "Follow me and I will make you fishers of men", Berg cast his bait, the lure of Maria's sexual appeal, to hook a fish on God's word. As the family literature explained,

"Sex and actual love making (became) a means of witnessing to and showing them (those with whom they wanted to share their faith) a tangible sample and proof of the sacrificial love of God."

Not surprisingly when the practice became widespread, the media coined the phrase "Hookers for Jesus". The Family seemed offended by the description. They should not have been. Berg himself in the letter "God's whores" disclosed that:-

"I threatened to call one of those first chapters we wrote "God's whore". I was going to really shock people! I love shocking titles that provoke people and wake them up".

One of the earliest letters was "Flirty Little Fish" in January 1974. It is important to note that the letter is an account of a prophecy Berg received from God, which gives the letter special authority. Not surprisingly, not many who read it and then understood its implications and how allegory was soon to be translated into action. The letter contained these passages recording his prayer:

"Help Maria to catch this fish. Give her, Lord, thy web. In Jesus' name! Make the lure so attractive he cannot resist it! He's hypnotised! He's fascinated in that which he dreams of, the materialisation of a dream of love, the spirit embodied in her flesh for which he hungers! He hungers for the flesh, Oh God, but he hungers more for the spirit. Help her to catch him with her fingers of flesh that she might impart unto him thy spirit, Oh Lord, for which he hungers. Oh God, in Jesus' name! Each one of them seek after her, suck of her, dream of her, drink of her! Help her, Oh God, to catch the fish faithful to be a fisherman of men. Help her Oh God to catch men! Help her to catch men, be bold unashamed and brazen, to use anything she has, Oh God to catch men for thee! Even if it be through the flesh, the attractive lure, the delicious flesh on a steel hook of thy reality, the steel of thy spirit! Hook them through her flesh! Crucify her flesh, Lord, on the barb of thy spirit! Oh God, even if it penetrate and crucify her flesh, impale her on the point of thy spirit that she may die, that those who feed on her flesh may be caught to live! Oh God, help her, Oh Jesus to be willing to be the bait!"

In this way Maria and Becky and others close to the leaders began their seduction of the men in the clubs in London. In a series of letters called "King Arthur's Knights" the disciples and friends were given some explicit instruction. I say explicit for chapter 7 could not be more plain. In it Maria asked Berg how she should proceed and she got the answer: "Fuck the daylights out of him!" and the drawings which accompany that message demonstrate, as if graphic demonstration was needed, how she should "grab his dick out of his pants." In January 1977 they published the "FFer's Handbook" which is 31 closely typed pages of the "complete instruction manual on FFing." I condescend to this nasty detail only for the purpose of making the point that literature of this kind, and it is one of an infinite number of filthy examples, lay about on the bookshelves of The Family for years and years until the literature purge began in April 1990 and so was freely available to the children in the homes. The children were well aware of this ministry and knew full well what their mothers and sometimes their fathers were up to. They knew all about "Jesus babies", the children born to the FFers who, as a group, did not believe in contraception. One sees this in the "Life with Grandpa" and "Beauty and the Beast" comic series written for children. In the comic "Real Fathers", the children are introduced to Davidito and Techi, Jesus babies born to Maria. Grandpa i.e. Berg, is seen explaining to Davidito and Techi sitting on his lap, that: