22 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017
acknowledgements and agreements that
the group, its leaders, and the mother
had to make in order for her to maintain
custody] constitutes a dramatic
confrontation with a religious group in
the context of what was litigation
between specific parties, litigation that
did not technically include the group.
His decision and the reasoning by which
he arrived at the decision enunciate a
series of potentially highly influential
approaches toward risks posed to
children by heterodox child-rearing
practices on the part of those who are
adherents of non-mainstream religions.
From an international perspective, Re ST
(A Minor) is the most important judicial
attempt thus far to analyse the impact of
practices of [new religious movements]
upon the wellbeing of children. The
resolution of the case constitutes an
extraordinary intrusion by the State into
the functioning of a religious group and
the decisions of a mother about the
rearing of a young son. In terms of a
confrontation between religious freedom
and children’s rights, Re ST (A Minor) is
a sophisticated but robust and
opinionated balancing of fundamental
interests and values. The focus of the
decision throughout is upon what are
identified to be the best interests of the
child. However, the consequences of the
reasoning for religious heterodoxy are
likely to be the most significant legacy
of the decision.
36F
37
Nevertheless, problems exist with the decision,
some of which go directly to questions about the
depths into which the judiciary should enter and
direct religious practice.
Some jurists would have wished Ward to have
ruled definitively on questions related to the
validity of concepts such as “brainwashing,”
“mind control,” and “coercive persuasion.”
37F
38
37 Freckelton, 1998, p. 14.
38 Freckelton, 1998, pp. 27–28.
More importantly, Ward rested the issue of
custody partly on requiring Family leaders to
denounce some of their founder’s teachings
(specifically regarding sex), even though the
case itself did not involve the group as one of
the parties within the litigation. In Freckelton’s
opinion, when Ward
crossed the line into requiring assurances from
the group as to its future intentions, the
legitimacy in his requirements became
somewhat questionable. Still further along the
spectrum, though, it is doubtful whether Ward
LJ had the power to require as a condition for
granting custody to a particular litigant that a
third party, “The Family,” repudiate and
denounce its founder.
38F
39
These problems aside, and while also
acknowledging that Ward’s decision only
involved a custody dispute, Freckelton
concluded that the Ward analysis and decision
“will achieve a significant place in both
international family law and its ‘cult’
litigation.”
39F
40 Regardless of any imperfections in
Ward’s decision, he achieved what we are
advocating: an examination and public exposure
of a group’s role in child sexual abuses.
Difficulty Prosecuting Child Sexual-
Abuse Cases in the Cult Context
Although we argue that prosecutors and
plaintiffs’ counsels need to consider the
institutional ramifications of not taking cases to
trial, they also must weigh the ramifications of
court proceedings with the inherent difficulties
of gaining convictions on incidents that
allegedly had taken place some time ago in
private (even sanctified) areas. Child witnesses
or victims always present difficulties for both
prosecutors and defendants, as do witnesses or
clients of any age who formerly or currently are
involved with cults themselves.
Child witnesses/victims present a multitude of
issues within the courtroom. In Canadian
39 Freckelton, 1998, p. 26 see Re ST (A Minor), 1995, pp. 292–
293.
40 Freckelton, 1998, p. 25.
acknowledgements and agreements that
the group, its leaders, and the mother
had to make in order for her to maintain
custody] constitutes a dramatic
confrontation with a religious group in
the context of what was litigation
between specific parties, litigation that
did not technically include the group.
His decision and the reasoning by which
he arrived at the decision enunciate a
series of potentially highly influential
approaches toward risks posed to
children by heterodox child-rearing
practices on the part of those who are
adherents of non-mainstream religions.
From an international perspective, Re ST
(A Minor) is the most important judicial
attempt thus far to analyse the impact of
practices of [new religious movements]
upon the wellbeing of children. The
resolution of the case constitutes an
extraordinary intrusion by the State into
the functioning of a religious group and
the decisions of a mother about the
rearing of a young son. In terms of a
confrontation between religious freedom
and children’s rights, Re ST (A Minor) is
a sophisticated but robust and
opinionated balancing of fundamental
interests and values. The focus of the
decision throughout is upon what are
identified to be the best interests of the
child. However, the consequences of the
reasoning for religious heterodoxy are
likely to be the most significant legacy
of the decision.
36F
37
Nevertheless, problems exist with the decision,
some of which go directly to questions about the
depths into which the judiciary should enter and
direct religious practice.
Some jurists would have wished Ward to have
ruled definitively on questions related to the
validity of concepts such as “brainwashing,”
“mind control,” and “coercive persuasion.”
37F
38
37 Freckelton, 1998, p. 14.
38 Freckelton, 1998, pp. 27–28.
More importantly, Ward rested the issue of
custody partly on requiring Family leaders to
denounce some of their founder’s teachings
(specifically regarding sex), even though the
case itself did not involve the group as one of
the parties within the litigation. In Freckelton’s
opinion, when Ward
crossed the line into requiring assurances from
the group as to its future intentions, the
legitimacy in his requirements became
somewhat questionable. Still further along the
spectrum, though, it is doubtful whether Ward
LJ had the power to require as a condition for
granting custody to a particular litigant that a
third party, “The Family,” repudiate and
denounce its founder.
38F
39
These problems aside, and while also
acknowledging that Ward’s decision only
involved a custody dispute, Freckelton
concluded that the Ward analysis and decision
“will achieve a significant place in both
international family law and its ‘cult’
litigation.”
39F
40 Regardless of any imperfections in
Ward’s decision, he achieved what we are
advocating: an examination and public exposure
of a group’s role in child sexual abuses.
Difficulty Prosecuting Child Sexual-
Abuse Cases in the Cult Context
Although we argue that prosecutors and
plaintiffs’ counsels need to consider the
institutional ramifications of not taking cases to
trial, they also must weigh the ramifications of
court proceedings with the inherent difficulties
of gaining convictions on incidents that
allegedly had taken place some time ago in
private (even sanctified) areas. Child witnesses
or victims always present difficulties for both
prosecutors and defendants, as do witnesses or
clients of any age who formerly or currently are
involved with cults themselves.
Child witnesses/victims present a multitude of
issues within the courtroom. In Canadian
39 Freckelton, 1998, p. 26 see Re ST (A Minor), 1995, pp. 292–
293.
40 Freckelton, 1998, p. 25.
