Introduction

33. Unlike most other faith-based organisations the Inquiry investigated, the Jehovah’s Witnesses did not provide faith-based schools, children’s homes, or foster care services during the Inquiry period. However, the faith did provide pastoral care and other informal forms of care.[44] Pastoral care includes spiritual, social, emotional and material support or guidance for individuals or communities. It can also include visiting, counselling, religious counselling (including Bible studies or other faith activities), or otherwise helping people in the congregation. The faith also assumed the responsibility for the care of children and young people in other situations, such as “witnessing” (door-to-door preaching).

The scope of “care” in this Inquiry

34. The definition of “care” in this Inquiry incorporates a broader range of care relationships than, for example, care provided under formal court orders or residential programmes in institutions. The Inquiry’s Terms of Reference, as amended in September 2023, state that the phrase “in the care of faith-based institutions” means where a faith-based institution assumed responsibility for the care of an individual and:

“…for the avoidance of doubt a faith-based institution may assume responsibility for the care of an individual through an informal or pastoral care relationship. An informal or pastoral care relationship includes a trust-based relationship between an individual and a person with power or authority conferred by the faith-based institution, where such a relationship is related to the institution’s work or is enabled by the institution’s conferral of authority or power on the person”.[45]

35. The September 2023 amendment codified the interpretation the Inquiry had adopted from an early stage, without disagreement from any of the faiths.[46] In litigation in 2023 and 2024, the Jehovah’s Witnesses challenged the Inquiry's interpretation of the phrase “where a faith-based institution assumed responsibility for the care of an individual” as well as the amendment to the Terms of Reference. The High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed those challenges, and at the time of writing the Jehovah’s Witnesses had sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also filed a judicial review application in late June 2024 and sought access to this case study before it was presented to the Governor-General. The High Court dismissed the application for access to the case study in advance of its presentation to the Governor-General.

Care provided by the Jehovah’s Witnesses during the Inquiry period

36. In this case study, the Inquiry focuses on situations where the Jehovah’s Witnesses assumed responsibility for the care of individuals in the context of witnessing, pastoral care, judicial committees, working bees and other faith activities outside the home.

Witnessing activities

37. Members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses convert or seek to convert to glorify God and are instructed to go and make disciples of people.[47] This is often referred to as “door knocking”, “witnessing”, “field service” or “preaching”. The faith explained that a Jehovah’s Witness considers it a personal choice to deliver the Bible’s positive message to all people, while respecting every person’s right to believe what they choose.[48]

38. The faith has said it was common practice for children to accompany their own parents when going witnessing. The evidence before the Inquiry shows that at times when witnessing, children and young people also accompanied Elders who were not from their family.

39. Two former Elders said that during weekly witnessing activities, Jehovah’s Witness children were paired up with Elders and other adult members from outside their family.[49] One said this happened to him when he was a child, and when he was appointed an Elder (after 1999) it became his job to organise the groups and the street assignments for witnesses. The other former Elder described taking five children for a day of witnessing, with no other adults present.[50] Two former members recalled being placed as children with other adult members during an entire day of witnessing, with one recalling that this started as young as toddlers and with packed lunches in anticipation of a full day away from their parents or caregivers.[51]

40. Jasmine Grew, like other children within the Jehovah’s Witnesses, was required to actively participate in witnessing:

“Saturday morning is when the ‘witnessing’ happens. ‘Witnessing’ is when members knock on people’s doors and attempt to convert them to the faith … For me knocking on doors as a child, with other JW adults, and later, as a teenager, was horrible. I was so embarrassed and used to pray that I would not see my friends from school … As little kids you have a little picnic lunch and children are always with an older member. Children start doing this when they are just toddlers. Jehovah’s Witnesses use their children to win people over, so they can extend the conversation at the door. Children must say something during the witnessing procedure.”[52]

41. Witnessing was integral to furthering of the faith and the aims of the organisation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses explained to the Inquiry that “participating in witnessing activities is required for all who desire to obey Jesus’ direction to [quoting scripture] ‘Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations’ (Matthew 28:19).”[53]

42. Former elder Shayne Mechen told the Inquiry “my weekends were consumed doing JW activities. There was no time for playing sports; no spending time with friends or going to barbecues, other than at JW events.”[54] Similarly, Sina Dubbelman explained how, as a child she went out witnessing most Saturdays, she was not allowed to play sports on the weekends, as extracurricular activities were frowned upon and that there were missed opportunities brought on by being a child in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation.[55] These examples reflect the regular, scheduled and structured nature of witnessing, and the commitment to it by members, sometimes at the expense of other activities or hobbies.

43. The faith told the Inquiry that witnessing is not always scheduled or arranged, and therefore is not a “structured activity”, and that members have the right to decide how much, when, and how they participate in witnessing based on their personal circumstances.[56] The faith provided members’ testimony that their activity as Jehovah’s Witnesses is voluntary and in accordance with their own circumstances, preference and enjoyment.[57]

44. The faith submitted that it did not assume responsibility for the care of children during witnessing activities. It says the only people responsible for the care of those children are their parents and the decision whether a child should participate in witnessing activities is made by their parent(s). The faith said there was no system or policy in place, whereby the Jehovah’s Witness religion gives an Elder authority or responsibility to control an individual’s or family’s witnessing activities. If an Elder who happens to be present suggests to a parent that their child could accompany another family witnessing, then that suggestion:

a. Is not part of the policy or practice of the faith;
b. Is not an example of the faith-based institution assuming responsibility for the care of the child, as the child in this scenario is with another family as a result of the decision and consent of their parents; and
c. means no more than that the child is with another family, with the consent of the child’s parents, and the child is not at that time “also in the care of a faith-based institution”.

45. The faith provided statements from current members who had been raised by parents who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, testifying that the “very common” practice of the faith in Aotearoa New Zealand is for parents to supervise their own children in witnessing activities. The following are extracts from those statements:[58]

“Usually Saturday morning we would meet with a group of others and go preaching for a couple of hours. I was usually with Dad, and the girls with Mum. But we would swap around between Mum and Dad.”[59]

“Most weekends we would work along with them [their parents] in the door to door activity. As we progressed, they would train us to have a part in sharing our faith with others.”[60]

“I used to accompany my Mum during the week in the preaching activity right from very young and observe how we could help other people to learn about Bible [sic], understand it, and make application of it in their lives.”[61]

“When I was a little older my father trained me to go door to door witnessing on Saturday mornings. Honestly, most occasions I would have rather stayed at home watching television and occasionally my father would relent, but more often than not, my brother and I would alternate and accompany him in the ministry.”[62]

“We also accompanied our parents and my maternal grandmother in the door-to-door preaching. We were always well supervised during preaching.”[63]

“Every Saturday the four oldest of us children hopped into the family’s Volkswagen Kombi, and we drove all over the countryside calling on our neighbours to help them to learn these precious Bible truths...Dad was training us to be confident in the ministry.”[64]

“I have many fond memories of my mother training my brother and I in the door to door preaching activity.”[65]

46. Taking into account all the available evidence, the Inquiry finds that during the Inquiry period, the Jehovah’s Witnesses assumed the responsibility for children and young people placed in the care of Elders other than their parents for witnessing activities. The faith’s assumption of responsibility for those children and young people arose through its conferral of authority and trusted status on Elders, and the routine and regular actions of Elders and other adults in taking children and young people into their care, unsupervised, for witnessing. Children and young people were therefore within the care of the faith in those circumstances, within the meaning in the Terms of Reference.

47. The Inquiry is not persuaded that the absence of formal or documented policies in support of this practice, or the other evidence supplied by the faith, alters the reality that the faith assumed responsibility for the care of those children and young people in those situations.

Pastoral support and care

48. During the Inquiry period, Jehovah’s Witness Elders provided pastoral support to congregants.[66] As part of the pastoral support role, Elders visited homes for matters such as Bible studies, pastoral oversight before a baptism, and pastoral support or care outside of the Kingdom Hall environment in their capacity as Elders.[67]

49. There is credible evidence that children and young people receiving pastoral care were at times alone in the care of Elders during pastoral care situations of this nature. Former Elder Shayne Mechen, described studying with children without their parents being present, at the request of the parents who believed he was the “best one to do it”.[68] He also described pastoral care including visiting members of the congregation in their homes to assist them or go over encouraging articles from Watchtower.[69] Where families were considered fatherless, Elders were primarily responsible for making sure that women and their children were taken care of.[70] For example, a former Elder described how, when he was a child [in Australia] because he was fatherless, an Elder was assigned to go to his house and lead Bible studies. The Elder studied with him alone; one-on-one and without the presence of another adult.[71]

50. Evidence and records provided by the faith show that there were instances where Elders were alone with children and young people for study. For example, a summary document prepared by Elders from a judicial committee refers to the questioning of an abuser who was an Elder. When questioned, this Elder said "it wasn't unusual for them [him and the victim] to be alone as he had studied with her. Most of the time the mother was there but not always."[72]

51. Ms SC received Bible tutoring by the wife of an Elder. She said “I would often be at their place after school or to go on outings. In addition to one-on-one bible studies with the Elder’s wife, I would join their family regularly for their family bible study.”[73]

52. The faith submitted that all teachings and practices required that Elders should not be alone with children. It says that any decision for an Elder or congregant to assist a family with Bible studies is made by the family, and families are actively encouraged not to leave their children alone with another.[74]

53. The Jehovah’s Witnesses also submitted that congregants were not taught they should place “complete trust in Elders, nor that Elders can be trusted with children, nor that it would be appropriate for them to authorise an Elder to make arrangements for their children”.[75] The faith submitted it has never assumed responsibility for the care of children in their homes nor condoned or had any policy to support an Elder being alone in a child’s home with them.[76]

54. Based on the evidence received, the Inquiry finds that during the Inquiry period the faith assumed the care of children and young people placed in the care of Elders for pastoral care, preparation for baptism and other similar activities. There is no doubt the faith created and encouraged deep faith in Elders, and expected members to seek out Elders for spiritual guidance or to confess sins.[77] The faith’s assumption of responsibility for children and young people entrusted to Elders flowed from its conferral of authority and trusted status on Elders, and the regular actions of Elders who in this context took children and young people into their care unsupervised – enabled by the reliance of parents on the status of Elders. Children and young people in those situations were within the care of the faith. Again, the absence of specific authorising documents does not alter this conclusion.

Working bees and other organised activities

55. Children and young people in the faith were also placed with Elders, ministerial servants or other adults in group activities described by a former Elder as ‘working bees’ (for example cleaning and maintaining the Kingdom Hall), organised sports or outings for ‘fatherless children’.

56. Former Elder Shayne Mechen said that during these working bees, children were told to go with others who were not family members.[78] There would also be working bees that involved only one Elder working with a group of children and on some occasions, with other adults.[79] These activities appear to have been commonplace and occurred with a degree of regularity.

57. Mr Mechen explained that if there was a widow with children, an Elder would take the children on outings, or for a meal, to be a role model for them, and that this would be unsupervised by the mother.[80] He referred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses magazine Awake! of February 8, 2000, as saying “Christian men can often ‘rescue the fatherless boy’ by taking a sincere and healthy interest in him.”[81]

58. Mr Mechen also told the Inquiry that Elders and ministerial servants were alone with groups of children for sports. Mr Mechen recalls as an Elder organising ‘a lot’ of that for children.[82]

59. The faith submitted that parents are strongly encouraged to train, accompany, and supervise their children, and that there is no publication, policy, or practice that suggests minors should engage in these types of activities without their parents or with other people who are not family members.[83] It says it is a normal aspect of child-rearing that parents at times consent to their children being looked after by other adults and this is an exercise of parental authority and responsibility. It provided evidence from current members that suggest activities, such as Kingdom Hall cleaning, were always done with parents and other family members.[84] For example, current member Bernice Burns explained: “Helping to clean and maintain the Kingdom Hall was also a regular activity. This was always done in groups with our parents.”[85]

60. As with witnessing, the faith submitted that during working bees or other faith activities where children were in the care of other adults, this had been a matter for the discretion of the families and the faith had not assumed responsibility for their care. The Inquiry accepts that parents gave consent for their children to be in the unsupervised care of Elders in this context, which is unsurprising given the power and authority the faith conferred on Elders.

61. The Inquiry concludes that during the Inquiry period, the Jehovah’s Witnesses assumed responsibility for the care of children and young people when they were in the care of Elders during working bees or other faith activities.

Investigations and judicial committees

62. All baptised members are considered accountable to the faith and can face formal judicial action for any wrongdoing. The age for baptism varies but it is an option from about the age of 10.[86]

63. The Jehovah’s Witnesses require that every allegation of sexual abuse must be initially investigated by two Elders to establish the facts. Investigating Elders may take further action only if the truth of an allegation can be established according to the scriptural standards of proof. For those standards to be met, the Elders must usually receive either a confession by the accused, or the testimony of two or three ‘credible’ eyewitnesses.[87] A judicial committee is formed after it has been established that a serious sin occurred.

64. During these initial investigations and subsequent judicial committees, the Elders were sometimes alone with children or young people, questioning them as part of their investigation or committee. Parents were often not present during these investigations or committee processes.

65. Jasmine Grew told the Inquiry that she had disclosed abuse to her mother in 1989, when she was 12 years old. Her mother told the Elders of her congregation “as she was expected” to do.[88] Soon after at a faith meeting, an Elder came up to Jasmine and said “we’d like to speak to you in the back room”:

“I went back into the back room and the elders (male) were there. I had no support, no friend, no mother, nothing. My mother did not know, at the time, what was happening.”[89]

66. When Debbie Oakley was 16, she met with three Elders, together with her sister where Debbie and her sister disclosed abuse by her step-father. The meeting took place in a car: two Elders were in the front seat, and Debbie and her sister and the third Elder were in the back seat.[90] Their mother was not present.

67. Sina Dubbelman described appearing alone before a judicial committee to discuss alleged sexual matters when she was under age 18. She said that you were not allowed to take a support or witness with you into a judicial committee meeting with the Elders, “you sit with three elders in front of you.”[91]

68. The Jehovah’s Witnesses told the Inquiry that where there is a serious allegation, Elders never interview children, and do not take children into back rooms to cross examine them, and that there has always been a policy to that effect. The faith said that judicial committees only interview parents.[92]

69. The Inquiry has not been directed to any specific policy relating to investigations or judicial committees during the Inquiry period.

70. The Inquiry concludes based on the evidence described above that during the Inquiry period the Jehovah’s Witnesses did assume the responsibility for the care of children and young people who were interviewed by Elders during judicial investigations or committee processes without their parents present. Children and young people in these situations were within the care of the faith. The faith’s submission that investigations or judicial committees never interviewed children alone is not supported by the evidence.