Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 50
In the middle or toward the end of the presentation, the cult-member parent can be called
as an adverse witness and subjected to close cross-examination. Using the coercive
religious group‟s own literature, ideology, and practices, one should be able to extract
testimony from the cult parent about the group‟s coercive practices. Usually, the cult-
member parent will evade relevant questioning here. Be tenacious until fully truthful
responses are obtained. A proper factual foundation should already have been laid as to the
relationship between the child‟s behavior and the nature of the group.
One approach can be particularly effective here. As a rule, the practices of the group are
manipulative. It is also common for the cult-member parent to use the manipulative
techniques employed by the group to turn the child against the non-cult parent, and even to
exacerbate long-standing conflicts between the spouses. Demonstrating that this kind of
manipulation is going on will help prove the point that it is not the cult which is on trial, but
rather the cult-member parent‟s use of cult ideology and practices to put the child “in the
middle” as a weapon in the parental conflict. Arguing in this way, one can attack the
ideology and practices of the group indirectly as they are manifested through the cult-
member parent while minimizing the contention that what is being litigated is the truth or
falsity of the teachings claimed to be religious.
One should also attempt to reveal inappropriate behavior by the cult-member parent,
particularly if the behavior is not cult-related. To do this will not only apprise the court of
the impact on the child of the cult-member parent‟s character, but will also tend to move
the litigation away from the religious arena.
Expert testimony, finally, should be saved for the end of the presentation in order to tie
together all of the preceding testimony. The expert can also be more fully responsive to
questions that the judge will almost inevitably ask about the meaning of the evidence
presented in the case.
With one strategic exception, the foregoing model format succeeded in a recent case of
mine. A divorced and remarried mother was the physical custodian of a ten-year-old boy
from her prior marriage to the cult-member father. The latter was a member of the Church
of Scientology, and for almost a year he had used much of his substantial visitation time to
involve his son in Scientology. As time passed, the boy increasingly exhibited certain
adverse behavioral features that are associated with stress. His grades fell his relationships
with his peers, while always shaky, deteriorated. It became impossible for his custodial
parents as well as school authorities to deal with him. Upon his return from 6 weeks of
summer vacation with his Scientologist father, his mother described him as emotionally
“beyond contact.” Whenever he returned from a vacation with his father, he was “out of
touch” for two or three days. He started to refuse to kiss his mother goodnight at bedtime.
Finally, one day after school he rode his bike 10 miles to a ferry, sailed across the bay, and
then rode through a bad area of a major city to the Scientology headquarters where his
father was waiting.
The mother obtained a temporary restraining order from a superior court judge who
temporarily prohibited the father from having any contact with his son. Two or three months
later, the issue of whether or not the Church of Scientology was detrimental to the boy‟s
mental and emotional well-being was fully litigated over the course of a ten-day hearing.
The Church of Scientology tried unsuccessfully to intervene in the suit on the basis that it
was being characterized in a pejorative light. The boy‟s mother testified, as did the school
psychologist, a social worker, the cult-member parent, the mother‟s new husband, a friend
of the cult-member parent, and the cult parent‟s parents. There was no expert testimony.
Through cross-examination, based on a Scientology policy paper, the cult-member parent
testified that Scientology characterized individuals who “opposed or impeded the
advancement of Scientology or a Scientolgist” as having committed “Suppressive Acts,” and
In the middle or toward the end of the presentation, the cult-member parent can be called
as an adverse witness and subjected to close cross-examination. Using the coercive
religious group‟s own literature, ideology, and practices, one should be able to extract
testimony from the cult parent about the group‟s coercive practices. Usually, the cult-
member parent will evade relevant questioning here. Be tenacious until fully truthful
responses are obtained. A proper factual foundation should already have been laid as to the
relationship between the child‟s behavior and the nature of the group.
One approach can be particularly effective here. As a rule, the practices of the group are
manipulative. It is also common for the cult-member parent to use the manipulative
techniques employed by the group to turn the child against the non-cult parent, and even to
exacerbate long-standing conflicts between the spouses. Demonstrating that this kind of
manipulation is going on will help prove the point that it is not the cult which is on trial, but
rather the cult-member parent‟s use of cult ideology and practices to put the child “in the
middle” as a weapon in the parental conflict. Arguing in this way, one can attack the
ideology and practices of the group indirectly as they are manifested through the cult-
member parent while minimizing the contention that what is being litigated is the truth or
falsity of the teachings claimed to be religious.
One should also attempt to reveal inappropriate behavior by the cult-member parent,
particularly if the behavior is not cult-related. To do this will not only apprise the court of
the impact on the child of the cult-member parent‟s character, but will also tend to move
the litigation away from the religious arena.
Expert testimony, finally, should be saved for the end of the presentation in order to tie
together all of the preceding testimony. The expert can also be more fully responsive to
questions that the judge will almost inevitably ask about the meaning of the evidence
presented in the case.
With one strategic exception, the foregoing model format succeeded in a recent case of
mine. A divorced and remarried mother was the physical custodian of a ten-year-old boy
from her prior marriage to the cult-member father. The latter was a member of the Church
of Scientology, and for almost a year he had used much of his substantial visitation time to
involve his son in Scientology. As time passed, the boy increasingly exhibited certain
adverse behavioral features that are associated with stress. His grades fell his relationships
with his peers, while always shaky, deteriorated. It became impossible for his custodial
parents as well as school authorities to deal with him. Upon his return from 6 weeks of
summer vacation with his Scientologist father, his mother described him as emotionally
“beyond contact.” Whenever he returned from a vacation with his father, he was “out of
touch” for two or three days. He started to refuse to kiss his mother goodnight at bedtime.
Finally, one day after school he rode his bike 10 miles to a ferry, sailed across the bay, and
then rode through a bad area of a major city to the Scientology headquarters where his
father was waiting.
The mother obtained a temporary restraining order from a superior court judge who
temporarily prohibited the father from having any contact with his son. Two or three months
later, the issue of whether or not the Church of Scientology was detrimental to the boy‟s
mental and emotional well-being was fully litigated over the course of a ten-day hearing.
The Church of Scientology tried unsuccessfully to intervene in the suit on the basis that it
was being characterized in a pejorative light. The boy‟s mother testified, as did the school
psychologist, a social worker, the cult-member parent, the mother‟s new husband, a friend
of the cult-member parent, and the cult parent‟s parents. There was no expert testimony.
Through cross-examination, based on a Scientology policy paper, the cult-member parent
testified that Scientology characterized individuals who “opposed or impeded the
advancement of Scientology or a Scientolgist” as having committed “Suppressive Acts,” and
