JUDGEMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD CONCERNING THE FAMILY : PT 24
Click Here For A Warning Concerning This Judgment
THIS IS THE JUDGMENT OF LORD JUSTICE WARD IN THIS CASE WHICH
HE GAVE IN CHAMBERS ON THE 26TH MAY 1995 BUT WHICH IS BEING
HANDED DOWN IN OPEN COURT TODAY. IT CONSISTS OF 295 PAGES
AND HAS BEEN SIGNED AND DATED BY THE JUDGE.
THE JUDGE HEREBY DIRECTS THAT NO TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUDGMENT
NEED BE TAKEN AND THAT THE VERSION HANDED DOWN MAY BE
TREATED AS AUTHENTIC.
THE JUDGMENT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED ON THE STRICT
UNDERSTANDING THAT IN ANY REPORT OF IT NO PERSON (OTHER THAT
COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS AND THOSE PERSONS
IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN THE JUDGMENT ITSELF) MAY BE IDENTIFIED
BY NAME AND THAT IN PARTICULAR THE ANONYMITY OF THE CHILD, A
WARD OF COURT, AND THE MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY MUST BE
STRICTLY PRESERVED.
SIGNED:
THE RT. HON. LORD JUSTICE WARD DATED 19TH OCTOBER 1995
W 42 1992 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION
PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IN THE MATTER OF ST (A MINOR)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT ACT 1991h
Lord Justice Ward
It will be seen from this review of these various provisions
that there has been a steady and insistent curbing of the
right of the parent and of those in loco parentis to
reasonable chastisement of a child.
The European Convention protecting Fundamental Human Rights
provides by Article 3 that:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
In the case of Tyrer v United Kingdom [1979] 2 E.H.R.R.1,
the European Court considered a sentence by a Juvenile Court
on the Isle of Man to three strokes of the birch imposed for
an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The punishment
was still available under Manx law but it had ceased to be a
permissible sentence in England, Wales and Scotland in 1968.
The Court held:
"The very nature of judicial corporal punishment is that it
involves one human being inflicting physical violence on
another human being. Furthermore, it is institutionalised
violence, that is in the present case violence permitted by
the law, ordered by the judicial authorities of the State
and carried out by the police authority of the State. Thus,
although the applicant did not suffer any severe or long
lasting physical effects, his punishment - whereby he was
treated as an object in the power of the authorities -
constituted an assault on precisely that which is one of the
main purposes of Article 3 to protect, namely a person's
dignity and physical integrity. Neither can it be excluded
that the punishment may have had adverse psychological
effects."
The punishments meted out in Macau and the horsewhipping at
Tewkesbury fall within that description if for the organs of
State one understands the analogous teamworks within The
Family.
In Costello - Roberts v United Kingdom [1994] 2 FCR 65, a
boy at a private school accumulated 5 demerit marks and,
having already received 3 warnings from the Headmaster, he
was given 3 spanks on his bottom through his shorts with a
rubber soled gym shoe. The European Court considered that
the punishment was not degrading in breach of Article 3
because the humiliation or debasement involved did not
attain the particular level of severity and exceed the usual
element of humiliation inherent in any such punishment. It
would follow from that case that the fundamental human
rights of the children in this Country had probably not been
invaded except in the case of S4 and MS. This observation
does not in any sense detract from the criticism I have
already levelled at The Family for the excessive beatings
they have administered to many other children in this
Country. I am in no doubt at all that most of those beatings
were unlawful.
6. On the Law Generally
I have attempted by this excursus of the law to plant the
signposts of public policy and to follow them, to identify
the rights of the mother in order to balance them against
the rights of the child and to look at this case through
both ends of the telescope - at one end a private dispute
between a grandmother and her daughter, but through the
other end, a dispute which raises important matters
affecting fundamental freedoms. I bear all of those matters
in mind. The fact that there may be nearly 200 other
children in the British Isles is not a material factor in
this private dispute between a grandmother and her daughter
over the grandchild but it is idle to pretend that others
will not be affected by this jugdment. That serves only to
confirm that this is a serious matter which demands my
earnest deliberation, and, I hope, justifies the length and
detail of the enquiry. My duty is to give paramount
consideration to S's welfare having regard to all the
circumstances of this case and in particular to the
check-list factors set out in Section 1(3) of the Children
Act 1989. First, a summary:
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. An Assessment of The Family
To the members of The Family, David Berg was an End-Time
Prophet who was revered by his flock as a man of God. He was
treated as an icon. Consequently, in the eyes of the members
he could do no wrong. Since obedience was a clarion call and
since murmuring was a cardinal crime, members faithful to
him were unable to articulate criticism of him. There is
little emanating from Maria or World Services strongly to
suggest that they were prepared openly to disagree with him.
Now he is dead. I have no evidence giving me any clear
indication as to how his death will affect The Family's
future. Whilst his Letters were never sacrosanct, they did
constitute The Family's theology and they were influential
in shaping attitudes and behaviour. Unless they are
repudiated, they are likely to continue to hold sway.
The Family have considered themselves to be the objects of
world-wide persecution. This case is an instance of
persecution. It threatens the very life of The Family.
Consequently they regard themselves free to deceive the
authorities and I have not always had the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth from The Family in the
evidence they have presented to me. It is, however,
significant that their response to persecution has changed
in important respects. Most importantly for my purpose, NT
has submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court and has
defended herself, rather than run away. A second important
change is that The Family have undoubtedly begun to seek
open contact with church, local authorities, academics and
society generally. The more the threat of persecution is
dispelled, the less the need to deceive and the greater the
reliance that can be placed upon their word.
2. Sexually Inappropriate Conduct
By the Law of Love and the belief that to the pure, all
things are pure, Berg freed his flock from the restraints
which in society control licentious behaviour. He knew that
he was giving his people "a dangerous toy", the danger being
that lust would be mistaken for love. Having encouraged the
sexuality of children, they became, as he must have been
aware, objects of the Law of Love when he must have
appreciated that by reason of their want of age and
understanding they were unable to give full and free consent
especially under the pressure of advances made upon them by
adults. He also must have realised that harm would be caused
to them. I am totally satisfied that a high proportion of
children were exposed to the sight or sound of adult sexual
activity. I am satisfied that many children and teenagers
engaged in sexual activity with other children or teenagers.
I am furthermore satisfied that a significant number of
children, more within The Family than outside it, had
masturbation and even sexual intercourse forced upon them by
adults. I am, however, equally satisfied that The Family
have made determined efforts to stamp out this unacceptable
behaviour and that they have been largely successful in that
endeavour. Whereas the blame for the abuse which has
occurred is to be laid at Berg's door, the credit for
effecting change most probably can be given to Maria. She
and World Services have, however, failed fully to
acknowledge The Family's responsibility for this past
misconduct.
3.Educational Neglect
The teaching of toddlers and young children has
significantly improved. In times past the burden for caring
for young children had fallen unsatisfactorily on teenagers,
even young teenagers but now The Family seem more cognisant
of the adults' responsibility. Now young children receive,
broadly speaking, as good an education as their counterparts
in state schools and in some respects perhaps even better.
The older the children become, the more unsatisfactory the
education provision for them. Since education is primarily
designed to equip Family children for their missionary role
and for the End-Time, their scholastic attainments gradually
fall away. There are the first signs of this changing but
the progress has been slight. There are no opportunities for
further education. Consequently, and taken over the whole
span of childhood merging into young adulthood, the full
flowering of intellectual potential is stunted.
4. Medical Neglect
Although there are examples in The Family's literature and
in the evidence I have heard of undue reliance upon prayer
and exorcism to cure conditions which should have been
referred to medical or psychiatric practitioners, there is
equally abundant evidence that no restraint is presently
placed upon a member of The Family seeking medical
attention. Nothing suggests that S is at risk from this
neglect.
5. Emotional, Social or Behavioural Harm
Life within The Family frequently is highly emotional. To be
"on fire" is an emotional experience and at times firing up
these enthusiasms has been emotionally draining for the
children experiencing it. It is, however, part of the
religious life which this community chooses to lead and by
itself and unless taken to extremes as it was in the Victor
programmes, it is not necessarily harmful. The Family's use
of Open Heart Reports can be abusive and the use of
excessive periods of isolation and silence restrictions
undoubtedly was abusive. Although some contact is made with
the outside world both through the newly established policy
of openness and also because witnessing brings The Family
into contact with the world, the children still tend to lead
cloistered lives with little opportunity to mix. Unless
there is goodwill contact with the natural Family is more
likely than not to wither away. Certainly it does not
provide the window of opportunity for a child within The
Family naturally and lovingly to absorb influences from
outside. This isolation is concerning. So, speaking
generally, is the intensity of pressure on adult and child
alike to conform. To live a communal life one must, to some
extent, sacrifice self, and my concern for children within
The Family is that legitimate assertions of precious
individuality are suppressed as sins of worldliness and
pride. I find it ironic - and the irony has struck EM who
commented on the teenage girls insisting on wearing a bra
when she and her generation were burning theirs - that the
leaders who grew up in the permissive age of the 60's and
70's yet who revolted against shackles of society, now at
times ruthlessly run their society with such a heavy hand.
Even in these darker corners of communal life winds of
change are beginning to blow and PER and the TSers
reconciliation programme are welcome signs of a much needed
breath of fresh air.
6. Physical Ill-treatment
On re-reading the "Last State" and my notes of Macau, I
still recoil with horror at the indignities there heaped
upon the children. I am in no doubt whatever that whilst the
doctrine of sparing the rod and spoiling the child is one
for which The Family would claim biblical authority and one
for which many ordinary members in society express
concurrence, nevertheless Berg's enthusiastic endorsement of
it has, as in so many things, been carried to excess by
those who follow him. The Victor Programme is an example of
that excess. In this country and in recent years, children
in the absence of their parents have been harshly beaten and
at times left bleeding and bruised by indiscriminate,
over-zealous applications of Family discipline. It is no
excuse that it was done after seeking consent (which, of
course, is no true consent at all) or that it was
administered "in love" with a heavy but loving heart or that
it was completed with a compulsory hug and the assurance, "I
love you, honey." That this was abusive has been recognised
but the new discipline guidelines, well-intentioned though
they are, still harp back to old Letters and are still not
tight enough in their control to protect children who remain
at the mercy of those in charge of them.
7. Change
Both the expert evidence and the oral evidence satisfy me
that The Family are always willing to change and do change.
They do not always perceive how harmfully they embrace one
experiment in child care after another. Some of their
changes have been totally unforseen, the most bizarre
example being the Flirty Fishing Ministry. Significantly, as
Maria has gradually eased control from Berg, the original
"one man band dictatorship" has become more democratic,
arriving at decisions after consultation and by consensus.
This is a healthy development and leads me to conclude, not
without anxiety, that there is some hope for future progress
in directions which will be generally acceptable enough
within the wide bounds of freedom and tolerance we extend to
many to choose to live a religious life, even an extreme
form of religious life like The Family's. The difficulty in
making any decision about The Family is the difficulty of
taking a snapshot view of them which freezes them at this
moment of time. In this judgment I have to do that but I am
very conscious that the cameras continue to turn to the
order of the great Director in the Sky. He knows the script
- I do not. Berg's death is the most dramatic event in this
real-life soap opera. At times I thought The Family would
collapse without him. I now conclude that it will survive.
Its survival will depend upon the selection by Maria, Peter
Amsterdam and World Services of those parts of the theology
which strengthen the essential beliefs which inform the
actions of all those Family members to whom I listened. All
of them profess sincerely to dedicate their lives to serving
Jesus in a ministry which is uniquely theirs. If that energy
can be harnessed the charisma will remain. There was much
denial of and little support for the conduct I have been
describing because Family members individually and
collectively know in their heart of hearts that is was
inappropriate and indefensible. World Services have a unique
opportunity to re-assess The Family, to re-set its goals and
aspirations and quietly, but authoritatively to denounce
that which was wrong, honestly yet boldly declaring that it
was wrong, not just mistaken. They need faith and courage in
themselves to do so even if it means, as it has to mean,
that they must speak ill of the dead.
8.NT
She is a good enough mother. She is not perfect. Perfection
is unattainable in these Courts for none of us is saintly.
My concern for NT is that she fails to put S first. The
Family comes first. Her devotion to Berg is so total that it
has drained her intellectual reserves and she, like most of
those about her, and like Portia, is blinded by love for him
and "cannot see the pretty follies that themselves commit".
Doctor Cameron set three hurdles for her to surmount. She
failed. That troubles me. In other respects S is well cared
for. Time after time, witnesses glared accusingly at me,
almost defiant in their protest that I would not hear of the
joy and of the fun they and their children had within The
Family. I did not need their evidence to be satisfied of
that. Although their chosen way of life may be attractive
only to some and is probably deeply unattractive to most, I
readily understand that a life which is full of song and
praise and "skits" and communal activity, all in the service
of the Lord, is fun and does bring most members of The
Family much happiness. The evidence from Leicestershire
County Council confirms it. I accept it.
9. The Plaintiff
She will do her best for S. She can provide for him in a
perfectly satisfactory way giving him a home of comfort in
Kenya and an education which will equip him to make his
future as he chooses it. Grandmothers are special but
grandmothers are best when they remain grandmothers: when
they seek to become mothers they are invariably second best.
CONCLUSIONS
This judgment has preyed on my mind for months. I have
pondered long hours over the balance to strike. In stating
my conclusions I cannot possibly state every fact and
circumstance which has impressed me. The following is but a
resume' of the main factors which inform my decision. In
judging what S's welfare demands I should decide for him, I
have regard particularly to the factors set out in Section
1(3) of the Children Act 1989.
(A) S's ascertainable wishes and feelings considered in the
light of his age and understanding:
At 3 years old this is not a factor of weight. Insofar as
his wishes and feelings can be determined, they show that he
is strongly attached to his mother but, in view of the
communal upbringing he has had, he shows a readiness to move
freely to other adults and to be comfortable with them. He
knows his grandmother and he is comfortable with her.
(B) His physical, emotional and educational needs:
Physically, he needs to be protected from ill-treatment and
from excessive corporal punishment. Emotionally he needs to
live a life which is not repressive but which will permit
the full and free development of his personality as an
individual, with individual feelings which he must be
entitled to express in order to have maturity of judgment.
He needs exposure to a wide not a confined range of
experiences in life. His educational needs are that those
who teach him provide him with the information and the
encouragement to attain the full flowering of his
intellectual potential. A full education is the birthright
of every child. I gratefully adopt the submission of the
amicus curiae that:
"As an essential part of the upbringing of any child, in
attempting to educate it, and impart to it a balanced moral
and ethical code, the fostering of a capacity in the child
to make a discriminating choice in the conduct of his or her
own affairs is, at its lowest, desirable."
I go further. It is not only desirable - it is necessary.
Generally, this boy needs to be brought up by his mother. If
she is capable of doing so, he will need much positive
contact with his grandmother. In the circumstances of this
case, that contact is to be frequent enough and long enough
to sustain and build their relationship both in order that
she, the grandmother, may monitor his progress, but also
that he, the child, may know he has a haven of safety to
which he may retreat if ever he finds life in The Family
uncomfortable. Likewise, and as essentially, if he is to
make his home with his grandmother, he will need to continue
to see his mother to preserve and maintain that relationship
for its own sake and for her again assuming the reins of
control should she ever withdraw from The Family.
(C) The likely effect on him of any change in his
circumstances:
If he is to move to his grandmother he will suffer the loss
of his mother to whom he is strongly attached and will mourn
as he comes to terms with that loss. Although used to being
cared for by others, a life different from that which he has
enjoyed will be unsettling both in the short term and in the
long term. This will harm him. It is this harm which drove
Doctor Cameron and Doctor Heller to their preference to
leave him where he is, especially if, in other respects, his
position can be safeguarded. This is a factor of weight.
(D)His age, sex, background and any characteristics of his
which the Court considers relevant:
At the age of 3 he is still young enough to move and recover
from most but not all of the ill-effects of the move. His
sex does not seem material. Both boys and girls have in the
past suffered sexual abuse within The Family. Both boys and
girls have been excessively chastised. His background is, or
was, to be a member of a prosperous (but now less
prosperous!) family in which he would find his natural place
if he were to live with his grandmother. He would be brought
up in the conventions of his class and would be likely to
receive an education at a boarding preparatory school and go
on to public school as his brother and his grandfather did
before him. A characteristic of this boy which is relevant
is that he is to all intents and purposes fatherless. WA
plays no part in his life and is never likely to do so. He
has a half-brother who has a father whose position is also
likely to be blurred. This will pose problems for S when he
reaches adolescence and searches for his identity and asks
those searching questions of himself in the dark hours of
the night, "Who am I and who is that part of me who is my
father?" In choosing to share and have children by different
fathers, NT has made a rod for her back and for her
children's and her children will need help in coming to
terms with never knowing their fathers.
(E)Any harm which he has suffered or is at the risk of
suffering
I am satisfied he has not suffered harm. He is not likely to
be at risk of suffering sexual harm from any resurrection of
the freedoms given by the Law of Love to abuse children in
the way they have been abused in the past. The practice of
sharing seems more discreetly conducted and there is no
present evidence that he will be exposed to rampant sexual
high-jinks which will rob him of the precious innocence of
his youth. There are, however, deviant and damaged members
of The Family who have perpetrated abuse, or have suffered
abuse, and their personalities are warped accordingly. They
are hard to identify. Even those who have suffered, tend to
suffer in silence. They will continue to do so unless and
until this dreadful secret is brought out into the open.
Given their peripatetic and communal lifestyle, there are
real possibilities that S may come into contact with some
whose responses cannot be guaranteed. It poses a risk of
harm to S which is higher though not substantially higher,
than it must be recognised he would face in life outside The
Family. He suffers real risk of harm from excessive
punishment. The tendency is for parents to surrender their
responsibility to the Child Care Team and there are too many
recent examples of excess for me not to regard this risk as
a real one not withstanding the new guidance from World
Services. As matters currently stand S's full intellectual
emotional social and behavioural development is at risk of
being impaired. The Family's isolation and tight control
stultifies full development. I must, however, balance
against this the freedom to live life in a religious
community and a degree of tolerance must be allowed. The
current educational policies of The Family will harm S
because he will not receive an education which equips him to
make informed choices.
(F) How capable each of his parents, and any other person in
relation to whom the Court considers the question to be
relevant, is of meeting his needs:
Subject to the acknowledged shortcoming that grandmother can
never replace a mother and that age is against her, this
grandmother has shown herself capable of doing all that is
required to give this boy as good an upbringing as can be
managed in the circumstances. On the level of daily care NT
is quite capable whilst she is present to administer that
care. There is no certainty in her life that she will always
be present. Her ministry may cause her to be separated from
S. Care may be transferred to others and I have seen enough
of those others to realise that whereas some may be
perfectly good, others pose risks to children which cannot
be tolerated. This mother cannot enjoy my fullest confidence
in her capabilities until she shows a commitment to placing
S first and foremost. She does not have a capability fully
to protect him because she has not accepted that some of The
Family's practices have corrupted and psychologically
damaged a number of the children and adolescents in its care
and that accordingly extra vigilance is necessary. She does
not have the capacity even to acknowledge the constrictions
to a full development which Family life impose nor to accept
that the secondary and tertiary education of the children
falls below an acceptable standard.
(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:
NT must do 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
(i) to inflict corporal punishment on S
(ii) to place him on silence restriction for more than one
hour in any one day and on no more than 5 days in any month
(iii) to place him in isolation or on time out for longer
than 15 minutes a day
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.
[ Click Me ] Go To Part 23 . . .
[ Click Me ] Go To Part 1 . . .