Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1989, Page 51
that such individuals were characterized in these documents as being “Suppressive
persons.” He further testified that any Scientologist who had a relationship with such a
“Suppressive Person” was characterized in the Scientology literature as a “Potential Trouble
Source.” The witness refused to admit that one characterized as a “Potential Trouble
Source” was required to “disconnect” from the “Suppressive Person,” although this
requirement is also part of the doctrine contained in the documents. The judge, however,
understood this.
The court in the end awarded sole legal and physical custody (in California, sole legal
custody is rarely awarded, since joint legal custody is by statute presumed to be in the best
interests of the child) to the mother, and further issued the following findings of fact and
custody order that I wrote and submitted.
Under the circumstances of this case, and as used herein by petitioner [father] the
doctrines and tenets of the Church of Scientology, whether such doctrines and tenets
are designated by that name, by the name Dianetics, or any other name which
describes the ideological doctrines and tenets which are in any way affiliated or
connected to the Church of Scientology, have been in the past and in the future are
likely to be dangerous and detrimental to [name], the minor herein whose interests,
health, and welfare have been at issue...[Father] is prohibited from: a) In any way
communicating [minor], or influencing [minor] with the doctrines and/or tenets
propounded by the Church of Scientology, Dianetics, the Delphian School, the Real
School or any other source of psychological influence which is related to or connected
with Scientology, Dianetics, the Delphian School, the Real School or other similar
related entity b) Taking [minor] to Scientology, Dianetics, Delphian School, the Real
School or any other similar entity, activity or other influence which is connected with
or related to the inculcation of the tenets and doctrines propounded by said or
similarly related entities and c) Taking any other action, of whatever kind or nature,
which will bring [minor] into physical or psychological contact with Scientology,
Dianetics, Delphian School, Real School or other similar related source of
psychological influence which is related to or connected with Scientology, Dianetics,
Delphian School, Real School or related entities
Notes
1. While one has the absolute right to believe whatever one wants, one does not
necessarily enjoy the same liberty with respect to putting such beliefs into action.
Although the truth or falsity of religious belief cannot be litigated, the impact of
particular beliefs upon the mental or emotional status of a child can be.
****************
Ford Greene, Esq., an attorney in private practice in San Anselmo, CA, has successfully
argued a number of civil and criminal cases involving clients enmeshed in one way or
another with cultic groups. He recently led a successful effort to persuade the California
Supreme Court to deny a lower court dismissal of the celebrated Molko case --in which two
Unification Church members allege they were fraudulently manipulated into joining --thus
making possible a trial on the charges.
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1989, Volume 6,
Number 1, pages 69-75. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the
bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
that such individuals were characterized in these documents as being “Suppressive
persons.” He further testified that any Scientologist who had a relationship with such a
“Suppressive Person” was characterized in the Scientology literature as a “Potential Trouble
Source.” The witness refused to admit that one characterized as a “Potential Trouble
Source” was required to “disconnect” from the “Suppressive Person,” although this
requirement is also part of the doctrine contained in the documents. The judge, however,
understood this.
The court in the end awarded sole legal and physical custody (in California, sole legal
custody is rarely awarded, since joint legal custody is by statute presumed to be in the best
interests of the child) to the mother, and further issued the following findings of fact and
custody order that I wrote and submitted.
Under the circumstances of this case, and as used herein by petitioner [father] the
doctrines and tenets of the Church of Scientology, whether such doctrines and tenets
are designated by that name, by the name Dianetics, or any other name which
describes the ideological doctrines and tenets which are in any way affiliated or
connected to the Church of Scientology, have been in the past and in the future are
likely to be dangerous and detrimental to [name], the minor herein whose interests,
health, and welfare have been at issue...[Father] is prohibited from: a) In any way
communicating [minor], or influencing [minor] with the doctrines and/or tenets
propounded by the Church of Scientology, Dianetics, the Delphian School, the Real
School or any other source of psychological influence which is related to or connected
with Scientology, Dianetics, the Delphian School, the Real School or other similar
related entity b) Taking [minor] to Scientology, Dianetics, Delphian School, the Real
School or any other similar entity, activity or other influence which is connected with
or related to the inculcation of the tenets and doctrines propounded by said or
similarly related entities and c) Taking any other action, of whatever kind or nature,
which will bring [minor] into physical or psychological contact with Scientology,
Dianetics, Delphian School, Real School or other similar related source of
psychological influence which is related to or connected with Scientology, Dianetics,
Delphian School, Real School or related entities
Notes
1. While one has the absolute right to believe whatever one wants, one does not
necessarily enjoy the same liberty with respect to putting such beliefs into action.
Although the truth or falsity of religious belief cannot be litigated, the impact of
particular beliefs upon the mental or emotional status of a child can be.
****************
Ford Greene, Esq., an attorney in private practice in San Anselmo, CA, has successfully
argued a number of civil and criminal cases involving clients enmeshed in one way or
another with cultic groups. He recently led a successful effort to persuade the California
Supreme Court to deny a lower court dismissal of the celebrated Molko case --in which two
Unification Church members allege they were fraudulently manipulated into joining --thus
making possible a trial on the charges.
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1989, Volume 6,
Number 1, pages 69-75. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the
bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.
