20 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017
The third legal context in which allegations of
religiously tainted child sexual abuse arise is in
family law. The subject of these cases is not the
sexual abuse itself, but rather the extent to which
the abuse is evidence of an unsuitable living
situation for children.
21F
22 Defending counsel and
even members of the public often view
allegations of child sexual abuse with skepticism
because of their highly prejudicial value. The
mere suspicion of child sexual abuse makes it
difficult for a court to place a child with a
suspected abuser or with a parent who is
associated with an allegedly abusive religious
movement. The accusing party, therefore, has
ample motivation to make unfounded
allegations.
22F
23 When allegations are factual,
however, then the complainant frequently
establishes proof to the court by locating the
specific abuse against a child within the broader
context of abuses that occurred against other
children. In other words, complainants often try
to establish that the abuses a particular client or
clients suffered were part of a broad, systemic
pattern of child sexual abuse.
23F
24
Generally, these cases provide the catalyst to
further investigation rather than having a
singular impact. For example, in February 1987,
Christina Mills was a former member of a Hare
Krishna schism attempting to obtain sole
custody of her three children who still resided
with her estranged partner in the sect’s
commune in New Vrindaban, West Virginia.
24F
25
Calling the commune “a dangerous, unhealthy,
22 Because these matters are extremely private, fewer allegations
will reach the public unless the case goes to trial.
23 A 1997 study found “that cases were not likely to be prosecuted
if they were outgrowths (or perceived to be outgrowths) of divorce
or custody battles between divorcing or divorced parents”
(Kathleen D. Brewer, Daryl M. Rowe, and Devon D. Brewer,
1997, “Factors Related to Prosecution of Child Sexual Abuse
Cases,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, (6)1, 106–107.
24 For an article on religiously connected ritual abuse of children
published during the height of the so-called Satanic period of the
early 1990s, and which used some sources now considered to be
suspect, see Barbara Snow and Teena Sorensen, 1990 (December),
“Ritualistic Child Abuse in a Neighborhood Setting,” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, (5)4, 474–487.
22 For a critical look at this commune, see John Hubner and
Lindsey Gruson, 1988, Monkey on a Stick: Murder, Madness, and
the Hare Krishnas (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).
and immoral environment,”
25F
26 Mills specifically
charged that the father of her three children had
been involved with “the repeated and systematic
oral and anal homosexual rape of
schoolchildren.”
26F
27 These allegations appeared in
a lengthy investigative newspaper article about
law-enforcement probes into suspected child
sexual abuse, polygamy, sanitation, and
educational deficiencies at New Vrindaban, even
though Mills already had “lost an appeal for
temporary custody at a hearing [the previous
week], when a local judge ruled that her three
children were in no immediate danger with their
father at the commune.”
27F
28 Subsequently a
family-law master ruled in Mills’s favor,
28F
29 but a
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
affirmed the earlier court ruling in favor of the
father.
29F
30 The negative allegations, however,
already had appeared in the press.
A second example of a family court case having
wide-ranging implications was the early 1992
custody battle over Kiri Jewell (b. 1981) who,
along with her mother, lived in the Waco Branch
Davidian compound with David Koresh (d.
1993). Jewell went for a Christmas 1991 visit to
her father in Michigan, and he had been alerted
by former member Marc Breault that she likely
was, or was going to be, sexually assaulted by
Koresh as one of his underage, illegal wives.
Her father, David Jewell, won temporary sole
custody of Kiri in early 1992, pending a full
custody hearing. In both court proceedings,
David Jewell introduced extensive evidence
about Koresh’s sexual activities with minors,
which contributed to the eventual joint custody
decision that also prevented Kiri from having
any contact with Koresh.
30F
31 She never visited her
26 Eric Harrison, 1987 (March 9), “Troubled Paradise: Krishna Site
Focus of Probes,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 1-A.
27 Harrison, 1987, 4-A.
28 Harrison, 1987, 4-A.
29 This ruling is summarized in Christina M. Mills, on Behalf of
Premanjana GORRICK, Parasara Muni Gorrick and Raktaka Mills,
Infants v. Dennis F. GORRICK, a/k/a Dharmatma Das. No. 18916
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. (May 18, 1989).
30 Mills v. Gorrick, 381 S. E. 2d 273 (1989).
31 Marc Breault and Martin King, 1993, Inside the Cult, pp. 254–
282 (New York, NY: Signet).
The third legal context in which allegations of
religiously tainted child sexual abuse arise is in
family law. The subject of these cases is not the
sexual abuse itself, but rather the extent to which
the abuse is evidence of an unsuitable living
situation for children.
21F
22 Defending counsel and
even members of the public often view
allegations of child sexual abuse with skepticism
because of their highly prejudicial value. The
mere suspicion of child sexual abuse makes it
difficult for a court to place a child with a
suspected abuser or with a parent who is
associated with an allegedly abusive religious
movement. The accusing party, therefore, has
ample motivation to make unfounded
allegations.
22F
23 When allegations are factual,
however, then the complainant frequently
establishes proof to the court by locating the
specific abuse against a child within the broader
context of abuses that occurred against other
children. In other words, complainants often try
to establish that the abuses a particular client or
clients suffered were part of a broad, systemic
pattern of child sexual abuse.
23F
24
Generally, these cases provide the catalyst to
further investigation rather than having a
singular impact. For example, in February 1987,
Christina Mills was a former member of a Hare
Krishna schism attempting to obtain sole
custody of her three children who still resided
with her estranged partner in the sect’s
commune in New Vrindaban, West Virginia.
24F
25
Calling the commune “a dangerous, unhealthy,
22 Because these matters are extremely private, fewer allegations
will reach the public unless the case goes to trial.
23 A 1997 study found “that cases were not likely to be prosecuted
if they were outgrowths (or perceived to be outgrowths) of divorce
or custody battles between divorcing or divorced parents”
(Kathleen D. Brewer, Daryl M. Rowe, and Devon D. Brewer,
1997, “Factors Related to Prosecution of Child Sexual Abuse
Cases,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, (6)1, 106–107.
24 For an article on religiously connected ritual abuse of children
published during the height of the so-called Satanic period of the
early 1990s, and which used some sources now considered to be
suspect, see Barbara Snow and Teena Sorensen, 1990 (December),
“Ritualistic Child Abuse in a Neighborhood Setting,” Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, (5)4, 474–487.
22 For a critical look at this commune, see John Hubner and
Lindsey Gruson, 1988, Monkey on a Stick: Murder, Madness, and
the Hare Krishnas (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).
and immoral environment,”
25F
26 Mills specifically
charged that the father of her three children had
been involved with “the repeated and systematic
oral and anal homosexual rape of
schoolchildren.”
26F
27 These allegations appeared in
a lengthy investigative newspaper article about
law-enforcement probes into suspected child
sexual abuse, polygamy, sanitation, and
educational deficiencies at New Vrindaban, even
though Mills already had “lost an appeal for
temporary custody at a hearing [the previous
week], when a local judge ruled that her three
children were in no immediate danger with their
father at the commune.”
27F
28 Subsequently a
family-law master ruled in Mills’s favor,
28F
29 but a
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
affirmed the earlier court ruling in favor of the
father.
29F
30 The negative allegations, however,
already had appeared in the press.
A second example of a family court case having
wide-ranging implications was the early 1992
custody battle over Kiri Jewell (b. 1981) who,
along with her mother, lived in the Waco Branch
Davidian compound with David Koresh (d.
1993). Jewell went for a Christmas 1991 visit to
her father in Michigan, and he had been alerted
by former member Marc Breault that she likely
was, or was going to be, sexually assaulted by
Koresh as one of his underage, illegal wives.
Her father, David Jewell, won temporary sole
custody of Kiri in early 1992, pending a full
custody hearing. In both court proceedings,
David Jewell introduced extensive evidence
about Koresh’s sexual activities with minors,
which contributed to the eventual joint custody
decision that also prevented Kiri from having
any contact with Koresh.
30F
31 She never visited her
26 Eric Harrison, 1987 (March 9), “Troubled Paradise: Krishna Site
Focus of Probes,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 1-A.
27 Harrison, 1987, 4-A.
28 Harrison, 1987, 4-A.
29 This ruling is summarized in Christina M. Mills, on Behalf of
Premanjana GORRICK, Parasara Muni Gorrick and Raktaka Mills,
Infants v. Dennis F. GORRICK, a/k/a Dharmatma Das. No. 18916
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. (May 18, 1989).
30 Mills v. Gorrick, 381 S. E. 2d 273 (1989).
31 Marc Breault and Martin King, 1993, Inside the Cult, pp. 254–
282 (New York, NY: Signet).
