Devastation
Part 3
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
This is now the third article in a series which reveals the devastation experienced by our family who has lived through the nightmare into which we were thrown over two years ago. The first article spoke of the hope and strength we have in Christ, and the second explained why we continue our quest and then described the pain and distress we and our four children suffered over the first two months. We are now up to the second meeting with Mr. Lachlan Bryant, the Director of the Sydney Anglican Professional Standards Unit (PSU), and Mr. Peter Barnett the Director of another diocesan PSU and the Baptist Church, who was present, without seeking our consent, at this and the first meeting.
Lies and Anger – the Nightmare heightened
We went to the second meeting with lots of questions about the way the situation had been handled and the consequences which we believed were inappropriate. I sent a list of these to Mr. Bryant ahead of time and I concluded with these words:
“We come openly, as brother and sister in Christ, to those who can make a difference, to discuss with God’s help, with His wisdom and grace, how we can work together towards –
- the most God glorifying outcome in the current situation and
- improving the process so that others do not have to suffer as we have.”
Friends, this is where we started! We offered our brothers the opportunity to sort the situation out within a few months after the saga began.
Instead, this is how it played out.
When we asked various questions about the process and content of the announcement at the parish church, our concerns were dismissed by Mr Barnett stating his belief that “These announcements never go well”.
We tried to explain that the labelling of Drew’s behaviour as sexual grooming and abuse was incorrect since there had been no sexual motivation behind any of Drew’s actions. The conversation was quickly terminated with Mr Barnett’s proclamation that “It is not possible to determine intent.”
We questioned the Directors’ assertion that counselling of a minor on matters including masturbation was considered sexual abuse. Since Drew had had no idea at the time (and even after doing Faithfulness in Service training) that this was the case, we wondered how he could be held accountable. The directors told us that employees are ‘responsible to know the law for themselves’. (If this is truly so easy, then why are thousands of dollars spent by the diocese on training each year?) The Directors were twice unprepared to give an answer to my question: “What are you currently training youth ministers to do when the inevitable occurs that a youth asks for help with sexual issues including masturbation?”
Feeling like we had achieved nothing in the meeting, we asked whether the PSU had jurisdiction over the church of our choice in the area where we now lived. Mr Barnett replied “Don’t tell me which church…. just go undercover”. When we responded in shock, he offered to contact the church so that a safety plan could be discussed – a safety plan which would curtail Drew’s freedom to serve at church and to use all the gifts that had blessed hundreds of people over more than twenty years….. all because he was now falsely labelled a risk to minors.
For months, Drew avoided even eye contact with any youth.
Going to Church
Church became a place of mourning. The memories of all that had been lost resurfaced over and over each week as Drew watched the church leaders do what he had willingly done for years. Similarly, for Drew, reading the Bible became too painful as he read over the passages he had so thoroughly loved teaching. When someone lives out their faith day by day and are then banned by their Christian brothers from the very activities that brought life in Christ to so many, it is simply ….. devastating.
There is no way Drew could have joined a bible study group in the last two years. His issues are too great. We have had people dissolve into tears as we have shared our story. Most people feel a bit freaked out when they think about how they would have coped in our situation. Drew has a prayer partner though (who gets a massive download every week) and this year Drew has agreed to come with me to study systematic theology (again for Drew) in a course run by the senior minister. I thank God that two years on he has recovered enough to join me. It is a miracle.
I can also see that our family bible studies each morning have been helped by our situation because God’s word and his promises have been our lifeline. Our kids don’t see the application of God’s word as an ideal but as very real and I am thankful to God for that. Church for the kids has been a very positive experience too because God has placed us in a church that unashamedly preaches so that the “sword of the Spirit”, God’s word, operates as a double edged blade, every week. Plus it’s a fun, contemporary, growing church.
Letter to our previous ministry
Then “the letter” arrived in February 2013. While Mr Bryant had said that we were free to explain the situation ourselves to the board of our previous ministry, we were not convinced that this or any other ministry to which we applied, would not want the opinion of the PSU. It was very strange. So we asked for Mr Bryant to write a letter to them.
This letter fanned the fire that had started to burn and has raged ever since.
Three Other Emails
In this letter, Mr Bryant confirmed that “other persons contacted the PSU expressing concerns about (Drew) whilst he was a lay youth leader working in the Sydney diocese but these did not involve matters that would constitute a complaint to the PSU.”
Since Drew has been repeatedly denied access to the content of these 3 emails, we still wonder what on earth they were about if they could not be “dealt with” by the PSU. We even conceded to receiving redacted copies (no names or personal details revealed) to no avail. As of September 2013, these emails suddenly became complaints, according to Mr Bryant, and were “dealt with” by the Professional Standards Committee.
Can you imagine the torture of knowing that some people have been allowed to slander your name and this has been used against you but you are never allowed to even see the complaints let alone respond to them? Mr Bryant claimed that he did not have the consent of the authors to reveal the details. When did the PSU stop believing in the biblical concept of natural justice[1]? It has been most frustrating.
- Summaries of the complaints and a lie
The two complaints were summarised which, as you can imagine, sensationalised the behaviour described. However, the single most shocking component was the inclusion of an action that was appalling and was not even in the complaint and was certainly not true to life! How is it possible for the Director PSU to make such a defamatory mistake?
- Drew admitted the complaints were true
Mr Bryant’s letter confirmed for us, his belief that Drew had “admitted the complaints gave a true account of his conduct towards the complainants.” As expressed above and elsewhere on the churchdispute.com website, this is far from the truth.
- Discipline Ordinance 2006 did not apply
Mr Bryant also confirmed “It was explained to Mr Patch that because he was no longer working for the Diocese that our formal complaints processes would not be proceeding in this matter.” We have asked Mr Bryant, Dr Selden and Mr Marr (former and current diocesan registrars) for the clause in the Discipline Ordinance 2006 which provides for such an action. Not one provided an answer for this and now Mr Bryant has conceded that he was in error in not applying the Discipline Ordinance in 2012.
- Unqualified Apologies used as confessions
Mr Bryant confirmed that he saw the unqualified apologies as full confessions. This is just one of the ways in which we now realise that the practices of the PSU with relation to our case, are unjust, unethical, unprofessional and unchristian. An unqualified apology does not make any attempt to clarify the situation. It’s purpose is to say sorry for the things the receiver perceived as hurtful or unhelpful, even things the writer never intentionally meant in this way. It is not a confession and it is certainly not a considered response to allegations.
These unqualified apologies were used by Mr Bryant as “confessions” in support of his notification to the Commission for Children and Young People that Drew had confessed to serious sexual misconduct.
How did we respond?
By this time I had already been writing about the situation for many weeks as a way of getting my thoughts ordered and expressed. It partly alleviated the pressure of the vociferous arguments within my head that tormented me constantly. “The letter” spurred me on to the decision to find someone who might be able to help. Of course, all our lawyer friends were members of our former parish. It was a horribly daunting thing to approach one of these people to get advice. But in the end we spoke to a few who were able to confirm that there were issues with the process undertaken by the PSU. We had no peace though about securing a lawyer and simply attacking the PSU.
I also realised that in order to convince someone to help us, I needed to document the issues in the process of which I was now aware and present Drew’s defence. The final 40 page document took a few months to write and drained me emotionally and physically, impeding my ability to function as a competent mother. I now feel like I have done the first part of a law degree having combed through various diocesan and law society documents in order to write almost a thousand pages of documents and letters at a fairly consistent pace over 2 years.
It has been a long, hard process and I had no one to help me in these early days. Drew naturally found it enormously difficult to write his portions and proof read the document since he had still not surfaced from his shock and grief. I have so much respect for my husband. Despite the depth of his pain and despair, he allowed me to ask all the hard questions necessary for me to write this document. However, I then needed to give him a week to recover before I could ask anything more of him and the pain of this exercise replayed in his behaviour for a few days.
For an entire year, I lost my confident, wise cracking, generous, adventurous and passionate husband. Part of him has returned but it will be years, if ever, that he fully resurfaces and only by the grace and miraculous power of God.
Drew helped me to see a little of the depth of his pain when he asked me the other day; “How would you feel if one of our children, whom we have sacrificed so much for and loved to the best of our ability, turned around in the future and said unexpectedly, “Mum, you abused me when I was a kid and I am reporting you?” And how would you feel if as a result, you were denied the opportunity of attending any family gathering, celebration, wedding or funeral?
Such is the depth and extent of Drew’s pain. I got it and wept for him!
[1] ‘Natural justice’ is the principle that requires that a person is entitled to know details of the accusations, the identity of his accusers and all evidence relied on by the accusers, and to receive a fair trial without any actual or perceived bias on the part of the decision-maker. It is not confined to the judicial system but to all processes where the decision-maker can cause a detrimental result to the accused person.