|
CHAPTER TWO:
The Child Custody Case
What can we do
to refute what is stated in Scientology's own documents?
- Counsel for the Scientologist father in the custody
case
In Spring 1984, I learned of a
child custody case in which Scientology was at issue. The father, a
Church Scientologist, was seeking to retain custody of his two young
children. The mother and stepfather had left Scientology.
Prior to the hearing, the
stepfather called me. He launched into a speech, saying he did not want
to blacken Scientology, only to gain custody of the children. His
caution was unnecessary, I had no desire to conceal the facts about
either Hubbard or Scientology. Although prepared to help the
Independents defend themselves, I was no longer a Scientologist. We
began to work together on a daily basis.
The stepfather already had an
enormous amount of material, much of which he could not use in court.
His solicitor felt, for example, that the 1,500 page transcript of the
Clearwater Hearings was inadmissible in an English court. The father, a
convinced Scientologist, had insisted that he did not practice
Disconnection. I was given three letters he had written to his business
partner in 1983, Disconnecting from him, and suggesting that a screen be
put in their office to avoid even visual contact with his Suppressive
partner.
The head of the Scientology
school in East Grinstead was being called as a witness. She denied that
a twelve-year-old girl had received a "withhold pulling session" at the
hands of three of the school's staff. To "pull withholds" is
Scientologese for making someone confess to their transgressions.
Minutes of the school's board meetings had to be publicly available, yet
the filed copy made no reference to the "withhold-pulling" session. I
obtained an unedited copy of the school's board minutes, which
not only proved the headmistress's sworn statement untrue, but showed
the school's attempt at concealment.
Then there were Hubbard's own
published statements. I found references to Fair Game, a passage where
Hubbard called non-Scientologists "raw meat," and much more.
Of course, Church members are
forbidden by Policy from making any public criticism of either Hubbard
or Scientology. The strength of this taboo is shown by the criticism I
received from some Independents for my wholehearted involvement in the
case. The future of the children, and their future happiness, was less
important to them than maintaining a Public Relations shield for Hubbard
and Scientology. This attitude stems from the belief that the Tech is a
world-saving force, and that if anything is awry it will not help to
broadcast it. It has to be emphasized that public admissions of
wrongdoing, apologies, and steps to prevent repetition are foreign to
the mentality instilled into Hubbard's converts.
The case concerned the custody
of a ten-year-old boy, and an eight-year-old girl. To quote from
the
judgment:
At the heart
of the mother's case is the contention that if the children remain
in the care of the father they will be brought up as Scientologists
and will be seriously damaged ...
It is
important, indeed essential, to stress from the start that this is
neither an action against Scientology nor a prosecution of it. But
willy-nilly Scientology is at the center of the dispute of what is
best for the children. The father and his counsel have stressed that
they are not here to defend Scientology. That is true in the strict
sense that the "Church" of Scientology is not a party to the
proceedings. But they have known from the start what the mother's
case is .... The father's solicitor is a Scientologist. He has been
in communication with the solicitors who act for Scientology. There
has been ample time and opportunity to assemble and adduce documents
and evidence in refutation of the mother's allegations. None has
been adduced. Why? Because the mother's case is based largely on
Scientology's own documents and as the father's counsel... candidly
albeit plaintively said "what can we do to refute what is stated in
Scientology's own documents?"
. . . The
parents were married in 1973 and late that year B [the son] was
born. G [the daughter] was born in December, 1975. The parents
separated in November, 1978. In December, 1978 and January, 1979,
the parents signed agreements by virtue of which the father had
custody of the children and the mother access .... In March, 1979
the father filed a petition of divorce on the ground of the mother's
adultery with the stepfather.
In September,
1979 . . . by agreement, custody was committed to the father. The
divorce was made absolute in November, 1979. The father and
stepmother married. The mother and stepfather also went through a
ceremony of marriage believing that they were free to do so. In
fact, the stepfather's divorce had not gone through ....
. . . In May,
1980 there began a hearing by the Scientology "Chaplain's Court"
concerning the custody of the children. The decision, inaccurately
described as an "Agreement," was that custody should remain with the
father.
The mother and stepfather
subsequently left Scientology, and decided to take the matter to law.
Justice Latey continued:
As to the
separation in 1978, the father said in his Affidavit that this was
caused by the mother's relationship with the stepfather. In his oral
evidence the father accepted that he had drawn up what in
Scientology language is described as a "Doubt Formula" ["Doubt" is
one of the "Ethics Conditions"] in which he said that he considered
himself the mother's intellectual superior, that he had doubts about
the wisdom of the marriage and that separation had been discussed on
a number of occasions .... It is scarcely surprising that with a
husband who so regarded her, she became attached to a man who held
her in full regard and affection.
As to the
custody agreements in 1978 and 1979: The father naturally attaches
much weight to them. The mother says that throughout she wanted the
children and believed that it would be better for them to be with
her. She was a committed Scientologist at the time. Scientology
forbids recourse to the law courts of the country save in special
circumstances with permission .... The mother says that she agreed
to the father having custody because of the pressure brought to bear
on her by the father and the Scientologists concerned. The father
accepts that she agreed very reluctantly ....
At the time of
the separation B was aged just five and G not quite three. Had the
dispute come to court one cannot be sure, of course, what the
decision would have been, but it is not unlikely that children so
young would have been put in the care of a good and devoted mother
as this one is and always has been.
. . . As to
the "Chaplain's" decision: There were written submissions and some
oral hearings. It is noteworthy that from start to finish the
father's submission is couched in Scientology terminology and
stresses all he and the stepmother have done for Scientology, how
correctly they have complied with Scientology "ethics" and how the
mother has offended against those "ethics." The Chaplain of course
was a Scientology official.
Both the
mother and stepfather wanted to come to Court and in about May 1980
she was given permission to do so by the "Assistant Guardian" on
condition that Scientology would not be involved. But the father
intervened with the Guardian and the permission was withdrawn.
In the summer of 1982, the
children stayed with the mother, and she decided to keep them, despite
the previous "agreements." She fled to the United States, and the father
followed her, taking the children back to England with him. Justice
Latey continued, having admitted that were it not for the father's
adherence to Scientology he would have ruled that the children stay with
him:
What then is
the Scientology factor and what weight should be attached to it'?
"Horrendous." "Sinister." "A lot of rotten apples in it." Those
words are not mine. They are the father's own words describing
practices of the Cult and what it does to people inside it and
outside it. "A lot of villains in it." "Dreadful things have been
done in the name of Scientology." These words are not mine. They are
the words of the father's counsel.
Justice Latey went on the
describe Scientology as he saw it, and added:
Some might
regard this as an extension of the entertaining science fiction
which Hubbard used to write before he invented and founded the cult
.... But in an open Society, such as ours, people can believe what
they want to and band together and promulgate their beliefs. If
people believe that the earth is flat there is nothing to stop them
believing so, saying so and joining together to persuade others.
He then quoted the evidence
given by American psychiatrist Dr. John Gordon Clark, during the trial:
Auditing is a
simple, thoroughly designed means of concentrating the mind to a
state of a controlled trance. The aim and result is progressively to
enforce loyalty to, and identification with Scientology to the
detriment of one's natural awareness of divergent ways of thinking
and outside cultural influences. Love and allegiance are more and
more given to Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard.
Justice Latey further wrote
that "In blunt language 'auditing' is a process of conditioning,
brainwashing and indoctrination." Justice Latey compared the truth about
Hubbard with the Church's published claims:
To promote
himself and the cult he has made these, among other false claims:
That he was a
much decorated war hero. He was not. That he commanded a corvette
squadron. He did not.
That he was
awarded the Purple Heart, a gallantry decoration for those wounded
in action. He was not wounded and was not decorated.
That he was
crippled and blinded in the war and cured himself with Dianetic
technique. He was not crippled and was not blinded.
That he was
sent by U.S. Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic ring in
California. He was not. He was himself a member of that occult group
and practiced ritual sexual magic in it.
That he was a
graduate of George Washington University and an atomic physicist.
The facts are that he completed only one year of college and failed
the one course on nuclear physics in which he enrolled.
There is no
dispute about any of this. The evidence is unchallenged. . . .
Hubbard has described himself as "Dr. Hubbard." The only doctorate
he has held is a self-bestowed "doctorate" in Scientology. . . . Mr.
Hubbard is a charlatan and worse, as are his wife Mary Sue Hubbard .
. . and the clique at the top privy to the Cult's activities.
Further on Justice Latey spoke
of "Confessional auditing":
Contrary to
the assurance of confidentiality, all "auditing" files are available
to Scientology's intelligence and enforcement bureau and are used,
if necessary, to control and extort obedience from the person who
was audited. If a person seeks to escape from Scientology his
auditing files are taken by the intelligence bureau and used, if
wished, to pressure him into silence. They are often so used and
uncontraverted evidence of this has been given at this hearing.
. . . It is no
surprise that to escape from the clutches of Scientology calls for
great courage and resolution. The stranglehold is tight and
unrelenting and the discipline ruthless. And of course there is the
anguish of conscience in the escaper after usually many years of
commitment to Scientology.
Justice Latey went on to read "TR-L"
("Training Routine-Lying") into the record. This is a drill used in the
training of Guardian's Office staff members. Its purpose is to enable
the trainee to tell a lie in a convincing fashion.
Much of a Hubbard Policy
Letter, of August 15, 1960, was also read into the record. It contains
the statement: "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or
anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat
against them to cause them to sue for peace .... Don't ever defend.
Always attack."
Then Justice Latey read from a
Guardian's Order of March 9, 1970, headed "Re: Successful and
Unsuccessful Actions." Among the successful actions was seeking out the
criminal acts of "traitors" (easy to do if you have their auditing
folders). The Order describes a cross-filing system used to keep track
of information on "traitors" (such as myself, I suppose). GO staff were
to create a fictitious company (a press agency was recommended), and use
letterheaded paper to make inquiries. Information is better discovered
through phone calls than through personal visits. Sexual favors to
members of governments had apparently also been successful. Hostile
groups could be infiltrated and documents stolen. Letters can be forged
for purposes of character assassination. Anonymous reports can be made
to the tax authorities.
Justice Latey moved on to life
inside Scientology:
Discipline is
ruthless and obedience has to be unquestioning. Scientologists
working on the staff are required to work inordinately long hours
for their keep and a pittance...
Scientology
must come first before family or friends. Much evidence has been
given and not disputed of how it leads to alienation of one spouse
from another, of alienation from children and from friends.
Another
witness, Mrs. B, was a Scientologist from 1972 and rose quickly in
the organization. She had a three year old daughter. Nonetheless,
for a period of months she was required to work from 8:30 a.m. to 1
a.m. She was allowed only fifteen minutes daily to put her daughter
to bed. On one occasion when the child broke her arm and she took
her to the doctor she was directed to work all night as a penalty.
In January
1982, Mrs. B was made Commanding Officer of the Organization, Saint
Hill U.K. Foundation. At around this time the Commodore's
Messenger's Org... in the United States were originating an
increasing number of international directives which seemed to her
wrong or bad. She wrote a report addressing it to L. Ron Hubbard.
Eight days later in November 1982, she was removed from her post and
assigned to the "RPF" (Rehabilitation Project Force). She was
refused counselling, required to do at least twelve hours physical
work a day (shifting bricks, emptying bins etc.) [sic] and to
communicate with no one, except to receive orders. The work
aggravated a chronic back condition. When she protested she was
threatened with being declared a "Suppressive Person".... Her time
with her children was limited to one half hour per day.
Another
witness worked at Flag [in Florida] and became an "L. Ron Hubbard
Public Relations Officer," one of only three in the world and a high
appointment. In 1977 she declined to undertake a mission that would
cause her to leave her young daughter for at least two months. She
was shouted at and abused because she put the care of her child
first. She was subjected to a Committee of Evidence (disciplinary
tribunal): She left Flag.
Those are a
few of many illustrations, proved in evidence, of the ruthless and
inhuman disciplinary measures.
Justice Latey then quoted from
an Ethics Policy Letter, and from the 1968 cancellation of "Fair Game."
He gave the following example to demonstrate that the "Fair Game Policy"
(that a Suppressive can be "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed") was
still in force after its apparent cancellation:
Beginning in
1977 the Church of Scientology has conducted a campaign of
persecution against Dr. Clark. They wrote Fetters to the Dean at the
Harvard Medical School and to the Director of the Massachusetts
General Hospital. They [the Dean and the Director] refused to gag
him. Their [the Church's] agents tracked down and telephoned several
of his patients and interviewed his neighbors looking for evidence
to impugn his private or personal actions. They submitted a critical
report to a Committee of the Massachusetts State Senate. On three
occasions during the last five years a Scientology "front" called
the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights have brought complaints
against him to the Massachusetts Medical Board of Registration
alleging improper professional conduct. In 1980 he was declared a
"Number One Enemy" and in 1981 they brought two law suits against
him (summarily dismissed, but costly and worrying). They distributed
leaflets at the Massachusetts General Hospital offering a $25,000
reward to employees for evidence which would lead to his conviction
on any charge of criminal activity. They stole his employment record
from another Boston hospital. They convened press conferences
calculated to ruin his professional reputation.
Justice Latey quoted Hubbard:
"The law can be used very easily to harass," and continued:
A sad episode
during the hearing was the evidence of a young man. He is greatly
gifted and did exceptionally well at School and University. His
parents are Scientologists as are his brother and sister. They are
all totally committed. He did his first simple course at the age of
six, and a further basic course, "The Hubbard Qualified
Scientologist Course," two years later. Since then he has continued
with course after course. . . . It became apparent that he simply
could not accept that there was or could be anything wrong with
Scientology. The part of his mind which would otherwise have been
capable of weighing objectively the criticisms of Scientology had
been blocked out by the processing. He has indeed been enslaved.
In his conclusion as to
Scientology itself, Justice Latey had this to say:
Scientology is
both immoral and socially obnoxious .... In my judgment it is
corrupt, sinister and dangerous. It is corrupt because it is based
on lies and deceit and has as its real objective money and power for
Mr. Hubbard, his wife and those close to him at the top. It is
sinister because it indulges in infamous practices both to its
adherents who do not toe the line unquestioningly, and to those who
criticise or oppose it. It is dangerous because it is out to capture
people, especially children and impressionable young people, and
indoctrinate and brainwash them so that they become the
unquestioning captives and tools of the cult, withdrawn from
ordinary thought, living and relationships with others.
Mr. Justice Latey awarded
custody of the children to the mother. Late in the hearing the father
had made a heart-rending proposal: he and his new wife would abandon
Scientology until the children had grown up. It was moving, not because
he would have to abandon Scientology, but because for making such a
suggestion in court he risked being ostracized by the Scientology Church
and community, whatever the outcome. The Justice felt that because the
father and his wife were committed Scientologists, their removal from
East Grinstead, and from the Church, would not be enough: "The baleful
influence of the 'Church' would in reality still be there and the
children would remain gravely at risk."
The Justice also gave two very
telling examples of that "baleful influence":
Recently B
asked his mother whether he could have a certain friend to stay for
the weekend with him "because he's the only one whose parents will
let him come to your house."
Recently G
asked her mother why she was not a Scientologist. Her mother pointed
out that people could be good people without being Scientologists
and observed that two widely respected personages in whom G is
interested were not Scientologists. To this G replied "they would be
better if they were."
_______________
FOOTNOTES
Source:
Decision in "Re B & G Wards," Royal Courts of Justice, High Court,
London, 23 July 1984.
Go to Next Page
|