The Judgment of Lord Justice Ward (G)The range of powers available to the Court under this Act in the proceedings in question:
(G) The range of powers available to the Court under this Act in the proceedings in question:
I can continue the wardship during S's minority in order to ensure that S remains within the jurisdiction of this Court and is not taken abroad where no control can be exercised over his upbringing. This is a paternalistic jurisdiction. He is my Ward of Court. The Court has assumed responsibility for him and can continue to do so so long as the Wardship endures. I can commit his care and control either to the mother or to the grandmother. This is one of those exceptional cases where the abolition of the Court's ability to make a Supervision Order does fetter my power to do what I consider to be necessary in the interest of this boy. Leicestershire County Council decline to bring proceedings themselves and I do not criticise that decision. It would, however, have been an invaluable source of comfort to know that a responsible body was making periodic visits to The Family, not to be meddlesome but only to be alive to the possibilities of unacceptable behaviour creeping into Family life again. Dr Cameron was anxious to recommend a visiting teacher with a duality of role, partly educational and partly supervisory. I have no power to direct such supervision.
What order must I make in S's best interests?
Like Dr Cameron and Dr Heller my first wish is to leave S with his mother. I have pointed to the risks in my doing so. Since mother does not accept that these risks exist, she cannot protect S from them. She has a right to bring up her child as she determines but he has the right to be prepared to be able to chose an individual life within or outside The Family. This is not an easy balance to strike. My judgment is that the risks of harm as matters presently stand are significant enough to dictate in his interests that he be removed from his mother.
I emphasise that that decision is reached on the matters as they presently stand. I am impressed by the winds of change that have blown and continue to blow through The Family. Although sullied by their participation in the sexual excesses, Maria and Peter Amsterdam have demonstrated convincingly a willingness to change. With Berg's death they have an opportunity subtly yet dramatically to change further. In my judgment, they may be ready to do so. In my judgment, they should be given an opportunity to do so. I intend, therefore, and subject to argument from Counsel, to impose a Stay upon this Order so that NT and those who are close to her in The Family may have some short period of reflection. I would extend that Stay if I were given certain assurances. Again these may be the subject of argument. What I have in mind is the following:
1. Reconsider Dr Cameron's three hurdles and answer again the questions which he poses.
2. She must undertake never to live separate and apart from S for any period exceeding 2 weeks in duration or, if she is absent for three or more days in a week, then this commuting should last for no more than 4 successive weeks and on no more 3 occasions a year.
3. She must categorically forbid anyone
4. She must undertake to avail of all reasonable opportunities to educate S so that he may acquire sufficient grades at GSCE and at A level or such other qualifications as will equip him, if he so desires, to undertake University education.
5. She must undertake unstintingly to allow S contact, including staying contact with his grandmother and with other relatives.
6. She must not reside outside England and Wales and must inform the Official Solicitor in writing of any new home for herself and S at least two weeks in advance of her removing from the Ward's present home.
7. She must permit the Official Solicitor or his appointed agent access to her home at any reasonable time.
8. She must elicit the help of Maria and Peter Amsterdam as set out below.
As Peter Amsterdam has recognised, individual members of The Family will not find it possible to be critical of Berg. I must therefore look to the leadership for help. If S is to have the benefit I wish him to have of remaining with his mother, then for his protection and full development, she must invite World Services to satisfy me of their willingness to take the following steps:-
1. World Services must categorically ban the infliction of any corporal punishment on any child within the United Kingdom by anyone other than a parent and parents themselves should be strongly discouraged from resorting to this type of discipline. Rules restricting the use of silence and time out to the degree I set out above should also be clearly applied to this country. The potentially abusive consequences of the over-zealous use of Open Heart Reports should be emphasized.
2. The recommendations of the Educational Steering Committee set out in Peter Amsterdam's letter to me must be promulgated so that The Family in this country may feel free to seek some help from Local Education Authorities and advance their children's education so that they have some recognized qualifications.
3. The Family must assure me of their intention to maintain their programmes of reconciliation and openness and must confirm that it is their policy to encourage the maintenance of contact with relatives outside The Family.
4. The last step will be the hardest. They must denounce David Berg. They must acknowledge that through his writings he was personally responsible for children in The Family having been subjected to sexually inappropriate behaviour; that it is now recognized that it was not just a mistake to have written as he did but wrong to have done so; and that as a result children have been harmed by their experiences. World Services must follow the advice of NT's expert, Dr Heller and must do what the psychiatrists say must be done for the protection of children in The Family. The Family must be encouraged honestly to face up to this shameful period in their history so that those harmed by it, victims and perpetrators alike, can seek to come to terms with it. For an honest memorial to be given to David Berg, this dark side to his character must be revealed. By all means, let thanks be given also for the good he did - as I accept he did for many -and for the inspiration he has been to those who through him have devoted their lives to the service of the Lord.
I readily appreciate how angry NT is likely to be and how much she will resent this imposition. I expect she will be asking how she, a lowly member, can possibly demand changes of The Family. She could, of course, leave them but I cannot require her to do that - that is a matter for her choice according to her conscience and her love for her son. I do not ask for her decision today - that is why I impose a short stay. During that interval NT and those close to her will have the chance to ponder on my judgment. So will the Plaintiff. Each will come to realise perhaps with anger and also with sadness that part of each case has succeeded but part of each case has failed. I want only one outright winner - S - but my achieving that now depends on them.
With time to reflect, all concerned will come to understand that 10 years ago, possibly even 5 years ago I would not have permitted any child whose welfare was in my hands, to remain with any parent who was a member of The Family. This grandmother has done a public service by exposing their pernicious practices at that time. But times have changed and so have The Family. They have come in from the cold. They carry some mud from the past on their coat but if they choose, they can wash it off. Then they can sit at society's supper table, eccentric guests perhaps, but welcome for all that. We must all be ready to welcome the return of the prodigal son. I hardly need to remind The Family how the son returned: Luke 15:21:-
"And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son."
If NT and the Family takes this to heart and do successfully meet the demands I have placed upon them, then it should not require a direction from the court for NT humbly to acknowledge, "Mother, you were right!" If she can do that then truly S's best interests will have been served.
Back to Index
|
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
|