United Kingdom
London: 1992-November 1995

In 1992 the mother of an adult Family member filed a case with Lord Justice Ward in England, requesting the custody of her unmarried daughter's child. The only grounds presented by the mother for the removal of the custody of her grandchild were her daughter's membership in the Family. The grandmother never suggested that her daughter was an unfit mother or that she had been deficient in her care of her son, a point carefully noted by the assigned magistrate, Lord Justice Ward, in his decision.

These long months have been spent trying the issues joined between the Plaintiff, Mrs. T., a grandmother and the defendant N.T., her daughter, each so strongly imbued with that instinctive love for the offspring, and in grandmother's case also her offspring's offspring, that each has never flinched or contemplated surrender in this titanic struggle to secure the care and control of the much loved child in question, the Defendant's son, S. At no time has there been any issue about this young mother's ability to properly love her child and to attend to all his physical needs and the only harm from which grandmother seeks to protect him is the harm she alleges he will suffer from remaining with his mother as faithful members of what is popularly but inaccurately known as a cult, The Children of God, now known as the Family of Love or simply as the Family.

The mother claims the inalienable right to love her God as she chooses, which is a love she submits brooks no interference from a Court of Law because she is entitled to the fundamental freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. As I have already made clear there is not and there never has been any attack at all upon N.T.'s ability to provide proper physical care and to give all proper love and affection to her son. If the child is to be removed from her care, it is only because of her adherence to the Family.¹

Although the member of the Family involved in this case was living outside of the country at the time, she obliged with the requests of the court and relocated to England to place herself at the disposition of Justice Ward. Despite the fact that this case was strictly a custody case involving a Family member and her mother, Justice Ward devoted several years to hearing both former-member and current-member witnesses, as well as studying Family literature and having social services evaluate the condition of local Family communities in England before pronouncing his decision. The court hearing lasted an unprecedented 75 days in which 10,000 pages of evidence were presented. Justice Ward made note of the request of the local Family communities to be adjoined to the case, which he refused.

I refused an application by several members of the home in which N.T. lives to be joined as individual parties because they considered my decision might impinge on their children. The Family as an entity of its own is not a party.

Three years later, in November 1995, Justice Ward issued a lengthy ruling, in which he leveled some harsh criticisms at past eras of the Family's history, while also concluding that the Family had undergone numerous positive changes, stating he was satisfied that the Family provided a safe environment for children raised within the group. The court consequently awarded the mother care and control of her child.

* * *

Footnotes:
¹ Lord Justice Ward in the High Court of Justice, Family Division, Case W 42 1992, London, England, October 19, 1995.