1.1 Let’s assume the following hypothetical scenario resulted in a hearing in the Domestic and Family Violence Court of Queensland and the court accepted the following evidence:
1.2 The scenario involves a family group made up of the Father, the Mother and three children. The entire family goes to xCF, except the eldest daughter who is 19 years old (‘the Daughter’). The Daughter has decided not to attend xCF for various reasons of her own. An Elder in the Church, advises that the Father and Mother have no alternative but to expel the Daughter from home. The Elder believes that allowing her to stay would compromise their salvation and the sanctity of their home is at risk.
1.3 The parents believe the Edler and conclude that they must expel their daughter to ensure their salvation.
1.4 They consider the Edler to be a ‘Messenger’ of God and that as a member of the Presbytery, obedience to him is necessary for a Christian life.
1.5 For years, the Mother resisted the Elder’s directives, insisting that their daughter was a wonderful person who never spoken against the Church. Although she did not share the Church’s beliefs, she wished to continue living at home due to their strong family bonds.
1.6 The Mother’s resistance prevented the Father from expelling their Daughter for many years. However, the Elder continuously warned them that their salvation was at risk if they allow their daughter to stay.
1.7 Over time, the parents noticed their friends and family who attended xCF began to distance themselves. Rumours spread that they were an ‘unsanctified couple’ who refused to obey the Elders.
1.8 Confidential information shared by the parents in pastoral sessions was being circulated. Often facts were distorted to damage their reputations. Despite the Father’s inquiries, no one took responsibility for these privacy breaches.
1.9 The growing social pressure embarrassed the Father and Mother and they felt compelled to restore their reputation by expelling the Daughter.
1.10 This stain created tension in the marriage, and the Father eventually issued an ultimatum: the Mother must submit to his authority as head of the house and expel the Daughter, or he would divorce her.
1.11 Fearing loss of her marriage, social ostracization by friends and family who attended xCF, and financial insecurity, the Mother reluctantly agreed to expel their Daughter. She also feared losing partial custody of her younger children in a divorce.
1.12 The Parents told their Daughter they were ‘obeying the Presbytery word’ and that unless she returns to the Church and followed every directive of the Elders, she must leave.
1.13 The Daughter pleaded with her parents to allow her to stay, explaining she needed a stable environment to continue her university studies. The parents refused, and the father physically evicted her after he packed her belongings.
1.14 The Daughter was left destitute and homeless. She sleeps rough for a few weeks before being robbed and sexually assaulted. Eventually, the Salvation Army helped arrange emergency accommodation through the State Government. She later secured a Government grant and financial assistance but had to put her studies on hold while trying to stabilize her life.
1.15 Prior to her decision to leave xCF the Daughter had complied with the Presbytery’s word on not having contact with those outside the church. This left the Daughter without a support network outside the church.
1.16 Following the sexual assault the Daughter returned home to beg her parents to take her in. Her parents told her the assault was her fault and was God’s judgement for her disobedience. She returned to the streets and is dependent on Government grants and social security.
1.17 As part of the prosecution’s case, they introduced witness evidence which established a clear pattern of behaviour by the parents and the Edler. These witnesses included friends and family, who had directly witnessed the conduct of the accused. Some of whom were current members of the church.
1.18 These witnesses included young adults who had similar experiences. They testified to feeling forced to stay or return to the church due to fear of homelessness, street violence and financial insecurity.
1.19 These witnesses’ evidence included the process they went through to be accepted back into the church. They were required to prove their devotion to the Elders.
1.20 These witnesses testified to the following:
1.21 This evidence was crucial because the Father and the Elder had both entered not guilty pleas, denying their participation in any of the events described in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.19. The magistrate did not accept their denial, because a clear patten of behaviour had been established by other evidence before the court.
1.22 Following cross examination the Father and Elder changed their plea to guilty. They told the court they were following the directions of a more senior Elder in the church. They believed this more senior Elder should bear the responsibility for their actions, and they each felt coerced into the conduct for which they had been charged.
