Devastation Part 2
The breadth and depth of devastation for the family and those falsely accused of serious sexual misconduct with a child who are then denied the right to a considered defence for 18 months.
by Pippa
In the first article in this series I reflected on how the Lord is sustaining my family and me through the devastation caused by the “nightmarish” situation that began for us over two years ago. In this article I will firstly share why we continue our quest and then begin to share the events within the nightmare that have been so traumatic.
But firstly I would like to share a song that we came across in 2012 just prior to our return to Sydney to visit the PSU. We listened to it over and over again in the early months as it was so appropriate and reminded us of the truth about God and our relationship with him.
Even If You Don’t
In the silent place where darkness reigns, I will wait
I need you more and more, like a desert rain
Even in this pain, all my strength may fail, I will pray
Looking for a light, the dawn of grace where hope is found
And only You remain
You can move the mountain, You can roll back the sea
And change these circumstances in front of me
And even if you don’t
Even if you won’t
You are my Lord
Within your steadfast love that goes beyond the grave, I will stay
A fortress of Your Word when all around me fails and all s lost
And only You remain
You can move the mountain, You can roll back the sea
And change these circumstances in front of me
And even if you don’t
Even if you won’t
You are my Lord, You are my God
My ransom, my deliverer, my hope when all else is gone
My supply for all I need
And even if you don’t
Even if you won’t
Even if you don’t
You are my Lord
How and why we continue
My Christian psychologist’s assessment of the situation is that, under the circumstances, I should not be coping. However, she recognises that faith in our great God is keeping me secure. She told me it was a miracle that my husband and I have been able to produce documents (many tens of them) over the last two years and power on in our quest for justice and more importantly our quest to challenge those who call themselves Christian leaders, to follow and obey the Lord (not the lawyers!).
We do feel like David facing Goliath and many would consider us mad for attempting what we are doing. It didn’t go well for Jesus, Stephen or Paul when they stood up to the powerful religious leaders of their day. As I write this, I concurrently pray “Lord, remove the log from my own eye.” I also pray for the men (and their families) whose actions have hurt us immensely and destroyed the faith we once had in the Sydney diocese.
Those who are staunch Anglicans will not like me saying these things, however, I am talking from experience – the experience of seeing first hand the very behaviour that Jesus strongly opposed in the religious leaders of his day. Let me ask you to consider something before you judge me: have you experienced what we have experienced? Have you been involved in almost a hundred communications with the PSU and diocesan hierarchy about matters that call their integrity to account?
Just as Jesus cried out to the Teachers of the Law and Pharisees in Matthew 23:23, 27 and 28:-
“… you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy and faithfulness … you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs … on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” (emphasis added)
– so too Drew and I are crying out “Follow the Lord and stop focusing on simply protecting your reputation.” Surely this is a form of idolatry?
We are devastated that some of the Sydney Anglican Church hierarchy, who represent the organisation for whom we worked (for the Lord), have proven time and again (I have given up counting the times) to be deceptive and unethical. They have prolonged their responses to or simply avoided answering our well founded questions and arguments and have refused to act justly. We are convinced (from first hand experience) that the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) is not primarily concerned about the well-being of complainants, respondents or churches but rather exists to protect the reputation of the Sydney Anglican Church.
As you will discover, we have tried to provide opportunity after opportunity for Mr Bryant, the Director PSU, to repent, but at every point he remains resolute in his attempts to avoid doing the right thing. Is this the kind of man who should be the director of a professional standards unit of a Christian church?
We are also extremely concerned by the fact that there is next to no accountability for the leaders of the Anglican Church. From my understanding, Mr Bryant is accountable only to the Archbishop, as is Mr Marr, Sydney Diocesan Registrar. It is extraordinarily difficult to hold the Archbishop or these men accountable to any government or other organisation because of the nebulous legal position they hold. This is exactly why we have had to resort to making the situation public (in a very small way so far). Their fear of bad press may be the only way we can encourage them to act justly.
Recent statements at Synod indicate that the diocesan legal advisers and the current Archbishop of Sydney have recognised the need for changes to the provisions of the Discipline Ordinance 2006, and they have acknowledged fundamental flaws. This is a great thing. But what happens to those who have already been detrimentally affected by flaws in the actual document or the application of it?
It is not in my nature to fight battles such as this, although I do hate injustice. As we have pleaded with the Lord as to whether he wants us to continue fighting, we have been upheld by his Spirit, his church and by a team of lawyers, advisers and supporters.
Our story of devastation
It has taken me a year to write this and have the courage to post it. Here goes …
Shock and Confusion – the Nightmare begins
The mental gymnastics that gripped my brain when Drew and I both received the text message from Complainant 1 stating that Drew had abused him, was exhausting. What had I missed? What had gone on behind my back?
Of course, when I got to the PSU and read the complaints, I knew about everything that was stated. Nothing had been a secret… except the content of the counselling, naturally, and even that didn’t shock me because it is such a normal problem for a teenaged boy. I applaud Complainant 1 for seeking help.
Nothing was a surprise to me except the way in which all the actions had been twisted to insinuate the worst.
But when we were told that the intention behind Drew’s actions did not matter and that there was no other way of defining the actions other than as sexual abuse and grooming behaviour which required reporting to the Police and CCYP, the shock began to set in.
We sat there dumb-founded until Mr Barnett asked of the actions in the complaint: “Are these things true?” Can you believe that the Directors expected a response right there and then? Speaking metaphorically, I don’t know many people who, having being hit over the head with a sledge hammer could stand up and fight for their lives against the people who hold all the “weapons”. That’s how it felt.
Then we were given the unfathomable advice that Drew could seek work within other denominations or in other states or he could return to our home and ministry with children in Queensland and explain the situation to them ourselves. Apparently with an independent board, this ministry was free to continue the employment.
That’s when confusion set in. How was it possible for these “experts” on the one hand to determine that’s Drew’s behaviour was indisputably serious sexual misconduct and then tell him to just write unqualified apologies to the complainants and return to ministry in Queensland?
No, it didn’t all add up and our brains were about to explode trying to grasp the conflicting information we had received. We realised that something was awry with the way the Directors were dealing with the case, but we didn’t have the expertise or experience to be able to work it out, particularly in our state of shock.
Drew became suicidal
Drew has explained his experience of the first meeting in an earlier post: ”Drew’s account of Bullying and Denial of Rights by the PSU.”
But let’s pause for a moment and put ourselves into Drew’s “shoes” on this day. The declaration by the PSU Directors that his intentions didn’t matter, left Drew unable to even attempt a defence (although we did try) because it simply didn’t matter why he had chosen his actions[1]. The fact that the Complainant didn’t like the actions now for some reason was enough to make it abuse if the Director considered it so.
Now we have filed an investigation report with nineteen statutory declarations which reveals that Drew had treated other youth in the same way and their overwhelming response was that they were either unconcerned by Drew’s actions or had greatly appreciated them. But in this first meeting, Drew’s natural response to being told that his actions were criminal and reportable in nature, was to make the assumption that others he had treated in the same way could come to the same conclusion as Complainant 1.
As you can imagine, this possibility was far more than Drew could bear and he became suicidal. I was completely dismayed when he stopped defending himself and wondered what his reasons were. He later told me that he had been trying to find a way to get out of the building and the situation as fast as possible. So great was his pain and despair at that first meeting, he was willing to do anything to reduce the potential consequences facing him and expedite the process for himself and his family.
The misrepresentations made by the PSU Directors broke us both.
Why did Mr Bryant not understand the reasons behind Clause 17 [2] of the Discipline Ordinance?
Scenarios like this are the reason why the Discipline Ordinance stipulates that a respondent should be told to reply in not less than 21 days and to seek legal advice before responding. Mr Bryant failed to do this.
What a terrible tragedy for everyone involved that the complainants were given Drew’s apologies by Mr Bryant when they were documents written by a suicidal man who simply acquiesced to (almost) everything using language that was far stronger than that in the complaints. I imagine the complainants were at least slightly shocked by Drew’s response. Drew now describes the contents of these apologies as his “verbal suicide”. We have had advice from both lawyers and the psychologist who wrote a report for us on Drew’s response to this first meeting, confirming that Drew’s reaction was very normal.
I found out for the first time a few months ago that Drew is aware that the elevators on the PSU level of St Andrew’s House don’t go to the School which has an open roof level. So great was the shock and despair that when Drew excused himself to “use the bathroom” towards the end of the meeting, he had seriously considered heading to the top floor and jumping to end his life! He also told me that if I had not been at the meeting (and Mr Bryant had seemed reticent to have me there for some reason) he would never have returned home. I praise God that I had the foresight and support to go with him.
Pain and numbness – the Nightmare sets in
Have you ever had to take your spouse’s face in your hands and firmly confirm for them: “No we would not be better off without you. Promise me that you will do nothing to harm yourself.” This moment, a few days after the complaints were revealed, is embedded into my memory.
When you have been told that the actions that you considered generous gifts, are actually abusive, how do you go on in life? What is the point of going on when apparently you do not have the capability to ascertain whether your actions will help or seriously hurt the recipient? How many other actions have been unknowingly abusive too? Can you see the downward spiral here? Drew began to replay every conversation, every action and decision of twenty years in ministry and not only question but doubt everything. How do you go on when you now doubt everything about yourself? And how do you go on when one of your closest colleagues – complainant 1- didn’t approach you about the situation but instead went behind your back to destroy your life’s work? It is very easy then to come to the conclusion that trusting anyone is a very foolish choice.
You can only imagine the number of tears that have been shed over the last 2 years. But the first few months were the worst. We couldn’t wrap our heads around the fact that we had both given up so much to serve the Lord our entire working lives and now there was probably no way that Drew would ever teach young people about God again nor ever serve God in a paid capacity. We had both given up other careers to work in ministry.
Disbelief and pain gave way to a debilitating numbness that lasted for months … not a great thing when you are responsible fulltime for four small children. I turned from a passionate home schooling mum who was up at 6am for a prayer walk, with the kids’ breakfast and household chores done by 8am and core school subjects completed (including sport and music) by 12pm into a distracted, silent, joyless mum who dragged herself out of bed at 9am. We had learned from psychologist Archibald Hart that an amount of stress can be tolerated, if an equal amount of sleep is achieved. We slept for hours each day.
We were homeless, jobless and directionless. We moved six times in six weeks after the complaints were revealed. We knew firmly that God was still in control but the confusion and pain was overwhelming.
Can you imagine what must have been going through the children’s minds as overnight their parents started having intense hushed discussions, were prone to tears or quiet melancholic preoccupation and sleeping an enormous amount? I praise God for my amazing 10 year old who looked after the 3 year old while I slept in. It was probably the fact that we did have the responsibility for these four beautiful children that kept us going, one step at a time. I still wonder how we made it through those first few months.
During this time, the announcement[3] at our former parish was drafted then changed on the day to contain the words “grooming behaviour”. Drew physically collapsed when he received the email with the changes. Hours later, he glibly told me about it but I couldn’t grasp what he was saying at the time. I felt like I was operating “within a fog”. What the Directors had said to us didn’t make sense but I didn’t have the expertise to work out fact from fiction. Who was I to argue with these “experts” who obviously had the power to ruin our lives? The sense of powerlessness was debilitating.
The pain of losing the respect of hundreds of people within a few weeks was excruciating. Our integrity as people and as followers of Christ had been severely undermined and even our communications with the PSU were carefully worded. I guess we felt we had to prove that we were truly godly people. Drew also explained to me that since his previous behaviour, that he had thought was godly, had now been labelled abusive, he had to “lift his game” to a completely different level. I can now laugh at one of his emails to the PSU that included such “heavenly” language, because it was so unlike him and shows just how far “gone” he was. But we felt under so much pressure to do exactly as the Directors told us because we were afraid of their power over us that they had demonstrated in that first month.
We had no one to help us navigate the situation and we were in no condition to be able to do it ourselves.
… And the PSU were in the process of getting together a team of Support Persons for Respondents at the time. Not that we knew about this until we read it in the annual PSU report a year later. We were never offered any support person.
Part 3 of this series follows
[1] This advice from the PSU Directors is contrary to what is stated in Faithfulness in Service 2012 which states: “grooming is the manipulative cultivation of a relationship in order to initiate or cloak sexual abuse of an adult or a child” and “sexual abuse of a child means the use of a child by another person for his or her own sexual stimulation or gratification or for that of others.” (Emphasis added)
[2] Discipline Ordinance
- Investigation or notification of making of complaint
(1) After receiving a complaint, the Director may appoint a person to investigate the complaint.
(2) After receiving the investigator’s report or if, after receiving a complaint, the Director decides not to appoint a person at that particular time to investigate the complaint, the Director is –
(a) to notify the substance of the complaint to the person against whom the complaint is made, and
(b) to request the person to provide a response to the complaint within a period of not less than 21 days specified by the Director, and
(c) to inform the person generally of the processes under this Ordinance, including the opportunity for conciliation (which may be done by providing the person with a copy of this Ordinance), and
(d) to advise the person of the possible sanctions that might follow if the allegations in the complaint are proven, and the opportunities for their mitigation or suspension, and
(e) to caution the person not to make any admissions without the benefit of legal advice.
[3] This announcement declared that Drew had made a full confession to inappropriate and grooming behaviour.