International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 39
said that the breaks were from rickets (Jenke,
1984: 5–6 see Hebert, 1983: 3).
Clearly, Social and Rehabilitative Services knew
that a serious problem existed regarding the
physical abuse of children in Island Pond’s
Northeast Kingdom Community. Authorities
had similar accounts of beatings coming from
multiple sources over a period of years. They
also had medical reports that corroborated
people’s statements, and they even had
photographs showing the damage caused by
children having been beaten with balloon sticks.
Moreover, police and social services had no way
of knowing whether any children had been
sufficiently injured to have required medical
attention, since one member of the Northeast
Kingdom Community already had been
convicted of practicing medicine without a
license (Lium, 1982 O’Dea, 1984). Likewise,
officials could not even be sure that no children
had died from the physical abuse, since the
Community operated its own graveyard, refused
to register births and deaths, and at every
juncture refused to cooperate with them. The
lack of cooperation had gone so far as a
Community member hiding a stillborn baby’s
body from authorities in 1980 (Kenney, 1980).
With these facts in mind, a raid against the
Northeast Kingdom Community was inevitable.
Any efforts by subsequent authors such as Jean
Swantko to blame it on “anticultists who try to
use the legal system” (Swantko, 2000: 342), or
Susan Palmer, who saw the raid as a
consequences of anticultists who “created a
portrait of a nefarious cult habitually cruel to
children” (Palmer, 1998: 201) clearly are
attempts to scapegoat responsibility away from
the group itself. After Judge Mahady threw out
the warrant and any possible evidence that
authorities acquired, the Commissioner of Social
and Rehabilitation Services for the Vermont
Agency of Human Services, John D. Burchard,
Ph.D., wrote a clear (and to my mind,
compelling) justification for the raid and the
continued need to provide protection to
Northeast Kingdom Community’s children.
Swantko called this statement a “self-serving
justification” (Swantko, 2000: 353), but it
actually seems to have been an accurate account
of the decision-making processes that led up to
the raid itself.
With considerable understatement, Burchard let
readers see how surprising it was that Judge
Mahady would have squashed the state’s
intervention into the Community on behalf of its
children, since he himself had commented
strongly on the group’s corporal punishment in a
previous case. In that case, Mahady stated:
‘At all material times, while the children
have been residing at the religious
community, they have been subjected to
frequent and methodical physical abuse
by adult members of the community in
the form of hours-long whippings with
balloon sticks. These beatings result
from minor disciplinary infractions.’
(quoted in Burchard, 1984: 6)
Although Burchard said little else directly about
Mahady’s decision, the clear implication was
that, in ruling to dismiss the raid, the judge
allowed a social environment to continue that
even he realized fostered physical abuse.
Swantko claimed that “antireligious zealots,
Kelly and Coates, prevailed on the Attorney
General’s Office and the Governor himself to
adopt as true the unreliable information
collected by two state employees sent to
investigate” former members around the United
States (Swantko, 2000: 347). Burchard,
however, pointed out that many of the incidents
that contributed to officials believing in the
necessity of the raid had appeared in the
media,21 and much of the evidence also included
21 Swantko also had an issue with Burchard’s use of media
accounts:
While Vermont’s Commissioner of Social Services claimed
evidence of abuse of children, he relied on newspaper reports
unlawfully published as a source. Despite the fact that he
knew, or should have known, the confidentiality laws for
juvenile cases, he violated them. He then used the fact that
newspaper reporters printed unlawful disclosures to justify
his own use of them, clearly prohibited by the juvenile
statutes. (Swantko 2005-2006: 45)
While I do not know what these laws were in the early 1980s,
perhaps they had to do with not using the names of children who
allegedly had been abused. If this interpretation were in fact
accurate, then I note that both Swantko herself and Palmer named
thirteen-year-old Dealynn Church as having alleged that a group
leader had spanked her (Palmer, 1998: 199 Swantko 2000: 349).
Perhaps reporters were able to use children’s names because their
said that the breaks were from rickets (Jenke,
1984: 5–6 see Hebert, 1983: 3).
Clearly, Social and Rehabilitative Services knew
that a serious problem existed regarding the
physical abuse of children in Island Pond’s
Northeast Kingdom Community. Authorities
had similar accounts of beatings coming from
multiple sources over a period of years. They
also had medical reports that corroborated
people’s statements, and they even had
photographs showing the damage caused by
children having been beaten with balloon sticks.
Moreover, police and social services had no way
of knowing whether any children had been
sufficiently injured to have required medical
attention, since one member of the Northeast
Kingdom Community already had been
convicted of practicing medicine without a
license (Lium, 1982 O’Dea, 1984). Likewise,
officials could not even be sure that no children
had died from the physical abuse, since the
Community operated its own graveyard, refused
to register births and deaths, and at every
juncture refused to cooperate with them. The
lack of cooperation had gone so far as a
Community member hiding a stillborn baby’s
body from authorities in 1980 (Kenney, 1980).
With these facts in mind, a raid against the
Northeast Kingdom Community was inevitable.
Any efforts by subsequent authors such as Jean
Swantko to blame it on “anticultists who try to
use the legal system” (Swantko, 2000: 342), or
Susan Palmer, who saw the raid as a
consequences of anticultists who “created a
portrait of a nefarious cult habitually cruel to
children” (Palmer, 1998: 201) clearly are
attempts to scapegoat responsibility away from
the group itself. After Judge Mahady threw out
the warrant and any possible evidence that
authorities acquired, the Commissioner of Social
and Rehabilitation Services for the Vermont
Agency of Human Services, John D. Burchard,
Ph.D., wrote a clear (and to my mind,
compelling) justification for the raid and the
continued need to provide protection to
Northeast Kingdom Community’s children.
Swantko called this statement a “self-serving
justification” (Swantko, 2000: 353), but it
actually seems to have been an accurate account
of the decision-making processes that led up to
the raid itself.
With considerable understatement, Burchard let
readers see how surprising it was that Judge
Mahady would have squashed the state’s
intervention into the Community on behalf of its
children, since he himself had commented
strongly on the group’s corporal punishment in a
previous case. In that case, Mahady stated:
‘At all material times, while the children
have been residing at the religious
community, they have been subjected to
frequent and methodical physical abuse
by adult members of the community in
the form of hours-long whippings with
balloon sticks. These beatings result
from minor disciplinary infractions.’
(quoted in Burchard, 1984: 6)
Although Burchard said little else directly about
Mahady’s decision, the clear implication was
that, in ruling to dismiss the raid, the judge
allowed a social environment to continue that
even he realized fostered physical abuse.
Swantko claimed that “antireligious zealots,
Kelly and Coates, prevailed on the Attorney
General’s Office and the Governor himself to
adopt as true the unreliable information
collected by two state employees sent to
investigate” former members around the United
States (Swantko, 2000: 347). Burchard,
however, pointed out that many of the incidents
that contributed to officials believing in the
necessity of the raid had appeared in the
media,21 and much of the evidence also included
21 Swantko also had an issue with Burchard’s use of media
accounts:
While Vermont’s Commissioner of Social Services claimed
evidence of abuse of children, he relied on newspaper reports
unlawfully published as a source. Despite the fact that he
knew, or should have known, the confidentiality laws for
juvenile cases, he violated them. He then used the fact that
newspaper reporters printed unlawful disclosures to justify
his own use of them, clearly prohibited by the juvenile
statutes. (Swantko 2005-2006: 45)
While I do not know what these laws were in the early 1980s,
perhaps they had to do with not using the names of children who
allegedly had been abused. If this interpretation were in fact
accurate, then I note that both Swantko herself and Palmer named
thirteen-year-old Dealynn Church as having alleged that a group
leader had spanked her (Palmer, 1998: 199 Swantko 2000: 349).
Perhaps reporters were able to use children’s names because their
