International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017 53
The Initial Court Hearing
When a family finds a loved one in a destructive
cult, they must first try to contact him and
convince him to exit the group. If access is
denied or the loved one refuses to leave, they
can seek an exit intervention through a formal
court hearing. The family must be able to
present evidence about the cult member before
he interacted with the cult, evidence of the
member after he joined the cult, evidence of the
dangers specific to the particular cult, and
evidence of failed contact attempts with the
member.
147F
148 Evidence may be testimonies from
family and friends that display a drastic change
in the member’s behavior,
148F
149 former members of
the particular group testifying about the potential
danger the group poses, or a professional exit
counselor or deprogrammer providing the court
with an idea of how damaging thought reform
can be.
The court will apply a standard similar to a
temporary restraining order (TRO).
149F
150 For
example, in Arizona the parents would have to
show that (a) “it clearly appears from specific
148 It is recommended that the family seek advice
from a professional exit counselor or psychologist
before their appearance in court. Many professional
exit counselors and psychologists are familiar with
testifying in court regarding destructive groups and
will be able to strengthen the family’s case. For a
useful list of what the family should try to prove, see
Rick Ross, Warning Signs, CULT EDUC. INST.,
http://culteducation.com/warningsigns.html (last
visited Apr. 16, 2016).
149 Although affidavits from family members and
friends may be used, the family is better off with live
testimony. This testimony provides the court a
detailed description of the changes in the individual’s
behavior and possible harms present.
150 Unlike in normal TRO hearings, there should be a
slight presumption that the group member voluntarily
joined the group and there is no reason for the court
to interfere. Thus, the stronger the evidence of a
drastic change in personality, or of a particularly
dangerous cultic group will help carry the parents’
burden of proof. The slight presumption is because of
the balancing of interests when it comes to due-
process concerns. Because the cult member chose not
to leave the group when contacted by the parents, the
court should initially respect this decision.
facts shown by ...the verified complaint that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
[psychological] damage will result to the [group
member] before the [group member] ...can be
heard in opposition” and (b) “the applicant’s
attorney certifies to the court in writing the
efforts, if any, which have been made to give the
notice or the reasons supporting the claim that
notice should not be required.”
150F
151 Although
courts may be unfamiliar with this kind of
evidence, they are familiar with applying the
TRO standard. Thus, a strong showing that the
cult member is at risk of psychological or
physical harm would be sufficient to start the 4-
week access period.
The 4-Week Access Period
If the court determines that the group member is
in danger, it will grant the family 4 weeks of
mandatory access to their loved one. However,
the family is limited to 2 hours per week, and the
meetings must take place in public.
151F
152 By court
order, the group must present or allow the
member to attend his weekly meetings, and the
family cannot take more than 2 hours of the
member’s time each week. The meeting must be
in a neutral public place to ensure the meeting is
civil, and so that the cult member’s will is not
overborne. The overall purpose of these
meetings is to allow the family members to
voice their concerns with the group, provide an
education about how thought reform works, and
provide the member with an opportunity to
justify his attraction to the group. If things go as
planned, the member will critically reevaluate
his choices and exit the group.
151 16 ARIZ. REV. STAT. R. CIV. P. 65(d) (2016). The
brackets in the statute indicate the only changes made
to the existing TRO statute in Arizona. It is important
to note that the court will not be looking into the
group’s belief system, just the irreparable physical or
psychological harm present.
152 The recommended public setting is a restaurant
where the family has shared family birthdays or
celebrations—this brings back positive memories the
family members share and will hopefully reignite any
love that has been lost. However, a public park,
coffee shop, or shopping mall would satisfy this
requirement.
The Initial Court Hearing
When a family finds a loved one in a destructive
cult, they must first try to contact him and
convince him to exit the group. If access is
denied or the loved one refuses to leave, they
can seek an exit intervention through a formal
court hearing. The family must be able to
present evidence about the cult member before
he interacted with the cult, evidence of the
member after he joined the cult, evidence of the
dangers specific to the particular cult, and
evidence of failed contact attempts with the
member.
147F
148 Evidence may be testimonies from
family and friends that display a drastic change
in the member’s behavior,
148F
149 former members of
the particular group testifying about the potential
danger the group poses, or a professional exit
counselor or deprogrammer providing the court
with an idea of how damaging thought reform
can be.
The court will apply a standard similar to a
temporary restraining order (TRO).
149F
150 For
example, in Arizona the parents would have to
show that (a) “it clearly appears from specific
148 It is recommended that the family seek advice
from a professional exit counselor or psychologist
before their appearance in court. Many professional
exit counselors and psychologists are familiar with
testifying in court regarding destructive groups and
will be able to strengthen the family’s case. For a
useful list of what the family should try to prove, see
Rick Ross, Warning Signs, CULT EDUC. INST.,
http://culteducation.com/warningsigns.html (last
visited Apr. 16, 2016).
149 Although affidavits from family members and
friends may be used, the family is better off with live
testimony. This testimony provides the court a
detailed description of the changes in the individual’s
behavior and possible harms present.
150 Unlike in normal TRO hearings, there should be a
slight presumption that the group member voluntarily
joined the group and there is no reason for the court
to interfere. Thus, the stronger the evidence of a
drastic change in personality, or of a particularly
dangerous cultic group will help carry the parents’
burden of proof. The slight presumption is because of
the balancing of interests when it comes to due-
process concerns. Because the cult member chose not
to leave the group when contacted by the parents, the
court should initially respect this decision.
facts shown by ...the verified complaint that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
[psychological] damage will result to the [group
member] before the [group member] ...can be
heard in opposition” and (b) “the applicant’s
attorney certifies to the court in writing the
efforts, if any, which have been made to give the
notice or the reasons supporting the claim that
notice should not be required.”
150F
151 Although
courts may be unfamiliar with this kind of
evidence, they are familiar with applying the
TRO standard. Thus, a strong showing that the
cult member is at risk of psychological or
physical harm would be sufficient to start the 4-
week access period.
The 4-Week Access Period
If the court determines that the group member is
in danger, it will grant the family 4 weeks of
mandatory access to their loved one. However,
the family is limited to 2 hours per week, and the
meetings must take place in public.
151F
152 By court
order, the group must present or allow the
member to attend his weekly meetings, and the
family cannot take more than 2 hours of the
member’s time each week. The meeting must be
in a neutral public place to ensure the meeting is
civil, and so that the cult member’s will is not
overborne. The overall purpose of these
meetings is to allow the family members to
voice their concerns with the group, provide an
education about how thought reform works, and
provide the member with an opportunity to
justify his attraction to the group. If things go as
planned, the member will critically reevaluate
his choices and exit the group.
151 16 ARIZ. REV. STAT. R. CIV. P. 65(d) (2016). The
brackets in the statute indicate the only changes made
to the existing TRO statute in Arizona. It is important
to note that the court will not be looking into the
group’s belief system, just the irreparable physical or
psychological harm present.
152 The recommended public setting is a restaurant
where the family has shared family birthdays or
celebrations—this brings back positive memories the
family members share and will hopefully reignite any
love that has been lost. However, a public park,
coffee shop, or shopping mall would satisfy this
requirement.
