(510) 527-7512	Psychiatry

Fax (510) 527-3148

LEE COLEMAN, M.D.

1889 Yosemite Road

Berkeley, Ca. 94707

December 13, 1994

DECLARATION OF LEE COLEMAN, M.D.

1. I am a physician, licensed to practice medicine in California since 1967.

2. My medical degree is from the University of Chicago, 1964, and I completed my training in adult and child psychiatry at the University of Colorado in 1969.

3. Since the mid 1970's, I have been studying the manner in which some mental health professionals have held themselves out as having special skills in evaluating the practices of minority religious organizations, sometimes pejoratively called "cults."

4. This study includes review of countless psychiatric and psychological assessments of both individual members, as well as many evaluations and recommendations concerning the groups themselves.

5. A common pattern which emerges is that the mental health professional demonstrates a pre-determined animus towards the group in question, and then proceeds to base conclusions on a selected sample of information which makes the conclusions more or less a foregone conclusion. I have recently been provided by one such group, The Family, with a report which demonstrates this pattern, and the following opinions are based on study of this report, as well as related court documents.

6. Very early in his report titled "Destructive Childrearing Practices by the Children of God," dated March 28, 1994, Dr. Bruce Duncan Perry engages in these same unacceptable practices, and takes them to a degree of irresponsibility which amounts, in my opinion, to professional behavior which violates commonly accepted minimal standards for mental health professionals. On page two he writes that "Further evaluation of these children is desired by the State (my emphasis) due to evidence regarding destructive childrearing practices by the COG." The question, then, is whether Dr. Perry's function is more as a weapon for the State rather than a mental health professional conducting a legitimate function within the normal standards of his profession.

7. Dr. Perry displays an outrageous methodology from the outset, when on page two he claims to have studied groups which engage in "coercive, destructive" practices and says they are "similar to those described by the COG." He goes on to mention "pan-sexuality," and even "torture". The reader of this report is given no data to support such descriptions of these other groups, but is apparently expected to accept such claims at face value, and then accept the notion that the Family is "similar" because someone has said so. All this, in the introductory paragraphs said to summarize the "PURPOSE OF REPORT." In my opinion, this clearly demonstrates that Dr. Perry's purpose was indeed to attack the Family, and it seems likely that those who specifically sought out his opinions were of like mind.

8. Dr. Perry, in describing what he has done in studying other groups, claims to have performed on specific individuals "comprehensive psychosocial review, psychological evaluation, quantification of symptoms, multiple non-structured contacts including repeat observations under a variety of situations, structured psychiatric interviews and interviews with important collateral contacts." (page 2). I believe Dr. Perry should be required to explain why he has been willing to reach such damning conclusions about the Family and the children of its members, when he performed none of these evaluations on any Family members.

9. Instead, Dr. Perry has apparently based his opinions on nothing more than "reviewing pertinent materials." The idea that he can, from reading documents, determine in a professional and competent manner, what is in the best interests of a child, is a grotesque distortion of the legitimate process of evaluating a child and his or her living situation.

10. Nonetheless, Dr. Perry argues that on the basis of his reading, with no direct contact with any of the parties involved, that "destructive practices as they relate to the development of primary parent/child attachments," and "destructive practices as they relate to the development of independent cognition," require something beyond "the typical or standard child protective or psychological assessments." It is obvious from my study of court documents why Dr. Perry makes this extreme recommendation: The "typical" evaluations have already been done, presented to the Courts of Australia, and been found to show no evidence to justify removal of these children from their parents and from the religion their parents choose to practice.

11. An example of Dr. Perry's use of fearmongering may be seen when he writes "It is likely (my emphasis) that children are involved in sexual behaviors before they are cognitively capable of consenting...It appears (my emphasis) that inadequate care has been taken to protect the safety of children from sexual advances made by adult members. In addition, these children frequently observe adults participating in sexual activity." Dr. Perry cites no evidence for any of these serious accusations, and offers no explanation why, if such things are happening, the on-site investigators and evaluators in Australia, including the Courts, make no such findings.

12. Why, then, should the children nonetheless be torn from their family and community? Because, Dr. Perry claims, "These children are likely to have been 'damaged' in a fashion that is not easily observed by untrained eyes...In the same manner as an undetected cancer, slowly, silently growing inside a child only to be detected many years later, the emotional, cognitive, and social problems within these children will grow silently--undetected without special evaluation." This means, of course, that the psychiatric, social work, and legal professionals (including the judges) of Australia have all been duped and only someone "trained" in a manner Dr. Perry or one of his like-minded colleagues would approve, will be able to "detect" the undetected cancer of a childhood in the Family. The use of the "silently growing" cancer analogy reminds me of the Nazi's description of Jews as a creeping vermin about to engulf the world. This is religious bigotry, pure and simple, thinly masquerading as 'science.'

12. Dr. Perry, because he has done nothing to directly study the practices of the Family, and done nothing to directly evaluate the children and their surroundings, relies on "materials" said to describe the practices of the Family, yet he describes these materials as "relating to children in 'cults'." Throughout his report, Dr. Perry speaks of "cults," and thereby demonstrates his willingness to use a term which has no legitimate place in an evaluation impacting on the best interests of a child. It has no accepted place in the social work or psychiatric literature, and can only intrude religious bias into a matter related to the welfare of children. In addition, scholars of new religious movements have long ago recognized that the anti-cult literature Dr. Perry relies upon is renowned for its ability to make accusations based on small, one-sided samples, primarily those ex-members who choose to associate themselves with the anticult movement. The vast majority of ex-members, who decide to leave a group someone decides to call a "cult," but do not then join the anticult movement, are not consulted. When legitimate researchers have sampled a more representative selection of ex-members, the extreme statements of the anticult movement have never been corroborated.

13. Thus, the generalizations Dr. Perry draws, based on such biased sources, and then tossed together with highly questionable conclusions about completely different groups makes for a most absurd mixture. His frequent reference to the "Branch Davidian case" is especially outrageous. Given the fact that so many of those children are dead, and that serious questions remain as to whether United States government policies and practices were the cause of their death, as well as the lack of any evidence that those children were in any danger, it is macabre indeed that Dr. Perry should use this example. This is especially the case given the question as to whether unjustified claims of child abuse amongst the Branch Davidians, passed along to the government by the very anticult groups Dr. Perry relies upon, was one of the reasons for the U.S. Government assault which ultimately led to the deaths of the children. Repeating his earlier claim that only a very selected few (including Dr. Perry, of course) can "see" the real impact of the hated groups, he writes of the Branch Davidian children who left before the Government assault: "even to relatively well experienced mental health professionals, children from these settings may appear to the quite normal under many circumstances. Indeed the children who left the Branch Davidian compound....were seen by many adults around them (who worked with them initially) as 'doing very well,' or 'pretty normal.'"

14. As an example of the blinders which Dr. Perry seems to be wearing, consider his claim (now referring to children from The Family), that "when these children were taken from their community and placed in the protective custody of the State, there were clear examples of the children being non-responsive, non-reactive, highly controlled, hypervigilant and, basically, exhibiting a variety of other behaviors and emotional responses consistent with children raised in a highly controlled and controlling environment." No mention is made of the fact that these same reactions would not be unexpected in a child removed by force from their family and community, and "placed in the protective custody of the State." Dr. Perry may love "Big Brother," but that doesn't mean the children did. The children would certainly be aware of the fact that their new caretakers were hostile to their parents and their community. Does Dr. Perry expect the children to smile and say "thank you"?

15. I urge all parties reviewing Dr. Perry's recommendations to consider the implications of his central theme. As he writes: "At the heart of this entire problem, is of course, the fact that traditional assessment techniques will not easily identify areas of vulnerability in these children. These children have been trained and coached to 'conform' and these communities have been taught how to make their children look well enough to stand the initial scrutiny of a typical child protective investigation."

There is no community, and no family, which, if Dr. Perry's recommendations were adopted, would be safe from State interference. If no evidence of danger is found, this only shows how dangerous the situation really is, because the parents and the community are so devilishly clever that the 'ordinary' experts have been fooled. We need Dr. Perry and his colleagues. They will see what others cannot. They will separate acceptable religious practices from unacceptable ones. They will separate acceptable parental discipline and guidance from unacceptable "brainwashing."

16. Dr. Perry writes that "It is important that investigators insure that religion is not used to legitimize unacceptable child rearing practices." In my study of the documents from the child protection investigations of these children, I see no evidence of any practices otherwise dangerous to children being "legitimized." This would hardly be likely since the investigators were not part of the Family. I offer to Dr. Perry and all those tempted to be persuaded by his specious arguments, the following: "It is important that investigators insure that psychiatry is not used to legitimize unacceptable interference in the lives of children, based not on legitimate evidence of child endangerment, but religious bigotry.'

Lee S. Coleman, M.D.

Berkeley, Ca.

(end of paper)