40 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
“sworn statements from witnesses and victims
and there are photographs corroborating several
of these incidents” (Burchard, 1984: 5).
Religiously bigoted information from “anticult
zealots” played no role in the officials’ decision,
especially since many of the incidents, and much
of the supporting evidence were local to the
Island Pond area.
Without specifically naming the cases involved,
Burchard presented “some of the specific
allegations” that gave police and social-service
workers great alarm about the safety of the
Community’s children:
1. A named four-year-old child who was
hit fifteen to twenty times with a rod for
imagining that a block of wood was a
truck.
2. A named seven-year-old girl who was
stripped naked by several persons
besides her father and spanked for
asking for some food. The spanking
continued until her bottom bled.
3. A named thirteen-month-old female
child spanked for not taking food from
someone other than her parents. The
spanking led to bruises on both legs and
her buttocks.
4. A named three-and-one-half-year-old
boy disciplined until his back was
bleeding.
5. A named thirteen-year-old girl who
was stripped to her underpants by
several men and hit with a rod for being
deceitful. The discipline lasted over a
period of several hours and produced
more than eighty welts on her body.
6. A named eleven-year-old boy who
was hit with a 2 x 4 eight times for
laughing at a church member. A large
blister and bruise resulted from the
discipline. (Burchard, 1984: 5)
Burchard certainly captured the feelings of many
Island Pond citizens when he offered, “any
person who reads the published accounts of the
alleged beatings became public knowledge outside of court
proceedings.
disciplinary practices of the church must believe
there is reasonable evidence that child abuse
may have occurred” (Burchard, 1984: 5 see
Malcarne and Burchard, 1992). He also was
aware of how severe (if not deadly) child
beatings in closed communities can be, because
he had consulted with Michigan officials
concerning what had transpired within the
House of Judah (News Tribune, 1984).
Judge Mahady’s objections to the raid, of
course, were not because he doubted the
probability that adults were inflicting child
physical abuse upon children rather, they were
largely because the warrant was not specific in
naming alleged victims and their exact locations.
Burchard, therefore, both examined whether the
state had any alternative to initiating a raid on an
entire community, and discussed whether such a
raid was legal from the standpoint of an action
designed for juvenile protection. On the question
of possible alternatives, Burchard was very clear
that the behavior of Northeast Kingdom
Community members toward authorities left his
department with no other choice than to issue a
general warrant. Said succinctly, time and again,
Community members refused to cooperate with
far less intrusive social-service interventions:
The problem that State has faced from
the beginning is that the church
community appears to be purposefully
organized to shield the identity of the
parents and children in question, and to
allow them to thwart the ordinary steps
of due process which many critics seem
convinced should have worked
successfully. (Burchard, 1984: 7)
Amidst discussing eleven instances (dating back
only to 1982) when the Northeast Kingdom
Community had refused to cooperate with a
variety of state agencies, Burchard concluded
“that the church does not recognize the state as
having any authority to examine any of their
children under any circumstances” (Burchard,
1984: 10 see 8–10 see Palmer, 1998: 194).
Later he added, “the active, unlawful resistance
of the church was also extraordinary” (Burchard,
1984: 13). The noncooperation and actual
resistance of the Community members,
individually and collectively, made it impossible
“sworn statements from witnesses and victims
and there are photographs corroborating several
of these incidents” (Burchard, 1984: 5).
Religiously bigoted information from “anticult
zealots” played no role in the officials’ decision,
especially since many of the incidents, and much
of the supporting evidence were local to the
Island Pond area.
Without specifically naming the cases involved,
Burchard presented “some of the specific
allegations” that gave police and social-service
workers great alarm about the safety of the
Community’s children:
1. A named four-year-old child who was
hit fifteen to twenty times with a rod for
imagining that a block of wood was a
truck.
2. A named seven-year-old girl who was
stripped naked by several persons
besides her father and spanked for
asking for some food. The spanking
continued until her bottom bled.
3. A named thirteen-month-old female
child spanked for not taking food from
someone other than her parents. The
spanking led to bruises on both legs and
her buttocks.
4. A named three-and-one-half-year-old
boy disciplined until his back was
bleeding.
5. A named thirteen-year-old girl who
was stripped to her underpants by
several men and hit with a rod for being
deceitful. The discipline lasted over a
period of several hours and produced
more than eighty welts on her body.
6. A named eleven-year-old boy who
was hit with a 2 x 4 eight times for
laughing at a church member. A large
blister and bruise resulted from the
discipline. (Burchard, 1984: 5)
Burchard certainly captured the feelings of many
Island Pond citizens when he offered, “any
person who reads the published accounts of the
alleged beatings became public knowledge outside of court
proceedings.
disciplinary practices of the church must believe
there is reasonable evidence that child abuse
may have occurred” (Burchard, 1984: 5 see
Malcarne and Burchard, 1992). He also was
aware of how severe (if not deadly) child
beatings in closed communities can be, because
he had consulted with Michigan officials
concerning what had transpired within the
House of Judah (News Tribune, 1984).
Judge Mahady’s objections to the raid, of
course, were not because he doubted the
probability that adults were inflicting child
physical abuse upon children rather, they were
largely because the warrant was not specific in
naming alleged victims and their exact locations.
Burchard, therefore, both examined whether the
state had any alternative to initiating a raid on an
entire community, and discussed whether such a
raid was legal from the standpoint of an action
designed for juvenile protection. On the question
of possible alternatives, Burchard was very clear
that the behavior of Northeast Kingdom
Community members toward authorities left his
department with no other choice than to issue a
general warrant. Said succinctly, time and again,
Community members refused to cooperate with
far less intrusive social-service interventions:
The problem that State has faced from
the beginning is that the church
community appears to be purposefully
organized to shield the identity of the
parents and children in question, and to
allow them to thwart the ordinary steps
of due process which many critics seem
convinced should have worked
successfully. (Burchard, 1984: 7)
Amidst discussing eleven instances (dating back
only to 1982) when the Northeast Kingdom
Community had refused to cooperate with a
variety of state agencies, Burchard concluded
“that the church does not recognize the state as
having any authority to examine any of their
children under any circumstances” (Burchard,
1984: 10 see 8–10 see Palmer, 1998: 194).
Later he added, “the active, unlawful resistance
of the church was also extraordinary” (Burchard,
1984: 13). The noncooperation and actual
resistance of the Community members,
individually and collectively, made it impossible
