September 5, 1992, Saturday

A FATHER who fled with his nine-year-old son from a strict religious sect won a second round yesterday in his fight to keep the child.

Appeal judges ruled against the Exclusive Brethren, who threw out the 47-year-old father as a sinner.

The court said that if the Brethren were allowed to keep the boy, whose mother died of cancer in 1988, it would cut him off from his father because no contact is allowed with outsiders.

The Suffolk-based sect, once known as the Plymouth Brethren, does not allow members to mix with outsiders. Children are not allowed to have school meals, watch TV, listen to radio or records or use computers.

September 5, 1992, Saturday

Sect 'sinner' wins custody fight for son

By Colin Randall

THE Exclusive Brethren lost a court battle yesterday for custody of the nine-year-old son of a former member expelled for being a "sinner". Two Appeal Court judges refused to overturn an order under the 1989 Children's Act that the boy should live with his 47-year-old father, a widower, who has been ostracised by his elderly parents and sister, all members of the strictly separatist sect. The boy, identified only as D, was kept in a Brethren community in Suffolk last September after the man was expelled for the second time, for allegedly "pestering" a young female member to marry him. Senior members tried to persuade him to let his son remain in the care of a couple, sect members. When the father successfully sought a residence order at Ipswich County Court in June, Judge Woodford said the struggle for control of the boy showed an "apparent lack of charity" by the Brethren which could only harm him. An aunt in London who is also a Brethren member is allowed visits from the boy provided she does not communicate with him on religious or spiritual matters or refer to the sect. The Appeal Court upheld the residence order and dismissed an appeal by the aunt and two fellow-members of the Brethren. Lord Justice Purchas, sitting with Lord Justice Balcombe, said the Exclusive Brethren, a breakaway group from the Plymouth Brethren, banned members from mixing socially or eating with non-members. "They believe they will not remain pure if they mix with those they believe impure," Lord Justice Purchas said. But these views and stricter standards of morality were clearly not shared by the majority in Britain.

The father was first expelled in 1978 for failing to tell the Brethren that he and his first wife had infringed its moral code by making love before their marriage.

He said the effect of the doctrine forbidding contact with an outsider was that if the boy stayed with the Brethren he would be cut off from his father.

September 5, 1992

Father wins his son back from Brethren sect

A FATHER who was shut out of the Exclusive Brethren religious sect has won a legal battle for the right to take his nine-year-old son with him.

The Court of Appeal in London yesterday rejected an attempt by two members of the sect, a married couple regarded by the boy as his grandparents, to overturn a Judge's order that he should live with his father.

The boy, referred to as D, has lived most of his life under the Brethrens' separatist regime, which bans all social contact with non-members, who are regarded as impure.

The sect's adherents are not allowed to take a meal with outsiders. Children must eat separately from their schoolmates, even on outings, and cannot watch television outside the classroom, listen to records or the radio or use computers.

Any adult who offends against the rules is at first "shut up" -- temporarily excluded from the fellowship. If there is no repentance he or she is "withdrawn from" -- ostracised, sent into the outside world, and banned from socialising with family members and loved-ones in the sect. Husbands and wives can be split by the process.

Appeal Judge Lord Justice Purchas, sitting with Lord Justice Balcombe, said D's father, 47, had been "withdrawn from", cutting off all contact with his son, because of his behaviour while seeking a new partner after the death of his wife.

D's mother died from cancer in 1988. Nearly three years later his father asked another member of the sect in their local Suffolk community to marry him. She refused and he then, according to the Brethren, behaved badly by harassing her and her family. As a result he was "shut up". He then signed a letter giving care of his son to the "grandparents". The following day he was told he had been "withdrawn from".

The father later won county court orders that his son should live with him. He took the boy to live in Sussex, where they developed a good relationship, but members of the sect followed him there. The "grandparents" insisted the visits were made only out of concern for D's welfare.

The Ipswich County Court Judge who ruled in the father's favour rejected suggestions that the boy had been brainwashed by the Brethren, but said the "grandparents" appeared to lack any degree of charity towards D or his father. The father had shown much more love and consideration for the child's feelings.

Lord Justice Purchas accepted that the use of the word charity, in its Biblical sense, was perhaps incorrect. The proper word to use was compassion, which was excluded by the disciplines and tenets of the sect.

"There is no laxity or leniency to an offending adult in the doctrines of the fellowship. There is no element of forgiveness without repentance," he said.

It was no part of the court's function to comment on the rules of certain sections of society, so long as they were socially acceptable. But the impact of such doctrines on a child's future welfare must be taken into account. The law relating to children had to be applied in accordance with the accepted normal standards of society.

He agreed with the County Court Judge that it was in the boy's best interests to be with his father.

He also said the Judge was right not to interview the boy, knowing that he would express strong religious convictions after spending four and a half years in the stifling conditions of the Brethren. And the boy's views, although relevant, were not paramount in deciding his future.

The legal row over D had attracted attention from the Brethren worldwide, said the Judge. D had received letters from children in similar circumstances in New Zealand and he had written back that he hoped they would not be "got by their parents".

That was a very emotive and undesirable expression to be used by a small child.

Under the court order D can visit an aunt -- a member of the Brethren who lives in London -- so long as she does not speak to him about religious or spiritual matters.

The Judges banned identification of the boy or his father.

September 5, 1992, Saturday

Father wins court battle with sect

A FATHER yesterday won the right to keep his son away from the Exclusive Brethren - an isolationist religious sect that does everything possible to prevent its members having contact with the ''impure'' outside world.

The Court of Appeal rejected an attempt by two members of the Christian fundamentalist group - a married couple regarded by the boy as his grandparents - to overturn a judge's order that he should live with his father.

The boy, referred to as "D", has lived most of his life under the Brethrens' separatist regime, which bans all social contact with non-members, who are regarded as "impure". He, like other adherents, was prevented from taking meals with outsiders. Along with other children he had to eat separately from his schoolmates - even on outings - and could not watch television outside the classroom, listen to records or the radio, or use computers.

D's mother died of cancer in 1988. Later, his father had been ostracised from the Brethren and banned from socialising with his son after harrassing a female member of the sect.

The father later won county court orders that his son should live with him.

The county court judge rejected suggestions that the boy had been "brainwashed" by the Brethren, but said the grandparents "appear to lack any degree of charity towards D or his father".

Lord Justice Purchas said the father had shown much more love and consideration for the child's feelings, and it was in the boy's best interests to remain with him.

September 5, 1992

SECT LOSES FIGHT FOR BOY'S CUSTODY

A FATHER who was shut out of the Exclusive Brethren religious sect has won a legal battle for the right to take his nine-year-old son with him into the world outside its rigid doctrine.

The Court of Appeal yesterday rejected an attempt by two members of the sect - a couple regarded by the boy as his grandparents - to overturn a judge's order that he should live with his father.

The boy, referred to as "D", has lived most of his life under the Brethren's separatist regime, which bans all social contact with non-members.

Children must eat separately from their schoolmates and cannot watch TV outside the classroom, listen to records or the radio, or use computers.

Any adult who offends against the rules is at first "shut up" - temporarily excluded from the fellowship. If there is no repentance, he or she is "withdrawn from" - sent into the outside world and banned from socialising with family and loved ones in the sect. Lord Justice Purchas, sitting with Lord Justice Balcombe, said D's father, aged 47, had been "withdrawn from", cutting off contact with his son, because of his behaviour while seeking a new partner after his wife's death.

D's mother died in 1988. Nearly three years later, his father asked another member of the sect in their Suffolk community to marry him.

She refused and he then harassed her and her family. He was then "shut up" by the Brethren. He then signed a letter giving care of his son to the "grandparents". Next day he was told he had been "withdrawn from".

The father later won county court orders that his son should live with him.

Lord Justice Purchas agreed with the judge at Ipswich county court that it was in the boy's best interests to be with his father.

The appeal judges banned reporting of any material which could lead to disclosure of the boy's identity.

September 5, 1992, Saturday

FATHER WINS LOVE-TUG WITH 'BRETHREN' SECT

A father who was shut out of The Exclusive Brethren strict religious sect has won a tug-of-love legal battle for the right to take his nine-year-old son with him into the world outside its rigid moral doctrine. The Court of Appeal yesterday rejected an attempt by two members of the Christian sect - a married couple regarded by the boy as his grandparents - to overturn a judge's order that he should live with his father. The boy, referred to as "D", has lived most of his life under The Brethrens' separatist regime, which bans all social contact with non-members, who are regarded as "impure". The sect's adherents are not even allowed to take a meal with outsiders. Children must eat separately from their schoolmates - even on outings - and cannot watch television outside the classroom, or listen to records or the radio, or use computers. Any adult who offends against the rules is at first "shut up" - temporarily excluded from the fellowship. If there is no repentance, he or she is "withdrawn from" - ostracised, sent into the outside world and banned from socialising with family members and loved-ones in the sect. Even husbands and wives can be split by the process. Appeal judge Lord Justice Purchas, sitting with Lord Justice Balcombe, said D's father, 47, had been "withdrawn from", cutting off all contact with his son, because of his behaviour while seeking a new partner after the death of his wife. D's mother died from cancer in 1988. Nearly three years later, his father asked another member of the sect in their local Suffolk community to marry him. She refused and he then behaved badly by harassing her and her family. As a result he was "shut up" by The Brethren. He then signed a letter giving care of his son to the "grandparents". The following day he was told he had been "withdrawn from". The father later won county court orders that his son should live with him. To escape the attentions of The Brethren, the father took his son to live in Sussex, where they developed a good relationship. But members of the sect followed him there. The grandparents insisted the visits to Sussex were made only out of concern for D's welfare. The Ipswich County Court judge who ruled in the father's favour rejected suggestions that the boy had been "brainwashed" by The Brethren, but said the grandparents "appear to lack any degree of charity towards D or his father". The father had shown much more love and consideration for the child's feelings. The grandparents objected to the suggestion that The Brethren lacked "charity". Lord Justice Purchas accepted that the use of the word, in its Biblical sense, was perhaps incorrect. The proper word to use was "compassion" - and compassion was excluded by the disciplines and tenets of the sect. "There is no laxity or leniency to an offending adult in the doctrines of the fellowship. There is no element of forgiveness without repentance," he said. It was no part of the court's function to comment on the rules of certain sections of society, so long as they were socially acceptable. But the impact of such doctrines on a child's future welfare must be taken into account. The law relating to children had to be applied in accordance with the "accepted normal standards of society". He agreed with the county court judge that it was in the boy's best interests to be with his father. He also said the judge was right not to interview the boy himself - the judge knew perfectly well that the boy would express strong religious convictions after spending four and a half years in the "stifling" conditions of The Brethren. And the boy's views, although relevant, were not paramount in deciding his future. The legal row over D had attracted attention from The Brethren worldwide, said the judge. D had received letters from children in similar circumstances in New Zealand and he had written back that he hoped they would not be "got by their parents". That was a "very emotive and undesirable expression" to be used by a small child. Under the court order won by the father, D can visit an aunt - a member of The Brethren who lives in London - so long as she does not speak to him about religious or spiritual matters. The appeal judges banned reporting of any material which could lead to disclosure of the boy's identity.

Legal Notice: The administration of this website was taken over about  September, 2004  by Med Trans 1, Inc.. The content on this site was the work of the late Jan Groenveld, and as such, Med Trans 1, Inc. is not knowledgeable about the specific content presented on this website, nor is responsible for any inaccuracies that may be discovered.

We wish to be fair to all parties involved, and there is no intent whatsoever to present inaccurate in formation.  Therefore, if any group or individual feels that information presented on this site is inaccurate, please contact us. If the information is proven to be inaccurate, it will be either changed or removed upon receipt of verifiable proof being supplied to us. Verifiable proof is defined as a disinterested source independent of your group such as newspaper, encyclopedia, public records and similar sources. 

Any group or individual who wishes to supply a rebuttal to any information presented on this site may do so at any time. The length of the rebuttal is to be no more in length (number of words) than the article or material being rebutted. The rebuttal is to be within an e-mail and not as an attachment. E-Mails with attachments are automatically deleted unread due to the large number of virus attacks we received in the past.

Literature, books etc. mailed to us will  be discarded unread unless we specifically requested the materials. Those who send mail that is abusive in nature or combative, will not receive a response from us. Nor will any article be debated or extensive discussions be engaged in regarding an article published.      

Any problems with the website, please contact the webmaster