International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, 2017 55
The Formal Conservatorship Hearing
If the member remains in the group after the 4-
week access period, the family’s last chance is to
remove the member using a traditional
conservatorship.
158F
159 The family must be able
convince the court that the cult has rendered
their loved one incapacitated. Since the family
already had 4 weeks to convince the member to
leave the group, this outcome should be an
especially high bar for the family. Moreover,
there are First Amendment protections to
consider when the court gets involved with
religious groups. As such, the family must prove
that the member is “gravely disabled” under
state law and cannot make his own decisions.
159F
160
The appropriate standard for this
conservatorship hearing is whether the person is
incapacitated beyond a reasonable doubt.
160F
161
Satisfying this standard will be difficult, but if
the family can present evidence that the group
member is unreasonably unresponsive,
depressed, mentally unstable, or if there are
signs of physical or sexual abuse, a
conservatorship may be appropriately granted.
practices, this decision will likely amount to whether
the member wants to maintain a relationship with the
family and leave the group, or stay in the group and
lose his family.
159 For purposes of this paper, see ARIZ REV. STAT.
ANN. § 14-5101 (2016). According to the statute, an
incapacitated person means “any person who is
impaired by reason of mental illness, mental
deficiency, mental disorder, physical illness or
disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication
or other cause, except minority, to the extent that he
lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or
communicate responsible decisions concerning his
person.” Id.
160 See Katz v. Superior Court, 141 Cal. Rptr. 234,
256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). This standard seems to
appropriately balance a believer’s right to freedom of
action and the family’s argument that he is incapable
of making his own decisions.
161 According to ARIZ REV. STAT. ANN. § 14-5304(B)
(2016), an applicant must prove an individual is
incapacitated by clear and convincing evidence. The
more stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard
accommodates the First Amendment issues and the
fact that the family failed to convince the member
over the 4-week period.
Limitations and Caveats
Because exit interventions force the group
member to attend meetings against his will, even
if for only 2 hours per week, there must be
controls in place. First, if the family or anyone
invited by the family violates the court order, it
will be immediately vacated. The 4-week period
is not a license to coercively deprogram the
member.
161F
162 This component applies to the
public-place requirement and the requirement of
2 hours per week for 4 weeks. Second, after 2
weeks of meetings, the group member may
present himself in front of the same judge and
convince her that he is able minded and well
informed in making his decision to remain in the
group. Doing so will show the judge that a
conservatorship is unnecessary because the
member is capable of exercising his right to
freedom of action and religion. However, the
judge has the discretion to order the group
member to finish the remaining 2 weeks.
162F
163 At
this point in the process, the judge can properly
balance the interests of both parties and make a
decision accordingly.
Alternatively, if the group fails to present the
member for his weekly meetings, the court can
use an officer of the law to secure the member’s
presence.
163F
164 Because the officer is carrying out a
court order, and not targeting the group’s beliefs,
the group cannot argue First Amendment
162 If the family ignores the order and attempts to
coercively deprogram the group member, this
evidence will be admitted against the deprogrammer
if the deprogrammee later attempts to bring a civil
action.
163 Most importantly, this feature allows the family
dispute to be adjudged by a neutral third party. If the
judge feels the family is being unreasonable about the
group member making his own decisions, then she
can vacate the order. In contrast, if the judge believes
it is beneficial for the parties to finish the remaining
time, she can order the member to continue meeting
with the family.
164 For an example of how cults deny access to family
members by transferring the cult member to various
locations, see Today Show: Cathryn Mazer and the
Unification Church (NBC television broadcast, Nov.
15, 1993), https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=zcu3Ty4golY
The Formal Conservatorship Hearing
If the member remains in the group after the 4-
week access period, the family’s last chance is to
remove the member using a traditional
conservatorship.
158F
159 The family must be able
convince the court that the cult has rendered
their loved one incapacitated. Since the family
already had 4 weeks to convince the member to
leave the group, this outcome should be an
especially high bar for the family. Moreover,
there are First Amendment protections to
consider when the court gets involved with
religious groups. As such, the family must prove
that the member is “gravely disabled” under
state law and cannot make his own decisions.
159F
160
The appropriate standard for this
conservatorship hearing is whether the person is
incapacitated beyond a reasonable doubt.
160F
161
Satisfying this standard will be difficult, but if
the family can present evidence that the group
member is unreasonably unresponsive,
depressed, mentally unstable, or if there are
signs of physical or sexual abuse, a
conservatorship may be appropriately granted.
practices, this decision will likely amount to whether
the member wants to maintain a relationship with the
family and leave the group, or stay in the group and
lose his family.
159 For purposes of this paper, see ARIZ REV. STAT.
ANN. § 14-5101 (2016). According to the statute, an
incapacitated person means “any person who is
impaired by reason of mental illness, mental
deficiency, mental disorder, physical illness or
disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication
or other cause, except minority, to the extent that he
lacks sufficient understanding or capacity to make or
communicate responsible decisions concerning his
person.” Id.
160 See Katz v. Superior Court, 141 Cal. Rptr. 234,
256 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). This standard seems to
appropriately balance a believer’s right to freedom of
action and the family’s argument that he is incapable
of making his own decisions.
161 According to ARIZ REV. STAT. ANN. § 14-5304(B)
(2016), an applicant must prove an individual is
incapacitated by clear and convincing evidence. The
more stringent beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard
accommodates the First Amendment issues and the
fact that the family failed to convince the member
over the 4-week period.
Limitations and Caveats
Because exit interventions force the group
member to attend meetings against his will, even
if for only 2 hours per week, there must be
controls in place. First, if the family or anyone
invited by the family violates the court order, it
will be immediately vacated. The 4-week period
is not a license to coercively deprogram the
member.
161F
162 This component applies to the
public-place requirement and the requirement of
2 hours per week for 4 weeks. Second, after 2
weeks of meetings, the group member may
present himself in front of the same judge and
convince her that he is able minded and well
informed in making his decision to remain in the
group. Doing so will show the judge that a
conservatorship is unnecessary because the
member is capable of exercising his right to
freedom of action and religion. However, the
judge has the discretion to order the group
member to finish the remaining 2 weeks.
162F
163 At
this point in the process, the judge can properly
balance the interests of both parties and make a
decision accordingly.
Alternatively, if the group fails to present the
member for his weekly meetings, the court can
use an officer of the law to secure the member’s
presence.
163F
164 Because the officer is carrying out a
court order, and not targeting the group’s beliefs,
the group cannot argue First Amendment
162 If the family ignores the order and attempts to
coercively deprogram the group member, this
evidence will be admitted against the deprogrammer
if the deprogrammee later attempts to bring a civil
action.
163 Most importantly, this feature allows the family
dispute to be adjudged by a neutral third party. If the
judge feels the family is being unreasonable about the
group member making his own decisions, then she
can vacate the order. In contrast, if the judge believes
it is beneficial for the parties to finish the remaining
time, she can order the member to continue meeting
with the family.
164 For an example of how cults deny access to family
members by transferring the cult member to various
locations, see Today Show: Cathryn Mazer and the
Unification Church (NBC television broadcast, Nov.
15, 1993), https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=zcu3Ty4golY
