Arkansas Court of Appeals
Don Thorne V. Arkansas Department of Human Services

Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 443
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISIONS I & II
No. CA09-583
DON THORNE
APPELLANT
V.
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES
APPELLEE
Opinion Delivered MAY 19, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. JV-2008-323-1]
HONORABLE JOE E. GRIFFIN,
JUDGE
SUBSTITUTED OPINION ON
DENIAL OF REHEARING;
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge

This court handed down an opinion on April 14, 2010, affirming the trial court’s order adjudicating appellant Don Thorne’s children dependent-neglected. The same day, we issued an opinion affirming the trial court’s order adjudicating the children of Bethany Myers dependent-neglected, in part for the same reasons expressed in our decision affirming the
order in Thorne’s case. Myers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 326. Thorne and Myers filed petitions for rehearing alleging that this court’s decisions contained mistakes of law and fact. In response to Myers’s petition, we issued a substituted opinion correcting a nonmaterial mistake of fact and denying her petition. Myers v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. __. We correct the same error in this substituted opinion and deny Thorne’s petition.

This is one of four appeals decided today that involve children who were removed from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries compound in Fouke, Arkansas, in November 2008. The circuit court heard the cases together in one adjudication hearing. Appellant, Don Thorne, is the father of three children placed in DHS’s custody. He challenges the circuit
court’s order adjudicating them dependent-neglected. We affirm the court’s order.

In September 2008, DHS took emergency custody of six minor females who lived in Tony Alamo’s residence at the Fouke compound. DHS presented evidence that their parents were aware of beatings administered to the ministry’s children by adults; that some of the
parents and other children witnessed the beatings; that the parents condoned the marriage of underage females to adult males and placed their daughters in the residence of Tony Alamo without parental supervision; that Alamo sexually abused one of the girls (M.B.1) and spent
time in his bedroom with others; that the parents neglected to provide the children with proper medical care and education; and that they condoned extreme disciplinary measures for young children, such as fasting. On November 18, 2009, we affirmed the circuit courts orders
adjudicating the girls dependent-neglected. See Broderick v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009
Ark. App. 771, ___ S.W.3d ___; Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767,
___ S.W.3d ___; Reid v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 784.

The evidence taken at the girls’ adjudication hearings led DHS to seek emergency custody of many more children in Fouke. The circuit court held an adjudication hearing that began on January 12, 2009, for the Reid, Seago, Broderick, Ondrisek, Krantz, Thorne, Myers, Parrish, and Avila children. Many of the children sought by DHS, including some of
the Thorne and Myers children, were hidden by their parents or other ministry adults. The court granted DHS’s motion for directed verdict as to the Reid, Seago, Broderick, and Ondrisek children because their siblings had already been adjudicated dependent-neglected. On February 17, 2010, we affirmed appeals from those adjudications because the appellants had raised their arguments for the first time on appeal. Today we affirm the orders adjudicating the children of the Thorne, Krantz, Myers, and Parrish families dependent-neglected.

Don Thorne is the father of a daughter, A.T.1, aged fourteen, and two sons, A.T.2, born in 1995, and A.T.3, aged twelve. From an earlier marriage, he is also the father of one of the other appellants, Sophia Parrish, aged twenty-three. He has been a member of the ministry since 1974, when he was nineteen. There was testimony that A.T.1 lived in Tony Alamo’s residence. Thorne works for the ministry and lives on its property in Fouke. At the time of the hearing, his wife, Luisa Cordero-Thorne, was in hiding with A.T.1 and A.T.3 with Thorne’s help. Although Thorne claimed to not know where they were, the circuit court held him in contempt until his wife brought the children back.

The witnesses at the adjudication hearing were G.P.1 (the son of Carlos and Sophia Parish); Jessica C. (a former member of the ministry); M.B.1 (a former member); Nicolas B. (a former member); S.B. (a former member); H.D. (a former member); Don Thorne; Sophia Parrish; Carlos Parrish; Bert Krantz; Debra Ondrisek; Miriam Krantz; Richard Ondrisek; Cindy Allen (a DHS supervisor); Brian Broderick; Alphonso Reid; Bethany Myers; Rebecca Avila; and Jose Avila. Nicholas, M.B.1, and S.B. are siblings of M.B.2, who was a subject of this hearing. J. C. is their aunt. Like Thorne, the Krantzes, the Parrishes, Bethany Myers, the Ondriseks, the Avilas, Brian Broderick, and Alphonso Reid are parents of some of the children with whom this hearing was concerned.

Jessica C. testified that she was born in the ministry in 1972 and married her husband when she was sixteen and he was twenty-seven. She said that the ministry is not a safe environment in which to rear children and testified at length about its communal lifestyle; its secrecy; the reporting system that encourages members to inform on each others’
transgressions; the imposition of fasting as punishment; and the restrictions on members’ contact with the outside world. She said that she left because she wanted her children to go to college and that it was not customary for girls to finish high school because they usually
got married. She gave several examples of girls no older than sixteen who married grown men. She stated that, in the past, Tony Alamo had run the organization from prison; that he encouraged parents to give up their parental authority to him; that the parents adopted Alamo’s views and were blind to the risks to their children; and that children were often
separated from their parents, as she was at the age of twelve. She described being in a group of children present when Justin Miller was given 140 licks with a three-feet-long paddle at Alamo’s direction; when it was over, blood seeped through his pants.1 She said that Alamo had spanked her with a board and had beaten others mercilessly, and she named numerous people whom she had seen beaten. Ms. C. said that, before she left the ministry, her son confided to her that he was thinking about suicide.

S.B. described being beaten at Alamo’s direction by one of his wives, Michelle Jones, when S.B. and her sisters M.B.1 and A.B. were living at Alamo’s residence. She said that A.T.1 (Thorne’s daughter) and L.K. (one of the Krantzes’ daughters) were in the room during her beating. She also said that A.T.1 lived in Alamo’s home, which L.K. visited. She
stated that Alamo had slapped her four or five times and that he had hit B.S. (Greg Seago’s daughter), C.R. (Alphonso Reid’s daughter, aged ten), and A.O. (the Ondriseks’ daughter). She also said that some girls were forced to fast. S.B. said that she was threatened with a spanking by John Kolbeck [Kolbek] if she told anyone what happened at Alamo’s house. She testified that, in February or March 2008, she and the other girls at Alamo’s house, including A.T.1 and M.M., were forced by Alamo to participate in recording Tape No. 564, in which they denied being molested by him.

In detail, M.B.1 described the ministry’s secrecy and the members’ isolation from the outside world; Alamo’s teaching that the Bible permitted girls to marry at puberty; her sexual molestation in the shower by Alamo when she was living in his home; her beating by John Kolbeck; Kolbeck’s beating of other children; Alamo’s living arrangements with adult women and girls as young as age eight; his time spent alone in his bedroom with the young girls; her participation in Tape 564 with N.M.1 and M.M.; and being forced to help hold down S.B. (aged eleven or twelve) while Michelle Jones beat her. M.B.1 said that she heard B.S. scream while John Kolbeck beat her and that Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged B.S. to the beating. According to M.B.1, Myers’s daughters N.M.1 and M.M., while living in a separate residence with Myers, spent a significant amount of time in Alamo’s household. M.B.1 also said that two men in their twenties had asked her to marry them and that she had friends her age who had already married and had children and who hated their lives. She stated that most older boys leave the ministry; that it is not safe for children; and that Alamo would continue to control the ministry while he was in jail. She said that the parents believe that Alamo is a prophet and do not question his authority.
Nicholas B. described witnessing John Kolbeck’s savage beating of Spencer
O., Phillip Avila, and A.O., while the Ondriseks were present and did nothing. He said that Kolbeck once slapped him, but did not beat him, because Nicholas stated that he was going to leave the ministry. He explained that it was normal for boys to drop out of school by the age of seventeen and that there were few boys in school above the tenth grade,
after which he dropped out. He said that he was forced to fast a few times and experienced “diesel therapy” (being forced to ride with a driver of a ministry truck). He added that young girls were at risk of becoming child brides; that J.G. married a man in his thirties; and that R.S. married when she was fourteen.

H.D., aged seventeen, testified that she had left the ministry when she was twelve. She said that she was forced to fast for a week at the age of ten because she had failed to perform a chore after suffering a head injury in a fall. She stated that the fall caused her to lose consciousness, and when she came to, people were praying over her; no one, however, took her to a doctor. In fact, she did not think that ministry members were supposed to go to the hospital. She said that she had suffered memory loss and pain and swelling on the back of her head. She said that her sister had also been placed on a fast. H.D. described being present when J.G. was informed that she was going to get married at the age of twelve. She said that she and J.G. were playing with Barbies when J.G.’s mother received a phone call in which she learned that the marriage would occur; J.G. and her mother were upset, and
J.G. cried. She said that J.G. had a typical wedding with a bridal dress and bridesmaids.2 H.D. stated that she was taught that it was permissible to lie to people outside the ministry.

Bethany Myers acknowledged violating the court’s order by not producing her children for DHS. She said that she had no idea where her husband and children were. The trial court held her in contempt and placed her in jail.

Don Thorne denied having any first-hand knowledge that John Kolbeck or anyone else had beaten the children or that children had been forced to fast. He admitted giving Sophia away in marriage at the age of twelve. He claimed that the ministry no longer permitted young girls to marry but admitted that he had heard Alamo preach that the Bible
condones polygamy and the marriage of girls at puberty. Thorne denied letting A.T.1 live at Alamo’s residence but admitted that she had stayed there for a couple of weeks. He was
untroubled by Alamo’s using her to create Tape No. 564 without his permission. He
acknowledged that his wife had told him that she had asked John Kolbeck to spank A.T.2 while Thorne was driving a truck for the ministry.

G.P.1, aged seven, testified that his father had spanked him and two of his younger sisters with a paddle that had their names on it. He said that both of his parents had slapped him on the face when he was six, leaving red marks, and that he was afraid of being spanked by John Kolbeck.

Sophia Parrish admitted slapping and “popping” G.P.1 in the mouth on two occasions but denied leaving any marks. She admitted spanking him and G.P.2 with a paint stirrer or with her hand. After obviously lying under oath and being threatened with a perjury charge, Sophia returned to the stand and admitted that she had spanked G.P.1 with a paddle; that she had married at twelve when Carlos was nineteen; that her father had
walked her down the aisle; that she had sex with Carlos when she was twelve; and that she had given birth to a stillborn baby girl at the age of fourteen. Sophia stated that the Krantzes were at her wedding, which was widely celebrated by the members of the ministry. She affirmed that John Kolbeck had spanked A.T.2 at his mother’s request. Sophia said that she had completed only the sixth grade because she had not wanted to be pregnant while in school. She stated that her friends had also dropped out when they began having children, and she listed four other weddings of young girls that she had attended.

Carlos Parrish testified that he did not believe Nicholas and denied having witnessed any beatings. He stated that he had no intention of moving away from the ministry’s property.

Bert Krantz, who was fifty-seven years old at the time of the hearing, testified that he joined the ministry, in which he is a minister, in 1972, and that he works in disseminating Alamo’s recorded messages. He admitted that he was present at, and approved of, several weddings of young girls but said that the ministry had not permitted underage girls to marry in five or six years. He stated that, although the Bible condones the marriage of young girls at puberty, he would not permit his children to marry during their minority, nor would he let his children fast or be disciplined by anyone else. He stated that he had never witnessed
any physical punishment. He acknowledged having heard Tape No. 564 but said that it had not concerned him. Bert said that he believed that Alamo is a prophet and that it would be a sin against God to leave the ministry. He denied letting Alamo run anything in his life, but
he admitted that he does not drive because Alamo does not want him to do so.

Miriam Krantz, who is twenty years younger than her husband and is the custodian of the audiotapes, also said that no one else disciplined her children; that she was familiar with Tape No. 564; that she also believes that Alamo is a prophet; that she did not know that Kolbeck had administered discipline; and that, when she attended Sophia’s wedding, she was aware that Sophia was twelve, but it did not concern her.

In the adjudication order, the circuit court found the children dependent-neglected and made extensive findings of fact. The court found that the Thornes had failed to protect their children against physical abuse; that they were aware of the pattern and practice of severe physical beatings; that they endorsed and facilitated illegal marriages of underage females to adult males; that they neglected the needs of their children by failing to assure that they received adequate education and by failing to register their children in an accredited school with certified teachers or providing legally approved home schooling. The court also
found that the parents committed or permitted medical and physical abuse by requiring, condoning, and permitting dangerous, involuntary fasts imposed on children younger than fifteen, and by failing to have them properly immunized. The court further found that the parents were aware of multiple instances when Tony Alamo, through his direction to John Kolbeck or others, intentionally caused physical harm to Spencer O., Philip Avila, and A.O. The court found that the parents were aware of Alamo’s pattern and practice of enforcing adherence to his will by brutal physical attacks. The court noted M.B.1’s
molestation by Alamo at the age of thirteen. It further found that the parents were aware that
Alamo claimed to be married to multiple wives and that they permitted and condoned the ministry’s practice of “diesel therapy.”

The court set the goal of reunification and gave the parents supervised visitation. Along with other requirements, it directed them to obtain stable employment and safe and stable housing, separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and to maintain them for at least six months. The court directed Thorne to assist
DHS in locating the children currently in hiding with his spouse. The court expressly found the testimony of M.B., Jessica C., S.B., H.D., and Nicholas B. that beatings, forced fasting, underage marriages, educational neglect, and sexual abuse occurred credible and stated that there was a pattern and practice of such abuse. It deemed not credible the testimony of Carlos Parrish, Sophia Parrish, Thorne, Bert Krantz, and Miriam Krantz that those abuses did not occur.

Thorne first challenges the evidence supporting the adjudication of his children as dependent-neglected and contends that there was no evidence that they were mistreated in any way. He points out that there was no evidence that they were not immunized; although this is correct, it does not require reversal, in view of the overwhelming evidence of other
threats to their well-being, which are discussed below. Thorne also asserts that the evidence does not support the trial court’s findings that he had educationally neglected his children, pointing out, correctly, that the Christian A Beka curriculum used by the ministry’s school is widely accepted, and that the state does not require private schools to be accredited or that their teachers be certified. Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrated that young girls frequently drop out of school long before completing high school and that the boys, who often are placed on diesel therapy, do not progress much further. In the ministry, getting a high school diploma is the exception, not the rule.

Thorne also asserts that the trial court did not judge his case separately from the others and thereby contravened Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-325(i)(1) (Repl. 2009), which requires adjudication hearings to be closed. We disagree. First, the trial court did close the hearing. Second, although the trial court’s adjudication orders used similar language, it was apparent that the court considered each case on its own. Third, that statute does not prevent the circuit court from hearing certain cases together when it is appropriate, and
appellants have cited no authority to the contrary.

Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1) (Repl. 2009). Dependency-neglect allegations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann.
§ 9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Repl. 2009). We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Seago v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___ S.W.3d ___. In reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the circuit court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus of an adjudication hearing is on
the child, not the parent; at this stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the child is dependent-neglected. Id. An adjudication of dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is simply dependent-neglected. Id.; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A) (Repl. 2009) defines a “dependent-neglected juvenile” as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition of “neglect” in section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or omissions of “a parent, guardian, custodian, foster parent, or any person who is entrusted with the juvenile’s care by a parent” that constitute:

(i) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the juvenile when the person knows or has reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or has been abused;

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the necessary food, clothing, shelter, and education required by law, . . . or medical treatment necessary for the juvenile’s well-being . . . ;

(iii) Failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile from abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition was known or should have been known;

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to provide for the essential and necessary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the juvenile, including failure to provide a shelter that does not pose a risk to the health or safety of the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care and maintenance, proper or necessary support, or medical, surgical, or other necessary care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume responsibility for the care and custody of the juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume the responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the juvenile that results in the juvenile’s being left alone at an inappropriate age or in inappropriate circumstances, creating a dangerous situation or a situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm.

We reject Thorne’s argument that the circuit court erred in finding his children dependent-neglected because there was no evidence that they had personally suffered abuse. As we explained in our November 2009 Seago, Broderick, and Reid opinions, the General Assembly’s expressed purpose in the juvenile code is to protect dependent-neglected children
and make their health and safety its paramount concern; a child may be adjudicated dependent-neglected even if he or she has not yet suffered abuse. Thorne, who lived and worked in this community for over three decades, was rearing his children in a secretive, communal environment that included sexual abuse of young girls, underage marriage, fasting,
and beatings. Thorne admitted that his wife asked John Kolbeck to spank A.T.2 while he was absent and that he gave his twelve-year-old daughter in marriage to an adult man. A.T.1, who apparently lived in Alamo’s home, witnessed S.B.’s beating by Michelle Jones. Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged B.S. to be beaten by Kolbeck. Additionally,
Sophia Parrish admitted “popping” G.P.1 on the mouth, as he had testified. Striking a child six years of age or younger on the face or head, with or without physical injury, is abuse.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A)(vii)(a). Thorne’s assertion that the evidence of corporal punishment should not be credited because there was no medical evidence is disingenuous in view of the testimony showing that the ministry discourages its members from seeking
medical assistance.

Thorne’s second argument is that two provisions of the case plan violate his right to freely exercise his religion as protected by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions. The circuit court ordered Thorne to “obtain safe and stable housing separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and maintain said housing for at least six months” and to “obtain stable employment separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members and maintain said employment for at least six months.” Thorne contends that, in essence, the case plan makes him choose between his children and
his church.

DHS and the attorney ad litem argue that Thorne failed to make this argument below and that the circuit court therefore never ruled on it. We disagree. Thorne’s lawyer raised the constitutional issue at the beginning of the hearing: “Your Honor, this case is purely a free exercise of religion case.” Thorne and other witnesses testified about the importance
of communal living within the ministry. When asked whether living off ministry property would have an effect on his “Christian walk,” Thorne responded “[a]bsolutely.” The circuit court, in ruling from the bench on the dependency-neglect issues, recognized Thorne’s beliefs. “[T]he parents involved have very strong feelings and very strong convictions
concerning their spiritual beliefs and how they wish to live.” And the court recognized the legal decision it faced.

[W]e have the intertwining of the allegations of the state concerning abuse in various forms and various forms of neglect coupled with the religious and spiritual beliefs of the mothers and fathers and families that are participants in this case. That right, as given to us as citizens of the United States, that is freedom of religion to believe as we cho[o]se I consider to be one of our most important rights and one that I, as a judge, believe that I am charged to protect within the law as within the facts.

The circuit court’s order, finally, required Thorne to make substantial changes in his religious practices to pursue reunification with his children. Taking this record as a whole, we conclude that Thorne preserved the constitutional argument. Every person’s right to make decisions of conscience about religious matters is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by an even more sweeping provision of the Arkansas Constitution. Article
2, section 24 of Arkansas’s Constitution provides, in part, that “[a]ll men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences . . .. No human authority can, in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right of conscience . . ..” As another court stated the legal principle in another case involving this ministry, “[r]eligious and political beliefs, no matter how bizarre and nonconforming, are personal matters, and the courts are not instruments of orthodoxy charged with the responsibility of keeping citizens on the ideological straight and narrow.” Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695, 698 (W.D. Ark. 1990) (Morris S.
Arnold, J.); see also West Virginia State Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). To judge the constitutional issue fairly, therefore, we must acknowledge and consider the circuit court’s unchallenged finding about the sincerity of Thorne’s religious beliefs. We do.

A parent’s right of conscience in religious matters, however, sometimes collides with state laws of general application promulgated for the protection of children and other citizens. There are familiar examples. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (a state may not compel Amish children to attend high school until age 16); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (a child-labor law was constitutional even though it kept a child from selling religious tracts as part of her faith); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and
Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (a state may not require students to attend public schools; a parent has the authority to provide, and his or her child has the right to receive, sectarian schooling with secular schooling). These fact-specific cases strive for a delicate balance, one that respects all the important interests involved: parents’ rights of conscience and of child-rearing and the state’s interest as parens patriae in protecting children.

Arkansas law recognizes this delicate balance. “Parents, of course, have a fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their children. But the State of Arkansas has an equally compelling interest in the protection of its children.” Porter v. Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 374 Ark. 177, 185, 286 S.W.3d 686, 693 (2008) (internal citations omitted); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2009). And in child custody disputes, for example, a parent’s religiously motivated choices and actions are material if they affect a child’s well being. Hicks v. Cook, 103 Ark. App. 207, 212, 288 S.W.3d 244, 248 (2008). In some cases, the facts tip the balance in favor of protecting the child, and against the parent’s liberty—even in matters of conscience and religious conviction. E.g., Prince, 321 U.S. at 167.

This is one of those cases. As the circuit court found, the most pressing potential danger facing Thorne’s children was simply living on ministry property. The record is full of testimony about beatings, sexual abuse, underage marriages, and other problems, all of which victimized the children of families living on ministry property. In fashioning its case
plan, the circuit court responded to the potential danger with a narrowly tailored solution—requiring Thorne to obtain housing separate and apart from the ministry. And because ministry life was communal in almost every respect, the court also required Thorne to obtain employment outside the ministry so he could earn the money to pay for this new
housing arrangement and other living expenses. Here, as the circuit court implicitly concluded, the State’s interest in preventing potential harm to these children outweighed Thorne’s conscientious choice to live on ministry property, work for the ministry, and depend on the ministry for his family’s every need. We see no constitutional infirmity in the
circuit court’s disposition order on this record. We therefore affirm on Thorne’s second point.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, KINARD, GLOVER, BAKER, and BROWN, JJ., agree.
18 CA09-583

2. A wedding picture from 12 year old J.G.’s wedding ceremony was introduced into evidence.

Link to photo

This appeal is one of three cases decided today that involve children who were taken into emergency custody by DHS from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries compound in Fouke, Arkansas, in September 2008. Appellant Brian Broderick is the father of two girls, S.B. and A.B., taken into custody and challenges the circuit court’s order adjudicating his daughters dependent-neglected. Judge Joe Griffin heard this case and the one concerning Alphonso Reid’s daughters, A.R. and C.R., at the same hearing. Judge Jim Hudson heard the proceeding concerning Greg Seago’s daughter, V.S. Many witnesses testified at both hearings, and some testimony was consolidated in all three cases. Where possible, we will refer to the evidence discussed at length in the Seago opinion in order to avoid repetition.

Broderick has been a member of the ministry for over twenty-five years. He works
for and lives on property used by the ministry. S. B., the mother of S.B. and A.B.,
married Broderick in 1989 in the ministry when she was fifteen or sixteen. She left the ministry in early 2008 and is now living in Virginia with her fourteen-year-old daughter, M.B., and her adult son, N. B.. Although S. B. was involved in the
adjudication proceeding, she has not appealed the adjudication order. The Brodericks’ fifteen year-old son lives with his father. S.B., who was born December 1995, and A.B., who was born June 1997, lived at Alamo’s residence before they were taken into custody by DHS.

S. O. testified in this hearing and in the Seago hearing. As in the Seago
case, he talked about the iron control held by Tony Alamo over the members of the ministry. In both hearings, he testified about being beaten by John Kolbeck [Kolbek] when he was twelve; his second beating by Kolbeck in 2006, when his sister, A.O., was also beaten; and a third beating in October 2007. S.O. stated that parents must get permission from Alamo to take their children to the doctor, and that he never saw a parent try to prevent their child from being beaten. He explained that fear played a vital role in keeping everyone under control. He testified that the members of the church were taught that if they left, they would fall into sin; that they could not trust the government, which was the “anti-Christ”; and that they could not go to the government for help. S. O. said that his parents would not speak to him after he left the ministry.

M.B., who also testified at the Seago hearing, testified that she, S.B., A.B., A.R., V.S., B.S., A.T., and M.E. were underage females who lived at Alamo’s house with the adult women who were known to be Alamo’s wives. She said that D.K. moved into Alamo’s house when she was eight, and that S.H. moved there when she was about ten. M.B. said that she saw both D.K. and S.H., who were known as his wives and had wedding rings, go into Alamo’s bedroom and shut the door, staying there for hours. As in the Seago hearing, she described her sexual molestation and threats by Tony Alamo when she was in the shower. She
said that she did not tell her parents about the molestation because they would not have believed her over Alamo. As in the Seago hearing, she described her beating by John Kolbeck when she was ten years old, and talked about being forced to participate in a recording with B.S., V.S., and A.R., wherein the underage girls denied having been molested by Alamo.

M.B. also testified that she witnessed her sister S.B. being beaten by Michelle [Misheal] Jones, one of Alamo’s wives, with a board, while M.B. was forced to help hold her sister down. Another time, she said, she observed Alamo catch B.S. by the throat and shove her against the wall. She also said that she heard B.S. being beaten by Kolbeck as she screamed that she wanted her mother.

D. O. also testified in both hearings. He described his punishment on “diesel therapy” and said that the whole church was placed on a week-long fast when he was eight or nine years old. He stated that, after his sister Alice [Alys] moved in with Alamo when she was ten or eleven, his family’s status improved. His mother received a new Dodge Caravan; his father got an expensive digital camera; they moved into a very large house in Texarkana; and his parents obtained better jobs in the ministry. He stated, “It is common knowledge that if you move into Tony’s house and you are spending a certain amount of years there, you are one of his wives. I mean he definitely doesn’t have boys coming over all the time. It’s only little girls and they usually never move out.”
A. D. also testified in both hearings. She said that her sister Pebbles was one
of Alamo’s wives and described seeing several young girls go into Alamo’s bedroom; she saw Alys Ondrisek go into Alamo’s room and stay for three or four days. She stated that Alamo talked about how beautiful Alys Ondrisek was and referred to her as his wife. As in the Seago hearing, she described her periods of imposed fasting and her physical punishment. She described the beatings of other young girls, including A.O., and Kolbeck’s beating of D. O. and S. O. She testified that, when they were tipped off about an upcoming raid, the younger girls who were Alamo’s wives were sent out of Alamo’s residence, and that she observed some pictures of his underage wives being removed from his belongings.

The video taped depositions of N. B. and J. C., which were played in the Seago hearing, were also admitted in this hearing.

A.R., Alphonso Reid’s stepdaughter, also testified about being beaten and
forced to fast as punishment. She said that the primary reason why she left the ministry was because Alamo did not permit her to obtain medical attention for her son, who was born with a serious medical condition. A. R. testified that Alamo has multiple wives and that she witnessed J.G. and W.T. marry thirty-year-old men when J.G. was twelve and W.T. was thirteen. A. said that she had only completed the eighth grade.

Dr. Karen Worley’s testimony in this hearing was significantly similar to her testimony in the Seago hearing. She said that the girls in this proceeding did not reveal any sexual abuse.
She stated that C.R., A.B., and S.B. talked about how the government thought that Alamo was a pedophile and appeared to have been coached before their interviews with investigators.

Robbie Polite, with DHS, testified that, although S.B. and A.B. had received some
immunizations, they were not up-to-date, according to the records in Arkansas.
S.B. testified that, since she was eleven years old, she and A.B. had primarily lived in Alamo’s house. She described a spanking that Alamo ordered one of his wives, Michelle Jones, to give her: “After he got off the phone, Tony said he was going [to] have Michelle spank me and I begged him not to and he said, yes, he was going to, I needed to learn my lesson and he took me into his room and got the paddle from behind his desk and had all my friends and everybody in the office come into his room and said for all them to watch me. . . .I was scared. I was crying. I asked him not to do this. We went into Tony’s room and he had four people hold me, hold my arms and legs down and he told me to bend over on his bed and I believe it was, do I need to say the name? It was Lydia, Sharon Alamo, Yvonne. She is known as Pebbles. And I can’t remember who else . . . but I got beat four times with the board. . . . He didn’t know how many licks I was going to get. He . . . had a smile on his face and just watching me and he whispered something to Michelle and Michelle just gave me four. After it was done I said thank you. I said that because I believed that he was doing it because he loved me and that’s what he said. . . . I had marks on my thighs. They were big bruises and, you know, my blood vessels had broken inside my skin. They were blue, purple, and black. They hurt. I felt the pain for about three weeks. About the first week I couldn’t sit down, but the second week after that I could. I did not report the pain because I was scared. Tony has slapped me probably five times. I think, five. He slapped my face. Well one time it was because he said I was giving him a dirty look, and which I wasn’t but. [sic] That caused me to question him being blind.”

S.B. said that she did not tell her father about the spanking or that Alamo had slapped her.

Bernie Lazar Hoffman, aka Tony Alamo, testified that he did not have total control over the members of the church. He denied the allegations of sexual abuse. He affirmed his belief in the Bible’s teachings that polygamy is acceptable and that girls can be married after they reach puberty. He denied, however, actually practicing polygamy, or condoning or permitting the marriage of underage girls.

He said that he had not witnessed A.O.’s “spanking” by Kolbeck, but acknowledged that he had witnessed S.O.’s “spanking.” He called the reports of beatings “exaggerated.” A significant amount of his testimony concerned his religious beliefs and was not relevant to the issues presented in this
appeal.

Alphonso Reid denied having any knowledge of beatings, sexual abuse of young girls, underage marriages, or fasts. He admitted that he had permitted Tamela to live in Alamo’s house since she was eleven or twelve; that A.R. and C.R. had also lived there; and that he had lived apart from the girls in Fouke. He said that when he was not traveling for work with the ministry, he lived in the brothers’ dorm, and admitted being away from Fouke for months at a time. He acknowledged seeing J. G. with her husband, and that he knew about the recording Alamo had made with the girls, as well as the allegations of sexual abuse. He admitted asking Alamo for permission to marry A.D., but said that the marriage did not occur because she was underage and she did not want to marry him; he said that the idea “was from the devil.” He said that he thought that Alamo was a prophet and did not believe that Alamo had sexually abused any girls.

Brian Broderick denied knowing that children had been beaten, sexually abused,
slapped, or forced to fast, and described the ministry as a great environment in which to raise children. He did not believe any of the witnesses testifying to such abuse and called his children, M.B. and N., liars. In fact, he said that there was nothing anyone could do to make him believe that Alamo, whom he considered to be a prophet, had molested M.B. He acknowledged that he had been aware of the allegations of sexual abuse because he had heard the recording of Alamo and the girls and had attended some Fouke city council meetings. He admitted permitting his daughters to live at the mission, where Alamo resides, while he worked out of town for months at a time. He said that he has done construction work for the ministry most of his life, and that he is totally dependent upon it for all of his needs.

On January 6, 2009, Judge Griffin entered an order adjudicating S.B. and A.B.
dependent-neglected for the same reasons that Judge Hudson gave in the Seago order. He found S.O., D.O., A.R., M.B., J. C., and S.B. credible. He found Broderick, Reid, and Tony Alamo not credible. He imposed the same requirements on Broderick as Judge Hudson did on Seago—that he obtain housing and employment outside of the ministry.

The same day, Judge Griffin entered an order adjudicating A.R. and C.R. dependent-neglected for the same reasons, and imposing the same requirements on Reid. He made the same credibility findings.

Broderick challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the adjudication order and attacks the credibility of the witnesses who said anything negative about the ministry. As Seago argued, he contends that there was no medical evidence that the fasts were dangerous or that the children were injured. He disputes that the children were neglected medically or educationally. He also asserts, for the first time on appeal, that the trial court’s requirement that he obtain employment and housing outside of the ministry is unconstitutional. We do not address arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

See Ark. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs.
v. Jones, 97 Ark. App. 267, 248 S.W.3d 507 (2007).
Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in a petition are substantiated by the proof.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-327(a)(1) (Supp. 2009).
Dependency neglect allegations must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Supp. 2009).

We will not reverse the circuit court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Brewer v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 71 Ark. App. 364, 43 S.W.3d 196
(2001).

In reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the circuit court’s
evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the parent. At this stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the child is dependent-neglected. An adjudication of dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent committed the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is simply dependent-neglected.
See Howell v. Ark. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 138; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248
S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A) (Supp. 2009) defines a “dependent neglected juvenile” as any juvenile who is at substantial risk of serious harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition of “neglect” in section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or omissions of “a parent, guardian, custodian, foster parent, or any person, who is entrusted with the juvenile’s care by a parent,” that constitute:

(i) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the juvenile when the person knows or has reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or has been abused;

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the necessary food, clothing, shelter, and education required by law, . . . or medical treatment necessary for the juvenile’s well-being . . . ;

(iii) Failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile from abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect, or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition was known or should have been known;

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to provide for the essential and necessary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the juvenile, including failure to provide a shelter that does not pose a risk to the health or safety of the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care and maintenance, proper or necessary
support, or medical, surgical, or other necessary care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume responsibility for the care and custody of the
juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume the responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the juvenile that results in the juvenile’s being left alone at an inappropriate age or in inappropriate circumstances, creating a dangerous situation or a situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm.
The evidence introduced at this hearing presented a clear picture of the danger to
children in the ministry compound at Fouke. There was testimony that many children were beaten, including M.B., S.B., and their brother; A.R.; and C.R. Several were placed on fasts. S.O. was given “diesel therapy” and his brother D. was imprisoned in a warehouse for eight months. Alamo slapped S.B. and shoved B.S. against a wall. There was evidence that Alamo molested M.B., and that he “married” several young girls. There was testimony that it was normal for underage girls to be married to much-older men. In spite of the evidence demonstrating that sexual abuse of underage girls, beatings, and fasts were widely known within the ministry, Broderick denied knowing of any potential danger to his children.

The evidence presented at this hearing sufficiently demonstrated that the environment in which Broderick placed his children was dangerous. Given the juvenile code’s goal of preventing the abuse of children before it occurs, if at all possible, we have no hesitation in affirming the circuit court’s finding that these were children dependent-neglected.

Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and MARSHALL, J., agree.
10 CA09-244

THORNE v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

No. CA 09-583.

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I.

April 14, 2010.

RITA W. GRUBER, Judge.

This is one of four appeals decided today that involve children who
were removed from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries compound in
Fouke, Arkansas, in November 2008. The circuit court heard the cases
together in one adjudication hearing. Appellant, Don Thorne, is the
father of three children placed in DHS’s custody. He challenges the
circuit court’s order adjudicating them dependent-neglected. We affirm
the court’s order.

In September 2008, DHS took emergency custody of six minor females who
lived in Tony Alamo’s residence at the Fouke compound. DHS presented
evidence that their parents were aware of beatings administered to the
ministry’s children by adults; that some of the parents and other
children witnessed the beatings; that the parents condoned the
marriage of underage females to adult males and placed their daughters
in the residence of Tony Alamo without parental supervision; that
Alamo sexually abused one of the girls (M.B.1) and spent time in his
bedroom with others; that the parents neglected to provide the
children with proper medical care and education; and that they
condoned extreme disciplinary measures for young children, such as
fasting. On November 18, 2009, we affirmed the circuit courts orders
adjudicating the girls dependent-neglected. See Broderick v. Ark.
Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 771, ___ S.W.3d ___; Seago v.
Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___ S.W.3d ___; Reid
v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 784.

The evidence taken at the girls’ adjudication hearings led DHS to seek
emergency custody of many more children in Fouke. The circuit court
held an adjudication hearing that began on January 12, 2009, for the
Reid, Seago, Broderick, Ondrisek, Krantz, Thorne, Myers, Parrish, and
Avila children. Many of the children sought by DHS, including some of
the Thorne and Myers children, were hidden by their parents or other
ministry adults. The court granted DHS’s motion for directed verdict
as to the Reid, Seago, Broderick, and Ondrisek children because their
siblings had already been adjudicated dependent-neglected. On February
17, 2010, we affirmed appeals from those adjudications because the
appellants had raised their arguments for the first time on appeal.
Today we affirm the orders adjudicating the children of the Thorne,
Krantz, Myers, and Parrish families dependent-neglected.

Don Thorne is the father of a daughter, A.T.1, aged fourteen, and two
sons, A.T.2, born in 1995, and A.T.3, aged twelve. From an earlier
marriage, he is also the father of one of the other appellants, Sophia
Parrish, aged twenty-three. He has been a member of the ministry since
1974, when he was nineteen. There was testimony that A.T.1 lived in
Tony Alamo’s residence. Thorne works for the ministry and lives on its
property in Fouke. At the time of the hearing, his wife, Luisa
Cordero-Thorne, was in hiding with A.T.1 and A.T.3 with Thorne’s help.
Although Thorne claimed to not know where they were, the circuit court
held him in contempt until his wife brought the children back.

The witnesses at the adjudication hearing were G.P.1 (the son of
Carlos and Sophia Parish); J. C. (a former member of the
ministry); M.B.1 (a former member); N. B. (a former
member); S.B. (a former member); H.D. (a former member); Don Thorne;
Sophia Parrish; Carlos Parrish; Bert Krantz; Debra Ondrisek; Miriam
Krantz; Richard Ondrisek; Cindy Allen (a DHS supervisor); Brian
Broderick; Alphonso Reid; Bethany Myers; Rebecca Avila; and Jose
Avila. Nicholas, M.B.1, and S.B. are siblings of M.B.2, who was a
subject of this hearing. J. C. is their aunt. Like Thorne,
the Krantzes, the Parrishes, Bethany Myers, the Ondriseks, the Avilas,
Brian Broderick, and Alphonso Reid are parents of some of the children
with whom this hearing was concerned.

J. C. testified that she was born in the ministry in 1972 and
married her husband when she was sixteen and he was twenty-seven. She
said that the ministry is not a safe environment in which to rear
children and testified at length about its communal lifestyle; its
secrecy; the reporting system that encourages members to inform on
each others’ transgressions; the imposition of fasting as punishment;
and the restrictions on members’ contact with the outside world. She
said that she left because she wanted her children to go to college
and that it was not customary for girls to finish high school because
they usually got married. She gave several examples of girls no older
than sixteen who married grown men. She stated that, in the past, Tony
Alamo had run the organization from prison; that he encouraged parents
to give up their parental authority to him; that the parents adopted
Alamo’s views and were blind to the risks to their children; and that
children were often separated from their parents, as she was at the
age of twelve. She described being in a group of children present when
J. M. was given 140 licks with a three-feet-long paddle at
Alamo’s direction; when it was over, blood seeped through his pants.[
1 ] She said that Alamo had spanked her with a board and had beaten
others mercilessly, and she named numerous people whom she had seen
beaten. J. C. said that, before she left the ministry, her son
confided to her that he was thinking about suicide.

S.B. described being beaten at Alamo’s direction by one of his wives,
Michelle [Mishael] Jones, when S.B. and her sisters M.B.1 and A.B. were living
at Alamo’s residence. She said that A.T.1 (Thorne’s daughter) and L.K.
(one of the Krantzes’ daughters) were in the room during her beating.
She also said that A.T.1, N.M., and M.M. (Bethany Myers’s daughters)
lived in Alamo’s home, which L.K. visited. She stated that Alamo had
slapped her four or five times and that he had hit B.S. (Greg Seago’s
daughter), C.R. (Alphonso Reid’s daughter, aged ten), and A.O. (the
Ondriseks’ daughter). She also said that some girls were forced to
fast. S.B. said that she was threatened with a spanking by John Kolbeck
[Kolbek] if she told anyone what happened at Alamo’s house. She
testified that, in February or March 2008, she and the other girls at
Alamo’s house, including A.T.1 and M.M., were forced by Alamo to
participate in recording Tape No. 564, in which they denied being
molested by him.

In detail, M.B.1 described the ministry’s secrecy and the members’
isolation from the outside world; Alamo’s teaching that the Bible
permitted girls to marry at puberty; her sexual molestation in the
shower by Alamo when she was living in his home; her beating by John
Kolbek; Kolbek’s beating of other children; Alamo’s living
arrangements with adult women and girls as young as age eight; his
time spent alone in his bedroom with the young girls; her
participation in Tape 564 with N.M.1 and M.M.; and being forced to
help hold down S.B. (aged eleven or twelve) while Michelle Jones beat
her. M.B.1 said that she heard B.S. scream while John Kolbek beat her
and that Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged B.S. to the
beating. M.B.1 also said that two men in their twenties had asked her
to marry them and that she had friends her age who had already married
and had children and who hated their lives. She stated that most older
boys leave the ministry; that it is not safe for children; and that
Alamo would continue to control the ministry while he was in jail. She
said that the parents believe that Alamo is a prophet and do not
question his authority.

N. B. described witnessing John Kolbek’s savage beating
of S. O., P. A., and A.O., while the Ondriseks were
present and did nothing. He said that Kolbek once slapped him, but
did not beat him, because N. stated that he was going to leave
the ministry. He explained that it was normal for boys to drop out of
school by the age of seventeen and that there were few boys in school
above the tenth grade, after which he dropped out. He said that he was
forced to fast a few times and experienced “diesel therapy” (being
forced to ride with a driver of a ministry truck). He added that young
girls were at risk of becoming child brides; that J.G. married a man
in his thirties; and that R.S. married when she was fourteen.

H.D., aged seventeen, testified that she had left the ministry when
she was twelve. She said that she was forced to fast for a week at the
age of ten because she had failed to perform a chore after suffering a
head injury in a fall. She stated that the fall caused her to lose
consciousness, and when she came to, people were praying over her; no
one, however, took her to a doctor. In fact, she did not think that
ministry members were supposed to go to the hospital. She said that
she had suffered memory loss and pain and swelling on the back of her
head. She said that her sister had also been placed on a fast. H.D.
described being present when J.G. was informed that she was going to
get married at the age of twelve. She said that she and J.G. were
playing with Barbies when J.G.’s mother [Shelly Garner] received a phone call in which
she learned that the marriage would occur; J.G. and her mother were
upset, and J.G. cried. She said that J.G. had a typical wedding with a
bridal dress and bridesmaids.[ 2 ] H.D. stated that she was taught
that it was permissible to lie to people outside the ministry.

Bethany Myers acknowledged violating the court’s order by not
producing her children for DHS. She said that she had no idea where
her husband and children were. The trial court held her in contempt
and placed her in jail.

Don Thorne denied having any first-hand knowledge that John Kolbek or
anyone else had beaten the children or that children had been forced
to fast. He admitted giving Sophia away in marriage at the age of
twelve. He claimed that the ministry no longer permitted young girls
to marry but admitted that he had heard Alamo preach that the Bible
condones polygamy and the marriage of girls at puberty. Thorne denied
letting A.T.1 live at Alamo’s residence but admitted that she had
stayed there for a couple of weeks. He was untroubled by Alamo’s using
her to create Tape No. 564 without his permission. He acknowledged
that his wife had told him that she had asked John Kolbek to spank
A.T.2 while Thorne was driving a truck for the ministry.

G.P.1, aged seven, testified that his father had spanked him and two
of his younger sisters with a paddle that had their names on it. He
said that both of his parents had slapped him on the face when he was
six, leaving red marks, and that he was afraid of being spanked by
John Kolbek.

Sophia Parrish admitted slapping and “popping” G.P.1 in the mouth on
two occasions but denied leaving any marks. She admitted spanking him
and G.P.2 with a paint stirrer or with her hand. After obviously lying
under oath and being threatened with a perjury charge, Sophia returned
to the stand and admitted that she had spanked G.P.1 with a paddle;
that she had married at twelve when Carlos was nineteen; that her
father had walked her down the aisle; that she had sex with Carlos
when she was twelve; and that she had given birth to a stillborn baby
girl at the age of fourteen. Sophia stated that the Krantzes were at
her wedding, which was widely celebrated by the members of the
ministry. She affirmed that John Kolbek had spanked A.T.2 at his
mother’s request. Sophia said that she had completed only the sixth
grade because she had not wanted to be pregnant while in school. She
stated that her friends had also dropped out when they began having
children, and she listed four other weddings of young girls that she
had attended.

Carlos Parrish testified that he did not believe N. and denied
having witnessed any beatings. He stated that he had no intention of
moving away from the ministry’s property.

Bert Krantz, who was fifty-seven years old at the time of the hearing,
testified that he joined the ministry, in which he is a minister, in
1972, and that he works in disseminating Alamo’s recorded messages. He
admitted that he was present at, and approved of, several weddings of
young girls but said that the ministry had not permitted underage
girls to marry in five or six years. He stated that, although the
Bible condones the marriage of young girls at puberty, he would not
permit his children to marry during their minority, nor would he let
his children fast or be disciplined by anyone else. He stated that he
had never witnessed any physical punishment. He acknowledged having
heard Tape No. 564 but said that it had not concerned him. Bert said
that he believed that Alamo is a prophet and that it would be a sin
against God to leave the ministry. He denied letting Alamo run
anything in his life, but he admitted that he does not drive because
Alamo does not want him to do so.

Miriam Krantz, who is twenty years younger than her husband and is the
custodian of the audiotapes, also said that no one else disciplined
her children; that she was familiar with Tape No. 564; that she also
believes that Alamo is a prophet; that she did not know that Kolbek
had administered discipline; and that, when she attended Sophia’s
wedding, she was aware that Sophia was twelve, but it did not concern
her.

In the adjudication order, the circuit court found the children
dependent-neglected and made extensive findings of fact. The court
found that the Thornes had failed to protect their children against
physical abuse; that they were aware of the pattern and practice of
severe physical beatings; that they endorsed and facilitated illegal
marriages of underage females to adult males; that they neglected the
needs of their children by failing to assure that they received
adequate education and by failing to register their children in an
accredited school with certified teachers or providing legally
approved home schooling. The court also found that the parents
committed or permitted medical and physical abuse by requiring,
condoning, and permitting dangerous, involuntary fasts imposed on
children younger than fifteen, and by failing to have them properly
immunized. The court further found that the parents were aware of
multiple instances when Tony Alamo, through his direction to John
Kolbek or others, intentionally caused physical harm to S.
O., P. A., and A.O. The court found that the parents were
aware of Alamo’s pattern and practice of enforcing adherence to his
will by brutal physical attacks. The court noted M.B.1’s molestation
by Alamo at the age of thirteen. It further found that the parents
were aware that Alamo claimed to be married to multiple wives and that
they permitted and condoned the ministry’s practice of “diesel
therapy.”

The court set the goal of reunification and gave the parents
supervised visitation. Along with other requirements, it directed them
to obtain stable employment and safe and stable housing, separate and
apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and to
maintain them for at least six months. The court directed Thorne to
assist DHS in locating the children currently in hiding with his
spouse. The court expressly found the testimony of M.B., J.
C., S.B., H.D., and N. B. that beatings, forced
fasting, underage marriages, educational neglect, and sexual abuse
occurred credible and stated that there was a pattern and practice of
such abuse. It deemed not credible the testimony of Carlos Parrish,
Sophia Parrish, Thorne, Bert Krantz, and Miriam Krantz that those
abuses did not occur.

Thorne first challenges the evidence supporting the adjudication of
his children as dependent-neglected and contends that there was no
evidence that they were mistreated in any way. He points out that
there was no evidence that they were not immunized; although this is
correct, it does not require reversal, in view of the overwhelming
evidence of other threats to their well-being, which are discussed
below. Thorne also asserts that the evidence does not support the
trial court’s findings that he had educationally neglected his
children, pointing out, correctly, that the Christian A Beka
curriculum used by the ministry’s school is widely accepted, and that
the state does not require private schools to be accredited or that
their teachers be certified. Nevertheless, the evidence demonstrated
that young girls frequently drop out of school long before completing
high school and that the boys, who often are placed on diesel therapy,
do not progress much further. In the ministry, getting a high school
diploma is the exception, not the rule.

Thorne also asserts that the trial court did not judge his case
separately from the others and thereby contravened Arkansas Code
Annotated section 9-27-325(i)(1) (Repl. 2009), which requires
adjudication hearings to be closed. We disagree. First, the trial
court did close the hearing. Second, although the trial court’s
adjudication orders used similar language, it was apparent that the
court considered each case on its own. Third, that statute does not
prevent the circuit court from hearing certain cases together when it
is appropriate, and appellants have cited no authority to the
contrary.

Adjudication hearings are held to determine whether the allegations in
a petition are substantiated by the proof. Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-327(a)(1) (Repl. 2009). Dependency-neglect allegations must be
proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ark. Code Ann. §
9-27-325(h)(2)(B) (Repl. 2009). We will not reverse the circuit
court’s findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Seago v. Ark.
Dep’t of Human Servs., 2009 Ark. App. 767, ___ S.W.3d ___. In
reviewing a dependency-neglect adjudication, we defer to the circuit
court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses. Id. The focus
of an adjudication hearing is on the child, not the parent; at this
stage of a proceeding, the juvenile code is concerned with whether the
child is dependent-neglected. Id. An adjudication of
dependency-neglect occurs without reference to which parent committed
the acts or omissions leading to the adjudication; the juvenile is
simply dependent-neglected. Id.; Albright v. Ark. Dep’t of Human
Servs., 97 Ark. App. 277, 248 S.W.3d 498 (2007).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-303(18)(A) (Repl. 2009) defines a
“dependent-neglected juvenile” as any juvenile who is at substantial
risk of serious harm as a result of abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse,
sexual exploitation, or neglect. The definition of “neglect” in
section 9-27-303(36)(A) includes acts or omissions of “a parent,
guardian, custodian, foster parent, or any person who is entrusted
with the juvenile’s care by a parent” that constitute:

(i) Failure or refusal to prevent the abuse of the juvenile when
the person knows or has reasonable cause to know the juvenile is or
has been abused;

(ii) Failure or refusal to provide the necessary food, clothing,
shelter, and education required by law, . . . or medical treatment
necessary for the juvenile’s well-being . . .;

(iii) Failure to take reasonable action to protect the juvenile
from abandonment, abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, neglect,
or parental unfitness when the existence of this condition was known
or should have been known;

(iv) Failure or irremediable inability to provide for the
essential and necessary physical, mental, or emotional needs of the
juvenile, including failure to provide a shelter that does not pose a
risk to the health or safety of the juvenile;

(v) Failure to provide for the juvenile’s care and maintenance,
proper or necessary support, or medical, surgical, or other necessary
care;

(vi) Failure, although able, to assume responsibility for the care
and custody of the juvenile or to participate in a plan to assume the
responsibility; or

(vii) Failure to appropriately supervise the juvenile that results
in the juvenile’s being left alone at an inappropriate age or in
inappropriate circumstances, creating a dangerous situation or a
situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm.

We reject Thorne’s argument that the circuit court erred in finding
his children dependent-neglected because there was no evidence that
they had personally suffered abuse. As we explained in our November
2009 Seago, Broderick, and Reid opinions, the General Assembly’s
expressed purpose in the juvenile code is to protect
dependent-neglected children and make their health and safety its
paramount concern; a child may be adjudicated dependent-neglected even
if he or she has not yet suffered abuse. Thorne, who lived and worked
in this community for over three decades, was rearing his children in
a secretive, communal environment that included sexual abuse of young
girls, underage marriage, fasting, and beatings. Thorne admitted that
his wife asked John Kolbek to spank A.T.2 while he was absent and
that he gave his twelve-year-old daughter in marriage to an adult man.
A.T.1, who apparently lived in Alamo’s home, witnessed S.B.’s beating
by Michelle Jones. Bethany Myers was one of the people who dragged
B.S. to be beaten by Kolbek. Additionally, Sophia Parrish admitted
“popping” G.P.1 on the mouth, as he had testified. Striking a child
six years of age or younger on the face or head, with or without
physical injury, is abuse. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-303(3)(A)(vii)(a).
Thorne’s assertion that the evidence of corporal punishment should not
be credited because there was no medical evidence is disingenuous in
view of the testimony showing that the ministry discourages its
members from seeking medical assistance.

Thorne’s second argument is that two provisions of the case plan
violate his right to freely exercise his religion as protected by the
United States and Arkansas Constitutions. The circuit court ordered
Thorne to “obtain safe and stable housing separate and apart from the
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its members, and maintain said
housing for at least six months” and to “obtain stable employment
separate and apart from the Tony Alamo Christian Ministries and its
members and maintain said employment for at least six months.” Thorne
contends that, in essence, the case plan makes him choose between his
children and his church.

DHS and the attorney ad litem argue that Thorne failed to make this
argument below and that the circuit court therefore never ruled on it.
We disagree. Thorne’s lawyer raised the constitutional issue at the
beginning of the hearing: “Your Honor, this case is purely a free
exercise of religion case.” Thorne and other witnesses testified about
the importance of communal living within the ministry. When asked
whether living off ministry property would have an effect on his
“Christian walk,” Thorne responded “[a]bsolutely.” The circuit court,
in ruling from the bench on the dependency-neglect issues, recognized
Thorne’s beliefs. “[T]he parents involved have very strong feelings
and very strong convictions concerning their spiritual beliefs and how
they wish to live.” And the court recognized the legal decision it
faced.

[W]e have the intertwining of the allegations of the state
concerning abuse in various forms and various forms of neglect coupled
with the religious and spiritual beliefs of the mothers and fathers
and families that are participants in this case. That right, as given
to us as citizens of the United States, that is freedom of religion to
believe as we cho[o]se I consider to be one of our most important
rights and one that I, as a judge, believe that I am charged to
protect within the law as within the facts.

The circuit court’s order, finally, required Thorne to make
substantial changes in his religious practices to pursue reunification
with his children. Taking this record as a whole, we conclude that
Thorne preserved the constitutional argument.

Every person’s right to make decisions of conscience about religious
matters is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and by an even more
sweeping provision of the Arkansas Constitution. Article 2, section 24
of Arkansas’s Constitution provides, in part, that “[a]ll men have a
natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to
the dictates of their own consciences . . . . No human authority can,
in any case or manner whatsoever, control or interfere with the right
of conscience . . . .” As another court stated the legal principle in
another case involving this ministry, “[r]eligious and political
beliefs, no matter how bizarre and nonconforming, are personal
matters, and the courts are not instruments of orthodoxy charged with
the responsibility of keeping citizens on the ideological straight and
narrow.” Miller v. Tony and Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695, 698
(W.D. Ark. 1990) (Morris S. Arnold, J.); see also West Virginia State
Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). To judge the
constitutional issue fairly, therefore, we must acknowledge and
consider the circuit court’s unchallenged finding about the sincerity
of Thorne’s religious beliefs. We do.

A parent’s right of conscience in religious matters, however,
sometimes collides with state laws of general application promulgated
for the protection of children and other citizens. There are familiar
examples. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) (a state may not
compel Amish children to attend high school until age 16); Prince v.
Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (a child-labor law was
constitutional even though it kept a child from selling religious
tracts as part of her faith); Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the
Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (a state may not
require students to attend public schools; a parent has the authority
to provide, and their child has the right to receive, sectarian
schooling with secular schooling). These fact-specific cases strive
for a delicate balance, one that respects all the important interests
involved: parents’ rights of conscience and of child-rearing and the
state’s interest as parens patriae in protecting children.

Arkansas law recognizes this delicate balance. “Parents, of course,
have a fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their
children. But the State of Arkansas has an equally compelling interest
in the protection of its children.” Porter v. Ark. Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., 374 Ark. 177, 185, 286 S.W.3d 686, 693 (2008) (internal
citations omitted); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-102 (Repl. 2009).
And in child custody disputes, for example, a parent’s religiously
motivated choices and actions are material if they affect a child’s
well being. Hicks v. Cook, 103 Ark. App. 207, 212, 288 S.W.3d 244, 248
(2008). In some cases, the facts tip the balance in favor of
protecting the child, and against the parent’s liberty—even in matters
of conscience and religious conviction. E.g., Prince, 321 U.S. at 167.

This is one of those cases. As the circuit court found, the most
pressing potential danger facing Thorne’s children was simply living
on ministry property. The record is full of testimony about beatings,
sexual abuse, underage marriages, and other problems, all of which
victimized the children of families living on ministry property. In
fashioning its case plan, the circuit court responded to the potential
danger with a narrowly tailored solution—requiring Thorne to obtain
housing separate and apart from the ministry. And because ministry
life was communal in almost every respect, the court also required
Thorne to obtain employment outside the ministry so he could earn the
money to pay for this new housing arrangement and other living
expenses. Here, as the circuit court implicitly concluded, the State’s
interest in preventing potential harm to these children outweighed
Thorne’s conscientious choice to live on ministry property, work for
the ministry, and depend on the ministry for his family’s every need.
We see no constitutional infirmity in the circuit court’s disposition
order on this record. We therefore affirm on Thorne’s second point.

Affirmed.

MARSHALL and BAKER, JJ., agree.
1. See Miller v. Tony & Susan Alamo Found., 748 F. Supp. 695 (W.D. Ark. 1990).
2. A wedding picture from J.G.’s wedding ceremony was introduced into evidence.
Click here to see the photo.

Court upholds seizure of children
Judge: Environment at Alamo compound potentially dangerous

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Wednesday the decisions of Miller County circuit judges concerning the custody of girls removed from Tony Alamo’s house during a law enforcement raid.

“The evidence presented at the hearing overwhelmingly demonstrated that the environment at the compound in Fouke is potentially dangerous for the children of its members,” said an opinion inked by Chief Judge Larry Vaught concerning a girl assigned to Circuit Judge Joe Griffin. “A child may be adjudicated dependent-neglected even if she has not yet suffered abuse. To require (the girl) to suffer the same fate as those whose abuse and neglect were described at the hearing would be ‘tragic and cruel.’”

Alamo, a former evangelist, was sentenced last week to 175 years in federal prison for child sex abuse.

Judges Robert Gladwin and D.P. Marshall penned opinions affirming decisions by Griffin and Circuit Judge Jim Hudson for two other families.

The rulings concerned four of six girls taken into state care Sept. 20, 2008.

Vaught’s opinion denying Greg Seago’s appeal of his daughter’s removal includes the observations of a state psychologist immediately following the raid.

“She said that on the first day she noticed that (two girls) wore wedding-band type rings on the third fingers of their left hands; the next day, the rings were gone,” the opinion said of child sexual abuse expert Dr. Karen Worley of Arkansas Children’s Hospital. “Worley stated that, while the children said that they would follow government law, they truly believed church law, including such beliefs as polygamy and the marriage of girls once they reach puberty.”

Vaught noted that Seago married a 15-year-old when he was 35, failed to intervene when his children were beaten and “failed to protect that child against the risk of sexual abuse by … placing her in the residence of Tony Alamo, whom he knew to be a polygamist. The court also found that Seago had endorsed and facilitated the attempted illegal marriages of underage females including (his daughter) to adult males.”

In Gladwin’s decision affirming Griffin’s ruling regarding two of Brian Broderick’s daughters, the testimony of one of the girls is quoted.

She describes being held down on Alamo’s bed by four of his “wives” and beaten with a board by one of them while Alamo watched with “a smile on his face.”

The opinions also referred to the testimony of several young men who have left the church.

The “iron control” Alamo exercised over his flock and their children is evidenced by examples of children being moved away from their parents at Alamo’s whim, the opinions said.

Danny Ondrisek testified that his mother received a new mini-van and his father an expensive digital camera when his then 10-year-old sister moved into Alamo’s house. Alys Ondrisek remains an Alamo devotee and testified on his behalf at his criminal trial.

Danny Ondrisek’s testimony also alleged that Alamo put the “whole church on a week-long fast when he was eight or nine years old,” the opinion said. As punishment for answering an “outsider’s” questions, Danny Ondrisek was forced to live in a dirty warehouse in New Jersey where he labored unpaid for 12 hours daily.

The testimony of a teenage former member who was “grossed out” when 50-year-old Alfonso Reid asked to marry her, is also mentioned.

“She testified that, when they were tipped off about an upcoming raid, the younger girls who were Alamo’s wives were sent out of Alamo’s residence, and that she observed some pictures of his underage wives being removed from his belongings,” Seago’s opinion said.

When authorities searched Alamo’s bedroom in September 2008, they didn’t find Polaroid pictures of nude girls that some of the Jane Does who testified against Alamo at his criminal trial described.

In the Seago, Broderick and Reid opinions, the judges write that the men complain that the inclusion of housing and employment separate from the ministry as conditions for reunification are unconstitutional.

Because such objections were not made at the trial court level, the issue can’t be appealed, the opinions said.

“Whether or not we take it to the Arkansas Supreme Court or ask for a rehearing, those decisions haven’t been made. I need to discuss this with my clients,” said Houston attorney Clay Conrad, who filed the appeals on the parents’ behalves. “Do I think the opinions they wrote are vulnerable? Yes, I do.”

Florida attorney Phillip Kuhn said he believes the lack of an opinion on the religious freedom issue supports allegations made in a civil lawsuit he filed in federal court on behalf of the ministry, Seago and Bert Krantz, a member with six children in state custody.

The civil suit accuses the Arkansas Department of Human Services of using a child abuse investigation to disband the ministry and of acting in bad faith.

“I’m pleased that the appellate court saw the evidence the way I saw it,” Griffin said. “I felt that all the information provided to the court gave it a strong basis to enter the orders it did. I think the appellate ruling gives the circuit court solid direction on how it should proceed in the future if case goals and directives are not met. Of course, these cases are such that, if circumstances or situations change, then the courts’ future orders can change also.”

Court: State right to move children
Neglect deemed clear at Alamo’s

The state was right to remove children from the compound of evangelist Tony Alamo and declare that they had been neglected, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

The court upheld Miller County Circuit Judges James Scott Hudson Jr. and Joe E. Griffin, who ruled in three cases involving three fathers who challenged the right of the Department of Human Services to take custody of their children.

The appeals court opinions revealed previously undisclosed information from the closed custody hearings.

For instance, victims testified that they had been forced to fast on just water and coffee and had been put on “diesel therapy,” which involved a forced ride with a ministry truck driver.

Chief Judge Larry D. Vaught cited circuit court findings of beatings, underage marriages, involuntary fasts, inadequate education and poor medical care for the children.

“The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the environment at the compound in Fouke is potentially dangerous for the children of its members,” Vaught wrote.

Alamo was sentenced to 175 years in prison last week, three months after a jury convicted him on 10 counts of taking underage girls across state lines for sex, in violation of the federal Mann Act.

Five victims, now between ages 18 and 31, testified that Alamo had taken them as his “wives” at ages as young as 8 and sexually abused them at his house at the compound, about 15 miles south of Texarkana.

In the appeals cases decided Wednesday in Little Rock, the three fathers – Alphonso Reid, Greg Seago and Brian Broderick – denied any knowledge of a pattern of physical or sexual abuse or that anything illegal happened to their children.

The Bible condones fasting, argued Seago. And Broderick claimed that Alamo’s ministry and compound was “a great environment in which to raise children,” according to the opinions.

Seago claimed that the court’s order for him to move off church property and find alternative employment if he wished to be reunited with his daughter violated his First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Vaught and Judges Robert J. Gladwin and D.P. Marshall Jr. ruled unanimously on all three cases. They dismissed the fathers’ arguments, saying that even if their children had not yet suffered abuse, the chances were good that they would if they returned to the compound.

“Given the juvenile code’s goal of preventing the abuse of children before it occurs,if at all possible, we have no hesitation in affirming the circuit court’s finding,” Gladwin wrote in the Broderick opinion.

Alamo founded the ministry with his wife, Susan Alamo, in Hollywood, Calif., in the late 1960s. The ministry later expanded to Arkansas and Nashville, Tenn., attracting hundreds of followers who worked in ministry-owned businesses, including one that designed and manufactured elaborate denim jackets worn by such celebrities as Dolly Parton and Mr. T. Susan Alamo died of cancer in 1982.

After former ministry members contacted the Arkansas State Police, an investigation began that culminated in a September 2008 raid on the Fouke compound.

Federal authorities said after Alamo’s sentencing that they will continue to work with state police and prosecutors to file charges against church members who were complicit in the victims’ abuses.

The Arkansas Department of Human Services, which has placed 36 ministry children in foster care, contends that the children are endangered by practices that include allowing underage marriages and punishing misbehavior with beatings.

At the appeals court, the cases are CA09-350, Alphonso Reid v. Arkansas Department of Human Services; CA09-244, Greg Seago v. Arkansas Department of Human Services; and CA09-351, Brian Broderick v. Arkansas Department of Human Services.

‘Little girl’ determined not to be Alamo ‘wife’

‘I didn’t know what freedom was until I left Tony’s house’

When Nikki Farr ran away from Tony Alamo’s house in Fouke, Ark., she was just 15 and was the first to escape on her own steam.

“I knew when Tony got back I was really going to get it,” Farr said, referring to one day about 11 years ago when she’d been caught a second time making an unauthorized phone call. “There was no way I was going to get beat again. It was fight or flight, and there was no fighting.”

Farr, now 26, has no doubt she was being groomed to become a wife.

After being sent to visit Alamo in federal prison during a stint he did for tax evasion from 1994 to 1998, Farr said she was directed to move in with the “sisters in the house,” a term loyalists use to describe Alamo’s plural spouses.

“I fled for hours,” Farr said of her impromptu trek through the unfamiliar woods she traversed in Fouke. “I crossed barbed-wire fences and two little rivers … I knew I could never go back but I’d decided that if this was heaven, I’d rather have hell.”

Farr said she could never “wrap my head around” the idea of becoming an Alamo bride even though many considered it “their way into heaven.”

“I had two ulcers by age 14,” Farr said. “I fit the profile. I looked like a little girl.”

Farr was not listed in Tony Alamo’s indictment but testified against him at trial. She said July 24, 2009, was the “happiest day” of her life.

“To sit there next to (the Jane Does) and know that I was on the right side,” Farr said. “I finally belonged.”

Farr wasn’t given the opportunity to give victim impact testimony at Alamo’s sentencing because she wasn’t named in his indictment.

“I would have said, not to him but for all that could hear, ‘I wonder who I would have been,’” Farr considered. “I don’t want to use the word robbed … but I feel I could have made such a difference had I been able to find out who I was and what I was good at.

“I didn’t get to appreciate what it was to be an American,” she said. “I was born in the United States of America but I didn’t know what freedom was until I left Tony’s house.”

Farr said she spent her years in Alamo’s house getting in trouble so she wouldn’t be worthy of an Alamo-led wedding ceremony in his bedroom that ended with a forced consummation. The first time she’d been caught using a phone without Alamo’s blessing, she said he shoved her and banged her head into a bookcase. Other floggings she’d suffered were much worse, Farr said.

Farr said she watched video feed in the house from an outside camera until she saw Alamo approaching, knowing one of his wives was about to “report” her for her second phone infraction. That’s when she slipped through a window and into the unknown.

“I had to go. I was thinking, ‘Maybe I’ll die. Maybe I’ll go to hell. Where do I go? I go to the woods,’” Farr said.

After about five hours of running, Farr said, she came upon a house.

“That’s a long story in itself,” she said.

As she recalled the day she began the end of her life in Alamo Ministries, Farr’s breathing increased, her body stiffened and her face flushed.

“A family helped me. I got from Texarkana to L.A. on a Greyhound bus,” she said. “I was convinced that if Tony found out I was still in Fouke he would’ve gotten me back. He had them out searching for me.”

Farr described the days between her escape and debarkation in Los Angeles as “surreal.”

“There was some old guy with a bottle of whiskey on the bus and he kept trying to offer me some,” Farr said. “We passed through Indian towns and weird places.”

On the trip, Farr listened to the “Titanic” movie soundtrack on a Walkman she’d quickly stashed in a leather backpack that carried a change of underwear and a few other personal items.

“It was the first secular music I’d ever heard,” Farr said. “I’d snuck it in.”

Farr, born and raised in the “cult,” had never been alone in the outside world.

“You’re leery of men. You’ve never been allowed to be around them before,” she said. “All the people you should be able to go to for help, police, you are taught to fear. They’re all out to get you.”

Farr’s journey to L.A., melodied by “beautiful music,” ended in a bus station on the east side of the city. Farr, attractive and petite, said she waited for “a few hours” before her mother arrived and took her to ministry property in California.

“She had a couple of banana boxes that had ‘Nikki’s stuff’ written on them,” Farr said.

She was told Alamo was kicking her out of the group and that she could not stay with her mother.

“I was told I could go to juvenile detention or find somewhere to go,” Farr said. “I was given $50.”

Farr said her family had once lived in Chicago, so she chose that as her destination. The isolated life she’d lived left her with little understanding of society and a fear of those among whom she now existed.

“At 15, I had to support myself. I was working two jobs, going to school four hours a day, sleeping two hours a night, it was crazy,” she recalled.

While in Alamo’s house Farr said she had become accustomed to laboring long hours with little sleep and virtually no opportunities for relaxation or entertainment.

“I had to be 30 at 15, but in so many ways I was like a little child,” Farr said.

Farr remembered one day when she was 17, working for a communications business in Chicago, as she stood outside on a smoke break.

“I don’t smoke anymore, but I did then,” she said.

Down the street, Farr said, she could hear a school bell ring and watched as teenaged children walked from the campus with their backpacks and friends.

“Why couldn’t that be me?” she asked. “The older I get the more I realize how much had been taken away from me. I look back and think, ‘Holy crap.’”

Farr said others in Chicago considered her wise beyond her years because of her self-sufficiency. But Farr said she knew she didn’t have a basic understanding of the culture in which she now functioned.

“When I first got out, I loved ’80s music,” Farr said of her taste in 1999. “I didn’t know I was behind.”

When her peers spoke of the television shows and historical events—which her cohorts used as life markers—Farr was at a loss.

“I’d try to cover it up,” she said. “Now, I realize how stupid some of the stuff I said must’ve sounded.”

Farr said she still lives with a hyper-vigilance that makes her appear “jumpy.” She inhaled deeply as she explained how she still feels at times like she’s in water that reaches just below her nose. Her dream is to help children at risk of becoming victims of abuse.

“If you can save them before something happens, then you’ve truly saved them,” Farr said.

A Look at Each Charge Against Alamo

The following is a count-by-count breakdown of the charges pending against Tony Alamo. Penalty ranges were acquired from Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Plumlee.

Count 1

Prosecutors allege that Alamo had sex with Jane Doe No. 1, now 17, while they traveled on his private bus to California in September 2004, when she was 13. She said Alamo “married” her at age 11. She currently lives in Colorado.

Later she was allegedly brought back to Arkansas and continued a sexual relationship with Alamo in his Fouke, Ark., residence.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes rape.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 30 years.

Count 2

The indictment accuses Alamo of having sex with Jane Doe No. 1 after she traveled from Colorado Springs, Colo., to Saugus, Calif. to Fouke, Ark. between August and October 2005 on the minister’s orders. Prosecutors say she was 14 at the time.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes fourth degree sexual assault.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 30 years.

Count 3

Jane Doe No. 2, allegedly married to Alamo at 8, was sent by Alamo, to Moffett, Okla., to visit her family in 2000. Alamo also allegedly dictated when and how she returned to his Fouke, Ark., residence to continue a sexual relationship.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes rape.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 15 years.

Count 4

Jane Doe No. 2 allegedly was sent again by Alamo to Moffett, Okla., to visit her family in 2001. Alamo also allegedly summoned her again to his Fouke residence and continues her sexual relationship with him. She is now 18 and told jurors that child-welfare officials helped her find a job in Arkansas.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes rape.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 15 years.

Count 5

Authorities say Alamo “married” Jane Doe No. 3 while he was in prison in 1998, when she was 14. They say she was sent to Oklahoma by him to allay her father’s fears that she was living with the evangelist. Her father was no longer a church member. Prosecutors say she later returned to Arkansas, where Alamo had sex with her. She is now 25.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 6

Jane Doe No. 3 allegedly traveled with Alamo to Tennessee in 1999 and back to Arkansas, where their sexual relationship allegedly continued.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 15 years.

Count 7

Prosecutors say Jane Doe No. 4, allegedly married to Alamo at 15, traveled on a motor home to New Mexico with Alamo in 1994. The trip was supposed to end in California but ended early because a court date Alamo had regarding an ex-wife and children is postponed.

She is now 33 and lives in Florida.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 8

Jane Doe No. 4 allegedly traveled to West Virginia from Fort Smith, Ark., and back with Alamo in 1994 for a court date. Alamo had traveled there on a custody matter involving an ex-wife.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 9

Jane Doe No. 4 allegedly traveled to Tennessee from Fort Smith at Alamo’s bidding in 1994, while he was on trial for tax evasion in federal court.

Under Arkansas law, the alleged conduct constitutes carnal abuse.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 10 years.

Count 10

Prosecutors say Jane Doe No. 5 and Jane Doe No. 4 flew from Arkansas to California, where Jane Doe No. 5 was sexually assaulted by Alamo. She was 16 then and is 20 now.

Under Arkansas law the alleged conduct constitutes first degree sexual assault.

If convicted, Alamo could receive up to 30 years.

The girls were all underage when the alleged crimes occurred though some were older when they traveled than when they married.

Each of the 10 counts is punishable as well by a fine of up to $250,000.

Jurors convict evangelist on 10 sex-abuse counts

Tony Alamo, a one-time street preacher who became an outfitter of the stars and fought the federal government over claims he underpaid followers for church work, was convicted Friday of taking five girls across state lines for sex.

The jury of nine men and three women found Alamo guilty of transporting girls as young as 9, in violation of a nearly century-old federal law. He was accused in a 10-count indictment that said the abuse started in 1994.

Women ranging from age 17 to 33 told jurors that Alamo “married” them in private ceremonies while they were minors, sometimes giving them wedding rings. Each detailed trips beyond Arkansas’ borders for Alamo’s sexual gratification.

Alamo, 74, never testified. His lawyers told him he should not directly challenge their testimony and they argued to jurors that the girls traveled for legitimate church business.

The evangelist could spend the rest of his life in prison, since each count is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Sentencing will be held in six to eight weeks.

State and federal agents raided Alamo’s compound last Sept. 20 after repeated reports of abuse.

Defense lawyers said the government targeted Alamo because it doesn’t like his apocalyptic brand of Christianity. Alamo has blamed the Vatican for his legal troubles, which include a four-year prison term for tax evasion in the 1990s.

With little physical evidence, prosecutors relied on the women’s stories to paint an emotional portrait of a charismatic religious leader who controlled every aspect of his subjects’ lives. No one obtained food, clothing or transportation without him knowing about it.

At times, men were ordered away from the compound and their wives kept as another Alamo bride. Minor offenses from either gender drew beatings or starvation fasts.

In the end, prosecutors convinced jurors in Arkansas’ conservative Christian climate that Alamo’s ministry offered him the opportunity to prey on the young girls of loyal followers who believed him to be a prophet who spoke directly to God. They described a ministry that ran on the fear of drawing the anger of “Papa Tony.”

Alamo remained defiant as jurors heard testimony for a week. He openly referred to the Branch Davidian raid at Waco, Texas, muttered expletives during others’ testimony and fell asleep at times – while alleged victims spoke from the witness stand and again as prosecutors urged his conviction.

The evangelist built a multi-state ministry on the backs of followers who worked in various businesses to support the church. In the 1980s, he designed and sold elaborately decorated denim jackets, hobnobbed with celebrities and owned a compound in western Arkansas that featured a heart-shaped swimming pool.

Federal agents seized a large portion of his assets in the 1990s to settle tax claims after courts declared his operations a business, not a church. Among items offered for auction were the plans for the studded jacket Michael Jackson wore on his “Bad” album.

The Southern Poverty Law Center considers his ministry a “cult.”

Evangelist Tony Alamo told a girl who questioned one of his orders that he was “still in charge” of his Arkansas religious compound even from a Texas jail cell, according to recorded calls played Tuesday in his sex-crimes trial.

Prosecutors allege that a domineering Alamo took five underage girls across state lines for sex between 1994 and 2005. Defense lawyers say the government targeted Alamo for prosecution because it is anti-Christian. Alamo, who has pleaded not guilty, has also said the Vatican is behind his troubles.

Alamo told the girl, who is not among those he is accused of abusing, to “shut up” when she began to question him, according to the recordings made in Texarkana, Texas, after a raid on his southern Arkansas headquarters.

“Just because I’m in jail, you’ll find out that I’m still in charge. OK, kid? You understand?” Alamo said in the recording.

Earlier in the tape, he threatened to kick the girl out of the community if she didn’t obey.

“You either have to do what you’re supposed to do or get out,” Alamo said. When she began to protest, he interrupted her by saying, “Shut up. Shut your face. Clean up your stinking mess.”

Prosecutors rested their case Tuesday after four days of graphic testimony in which five women said they were “married” to Alamo as teens or preteens and were sexually assaulted by him. They said they traveled to other states for sex with him or responded to his call and returned to Arkansas and had sex with him.

As the defense began presenting its case, Alamo’s legal wife, Sharon Alamo, said his trips with the girls were for legitimate church purposes. Under cross-examination, she said she couldn’t explain a handful of wedding rings found in Alamo’s bedroom.

“Didn’t you notice the girls moving into the defendant’s residence … were getting younger and younger?” Assistant U.S. Attorney Clay Fowlkes asked.

“No, I didn’t,” Sharon Alamo replied.

Later, she said her romantic relationship with Alamo was “over” but wouldn’t elaborate.

“My relationship with him is between myself and God and Tony,” she said. “I know you want me to label it but I just can’t do that.”

Alamo has said the girls, part of his estimated 100-200 followers, were traveling to help spread the ministry’s teachings. His apocalyptic tracts outline his hatred of the Vatican and his feared “one-world government” as well as his belief in flying saucers.

In other tapes played for jurors, Alamo asked a female follower if she was aware of what he did behind closed doors. On another, he makes light of the charges against him.

“Why the hell would I take her across Texas state lines? If I did it in Arkansas, would that be bad?” he asks as women and girls on the other end of the line giggle.

Alamo told reporters on the way to court Tuesday that he planned to take the stand, despite his lawyers’ advice against it.

“I’m going to testify. I’ve already won. They’ve got nothing,” Alamo said.

His legal team said it could call as many as 10 witnesses.

Each of the 10 counts against Alamo is punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

In court Monday, the evangelist blurted out a reference to the 1993 federal raid on the Branch Davidian religious compound in Waco, Texas. Branch Davidian leader David Koresh and dozens of followers died as the complex burned.

The outburst came as defense lawyers argued aboutwhether an FBI agent could say he worried about the safety of Alamo’s followers after the raid there.

“After Waco, they are looking for safety too, from the FBI,” Alamo interjected from the defense table.

Defense lawyer Phillip Kuhn said after the hearing that U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes heard the comment and asked that Alamo “cool it.”

But as Alamo left the courthouse Monday, he remained visibly upset.

“The FBI likes to burn Christians,” he told reporters. “I should be putting them on trial, not them on me. They’re guilty.”

Alamo’s followers set up a Twitter account in his name over the weekend and referenced a statement on his Web site deriding the FBI as “demonic.”

Controversial evangelist Tony Alamo arrived in federal court in Texarkana at 6:45 a.m. and was asked why his lawyers did not want him to testify. Alamo said, “I’m going to testify, they’ve already lost the battle.”

When asked what battle Alamo replied, “They accused me of child pornography, they accused me of transporting girls across state line they can’t do it. They’ve lost and are now coming up with new charges.”

When asked if he believed he was above the trial Alamo replied, “I’ve already won.”

The government rested at about 8:40 a.m. but not before playing prison tapes of Alamo talking to church members. One of the conversations was with a young child.

He said, “I’m getting sick of you kid, you have to do what you have to do or get out. Clean up your stinking mess … you’ll find out I’m still in charge.”

In a separate conversation Alamo said, “Why would I take them across state lines to have sex with them, I can do that in Arkansas and if I did it, would that be bad?”

The defense began at 9 a.m. Tuesday. Attorneys called Tony Alamo’s wife Sharon to the stand. She testified to three trips calling them church related trips. Defense attorney Don Ervin asked if she was aware of any sexual contact between Alamo and the alleged victims on the trips she said “no.”

Sharon Alamo testified she never legally married Tony Alamo. She also confirmed that as many as 13 women and young girls lived with Tony Alamo over 20 years.