June 28th, 2009

In Australia’s The Age today, Michael Bachelard author of the acclaimed ‘Behind the Exclusive Brethren‘, presents a heartbreaking report that proves beyond doubt that the Exclusive Brethren cult will go to any length to rip families apart.

In an astonishing judgement in Melbourne, Justice Brown allowed the cult to legally prevent their excommunicated father from having anything further to do with his two children.  As is usual in these cases, the Exclusive Brethren spared no effort or cost in their legal campaign:

“… The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor… “

Read the full article in todays Sunday Age:

Ex-Brethren father loses battle for children

The Age

Michael Bachelard

June 28, 2009 – 12:00AM

A grieving father’s only contact with his Exclusive Brethren children will be permission to buy their photographs from the sect’s school, as long as they are not there at the time, a Family Court judge has ruled.

Justice Sally Brown has comprehensively ruled against the father, who can be known only as Peter, denying him any contact with his son, 15, and daughter, 10, after a five-year court battle, waged mostly in their home state of Tasmania.

After spending $100,000 winning court orders in 2006 for access, then trying unsuccessfully to enforce them, Peter could only afford to represent himself in the most recent retrial.

The Exclusive Brethren paid for the mother, Elspeth, to hire one of Melbourne’s top family court QCs, Noel Ackman, as well as a junior barrister and a solicitor.

The church’s “doctrine of separation” prevents people who have left the fold having any relationship with those still inside, including their own children.

Early in 2007, Justice Robert Benjamin sentenced the mother and two male relatives to four-month suspended jail sentences for failing to encourage the children to go with their father. These sentences were overturned on appeal.

Justice Brown’s judgment, delivered in Melbourne on Thursday, ruled for the Brethren mother because during the course of the case the children’s relationship with the father had broken down, and there was no prospect of re-establishing it.

The judge blamed the father for this, saying that his attempts to make sure that earlier court orders were obeyed had alienated the children from him and that parts of his application were “cruel and punitive” towards the children.

The mother fell ill with a recurrence of breast cancer after Justice Benjamin’s ruling in 2007, and the “family narrative” blamed the father for this.

“It is clear that the mother attributes responsibility for the recurrence of her cancer, at least in part, to the trauma she experienced when sentenced,” Justice Brown said. Whether or not this was true was “less relevant than its currency in the home”.

The daughter had “taken on board” this message and had torn up and returned a card her father had sent her, saying if he wanted her to be happy “he should just leave us alone”.

However, she rejected the father’s suggestion that the Exclusive Brethren had prompted this behaviour, despite evidence over many years that the sect encourages young children to reject their lapsed parents.

In 2006, a court-appointed psychologist described the Brethren’s attempts to turn the children against Peter as “psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive” to the children and at “the highest end of psychological abuse”.

But Justice Brown’s views on the Brethren were generally positive: their religious conviction was as “vital to them as the air they breathe”, and “they perceive a life lived outside their faith as unsustainable”. She questioned whether it was their policy to remove children from non-Brethren parents, quoting a report to her that said that “the church says in its publication this is not the case”.

Justice Brown said it was false to think, as the father did, that this case was “a duel between law and religion”.

The father said the few times he had had contact, the children had “warmed up” to him, but the opinion of a court-appointed consultant, Ineke Stierman, was that the daughter’s “youth and courtesy explain her relatively polite responses”. As for the son, one visit had ended with him curled in a foetal position in the cubby house and refusing to eat.

Having “nothing to do with them now might show ultimate caring”, Ms Stierman recommended.

Justice Brown accepted that the result of her judgment was that “the children will not spend time with anyone who speaks positively about the father”.

The father had applied for custody of both children but late in the case changed his position, asking for custody of his daughter and access to his son. The judge condemned this as “indicative of a significant lack of understanding of the children’s needs” .

The mother’s application was to have custody of the children until she died, following which they be cared for by an older sister and her husband.

Although Justice Brown did not rule on what would happen after the mother’s death, she agreed the children needed support by their extended family “during these traumatic years”, that the girl had bonded with her older sister, and that this must take priority over any relationship with the father, or “any questions about the Exclusive Brethren’s compliance with court orders”.

Although Ms Stierman suggested contact of “an hour or two, once or twice a year”, Justice Brown said she could see no benefit to that. Instead, Peter could, at his expense, be provided with a copy of their school reports, photos and newsletters as long he obtained them at a time when any family members “are not likely to be on the school premises”.

Asked by The Sunday Age if he had a message for his children, Peter, who himself grew up without a father because of the Brethren’s doctrine of separation, said: “I just want them to know I tried my best.”

The Exclusive Brethren declined to comment, saying it was a private family matter.

Michael Bachelard

The Age

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/exbrethren-father-loses-battle-for-children-20090627-d0lc.html

This is most certainly not the first time that the Australian Family Court has caved in under the pressure tactics of the cult.  Retired Chief Justice of the Family Court Alistair Nicholson has spoken openly about the tactics the cult uses in the past:

Stephen Crittenden: Isn’t part of the problem that the Family Court has with the Exclusive Brethren, just the simple fact that the Exclusive Brethren don’t recognise the validity of the court, of the laws, and that there’s just a general sense, a problem of members of the Exclusive Brethren defying court orders?

Alistair Nicholson: Yes, and I think they can be dealt with by the usual method of punishment of people who do defy court orders. There’s no problem about that.

Read the full transcript on ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1871059.htm#anchor1

In 2007, ABC’s Four Corners broadcast ‘The Brethren Express’ where some superb investigative journalism dug into the finances of the Exclsuive Brethren cult. Former Chief Justice Nicholson was interviewed again.  You can watch his extended interview and the full program on the Brethren Express website.

One thing is certain – the Exclusive Brethren cult continues to rip families apart with seeming impunity. They consider themselves above any human court and the cruel and vicious way they separate family members has caused many to kill themselves. Some wonder, when the extent of their maliciousness is understood, whether the legal term ‘culpable homicide‘ could be invoked?

Be Sociable, Share!

•