International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 3 2022 46
State institutions will find themselves in challenging
positions when they attempt to protect vulnerable
populations, including children. Enforcement
becomes even more challenging if government actors
lose credibility, as occurred in the Island Pond raid.
Worse, the population these influencers are trying to
help may simply travel across borders, further isolating
and endangering the children. As a result, courts of
law become battlegrounds where religious groups seek
to establish favorable legal outcomes (Richardson &
Bellanger, 2014).
However, this use of the court system can come
with some societal benefits. In particular, Willey and
Kent (2017) have made the case that “the legal arena
provides opportunities for officials to better inform the
public about cult-related child-abuse issues, since its
rules of evidence and citations are more rigorous than
what reporters [in the media] necessarily use” (p. 32).
Though out-of-court settlements can occur, they still
demonstrate that the courts do have authority over
organizations and their leadership, however full trials,
when possible, “best serve the public good” (Willey &
Kent, 2017, p. 35).
Furthermore, Dodd (2018) made the case that, in
addition to legal reforms prohibiting the corporal
punishment of children, such reforms also need to
be accompanied by “implementation strategies for
raising public awareness, changing attitudes and
providing education and support for parents about
positive non-violent discipline” (p. 122). Likewise,
religious communities need to become more engaged
in messaging surrounding the non-use of corporal
punishment as it is “incompatible with universal and
religious principles of respect for human dignity,
compassion, justice, equality, kindness” (Dodd, 2018,
p. 128). However, even when the government action is
well planned and executed, we believe many challenges
remain:
1) Advocates know only about specific cases
when tragedy occurs, or there is a parental
custody case. Most of the time, these
children are out of sight they are not seen
by teachers or socialworkers, at least not by any
who are not part of the immediate family
or group.
2) Children often lack complete or accurate
government paperwork. Many are born at home,
and some are never registered at any
hospital, church, or school. Names are
frequently changed within groups such as
the Twelve Tribes, making abuse cases hard to
track.
3) If a child does come to the attention of
child welfare, that child may be transported to
another jurisdiction, crossing either domestic
or international borders.
4) Powerful homeschooling groups and legal
organizations pressure politicians to have only
weak regulations.
5) Sporadic yet sweeping actions by
governments are ineffective.
These challenges are more difficult to resolve when
survivors are classified as apostates and therefore
unreliable. When witnesses are called apostates, the
reality of the abuse can be downplayed or presented
as a necessary part of religious freedom. As a result,
there is no clear winner in a conflict between rights,
but an apparent loser is evident. The children of these
groups continue to be vulnerable to harm perpetrated
by group members, and also through the disruptive
and ineffective interventions by the State.
State institutions will find themselves in challenging
positions when they attempt to protect vulnerable
populations, including children. Enforcement
becomes even more challenging if government actors
lose credibility, as occurred in the Island Pond raid.
Worse, the population these influencers are trying to
help may simply travel across borders, further isolating
and endangering the children. As a result, courts of
law become battlegrounds where religious groups seek
to establish favorable legal outcomes (Richardson &
Bellanger, 2014).
However, this use of the court system can come
with some societal benefits. In particular, Willey and
Kent (2017) have made the case that “the legal arena
provides opportunities for officials to better inform the
public about cult-related child-abuse issues, since its
rules of evidence and citations are more rigorous than
what reporters [in the media] necessarily use” (p. 32).
Though out-of-court settlements can occur, they still
demonstrate that the courts do have authority over
organizations and their leadership, however full trials,
when possible, “best serve the public good” (Willey &
Kent, 2017, p. 35).
Furthermore, Dodd (2018) made the case that, in
addition to legal reforms prohibiting the corporal
punishment of children, such reforms also need to
be accompanied by “implementation strategies for
raising public awareness, changing attitudes and
providing education and support for parents about
positive non-violent discipline” (p. 122). Likewise,
religious communities need to become more engaged
in messaging surrounding the non-use of corporal
punishment as it is “incompatible with universal and
religious principles of respect for human dignity,
compassion, justice, equality, kindness” (Dodd, 2018,
p. 128). However, even when the government action is
well planned and executed, we believe many challenges
remain:
1) Advocates know only about specific cases
when tragedy occurs, or there is a parental
custody case. Most of the time, these
children are out of sight they are not seen
by teachers or socialworkers, at least not by any
who are not part of the immediate family
or group.
2) Children often lack complete or accurate
government paperwork. Many are born at home,
and some are never registered at any
hospital, church, or school. Names are
frequently changed within groups such as
the Twelve Tribes, making abuse cases hard to
track.
3) If a child does come to the attention of
child welfare, that child may be transported to
another jurisdiction, crossing either domestic
or international borders.
4) Powerful homeschooling groups and legal
organizations pressure politicians to have only
weak regulations.
5) Sporadic yet sweeping actions by
governments are ineffective.
These challenges are more difficult to resolve when
survivors are classified as apostates and therefore
unreliable. When witnesses are called apostates, the
reality of the abuse can be downplayed or presented
as a necessary part of religious freedom. As a result,
there is no clear winner in a conflict between rights,
but an apparent loser is evident. The children of these
groups continue to be vulnerable to harm perpetrated
by group members, and also through the disruptive
and ineffective interventions by the State.
