Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1986 Page 31
breaks and renounces his religious affiliation‖ [Worthing, 1977, p. 101). Relatively few
deprogrammers in our study acted as harshly as Worthing‘s definition suggests, however,
and some parents turned, with some success, to ―re-entry counseling,‖ counseling without
coercion often provided in association with former cult members. Offering ―much the same
information as given in deprogramming sessions, the counseling is undertaken on a
voluntary basis and does not involve round-the-clock intervention associated with
involuntary deprogramming efforts‖ (Schwartz, 1985, p. 6 See Dubrow-Eichel, Dubrow-
Eichel &Eisenberg, 1984).
A third path parents have taken toward ―rescuing‖ their children is to file lawsuits against
cults on such grounds as alienation of affection, false imprisonment, misrepresentation, or
fraud. Most of these suits have not been successful and some which might provide
precedents helpful to parents are still involved in lengthy appeal processes. In Schuppin v.
Unification Church (1977), the parents alleged that the church used mind control to alienate
their daughters affections. The claim was held to be unfounded. Similarly, a false
imprisonment charge by parents against the Hare Krishna group, in People v. Murphy
(1975), was rejected by the court because, ―although the use of ‗mind control‘ for the
purposes of controlling and/or converting an individual may be viewed as a moral crime by
much of society, it is not a legal crime‖ (Schwartz &Zemel, 1980, 304). The parents in Katz
v. Superior Court (1977) sought to recover their children on the grounds that recruiters for
the Unification Church misrepresented the facts when approaching and indoctrinating their
children. (The young people, still in the church, testified against their parents, saying that
they had full prior knowledge of the commitments to be made.) The plaintiffs lost, partly
because the actionable charge of deception was not proved.
Few ex-cult members, who might institute suits on firmer grounds than their parents, have
done so. Their feelings, and their parents‘ feelings, of fear, shame, guilt, a desire to put the
cult experience behind diem, and the recognition that a suit would cost much money and
cause great emotional turmoil, have generally precluded such action. The results of ex-
members‘ suits have been disappointing to them, as well as to their parents, who have
almost always been closely involved and supportive. Separate juries in 1979 and 1985
awarded large damages to ex-Scientologist Julie Titchbourne, saying that the group
defrauded her by failing to fulfill promises that membership would improve her life (Cult
Observer, June 1985, 1-2). Similarly, a California jury several years ago awarded a young
woman once involved with the Hare Krishna group $32 minion dollars in damages, although
the verdict against the Krishnas probably stemmed from the fact that the young woman was
a minor at the time the offenses were committed (The Advisor, August/September 1983, 1,
5). More recently, juries have made large awards to a former Scientologist (Cult Observer,
September 1986, 1-2) and a former follower of the Church Universal and Triumphant (Cult
Observer, May/June 1986, 1, 23), both of whom alleged that membership caused severe
psychological damage. All of these decisions favorable to the involved families have,
however, been either reversed on appeal dismissed on technical grounds, or have involved
the victorious plaintiffs in an appeal process that has, thus far, denied them the jury
awards. On the other hand, the Church of Scientology has recently made out of court
settlements with a number of former members and critics (Cult Observer, October 1986, 1).
In another recent case of note, finally, a California court found that claims of fraud,
deception, and misrepresentation against the Unification Church made by three ex-
members did not apply to the group‘s proselytizing (Cult Observer, May/June 1986, 1-2).
More painful for parents than being involved in these usually unrewarding suits against cults
is being sued by their own cult-member children. In one such case, a ten-year member of
the Divine Light Mission, after being Abducted and subjected to deprogramming on three
separate occasions, sued her parents for their actions. A Colorado judge enjoined them from
seeking to ―rescue‖ their daughter (author‘s private case files). Other cases instituted by
breaks and renounces his religious affiliation‖ [Worthing, 1977, p. 101). Relatively few
deprogrammers in our study acted as harshly as Worthing‘s definition suggests, however,
and some parents turned, with some success, to ―re-entry counseling,‖ counseling without
coercion often provided in association with former cult members. Offering ―much the same
information as given in deprogramming sessions, the counseling is undertaken on a
voluntary basis and does not involve round-the-clock intervention associated with
involuntary deprogramming efforts‖ (Schwartz, 1985, p. 6 See Dubrow-Eichel, Dubrow-
Eichel &Eisenberg, 1984).
A third path parents have taken toward ―rescuing‖ their children is to file lawsuits against
cults on such grounds as alienation of affection, false imprisonment, misrepresentation, or
fraud. Most of these suits have not been successful and some which might provide
precedents helpful to parents are still involved in lengthy appeal processes. In Schuppin v.
Unification Church (1977), the parents alleged that the church used mind control to alienate
their daughters affections. The claim was held to be unfounded. Similarly, a false
imprisonment charge by parents against the Hare Krishna group, in People v. Murphy
(1975), was rejected by the court because, ―although the use of ‗mind control‘ for the
purposes of controlling and/or converting an individual may be viewed as a moral crime by
much of society, it is not a legal crime‖ (Schwartz &Zemel, 1980, 304). The parents in Katz
v. Superior Court (1977) sought to recover their children on the grounds that recruiters for
the Unification Church misrepresented the facts when approaching and indoctrinating their
children. (The young people, still in the church, testified against their parents, saying that
they had full prior knowledge of the commitments to be made.) The plaintiffs lost, partly
because the actionable charge of deception was not proved.
Few ex-cult members, who might institute suits on firmer grounds than their parents, have
done so. Their feelings, and their parents‘ feelings, of fear, shame, guilt, a desire to put the
cult experience behind diem, and the recognition that a suit would cost much money and
cause great emotional turmoil, have generally precluded such action. The results of ex-
members‘ suits have been disappointing to them, as well as to their parents, who have
almost always been closely involved and supportive. Separate juries in 1979 and 1985
awarded large damages to ex-Scientologist Julie Titchbourne, saying that the group
defrauded her by failing to fulfill promises that membership would improve her life (Cult
Observer, June 1985, 1-2). Similarly, a California jury several years ago awarded a young
woman once involved with the Hare Krishna group $32 minion dollars in damages, although
the verdict against the Krishnas probably stemmed from the fact that the young woman was
a minor at the time the offenses were committed (The Advisor, August/September 1983, 1,
5). More recently, juries have made large awards to a former Scientologist (Cult Observer,
September 1986, 1-2) and a former follower of the Church Universal and Triumphant (Cult
Observer, May/June 1986, 1, 23), both of whom alleged that membership caused severe
psychological damage. All of these decisions favorable to the involved families have,
however, been either reversed on appeal dismissed on technical grounds, or have involved
the victorious plaintiffs in an appeal process that has, thus far, denied them the jury
awards. On the other hand, the Church of Scientology has recently made out of court
settlements with a number of former members and critics (Cult Observer, October 1986, 1).
In another recent case of note, finally, a California court found that claims of fraud,
deception, and misrepresentation against the Unification Church made by three ex-
members did not apply to the group‘s proselytizing (Cult Observer, May/June 1986, 1-2).
More painful for parents than being involved in these usually unrewarding suits against cults
is being sued by their own cult-member children. In one such case, a ten-year member of
the Divine Light Mission, after being Abducted and subjected to deprogramming on three
separate occasions, sued her parents for their actions. A Colorado judge enjoined them from
seeking to ―rescue‖ their daughter (author‘s private case files). Other cases instituted by
