Anglican Church of Australia Sydney Diocese

A common diseased culture?

A comparison of the ICAC[1] and the Sydney Anglican Church PSU[2]

Part 2

By Louise Greentree[3]

In Part 1 I looked at some of the major criticisms of ICAC by the ICAC inspector, retired Supreme Court Judge David Levine: proceeding without jurisdiction (so found by the High Court of Australia in the ICAC investigation of high profile senior prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC); pursuing an investigation of a case that was trivial on the face of it; issuing a media release about the case that was described by the investigator as ‘an indictment’; disclosure of private text and media files from her phone to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Cunneen’s boss); conducting surveillance that was a breach of privacy; the collapse of relationship between commissioner and ICAC Inspector; and “the self-righteousness lawlessness” culture of the “legal Left”.

I quoted at the head of the article the words of Robert H. Jackson addressed to federal prosecutors:

‘The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation, than any other person in America. …. Nothing better can come out of this meeting of law enforcement officers than a rededication to the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor. Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.’                                        Robert H. Jackson[4]      

These words apply even more, not only to the commissioner of ICAC who has been given extraordinary powers to over-ride some of the most basic tenets of the rule of law and justice, but also to any person standing in that role representing the discipline processes of the Christian church, in particular the Anglican Church of Australia (my particular interest). This applies especially to the directors of the Professional Standards Units of each diocese. As I have written elsewhere, these people also exercise extraordinary powers under church law and there is no accountability when they flout what meagre safeguards are incorporated into a relevant church act or ordinance[5].  

In this, Part 2, I will look at the parallels between the behaviour of ICAC in issuing a media release that was an ‘indictment’ and Sydney PSU: making public announcements to members of an affected parish or church organisation where a complaint has been received but, usually, not yet even investigated, thereby destroying reputations before the case is proven, and any ‘follow-up’ announcements.

The media release that is an “indictment”

What is an ’indictment’? This word has two broad meanings, a prosecution and a condemnation.

The first, a prosecution, is a term of art applying in particular to the criminal law: a person is charged with an offence on an indictment – the written statement of the charge, under which section of which Act and in respect of what facts. Significantly it is NOT just widely distributed or read out to anyone, but it is handed to the person charged so that they can take advice from their lawyer and prepare their defence. It is understood that it is not a statement of proven facts.

Synonyms include: impeachment, arraignment, summons, accusation.

The second, condemnation, is the meaning applicable outside the formalities of the criminal law system: it is a denunciation. It intends to imply that there are irrefutable facts supporting the denunciation. It is made in an arena that is outside the law and therefore it will never be tested in the proper manner with all necessary safeguards to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In fact, ‘justice’ is the last thing on the mind of the person making such an indictment or denunciation: revenge or even sanctimonious-ness are among the more likely bases for the denunciation.

Applying this to the PSU Sydney diocese of the Anglican Church.

In cases where a complaint is made to the PSU concerning conduct arising in a parish it is almost invariable that an announcement is made at each of the services on a particular Sunday at the relevant parish to alert the parishioners to what is happening. The announcement is made before there has been any investigation. The rationale for making an announcement is that it will put a stop to uninformed speculation and gossip. The reality is that it fosters even greater speculation, and wildly inventive and destructive gossip swirls around the parish, in some cases fuelled by contributions by clergy and/or staff members who, as the ‘front-line’ of models of Christian behaviour, should know better, but who are rarely if ever brought to account for their dishonest involvement.

The announcements seem to be made with careless disregard for the need to establish the truth and therefore they are potentially highly defamatory. This indicates not only a disregard for justice and fair process – and denies observance of a fundamental rule that ‘a person is innocent until proved guilty’ – but also a willingness to force the wronged subject of the announcement into taking highly expensive action in the civil courts against those responsible for it, even against the Archbishop of Sydney and/or other senior clergy of the diocese[6].

Once there has been some form of investigation and/or court proceedings commenced, and it has become clear then (even if not abundantly clear before reaching that point) that the diocese has ‘got it wrong’ yet again, there is a marked reluctance to make a corrective announcement.  And even when one has been negotiated and approved by the Archbishop, in one case those clergy involved – the senior minister and the regional bishop – refused to act on it.

Dr. Belinda Goodenough and South Coogee Anglican Church

In this case there were two announcements to the parishioners of South Coogee Anglican Church. Neither announcement fulfilled the rationale but fuelled an incredible wave of malicious and destructive gossip.[7] As the news item by Paolo Totaro published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 March 2006 (set out in full in Appendix A) says, the first announcement took place almost immediately after the rector Steve Bainbridge had stripped Dr. Goodenough of all her voluntary ministry positions in the church because he objected to a phrase in an email she sent him as part of an ongoing robust debate, between good friends, about the position of Sydney diocese on the issue of women preaching. Despite her immediate apology and request for forgiveness in letting her ‘sense of humour’ get away with her, he refuse to forgive what was at most a lapse of good taste and let loose on her and her husband and children a deluge of distress and destruction of reputation.

The problem with the announcement, which could simply have said that Dr. Goodenough would no longer be available to volunteer in those positions, was that it gave a reason: it was for ‘inappropriate behaviour on her part’. Paolo Totaro sets out the wild directions that the speculation and gossip took from these words, a direction that was entirely foreseeable given the fact that she was sacked from children’s ministry and was a good friend of both Mr. Bainbridge and his wife Kate:

‘Dr Goodenough was stripped of all leadership ministry positions before a packed Sunday congregation on February 13 last year. The rector’s public announcement – made without notice to Dr Goodenough and in her absence – stated that her removal was for “inappropriate behaviour on her behalf” but no explanation was given. However, Mr Bainbridge specifically asked that his parishioners not “speculate”. Within minutes, speculation was indeed rife. Dr Goodenough, who works mainly with children with cancer in a major teaching hospital and university, and her husband became aware that gossip in the parish had escalated and linked “children” with “inappropriate behaviour”.

’The rumours included ‘loaded questions about the nature of her friendship with Mrs Bainbridge, suggestions that she had been involved in a “pattern of relationship breakdowns” and had even molested a boy in the church toilets’
To compound the errors of the first announcement Mr. Bainbridge then made a second announcement after participating in a secret meeting of certain leading parishioners and the regional archdeacon and regional bishop. The purpose of the meeting was to call for their approval of the sacking.

The problem with this was the complete abuse of fair process. Dr. Goodenough was not invited to the meeting. Her version of events and her ‘defence’ for conducting this private and personal email exchange with Mr. Bainbridge were never considered by the meeting which was in effect a ‘kangaroo court’[8].

The second announcement reported to the parishioners that the meeting had approved her sacking.

But as a recognised expert on pain management for children with cancer she had both the international reputation to protect and the money to commence proceedings after many efforts seeking an ‘in-house’ resolution were rejected by all diocesan representatives up to and including the then Archbishop of Sydney Dr. Peter Jensen. And so the details of the case were reported in the daily newspaper and attracted secular attention to the lack Christian behaviour by those who are looked to, to provide an example of this in their lives – Mr. Bainbridge for taking a confected ‘offence’ at the content of  one sentence and  lack of forgiveness[9], others like Archdeacon Deryck Howell, regional bishop Robert Forsyth, the Archbishop of Sydney Dr. Jensen and his executive officer Dr. Selden for many failures of competence in their conduct in their respective offices and for lack of devotion to justice and truth (two of many of the great qualities of God). This is also another example of the diocese forcing good Christian people – ones who are innocent of these accusations and allegations – to go to the civil courts to obtain justice that is denied them in the diocesan processes.

How could such an august collection of men in high positions of power and responsibility in the church allow that to have happened? Their complete lack of wisdom is concerning because they should be strong prayers – ones who constantly seek God’s wisdom and His will and then do it. But one thing is certain, that in accordance with what counts as ‘usual practice’, making a countermanding announcement, in whatever form, is foreign to these men and others of their kind in the church, no matter the compelling reasons to uphold truth and justice. It is made only grudgingly, as occurred in this case with Assistant Bishop Forsyth announcing through the diocesan newspaper Southern Cross that the case had been settled and that Dr. Goodenough would have to pay her own legal fees which exceeded the amount of the settlement. It is difficult not to read into this deep resentment that what he wanted swept under the carpet had been dragged into the spotlight of public opinion.

Or a countermanding announcement is not made, even when it was agreed that it should be made, as occurred in the case of The Figtree Affair.

The Figtree Affair

The knowledge that a complaint of child sex abuse and adult sexual misconduct had been made against the highly respected loving husband and father of six – all deeply Christian – spread throughout the parish and even to persons unconnected with either the parish church or the Anglican church, with further embellishments added with relish by the assistant minister the rev. Bruce Clarke based on lies told him and his wife by their daughter Rebecca Clarke and by the Children’s minister Yvonne Gunning.

This time, before ‘the announcement that was an indictment’ the case had had a rocky progression through the initial response by the then PSU director Phillip Gerber. He faxed Yvonne Gunning saying he doubted that he had jurisdiction and pointed out that there was a problem with Emma Nicholls’ consent from the age of 16 and above to actions that were in fact normal among the family and friends – in particular a hug – which she enjoyed (and kept coming back to the home for), and which did not contain any sexual element in them. He was right in both opinions[10]. Dr. Dobbs filed a comprehensive response and denial which must have raised some more concerns deep in the legally-trained mind of Mr. Gerber. But his concerns and his recommendations for a conciliatory ‘settlement’ were overrun by the input from Helen Irvine[11], the wife of the senior minister trying to protect her husband from the inevitable collapse of the Emma Nicholls case which, by then, sensible people who had read the materials agreed was totally misconceived.[12] However, her husband and the assistant minister Bruce Clarke were too deeply enmeshed in the lies they had created and the behaviour they had initiated, first a coordinated shunning, and then ‘excommunication’ not just of Dr. Dobbs but also his wife and, unbelievably, all six children, not to fear serious repercussions in the way of defamation proceedings and loss of confidence of the diocesan hierarchy.

The case then went before the Professional Standards Committee, the incompetence of which I have had cause to demonstrate in other cases. They behaved no differently in this case, all but one subscribing to totally ridiculous recommendations which could not be appropriate if there had been actual sexual abuse or harassment: therefore, in the absence of evidence of that, making such recommendations went beyond their competence. And they just swept the issue of overall jurisdiction over Dr. Dobbs under the carpet. Dr. Dobbs refused to accept the recommendations and the matter had to be referred by the then Archbishop of Sydney to the disciplinary tribunal.

Under the terms of the Discipline Ordinance 2006 (Sydney diocese) Dr. Dobbs needed only to wait out the period of 14 days from the date of the recommendations without accepting them in writing for the Archbishop to be required to refer the case to the disciplinary tribunal. He did not accept the recommendations, denouncing them as a travesty. However, before the expiry of the 14 day period, the assistant bishop Al Stewart made an unwise announcement to the parish, in the same spirit as the media release by ICAC.

Assistant Bishop Al Stewart makes a video

Because he would be away from the Wollongong area where he was regional bishop, he videotaped a message which was screened at all services at Figtree Anglican Church on Sunday 29^th June 2008. In this video he said: “The nature of the allegation against Mr. Dobbs concerned low level sexual harassment or exploitation of a single adult woman by a married adult male.” He also made Dr. Dobbs out to be guilty and failed to mention, firstly that Dr. Dobbs had made a comprehensive defence to the allegations, and, secondly, that the case has not yet been heard by a church Tribunal, that is, that Dr. Dobbs had not been tried, let alone found guilty!

In his video message, he also said “I wish to endorse the various pastoral actions taken by the then Rector Rod Irvine, his staff and the wardens of the church.’  These “pastoral actions” in respect of the Dobbs children exactly fit the definition of “child abuse – spiritual and emotional” given in the diocese’s code of conduct “Faithfulness in Service”. They also constituted a failure to abide by the national recommendations for the pastoral treatment of persons accused of misconduct and their families which had been adopted by the diocese, In addition Bishop Al Stewart did not seem to understand that the ‘pastoral actions’ were proved to be inappropriate as the PSC did at least reject the allegations that there was ant behaviour constituting child abuse, sexual or otherwise. He also demonstrated that he was unable to comprehend the nature of natural justice and fair process. One is left with a feeling of dismay, contempt even, for this scandalous endorsement by this self-described Christian man of disgusting behaviour by the Rev. Rod Irvine, his staff and the wardens of the church.

It is fair to say that by this time the diocesan authorities, including the director PSU Phillip Gerber were in damage control and the purpose of the announcement was to indict Dr. Dobbs in just the same way that the ICAC media release after the High Court decision rejecting ICAC jurisdiction and restraining any further investigation by ICAC in Operation Hale was an indictment of Cunneen. Here the purpose was to try to justify the parish actions of scandalous gossip, shunning and ‘excommunication’, the PSU involvement despite manifest lack of jurisdiction, and to punish Dr. Dobbs (and his whole family) for complaining and defending the spurious claims by the mother Lee Nicholls and Children’s Minister Yvonne Gunning.

Further confirmation of this conclusion is that Helen Irvine tried to ‘bribe’ Dr. Dobbs just before wrecking the conciliation meeting intended by Phillip Gerber to lay the Emma Nicholls case to rest: she told him that she would make public the spurious allegations she had drummed up unless he withdrew his defence to the Lee Nicholls and Yvonne Gunning claims on behalf of the adult Emma who did not even want to make a complaint against him. He wouldn’t and she did, and in a Pontius Pilate gesture, Phillip Gerber ‘washed his hands’ of the proposed conciliation process even though Helen Irvine’s intervention did not involve neither Emma Nicholls nor Figtree Anglican Church. He embarked on pursuit of the case which was still fatally defective: first, as to lack of jurisdiction, and, second, as to the lack of evidence of any form of sexual actions; and third, on the basis of ‘facts’ that in any event were too trivial for such an expensive exercise. And even while he maintained that he had jurisdiction until forced to abandon this pretence, even he could not maintain that he had jurisdiction in relation to Helen Irvine’s trumped up allegations.

The case was listed for a preliminary hearing by the disciplinary tribunal to decide whether in fact the PSU had jurisdiction to bring the case. Despite arguing fiercely in the documentation that the PSU did have jurisdiction, on the day the PSU barrister told the tribunal he would not be proceeding (implicitly accepting that the PSU had never had jurisdiction) and there were some discussions between Dr. Dobbs and Mr. Gerber and his barrister.

Assistant Bishop Al Stewart is asked to make another video negating the content of the first video.

In the ensuing ‘settlement’ of the recommendations to be made to the Archbishop, which included the major one – that the case be withdrawn and dismissed (which is what occurred) – the PSU representatives gave an undertaking that Al Stewart would make a video correcting the earlier one and that the current senior minister would have it shown to all three congregations one Sunday soon after it was available.

Al Stewart refused to make the video.

In another clause, the rev. Ian Barnett, the current Figtree senior minister, was charged with the responsibility to withdraw a letter that had been sent to Dr. Dobbs by the previous senior minister the rev. Rod Irvine imposing draconian conditions on him had he wished to continue to attend Figtree Anglican Church while the case was being decided. This letter Dr. Dobbs had rejected because he said the conditions would only be appropriate if he were accused of being the worst sort of paedophile.

The rev. Ian Barnett refused to withdraw the letter unless my website was taken down. It seems that ‘A Mother’s Story’ was the article that most got up his nose: setting out the un-Christian behaviour of his predecessors the revs. Irvine and Clarke in banning not just Dr. Dobbs but his wife and even their six children from going to church, apparently on the rather Old Testament basis of visiting the alleged sins of the father on the children.

I wrote to him pointing out that the Dobbs family had no authority over me and I would not take the website down, but if there was something incorrect that I had published then he should point it out and provide evidence, so that, if I accepted that there was an error, I could correct it. He did not reply. In view of that attitude it seems unlikely that even had Al Stewart agreed to make the video that the rev. Ian Barnett would have allowed it to be shown to the congregation.[13]

Drew and Pippa: the tale of three announcements.

The first announcement: to the parish in 2013.

In this case there was absolutely NO reason to have made an announcement in the first place. This was NOT a case where Drew was still working in or even just worshipping in the parish, as he had resigned some four or so years before after which he and his wife and family had embarked on extensive travel around Australia before returning to Sydney and thence to Queensland for him to take up a position there.

Very clearly the announcement was intended to embarrass Drew and Pippa and destroy any continuing praise for Drew’s outstanding work in that parish. During his time there his ministry had been officially praised as a fine example of youth ministry. His ministry remains a fine example of youth ministry, for two reasons: first, because of the number of former members of the youth ministry that sprang to Drew’s defence; and, second, because the complaints have been effectively dismissed (with the agreement of the tribunal members) because none of the allegations involve any ‘reportable conduct’, which means that nothing in the complaint constitutes child abuse or child sex abuse, not even grooming.

Drew had been consulted on the wording of the announcement, but by then it must already have been apparent that the complaint did not allege anything remotely like child abuse or child sex abuse. Therefore, at the very last moment, without consultation the director PSU Lachlan Bryant ‘pulled a fast one’ by inserting an allegation of grooming. As I have written before, the Discipline Ordinance 2006 did not then contain a definition of grooming, but other church legislation contained definitions that  required proof that the course of behaviour was intended to ‘initiate or hide’ child or adult sex abuse[14].  Nothing in the complaint provided evidence of grooming, despite the rev. Peter Barnett’s lie to Drew and Pippa dismissing the equally important element of the crime: that of intention to initiate or hide sexual abuse. But this was all of a piece with Lachlan Bryant’s incompetence (as well as Peter Barnett’s misrepresentations) and his conduct throughout the case shows us a picture of a man who got things disastrously wrong from the first interview and who resolutely and steadfastly dug himself further into the pit.

The second announcement: complainant 1 tries to justify himself as he leaves his youth ministry position.

As both Drew and I have written in previous articles, complainant 1 continued to work alongside Drew after he turned 18, finished Secondary School and completed tertiary studies with YouthWorks, the Anglican Church youth ministry training college. He then obtained a position as a youth minister with a parish in the south of Sydney, not far from the parish he worked in with Drew. He took Drew along to inspect the church and facilities of his new parish[15]. However, at the end of 2013, about a year after he had launched the complaint to the PSU and then faced the incompetence of the PSU response[16], he made an announcement of his own, although without being too specific – he was still trying to preserve some sort of anonymity, despite having messaged an untold number of former youth group members, falsely accusing Drew of child abuse.

On his last Sunday he addressed the congregation, and among other things said words to the following effect: that a long time ago ‘someone hurt’ him. Drew and Pippa, and the person who was present and reported this announcement immediately identified Drew as the person being referred to. By this time the attempts to keep the identity of complainant 1 secret were unravelling and an increasing number of people were aware of his complaint, usually through word of mouth and referral to the articles on my website, as well as a large number of former youth ministry members who were contacted a made statutory declarations supporting Drew’s actions, behaviour and ministry.

The interesting fact about this announcement by complainant 1 is that it refers only to ‘hurt’ ‘a long time ago’. It does not refer to abuse of any nature, despite what he had said in his message to as any former members of the youth group as he could accusing Drew of child abuse. Perhaps by the time of this announcement he had realised that he had been drawn into a web of deceit operating through the Sydney PSU, and that he was their victim as much as Drew and his entire family were complainant 1’s victims.

Overall this announcement need not have been made. It was to parishioners who had no connection with the former parish where he and Drew had run the youth ministry. Being ‘hurt’ a long time ago is hardly a reason to leave a youth ministry position in which, from all accounts, he was performing well. It is also notable that he was vague about his future plans. In fact, as we now know he had arranged to be accepted to undertake PhD studies through Moore College.

What he could possibly have thought to achieve from this announcement it is impossible to gauge, as the only rational response to this announcement could be: so what, grow up, get over it and get on with it.

The third announcement: in accordance with the settlement, putting the record straight.

              As a part of a hard won settlement of the complaint the representatives of the Sydney PSU agreed to an announcement to be made to the parishioners of Drew’s former parish. The content was another matter for hard-fought negotiation and as Pippa remarked to me after the announcement was made, Lachlan Bryant’s involvement meant that the language was as dense and almost incomprehensible as it would be possible to make it without actually negating the agreed content.

The agreed content included a statement that nothing in Drew’s behaviour was ‘reportable conduct’, that is, none of his actions contravened civil or criminal law concerning child abuse and nor did they require reporting to the NSW Police nor to the working with children authority, now the Office of the Children’s Guardian[17]. Thus the conduct of complainant 1 in bringing the complaint, and that of Lachlan Bryant and Peter Barnett in characterising Drew’s conduct as reportable child sex abuse was exposed as spurious.

Conclusion to Part 2

When ICAC released a media statement after the High Court of Australia had ruled that ICAC had no jurisdiction to investigate Margaret Cunneen it was clear that ICAC still intended to proceed with an examination of the case, but having been denied the right or ability to do so using its proper authority, it decided to proceed and carry out a media trial. That this could be construed as a shocking act of disobedience towards a decision of the highest court comprising the top legal minds in Australia and therefore defiance towards the rule of law by lawyers and a former Judge of the Supreme Court of NSW does not seem to have crossed the minds of those responsible for ICAC.

Since then the astonished public have been treated to various attempts by ICAC to justify, first, undertaking the investigation in the first place and, second, pursuing it in the teeth of the decision of the High Court of Australia. What we would all like to know is this: what did Margaret Cunneen do to the personnel of ICAC or one or some of them that pay-back day came with such vigour, especially in the light of disclosures that there was evidence that Margaret Cunneen was unable to have any conversation with her son’s girlfriend before she was taken to hospital and a test of blood alcohol content was carried out with a zero reading because she did not arrive at the site of the accident until after the ambulance had left.

The announcements made in the Sydney diocese with the approval of, and drafted by, the PSU and/or senior clergy of the diocese bear much similarity of purpose. The real rationale is to embarrass, destroy reputations, and to justify the unacceptable behaviour by clergy who enjoy the favour of the diocesan hierarchy (such as banning Christian children from coming to church or any of the youth activities attended by their friends).

Also, they are to punish for challenging the diocesan officers and hierarchy, for maintaining one’s innocence and forcing the PSU to follow the process provide for in church legislation and to frame a charge within the terms set out in the ordinance, not according to some terms made up by the PSU director out of his incompetence or just out of malice.

They are intended to undermine any benefit that might accrue from the witness of a strong evangelist whose ‘works’ are the good fruit of strong Christian faith: Drew was a youth minister of great gifts as attested by the numerous former youth group members who supported him; Belinda Goodenough made considerable sacrifices to volunteer her time and her expertise with children assist with the children’s ministry in her parish; Dr. Dobbs is a former missionary with Youth With a Mission (where he met his wife Machelle, another missionary) and their children were raised with a strong and active love of the Lord and a zeal to lead others to him to an extent that must have been a challenge to the clergy and staff of Figtree Anglican Church; ‘John’ whose case I examine in Part 1 was an officer with Church Army and a gifted evangelist. Other clergy and others who have been victims of the incompetence, unprofessional behaviour and malicious gossip generated in their cases with the PSU Sydney and who have told me their stories have all been deeply committed Christian workers, striving for an effective ministry.

Refusal to acknowledge errors and outright ignorance of such issues as the limits of jurisdiction and the terms of the ordinance governing this process is a major flaw in a Christian organisation, and particularly reprehensible in the person of the director PSU, employed to administer the Discipline Ordinance 2006 as amended. I shall look more closely at this issue of the lack of accountability of the PSU as well as diocesan clergy, staff and officers in a later Part of this series.

Appendix A

The outline of the case brought by Dr. Goodenough against senior clergy of Sydney diocese, among others, in the article by Paolo Totaro of the Sydney Morning Herald published 25 March 2006 is this:

“It was a cheerful, upbeat exchange of emails between good friends. The sender, a loyal Anglican, used tinges of blue humour – as well as several light-hearted biblical references – to question women’s subordination and why male but not female lay members of her eastern suburbs congregation were allowed to preach. “Whose penis must I hold to do a real sermon in the morning like [name deleted]?!” the email concluded.

For the writer, Dr Belinda Goodenough, a psychologist and renowned expert in pediatric pain management, the email on January 10 last year represented just another electronic chapter in years of collegiate, friendly banter. But the recipient, Steve Bainbridge, rector of St Paul’s Anglican Church in South Coogee, responded that it was “totally inappropriate”. Despite her immediate email apology – “I am so sorry … I let my sense of humour get away with me” – the rector not only brought the friendship to an abrupt end but Dr Goodenough was stripped of all her lay ministry roles.

So began a year-long nightmare of gossip and allegation, whispered suggestions about lesbianism, the nature of her relationship with the rector’s wife, and even pedophilia, which Dr Goodenough – a veteran church volunteer and leader – has tenaciously fought to resolve through every internal church channel open to her. But this week she moved to sue the Anglican Church for defamation, after seeking solace and repeatedly being refused an explanation from senior clergy, including the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, for her removal. Proceedings began in the Supreme Court on Thursday and return to court on Friday.

According to documents obtained by the Herald, Dr Goodenough was stripped of all leadership ministry positions before a packed Sunday congregation on February 13 last year. The rector’s public announcement – made without notice to Dr Goodenough and in her absence – stated that her removal was for “inappropriate behaviour on her behalf” but no explanation was given. However, Mr Bainbridge specifically asked that his parishioners not “speculate”. Within minutes, speculation was indeed rife. Dr Goodenough, who works mainly with children with cancer in a major teaching hospital and university, and her husband became aware that gossip in the parish had escalated and linked “children” with “inappropriate behaviour”. This was exacerbated by the fact that Dr Goodenough was well known for her ministry work with children. She had rearranged her work agenda in 1998 to volunteer every Friday afternoon at St Paul’s, and in 2004 added a second afternoon to work with infants.

Despite a volley of increasingly anguished letters, emails and questions to the church hierarchy to explain the processes that led to her dismissal, no procedural explanation or counsel was offered. However, by April 7, amid further parish talk, the Bishop of South Sydney, Robert Forsyth, intervened and convened a meeting of church elders, including Archdeacon Deryck Howell, the rector and his wife, Kate Bainbridge, and 20 of the church’s leadership. While Dr Goodenough was the subject, she was not invited. No minutes were taken. Those who attended were asked to show their support for the Bainbridge ministry by standing. As they left, they were advised to keep the matter private and to “starve the issue of oxygen”.

Three days later, Mr Bainbridge addressed the congregation again and, this time in the presence of Dr Goodenough’s husband and daughter, said a “select group” had met and unanimously supported the actions against her.

A parish insider told the Herald yesterday: “It’s clear in hindsight they didn’t know who they were dealing with … Perhaps they counted on her being so acutely embarrassed by the contents of her original email that she would just walk away.” Another said in a letter: “I have spoken extensively to both Belinda and Kate [Bainbridge] and believe that the rumours and malicious implications about Dr Goodenough’s character are untrue and disgraceful.”

Increasingly distressed by the rumours – including loaded questions about the nature of her friendship with Mrs Bainbridge, suggestions that she had been involved in a “pattern of relationship breakdowns” and had even molested a boy in the church toilets – Dr Goodenough finally appealed privately and in writing to Dr Jensen. In 30 pages of correspondence she included her CV, letters of support from professional colleagues – whom she had informed about the rumours – and asked Dr Jensen to answer 60 questions about her case. These included requests for an explanation of the process used to decide her fate. To date, responses from Dr Jensen’s executive officer, Dr Phillip Selden, have answered none of her questions, saying only that “the matter is closed” and that there is nothing to be gained from “further discussion”. Since then, the main counsel Dr Goodenough has received from Dr Selden is that she put the “issue behind her”. Bishop Forsyth told the Herald that this was “a difficult parish matter” but that he could not comment at this stage.”

Appendix B

 From ‘Is buying a lost child an ice-cream child abuse? Part 3’:

“What is grooming?

As we saw in Part 2 there was no definition of grooming in either of the Anglican Church Sydney diocese Church Discipline Ordinances of 1996 and 2002. The concept of grooming was first defined in the national church and Sydney diocese Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service adopted in October 2004. After that it was defined in the Anglican Church of Australia ‘Professional Standards Commission Model Guidelines for the Pastoral Supervision and Support of Known and Suspected Sexual Abusers in Parishes’ 15 December 2006. However, there is no definition of grooming, not even with reference to the Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service in the Sydney diocese Discipline Ordinance 2006 that replaced the Church Discipline Ordinance 2002.

Definitions:

‘Grooming is the manipulative cultivation of a relationship in order to initiate or hide sexual abuse of an adult or a child. In the case of child sexual abuse, an offender may groom not only the child, but also the child’s parents or guardians, and clergy and church workers.’

(Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service adopted in October 2004.)

 ‘Grooming is the manipulative cultivation of a relationship in order to initiate or hide sexual abuse of an adult or a child. … Grooming can take many months or even years, during which the abuser builds a relationship and develops opportunities.’

(Anglican Church of Australia ‘Professional Standards Commission Model Guidelines for the Pastoral Supervision and Support of Known and Suspected Sexual Abusers in Parishes’ 15 December 2006)

The similarities between the two definitions are obvious, but there are some differences.

The definition contained in the Code of Conduct Faithfulness in Service includes the information, more in the nature of a warning, that the activity of grooming can go beyond developing a relationship with the child to also developing a relationship with other adults to defuse their normally protective attitude in order to permit access to the child by the groomer who, they are erroneously led to believe, is a trustworthy person and a good influence on their child.

The definition contained in the Anglican Church of Australia Professional Standards Commission Model Guidelines gives instances of ordinary activities, such as working with the Scouts organisation, in church youth ministry or sporting groups, BUT these are examples which must be related back to the definition; there must be both:

‘manipulative cultivation … many months or even years‘– this means a course of conduct over a period of time that is intended to draw the child into an unhealthy relationship …

and

‘in order to …..’ means ‘with the intention of (initiating or hiding sexual abuse)’.

Without both of those elements the ‘examples’ are devoid of any possible grooming or sexual connotation. If it were otherwise, no-one could work for the Scouts, no-one could work with or for children and young people in the church whether ordained or not, nor could anyone work as coach of a junior footy team. Every gift would be suspect. Every babysitter would be under suspicion. Every good relationship between child or young person and an adult would be tainted with an undercurrent of innuendo.

The definition contained in the Anglican Church of Australia ‘Professional Standards Commission Model Guidelines’ also says this:

‘Grooming also occurs through increasing sexualisation of apparently innocent activities. Over time physical contact, cuddles and kisses of the victim, photographs and videos taken of the victim, and material on the internet shown to the victim, will become increasingly sexual.’

Thus the definition allows that ‘physical contact, cuddles and kisses’ are in themselves ‘apparently innocent’; looking at photos, watching a video together or looking at the internet are likewise, and indeed how could it be otherwise? Can you imagine a world in which merely showing to the members of the youth group blameless photos (taken with parental consent) of the group’s activities on a recent camp would embroil you in accusations of child abuse? What about kicking a soccer ball around with the neighbourhood kids at a street party? What about showing a child a website that will help them with their homework? Or teach them to speak Italian? Or enjoy a flash Riverland dance at Central Station in Sydney on St. Patrick’s Day 2011 on YouTube?[1]

What this means for the investigation and prosecution of alleged grooming:

This means that where certain ‘apparently innocent’ activities that built a relationship with the alleged victim occurred it is necessary to prove:

1. That these were carried out with the intention of initiating or hiding sex abuse; and

2. That there has been ‘increasing sexualisation’ of these activities.”

End Notes

Post filed under Anglican Church, Drew & Pippa, John's Story, The Figtree Affair.