Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 49
parents. Such individuals have the advantage of presenting more credible testimony than
the parent litigant challenging the cult‟s effect on the child and the cult-member spouse.
Next, if not concomitantly, the practitioner should gain detailed knowledge of the ideology
and practices of the group in question. One goal of this exacting scrutiny must be to identify
specifically and precisely how the group‟s ideology and/or practice is coercive. Then an
attempt must be made to link the nature of the cult‟s coercive behavior to unhealthy
behavior manifested by the child.
Regarding the coercive features identified, one must give attention to each evidentiary path
through which one will be able to introduce the salient features of the cult and the cult-
involved parent into evidence. All the knowledge in the world is useless unless it is
admissible in evidence before the court. This is critical. Here, objections based upon
religious liberty are likely to arise. Such objections should be anticipated, and arguments in
response should be prepared well in advance. (Note 1)
There are three basic evidentiary approaches to the introduction of coercion-specific
information which can be fruitful. The necessary evidence can be presented through 1) ex-
members, 2) expert testimony, or 3) effective cross-examination of the cult parent based
upon literature published by the group in question.
After doing one‟s homework, one should incorporate appropriate language, raising the
necessary issues which should be incorporated into the legal papers required to start the
judicial process. Remember, accurate characterization of the facts and proper framing of the
legal issues can go a long way toward determining how the litigation will proceed. In this
regard, judicious use of language is imperative. One must be ever mindful not to use words
which connote consent when one is attempting to describe the lack thereof. (Indeed, this
principle should be applied throughout.) Dealing with coercion is tremendously difficult. The
task should not be complicated by language that lacks precision. Say what you mean and
mean what you say because, more than usual, the credibility of the litigator assumes
tremendous importance in what amounts to a constitutional minefield.
A theme should always be identified which can then be woven throughout the testimony
presented. One valuable theme can be that of stress, and the effect of excessive stress on
the child‟s development. Lay people as well as experts can recognize stress and its effects.
And it is beyond contention that the coercion and manipulation employed by many groups
engender great stress. Too much stress, moreover, can hurt children far more than it can
hurt already calloused and life-damaged adults. And of added importance, the concept of
stress is easy for a judge to understand.
At the judicial starting gate it is important, if not critical, to go before an appropriate judge.
Some judges are less likely than others to be intimidated by the inevitable cry that the
opposition is attempting to conduct a “heresy trial”. Any information one can get that bears
on the judge‟s attitude in this regard should be obtained before the case is finally assigned.
While recognizing that the religious nature of the organization will likely have to be
confronted directly at some point, an effective approach is to leave this for late in the
proceeding. Maintain credibility by being ready to speak to the religious dimension of the
case and acknowledge its presence. But do not invite it. Rather, leave it alone unless forced
to deal with it. Then deal with it straightforwardly.
The facts presented first, then, would be those that pertain to the difference in the child‟s
behavior before and after his exposure to the psychological coercion employed by the
group. The non-cult parent seeking the court‟s protection of the child at risk is a logical first
witness. Since this witness is likely to be the weakest --in that he or she will be emotionally
distraught and subject to accusations of interest and bias --use the testimony as a basis for
supportive statements from other persons, such as school officials, who are more objective.
parents. Such individuals have the advantage of presenting more credible testimony than
the parent litigant challenging the cult‟s effect on the child and the cult-member spouse.
Next, if not concomitantly, the practitioner should gain detailed knowledge of the ideology
and practices of the group in question. One goal of this exacting scrutiny must be to identify
specifically and precisely how the group‟s ideology and/or practice is coercive. Then an
attempt must be made to link the nature of the cult‟s coercive behavior to unhealthy
behavior manifested by the child.
Regarding the coercive features identified, one must give attention to each evidentiary path
through which one will be able to introduce the salient features of the cult and the cult-
involved parent into evidence. All the knowledge in the world is useless unless it is
admissible in evidence before the court. This is critical. Here, objections based upon
religious liberty are likely to arise. Such objections should be anticipated, and arguments in
response should be prepared well in advance. (Note 1)
There are three basic evidentiary approaches to the introduction of coercion-specific
information which can be fruitful. The necessary evidence can be presented through 1) ex-
members, 2) expert testimony, or 3) effective cross-examination of the cult parent based
upon literature published by the group in question.
After doing one‟s homework, one should incorporate appropriate language, raising the
necessary issues which should be incorporated into the legal papers required to start the
judicial process. Remember, accurate characterization of the facts and proper framing of the
legal issues can go a long way toward determining how the litigation will proceed. In this
regard, judicious use of language is imperative. One must be ever mindful not to use words
which connote consent when one is attempting to describe the lack thereof. (Indeed, this
principle should be applied throughout.) Dealing with coercion is tremendously difficult. The
task should not be complicated by language that lacks precision. Say what you mean and
mean what you say because, more than usual, the credibility of the litigator assumes
tremendous importance in what amounts to a constitutional minefield.
A theme should always be identified which can then be woven throughout the testimony
presented. One valuable theme can be that of stress, and the effect of excessive stress on
the child‟s development. Lay people as well as experts can recognize stress and its effects.
And it is beyond contention that the coercion and manipulation employed by many groups
engender great stress. Too much stress, moreover, can hurt children far more than it can
hurt already calloused and life-damaged adults. And of added importance, the concept of
stress is easy for a judge to understand.
At the judicial starting gate it is important, if not critical, to go before an appropriate judge.
Some judges are less likely than others to be intimidated by the inevitable cry that the
opposition is attempting to conduct a “heresy trial”. Any information one can get that bears
on the judge‟s attitude in this regard should be obtained before the case is finally assigned.
While recognizing that the religious nature of the organization will likely have to be
confronted directly at some point, an effective approach is to leave this for late in the
proceeding. Maintain credibility by being ready to speak to the religious dimension of the
case and acknowledge its presence. But do not invite it. Rather, leave it alone unless forced
to deal with it. Then deal with it straightforwardly.
The facts presented first, then, would be those that pertain to the difference in the child‟s
behavior before and after his exposure to the psychological coercion employed by the
group. The non-cult parent seeking the court‟s protection of the child at risk is a logical first
witness. Since this witness is likely to be the weakest --in that he or she will be emotionally
distraught and subject to accusations of interest and bias --use the testimony as a basis for
supportive statements from other persons, such as school officials, who are more objective.
