Guest 03/24/2009 12:40:00 AM
I notice that you have allowed current cult members and their supporters to comment on this article, yet you did not allow the comment that I submitted to the follow up article written by Matt Coker. That follow up article was published last week, and then shortly after removed from your site. I sent a follow-up comment inquiring about the removal of that article, but received no reply. I can't help but wonder if Family cult members have intimidated you in some way to remove that article. Esther's comments are obviously biased and one-sided. Anyone taking an honest look at all the evidence available online cannot come to any conclusion other than that the Children of God/Family International has a horrendous history of abusing children and denying them their basic rights, all in the name of God. They have not abandoned any of their doctrines that led to that abuse, they're just not as open about those doctrines as they used to be.
Moreover, cult members cannot be trusted to tell the truth, even in a court of law. They have a doctrine similar to other cults, called Deceivers Yet True, which encourages them to to deceive and lie to outsiders to protect "the Lord's work".
You can find much of the evidence I referred to at the following website: http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Main_Page
I've written an article published in Cultic Studies Review detailing some of the Family cult's abusive doctrines and beliefs, which you can read here: http://www.perrybulwer.com/a-response-to-dr-james-d-chanc/
Guest 03/24/2009 12:39:00 AM
I notice that you have allowed current cult members and their supporters to comment on this article, yet you did not allow the comment that I submitted to the follow up article written by Matt Coker. That follow up article was published last week, and then shortly after removed from your site. I sent a follow-up comment inquiring about the removal of that article, but received no reply. I can't help but wonder if Family cult members have intimidated you in some way to remove that article. Esther's comments are obviously biased and one-sided. Anyone taking an honest look at all the evidence available online cannot come to any conclusion other than that the Children of God/Family International has a horrendous history of abusing children and denying them their basic rights, all in the name of God. They have not abandoned any of their doctrines that led to that abuse, they're just not as open about those doctrines as they used to be.
Moreover, cult members cannot be trusted to tell the truth, even in a court of law. They have a doctrine similar to other cults, called Deceivers Yet True, which encourages them to to deceive and lie to outsiders to protect "the Lord's work".
You can find much of the evidence I referred to at the following website: http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Main_Page
I've written an article published in Cultic Studies Review detailing some of the Family cult's abusive doctrines and beliefs, which you can read here: http://www.perrybulwer.com/a-response-to-dr-james-d-chanc/
Esther 03/20/2009 6:17:00 AM
I won�t even go into what inaccuracies you have published about The Family, but I will state some of the inaccuracies you printed about the custody case between Nathanael and Armendria (Gloria, Glo, Glorina, Army, Armendria, Amy). You state that Nathanael and Armendria �successfully co-parented� the children while Nathanael was living in Anaheim in a commune with them. Nathanael and Armendria were living in Brazil when Armendria decided to leave The Family and she moved to San Diego. Nathanael moved from Brazil to Anaheim with all 3 children after having taken care of them alone in order for the children to live closer to their mother. During the 5 years that Nathanael resided in Anaheim (before he filed for divorce) he was the sole caretaker and provider for all 3 children.
Armendria (who called herself Glo until a year or so ago) would drive up to see her children, sometimes no more than once or twice a month. For the first 2 years Nathanael would drive his children down to San Diego to spend the weekend with Armendria so that she would not have to drive. After losing her apartment she stayed with friends and never lived in one place for too long. The kids would tell us things that made us concerned about these visits with their mother. On one occasion Michael (their eldest, who was 12 at the time) was woken up by his Mom in the middle of the night asking him to help her take home a drunken friend who had passed out on their sofa. Michael also noticed his Mom�s roommate, Gilbert, in one apartment smoking pot and having lots of it lying around the apartment. As soon as Nathanael heard this, he decided that he preferred for Armendria to visit with the kids at his house in Anaheim, despite it being uncomfortable to have his ex over when he already had a steady girlfriend who lived with him and cared for his kids full-time with him.
Armendria never once asked what grades the children were in, or how they were doing scholastically. She never took them to the dentist, hospital, or eye doctor, Nathanael did. When she stayed over one weekend Michael had symptoms of an appendicitis attack, and while Nathanael took him to the doctor, she left back to San Diego. The next day he took his youngest daughter to get her adenoids operated on and as he went back and forth between the two hospitals caring for his children, I couldn�t help but wonder why their Mother never showed up to help or even pay her kids a visit while they were in the hospital or afterwards as they recuperated at home.
These are just a few samples of why I do not see how you can call this co-parenting.
You also state that �Nathanael cut Armendria off from the children almost completely.� �and then you go on to say that �Around the same time�she received reports that her children were being abused and threatened by other cult members at the Anaheim communal home.� I was there when Nathanael told Armendria that he would like her to no longer stay overnight at his house. He never banned her from the house, he simply asked her to please sleep over at her [then] boyfriends place which was not far away, instead. Armendria was free to come over to his house at any time, and she would usually show up on short notice or with no notice at all to see the kids. He always obliged her, even if it meant disrupting their school, or any other activity.
I was there when he spoke with his children time after time, telling them that if any of them ever wanted to go live with their Mom, or even try it out for a while, he would willingly do his best to make it happen.
You were careful to note that the family court ordered a full custody evaluation to be conducted on Nathanael�s dime�that is not true. Dorsey & Whitney had themselves shopped around for an evaluator and found someone who would do so for free. Nathanael refused to accept what seemed like a setup and requested a different evaluator be assigned. When a new evaluator was assigned Nathanael did have to pay the fee up front, but the cost was subject to reallocation at the time of the hearing�which never happened. You were not so clear as to the outcome of this evaluation, which not only stated that the children had completely denied that there was any abuse whatsoever, but also gave a very positive review on the communal home in Anaheim and the children�s happiness and well being while in the care of their Father. His evaluation began 2 months after the children had been taken away from Nathanael (plenty of time for them to have adjusted to being with their mother)�and his report states that all 3 children said they preferred to live with their father.
While it is true that Nathanael & Armendria did settle their custody case, your report of this settlement was incorrect. Nathanael and Armendria both share equal legal custody of all the 3 children. Nathanael has full physical custody of Michael, with open visitation with his mother, and Armendria has full physical custody of their 2 daughters, with open visitation with their father.
My name is Esther Martin, and I have lived with Nathanael and been his girlfriend for 4 � years. I hope to spend the rest of my life with this man who is the most wonderful, caring, loving and Godly Father that I have ever known. He has given up dreams, aspirations, prominent job offers and career opportunities to raise his children. And while Armendria paid no respect or thanks to the man who cared full-time for her children while she went and did as she pleased, he has still not spoken against her to the children and has encouraged them to love their mother, care for her and spend as much time with her as she has afforded them. I have had to watch his heart be broken as his children, the center of his universe were ripped out from him in a cruel and heartless way wrought with false and hideous accusations, as he fought for nearly 2 years�entirely on his own dime�which has put him in debt for many years to come, to fight to keep his children in his life.
Try reporting a more balanced story next time, please!
