He is a clinical child psychologist with some 30 years experience as a clinician. He has, however, had a long standing interest in the psychology of religion and has made a speciality of his study of the development of children in religious families. He has seen about 200 to 225 children from five homes in the United States and three in England. He has however, only tested 34 out of about 8000! When questioned about his own gullibility in accepting at face value what he saw, he commented:-
"If The Family has a system for taking three to six year children and training them in such a way that they are able to maintain the deception over the time we were with them, then that is beyond belief".
He held the view that silence restriction did not seem excessively harmful nor was corporal punishment particularly damaging. The use of open heart report was fairly benign but in the wrong hands it could be abusive if activated by personal malevolence.
He met Tony - Zack Attack and described him as a "nice pleasant healthy guy with three kids who has his life together." He admitted, however, that he would have liked to have explored how his transformation happened and what effect the threat to remove his child had upon him. Without investigating those matters his observations of Tony seem to me to be superficial and to lack academic credibility. Likewise his conclusion about Davidito. This was an opportunity to explore exactly what had taken place in Berg's household. He merely touched upon these matters and Davidito made it obvious he was not prepared to talk about it. Nor did they talk about the reasons which impelled that young man to make attempts on his life said by The Family to have been caused by Satanic influences. Because I conclude that Dr Lilliston was not too concerned critically to examine The Family's past, I cannot be sure I get an accurate picture from him.
The testing he carried out on his very small sample produced these general results:-
Throughout the age range from pre-school through to late adolescence cognitive development was age appropriate or better, a level of development which would not typically be found in environments that were unduly restrictive, coercive, or punitive but were rather to be found in supportive and facilitative environment. The children were shown to be emotionally healthy and stable, characterised by high self-esteem, optimism, and feelings of self-efficacy. They felt empowered to control their behaviour and to influence the world around them. It was highly unlikely that those attributes could develop in an environment characterised by hostility, manipulation and excessive control. Rather the children had obviously received a great deal of affection and positive reinforcement. He found no evidence in any of the homes of sexual abuse or exploitation and the children's sexual adjustment was age appropriate and attitudes towards sex were healthy. The children showed impressive social development in that they got along quite well with each other and with people outside the homes. They liked people and were very much oriented towards establishing good and helpful social relations. He found no evidence of psychological abuse and it was clear that the children had not developed within an atmosphere that was repressive or destructive.
The fact that Dr Lilliston seems to have viewed The Family through his rose coloured spectacles, reduces the weight I can place upon his opinions, but I do not discount them entirely.
He is a Consultant Child Psychiatrist, an acknowledged expert in his field and a frequent witness in The Family Division. He was called by NT. His written report recorded:-
"Materially the standards (at the Ward's home) were good and the rooms were well equipped. The "feel" of the place was warm and the various adults to whom I spoke were friendly and gave no sign of disturbance of any kind. My questions were answered in a straight forward fashion. The numerous children struck me as normal in all respects, polite to me and their seniors but lively and not the least subdued. ...I thought (S) to be a normal, bright toddler (then not yet 2 years old) who, it was clear, was closely attached to his mother; she handled him well.
(1) I neither saw nor heard anything concerning S which raises doubts as to his normality and I am sure that the Learned Judge can safely base his decision on an assumption that he is normal in all respects.
(2) NT, too, gave me every reason to suppose she is psychologically normal. Perhaps, she is not an especially strong personality but I did not have the impression that she was unduly influenced either by anyone at the house or, "faith" excepted, by external forces of some kind.
(3) You will have appreciated that I came away from (the Ward's home) without cause for significant concern. I would feel able to dismiss any suggestion that I was gulled by those I encountered there. If the issue before the Court was simply whether or not this particular "community" was an appropriate place in which a little boy should grow up, I would hesitate only a little before endorsing placement. Such doubts as I had would derive from a personal preference for a "broader" environment for a child - any child.
(4) I see The Family as inbred. I think that those being trained for missionary work would be better equipped for that purpose by much more contact with the world outside the houses. ...So far as I can tell at present those (basic practices and standards) that characterise The Family are acceptable.
(5) The point has, I understand, been made that Family members who were abused within it during their former years, ipso facto, present a threat to children in their general care. I see this as a very dubious generalisation; one needs to particularise."
When he gave evidence he expanded upon those views. He repeated that he would have no fear for S provided that the present and future arrangements for him would not bring him into close contact with damaged personalities who would have a significant influence on him. He was firmly of the view that no child should partake of any sexual activity with grown-ups nor should any child be exposed to adult sexual behaviour. He said that if corporal punishment of a more or less formalised kind was practised then he would be very concerned for there are always better ways of discipline. He said:-
"I hope those with executive power will take to heart that this ought not to have happened and must not happen again."
It became plain as he was cross-examined just how deeply he deplored the excesses of discipline used by The Family. He would have no truck with the suggestion that it being done in love was a sufficient excuse. He called that a medieval approach like middle-age inquisitors inflicting torture to force the victim to recant for the good of his soul. He considered it degrading that VB should use the Law of Love to justify her having done something which she knew in her heart was wrong. It raised for Dr Heller the extent to which people go to extremes in the name of faith.
Whilst acknowledging that a vast amount of material had become relevant, he felt angry that more information had not been vouchsafed to him when he was conducting his enquiries because he considered important matters had been put in issue in the case which he would have wished to have explored.
He was cross-examined about the effects of child sexual abuse. He made it plain that a general principle of psychiatry is that past abusers should where possible have treatment. If an abuser is without knowledge that his acts were abusive, then he is all the more dangerous. If an abuser thinks he can get away with it, he will do it. He was not convinced that the distinction drawn between love and lust was anything more than an exculpatory justification for something that was known to be wrong. A therapist treating a sexual abuser would look for a frank acknowledgement of the abuse that had been committed, an acknowledgement of the fact that it harmed the victim and a total renunciation of any suggestion that the child asked for it. Accordingly he denounced RF for exposing his penis - on his own admission - in order to give some verisimilitude to a lesson on the facts of life. Without those acknowledgements, risks would be too unacceptably high for contact between a child and the perpetrator of child sex abuse to take place unsupervised. He said this:-
"I would expect that adult members and leaders would come to a genuine and sincere acknowledgement that the earlier teachings were:-
(1) In need of revision
(2) Were in fact wrong.
Were I a member, I would want regular group meetings where these things were brought into the open. If people won't look facts in the face, if people are able to persuade themselves black was white, they must be seen as imperfect protectors of children. The leadership would need to undertake a lot of new writing to explain how the situation has changed."
He was cross-examined about GN 555, "Our beliefs concerning the Lord's Law of Love" written by Peter Amsterdam and Apollos. He condemned that letter for failing emphatically to assert that any sexualised contact with a child was not just inexpedient but plainly and unutterably wrong because it caused psychological and emotional harm to the child. He said,
"If these adults from mother upwards fail to recognise that this is a doctrine which cannot be accepted, then this would cause me great concern. It they accept this teaching, they will have no reason to suppose that they will have misconducted themselves. They should recognise this is a doctrine which is pernicious."
He felt that paragraphs 51 to 53 were a backhanded apology and he found it dismaying that charismatic figures were so arrogant as to be able to persuade others that they knew what was God's will. He said,
"Whatever motivated David Berg, those who are adherents need to look at the world in which they are now living and have regard to the views of the system. I would want them to be able to recognise within themselves that it was wrong and had bad affects and that he had responsibility for it. I would like them to acknowledge he was wrong. It is important from a child protective point of view to say he led us astray."
He was scathing in his criticism of paragraphs 60 and 61 of that letter which refused to lay the blame at the door of David Berg. That he said is the opposite of what had to happen.
"I would want who ever is responsible for S to reject the false doctrines. I would certainly want the leaders to come to a quite different view of these matters and say this is no longer a tenable reaction."
He was dismissive of the "Good Thots" selection of psychiatric advice which he condemned as wrong and very misleading and not based on principles which have any validity at all. He said it ought to be withdrawn with an explanation that research showed that any sexual contact between adult and child was harmful. His conclusion was:-
"If the leadership continued to broadcast mixed messages and those receiving them fail to recognise the risks, then it is difficult to be protective."
He is another well known and respected Consultant Child Psychiatrist. He was called by the Official Solicitor.
He expressed these conclusions in his first report dated
17th October 1993:
"1. S is a delightful normal 20 month old little boy, a credit to his upbringing thus far.
2. (Mother), a devout believer in The Family, has given S an excellent start in life. She recognises her tendency to ignore disagreeable matters, and says she will be vigilant in looking after S. However, at least partially, she accepts S as being a child of The Family.
3. (Grandmother) is genuinely concerned about (a) child sexual abuse risks and (b) educational and social isolation and (c) likely to be untrained for independent living, all affecting S. She feels her daughter's blind faith will prevent her giving adequate protective care to her son.
At present it seems unlikely that S will be exposed to a degree of future significant harm, sufficient to justify removing him from The Family."
He made his second report on 13th May 1994. He said:-
"Recent direct observation of S with his mother...revealed an intelligent lively and happy little boy, who is developing satisfactorily. He shows no evidence of being harmed, nor does he appear to be at risk of significant harm currently. The present child care he receives from (mother), from SB, and from the other adult members of The Family at the Ward's home is of a high quality. As often happens when a child is brought up within a large extended Family, or in a community setting, S's emotional attachment is less intense to his mother then would be the case in a typical family and is spread apparently among the group who care for him. It does seem likely that S still regards (mother) as his primary psychological parent, but SB is probably a close second, with other members of the Ward's household also enjoying S's secure trust. ...S's upbringing thus far cannot be faulted and his present and immediate future best interests are likely to be protected by his continuing to be brought up in The Family in the short term future. ...Any serious circumstances putting S's wellbeing at risk could justify separation now.
NT's failure to protect S could take one of two forms:-
- either she would be physically separated from him, living in another house, perhaps in another country,
- or, although physically present, her trusting mind would not be acutely alert to threats to his welfare."
Dr Cameron then identified the groups of future risks. The first were acts of commission being sexual abuse and emotional and physical abuse. The second were acts of omission, i.e. neglect. These included the dereliction of duty to higher education, the neglect of social education, the neglect of medical provision and neglect of the child's attachment to mother. Dr Cameron concluded:-
"With such a recent history of misdeeds there must be a risk on commonsense grounds of S suffering, either from one or more of these recognised abuses, or from some new yet to be introduced experiment, at some time in the future as he grows up."
Nevertheless Dr Cameron seemed willing to adopt a "wait and see" approach. He said:-
"While (that) appears a reasonable way to proceed, over-optimism would be out of place. The Family senior members need to correct two major areas of child-rearing practice by written and verbal orders from the leadership
(1) First of all all physical and emotional abuse and neglectful practices must cease with the leadership formerly banning and outlawing paddling, compulsory silence, isolation, dire emotional threats, abuse of the open heart report system and premature separation of children from their parents.
(2) Education at GCSE level and A level as a preparation for University must be drastically improved. It is unlikely that this can be achieved in-house, and therefore The Family must reconsider its position about encouraging children and adolescents of a certain age to go to outside schools. Perhaps The Family may draw comfort from the Jesuits who are said to feel confident in children brought up in the faith until they are seven, and the experience of The Brethren who allow their children to attend ordinary schools."
Dr Cameron also emphasised S's right to have full and generous contact with all the extended natural family of the Ward.
Of NT he said,
"She needs to show genuine appreciation that the worrying evidence before the Court demands that an outside authority should keep a watchful eye on S's wellbeing over the coming years."
Of the possibility of removing S to his maternal grandmother's home, Dr Cameron said:-
"The major disadvantage is that S is still a very little boy to take away from his primary parent and caring home. S is just at that delicate stage of development where he is growing an inner sense of security, and this would be jeopardised if he were to be removed now from his present home."
Of the "wait and see policy with oversight", Dr Cameron said:-
"Planned and purposeful delay has the merit of allowing S to continue to grow up in the environment where he has developed very well thus far. The Family may be improving its child-care practices and there is a possibility that further child centred goals will be achieved in the coming years."
So he concluded:-
"While not seeking to diminish the risks, this child psychiatric report favours the wait and see option. None of the adults in S's immediate environment wishes to see any harm come to him. All are conscious and acutely aware of the need to bring him up well. The past malpractices of The Family are closely associated with some of those who may currently look after S. It is concluded that although there is a risk of something adverse occurring to S it may be balanced by the benefit to him of continuing his early childhood experience uninterruptedly in the care of his own mother."
He wrote a very important letter dated 14th May 1994 in order that it be drawn to the mother's attention before she gave evidence. He said this:-
"There are three hurdles to be surmounted by this little boy's mother:-
(1) Although her spiritual/emotional attachment is both to The Family and to S, does she place her son's interest first, and will she continue to do? If not, she is (like a private fostering arrangement) transferring her day to day parental responsibility for S to The Family, and it is The Family's parenting that will then have to be judged.
(2) Does S's mother accept that some of The Family's practices have corrupted and psychologically damaged a number of the children/ adolescents in its care? And because of this history the authorities are obliged to monitor S's welfare and are justified in doing so? If she cannot recognise and accept this, how can she protect S?
(3) Does she accept that constricting the breadth and limiting the duration of education will seriously disadvantage any young person who chooses to leave The Family and go and live in the outside world? If she cannot see this, how can she be trusted to nurture S's educational potential?
Failure at any of these hurdles would raise reasonable doubts about S's continuing welfare in her care."
When he gave evidence Dr Cameron addressed those three questions. As to mother putting S first, he said that what concerned him was that whereas the intuitive feeling of most mothers would be to be with her child, NT had put her intuitive feelings aside and relied on the pressure from The Family to leave S at the Ward's home while she came to London for the purpose of this long hearing. She had a trust in The Family which most mothers would not have. This seemed to indicate to Dr Cameron that instinct had been overridden by some other belief system.
As to her acceptance of corruption, Dr Cameron found it significant that NT could say that the treatment of Davidito was wrong but she could not say that it was wrong to have happened in Berg's household. If her loyalty to Berg was blind, then she was not able to use her own judgment as to whether something was reasonable or not. If only a general "mistake" was acknowledged, but no blame attached to the leaders, then Dr Cameron remained worried. He was very firmly of the view that it made no difference to the child if done in love because the child instinctively knows that an action is wrong and that brings the child into conflict between what the adult was encouraging him to do and what he subconsciously felt to be wrong. It produced a psychological strain and groomed the child for promiscuous sexual activity which would not be in his best interest when he grew older. The use of young children in the strip dancing videos crossed a taboo and was part of a process of adults' grooming children for sexual exploitation. As for the videos, it was self-deceit to think that they were not made for sexual gratification. The fact that "babes" were not exposed to "strong meat" was an implicit acknowledgement that the meat was too strong. When finally exposed to it, there was almost a right of initiation that the newcomer must comply with the group's conduct in order truly to belong to the group. His view of the RF exposing himself in the course of the sex education lesson, so called, was that it was an outrageous thing to do which was clearly wrong and damaging to the children concerned. In Dr Cameron's opinion RF's sense that his father was present was his conscience working upon him knowing intuitively that what he was doing was wrong.
His evidence about MB was significant. She was a conscientious child who became disillusioned and depressed because of her doubts. She was in conflict between what she saw and disapproved of and what she was being taught to accept. Her treatment was a form of physcological punishment. If the cause of the breakdown was the feeling that MB did not have enough trust and faith and the treatment was to emphasise that she was a back-sliding sinner, then the treatment re-inforced the doubts and made the condition worse.
Dr Cameron condemned the use of Open Heart Reports. Adolescents must be allowed their own privacy and allowed their own doubts about the adult world they were entering. It was an intrusion into the mind of a teenager and totally wrong. The wilful might play the game and lie but the conscientious suffered.
What he knew of DR suggested that she was in need of professional help to come to terms with what had happened to her. Techi's crying every half hour was evidence of her being extremely emotionally overwrought and instead of proper support, she was punished.
He cited the failure of The Family to alert the police when SM ran away as an example of wrong priorities - the safety of the group had been judged to be more important than the safety of the child.
As for MS, Dr Cameron said that it was baffling how The Family could teach sexual freedom and then punish her for it, even if she was then acting in breach of the rules. Her rebellion manifested an underlying problem which her shepherds failed to examine and, when a substantial cause of her waywardness was declared to Mary Malaysia she ignored it probably because, like so many, she refused to believe there was a problem with child sex abuse in The Family. He disapproved strongly of her isolation. He condemned the use of silence restriction as outlandish and damaging through its humiliation and its destruction of self-esteem. It mattered not that it was carried out with love.
Of EG, Dr Cameron expressed concern were he to be in charge because if he could not see anything wrong in his own early sexual initiation, he could hardly give moral guidance to the children who might be in his care.
The Tony Series were alarming for the form of public group pressure that was being applied with the message that that was what happened if one did not conform. The example of having to choose between The Family and his child was condemned as a misuse of faith and loyalty.
When cross-examined, Dr Cameron has spoke in terms similar to Dr Heller about the mixed messages given in GN555. He put it this way: the difficulty is that one gets a double message from the letter which says in effect, "You can't go around abusing children because it gets us into trouble but we still believe in the Law of Love" The message is, "Don't do it because it will get us into trouble but we know what we said previously was perfectly OK." In other words it was a pragmatic amendment not a fundamental one. He repeated that it was not enough to say it was a mistake; it was necessary to say it was fundamentally wrong.
He explained that the use of Open Heart Reports was not that they were wrong in themselves but that it was an abuse of the power and an abuse of the confessional.
It is important that I stress that the evidence of Dr Heller and Dr Cameron was given before NT had completed her evidence. She must have been aware of what was expected of her.
