Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.
De-Commissioned Forum
June 28, 2022, 08:19:06 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Investigation Findings and Board Action  (Read 15684 times)
HughHoney
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« on: July 01, 2018, 11:48:35 am »

http://www.evergreenchurch.com/update/

(Posted July 1, 2018)

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS AND BOARD ACTION

BOARD RESPONSE

According to Evergreen’s charter and by-laws, its Board of Trustees (See Note A below for information about the Board of Trustees) has final authority over financial and legal oversight, including employment decisions and policy matters. In these areas, the pastors submit to the authority of the Evergreen Church Board of Trustees (EC BOT). This governance authority is designed to provide oversight, accountability and operational integrity for the church.  On January 30, 2018, upon learning of the allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior against Mark Darling (alleged to have occurred prior to 2001) including the charge that the matter was handled inappropriately by pastors, the EC BOT made the decision to recuse all pastors from the investigative process.  The EC BOT also placed Mark Darling on administrative leave.  The EC BOT’s interest in this matter was to determine to the extent possible whether allegations of employee misconduct were true or false; and, if true, determine what the appropriate next steps should be.  The EC BOT chose not to conduct its own internal investigation of the allegations because they believed that this matter needed to be investigated by an experienced person outside the church, with complete independence and without bias.  After thorough due diligence, a highly qualified, independent investigator was selected and retained on February 9, 2018.

THE INVESTIGATOR

The investigator, Ms. Joan Harris Esq., from the law firm of Ogletree Deakins, has over 20 years of experience and has conducted hundreds of investigations. She is a lawyer, but her role in this investigation is as an investigator, not as a lawyer. She is not a litigator in this matter and she is not a legal advocate or counselor for Evergreen Church, Mark Darling, any pastors or the EC BOT.  She was retained by the EC BOT to investigate the facts surrounding the allegations that have been made, independently and without bias, and to report her findings to the EC BOT.

SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION

Ms. Harris was specifically retained to independently investigate the following:

1) allegation made by Suzanne van Dyck against Mark Darling of physical sexual abuse

2) allegations to the effect that Evergreen Church was made aware of allegations of sexual abuse (not physical) and failed to take appropriate action,

3) allegations that Evergreen Church attempted to “cover up” the allegations of abuse and silence Suzanne van Dyck with the offer of a monetary payment, and

4) any related claims that arise.

Other than occasional communications with Nicholas M. Wenner, attorney for the EC BOT, Ms. Harris did not meet with or discuss any of the allegations with the EC BOT until after the investigation was completed and her final report had been delivered to the EC BOT.  The independent investigation was conducted and directed by the investigator not by the EC BOT.

THE INVESTIGATION

As the EC BOT reported in their April 10, 2018 investigation update, on April 5, 2018, two EC BOT members met with Suzanne van Dyck.  At that meeting, she indicated that she would not be participating in the investigation.  However, before the investigation was completed, Suzanne van Dyck did meet with the investigator and was interviewed as a part of this investigation.

The following Evergreen employees were also interviewed by the investigator – Mark Bowen, Mark Darling, Brent Knox and Doug Patterson.

Fourteen other individuals were also interviewed by the investigator (see Notes B and D below) and numerous relevant documents were provided.

Public statements that may have been made by individuals through social media or the news media were not considered as part of Ms. Harris’ investigation unless Ms. Harris obtained the information herself through direct personal interviews.  Ms. Harris’ investigation is only based upon information obtained through personal interviews and any relevant documents provided.

LIMITATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATION

The EC BOT’s interest in this matter was to determine to the extent possible whether allegations of employee misconduct were true or false; and, if true, determine what the appropriate next steps should be.  An investigation of this type is not a legal proceeding or court trial where documents can be subpoenaed or where witnesses are deposed under oath, compelled to testify or subject to cross-examination by opposing parties.  Nor was a jury asked to deliver a verdict based upon evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is an independent investigation conducted by an experienced investigator who tried to uncover, to the extent possible, the facts.  This investigation is also limited by the passage of time.  It is much more difficult to secure detailed recollections and documents from events that occurred 20 to 30 years ago than it would be if the events occurred more recently.

WHAT THE INVESTIGATOR REPORTED (See Note B below)

1) regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by Suzanne van Dyck against Mark Darling

Suzanne van Dyck alleged physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling in a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.  The alleged abuse was said to have occurred prior to 2001.  Investigation findings:

From the investigator’s report: “Based on the interviews conducted during this investigation, Suzanne van Dyck’s individual allegations of sexual abuse, by definition, could not be substantiated.”
While the investigation revealed that some pastors of Evergreen Church had seen the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” prior to Suzanne van Dyck’s post on an online forum on January 24, 2018, the EC BOT first learned of Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling from a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.
 The investigation determined that no one at Evergreen Church knew about this specific allegation prior to January 24, 2018.
2) regarding allegations to the effect that Evergreen Church was made aware of allegations of sexual abuse (not physical) and failed to take appropriate action

While the investigation determined that no one at Evergreen Church knew about Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse prior to January 24, 2018 (an allegation that could not be substantiated by the investigator), the investigation did reveal the following:

In 2001, Suzanne van Dyck provided a letter to pastors Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and John van Dyck addressing concerns with Mark Darling. This letter included the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” and included no allegations of physical contact but stated that she had specific concerns about Mark Darling’s conduct as a pastor that felt abusive to her.  A second draft of this letter was shared with Mark Darling, Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and John van Dyck where the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” was changed to “inappropriate sexual boundaries”.

Additional investigation findings:

In 2001, Mark Bowen, was also aware of at least two other women who had concerns similar to Suzanne van Dyck’s about Mark Darling’s conduct as a pastor (inappropriate conversations of a sexual nature).  (In 2001, apart from Mark Bowen (Chair of the EC BOT), the other members of the EC BOT were not aware of the concerns raised by Suzanne van Dyck and these other women regarding Mark Darling’s conduct, and were not informed of the concerns.).

From the investigator’s report: “ECC failed to take appropriate action in response to misconduct allegations.” In 2001, the four Evergreen pastors, Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson and John van Dyck made aware of Susan van Dyck’s concerns about Mark Darling’s conduct acknowledged those concerns, and engaged with Mark Darling in a process (Matthew 18) over the course of several months in a good faith effort to address her concerns, but failed to follow through and implement appropriate corrective action regarding Mark Darling’s conduct (conduct that failed to meet some of the standards spelled out in Titus 1:6-9 See Note C below).

From the investigator’s report: “ECC has no policies or procedures specific to reporting or receiving discipline” for the misconduct attributed to Mark Darling.
3) regarding allegations that Evergreen Church attempted to “cover up” the allegations and silence Suzanne van Dyck with the offer of a monetary payment.  Investigation findings:

From the investigator’s report: “Mrs. van Dyck appears to rely on standard non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions included in the GCM severance package to prove there was an attempt by Evergreen Church to pay ‘hush money’ in order to cover up the allegations she raised against Darling in 2001.”

When the van Dyck’s left Minnesota for Berlin, Germany, John van Dyck was no longer an employee of Evergreen Church.  He became an employee of Great Commission Ministries (GCM) (now known as Reliant).  Upon the van Dyck’s return to Minnesota, in recognition of John van Dyck’s years of faithful service and the risky nature of the Rock Berlin church plant, the EC BOT was asked to approve a monetary severance package for John van Dyck.  The minutes from EC BOT’s October 13, 2003 Board Meeting indicate that a portion of the severance amount be conditioned upon the van Dyck’s engaging in a process of Christian conciliation.  Communication about the severance package including the preparation of the formal severance agreement was handled by GCM, John’s employer and included standard confidentiality and non-disparagement conditions, and a commitment to engage in a biblical conciliation process to address “unresolved issues in your relationship with Evergreen and its leadership.”  The van Dyck’s refused to sign the severance documents to obtain the entire severance amount; they did, however, receive the portion of the severance amount that was not conditioned on participation in a process of Christian conciliation.  At the time the severance amount was approved by the EC BOT in 2003, and the severance plan was offered by GCM, neither members of the Board of Trustees (other than Mark Bowen), nor personnel from GCM were aware of the issues raised by Suzanne van Dyck with the Evergreen pastors in 2001.

The investigator concluded this severance agreement did not constitute “hush money” or an attempt to cover up the allegations Suzanne van Dyck made in 2001.  (See Note D below.)
 

4) regarding any related claims that arose

Two additional women came forward during this 2018 investigation to make similar claims regarding Mark Darling’s conduct that they experienced prior to 2001; neither made claims of physical sexual abuse. 

From the investigator’s report: “the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct. . . .”  Specifically, this conduct included spending time alone with women in private settings and inappropriate conversations with women of a sexual nature.
BOARD ACTIONS

Based on the investigation findings, the EC BOT, in unanimous agreement, will proceed with the following disciplinary action (See Note E below):

The EC BOT rescinds Mark Darling’s ordination.  He will remain on paid leave as an Evergreen employee and will be presented an opportunity to follow a restoration process established by the EC BOT.  He will not regain his status as an ordained pastor nor return from leave until the EC BOT and an outside third-party, acting on behalf of the EC BOT, determine that he is ready to do so.

The church has been informed that Mark Darling has resigned.

The EC BOT will participate in and oversee the process of restructuring the Executive Ministry Team (EMT).  Mark Bowen will step down as EC BOT Chair.
Based on the investigation findings, the EC BOT, in unanimous agreement, will participate in and oversee the development and implementation of policies and procedures and the appropriate leadership structure to correct the organizational deficiencies revealed in the investigation.

The EC BOT will retain Ms. Harris’ law firm, Olgetree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., to assist with the development of the appropriate policies and reporting procedures.

The EC BOT will retain an appropriate third-party to assist with employee training.

The EC BOT, with third-party assistance, will work with the pastors to develop procedures to address pastoral accountability, performance improvement planning and discipline.

The EC BOT, with third-party assistance, will work with the pastors to develop a “grievance process” and specific ways we can further open communications and improve the culture of safety in our church.
The EC BOT is committed to providing the congregation with quarterly update reports on the progress on each of the action items listed above.

NOTE A
EVERGREEN CHURCH BOARD OF TRUSTEES
According to Evergreen’s charter and by-laws, its Board of Trustees has final authority over financial and legal oversight, including employment decisions and policy matters. In these areas, the pastors submit to the authority of the Board. This governance authority is designed to provide oversight, accountability and operational integrity for the church. 
The Board carries out their responsibility in several ways, here are some examples:

Approving the annual church operating budgets.
Monitoring the budget and financial health of the church on a quarterly basis.
Approving all major church financial transactions.
Developing and monitoring compliance with financial, legal and employment policies.
Determining and approving employee compensation and benefit plans.
Qualifications/Term Limits

Per the church by-laws, the minimum qualifications to serve as a Trustee shall be that of a man or woman qualified to serve as a Pastor or Elder of the Church, or as a deacon of the church, as such terms are defined in the New Testament (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1). There must always be at least one person from the Executive Ministry Team (EMT) on the Board and this person is exempt from any term limits.  The Finance Director must always be on the Board and is exempt from any term limits.  The Operations Manager must always be on the Board and is exempt from any term limits.  All other Trustees shall serve a three-year term and shall serve a maximum of two consecutive terms before a minimum of one year off the Board.  Trustee membership should include representation from each of the Church’s locations.  The number of non-staff Trustees serving on the Board must exceed the number of the staff Trustees serving on the Board.  No Trustee shall receive payment for serving on the board.

 

Selection Process

When a vacancy occurs on the Board of Trustees or a term expires or when the said Board has
determined to increase the number of Trustees, nominees are presented to the Board based upon recommendations from a location’s pastors in consultation with location leaders and the current location trustee.  Such vacancies and/or new positions shall be filled only by the unanimous affirmative vote of the then current Board, after consideration of the qualifications of such nominee(s).

Current Trustees

Pastor Mark Bowen, Executive Ministry Team, Board Chair – recused from all matters related to the investigation
Lynn Newman, Operations Manager, Board Secretary
Jim Bird, Finance Director
Terry Kriesel, Bloomington location
Teri Polson, Lakeville location
Brad Zielke, New Hope location
Todd Goodwin, Rock location
Jeff Hudson, Urban Refuge location

NOTE B

In this document, the EC BOT has communicated the investigator’s conclusions and findings regarding the specific allegations the EC BOT asked her to investigate.  The full investigator’s report is a confidential document for the EC BOT only and the EC BOT will not release the entire report.  Other than what is reported here, its contents will not be shared or discussed with anyone including Evergreen staff and pastors. The EC BOT will also not release the names of all the witnesses who participated in the investigation.  Many witnesses came forward with the understanding that what they were sharing was confidential.  Furthermore, it is likely that some people with information about the matters being investigated would not have come forward and participated in the investigation if they knew their identity and the contents of their interview would be made public. Redacting names from the report would not fully protect the identity of the individuals who participated. The EC BOT is not willing to compromise the privacy of any employee or other individuals who chose to participate in the investigation.  While releasing the full report may make the EC BOT look “transparent”, the EC BOT is unwilling to expose the identity and personal details of individuals involved in the investigation simply because it might, in the eyes of some, enhance the EC BOT’s image (i.e., by being completely transparent). 

NOTE C

Titus 1:6-9 New International Version (NIV)
6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

NOTE D

As indicated above, public statements that may have been made by individuals through social media or the news media were not considered as part of Ms. Harris’ investigation. Evergreen Church’s stated position has been that we will not engage this matter on social media. However, posts made by Suzanne van Dyck on May 26, 2018 and June 5, 2018 warrant a response from the EC BOT because they mischaracterize comments attributed to the investigator, Ms. Harris.

Among the relevant documents provided to Ms. Harris were two letters drafted by Suzanne van Dyck to Mark Darling, including a copy of the original draft and a copy of the revised draft that was provided to Mark Darling.  The original draft did not include a section that was “crossed off”. 

No member of the EC BOT was advised by Ms. Harris to release the investigation report to the public. Although Ms. Harris advised that the EC BOT maintain transparency throughout the process, including the release of findings from the investigation, she agreed that witness confidentiality was paramount.

Based on the investigation report and accompanying relevant documents, there were no e-mail communications directly or indirectly to the van Dyck’s from any member of the EC BOT or Evergreen staff regarding the offer of a severance agreement. The relevant document provided by Ms. Harris contains emails and summaries of communications between the van Dyck’s and GCM.
NOTE E

From the Evergreen Church Employee Handbook:

PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE

The purpose of this policy is to state EC’s position on administering equitable and consistent discipline for unsatisfactory conduct in the workplace.  The best disciplinary measure is the one that does not have to be enforced and comes from good leadership and fair supervision.

EC’s own best interest lies in ensuring fair treatment of all employees and in making certain that disciplinary actions are prompt, uniform, and impartial.  The major purpose of any disciplinary action is to correct the problem, prevent recurrence, and prepare the employee for satisfactory service in the future.

Although employment with EC is based on mutual consent and both the employee and EC have the right to terminate employment at will, with or without cause or notice, EC may use progressive discipline at its discretion.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 12:04:47 pm by HughHoney » Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2018, 11:50:41 am »

nothing is posted yet is it? I just see the June 5 update still.
Logged
HughHoney
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2018, 11:52:45 am »

it's posted - July 1 update
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2018, 11:56:32 am »

Your right..I didn't update the page, but I opened a new browser and it's there.
Logged
Isthisreal?
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2018, 12:34:24 pm »

Nice job clarifying ECC board. Lots of false information and skewed ideas from this group, and social media  that stand corrected. 
Logged
OneOfMany
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 252



« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2018, 12:38:54 pm »

Nice job clarifying ECC board. Lots of false information and skewed ideas from this group, and social media  that stand corrected. 

We don't know what was incorrect and what was not because the documents are not being shared. What is clear is that Mark Darling did indeed cross boundaries and was sexually inappropriate.

Ongoing the problem of inappropriate sexual conversation both from the stage, in meetings and in small/growth groups is still not addressed. The problem is systemic throughout the organization because Mark Darling and Brent Knox set the standard.
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2018, 12:40:00 pm »

Nice job clarifying ECC board. Lots of false information and skewed ideas from this group, and social media  that stand corrected. 

Make sure you include all the posts from Jeromy Darling and collective that posted many false statements on this board as well.  Keep in mind that only the BOT summary was posted not the investigative report.  Just because something couldn't be substantiated doesn't mean it didn't occur.
Logged
Isthisreal?
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 38



« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2018, 12:45:46 pm »

Of course....forever the critics, never satisfied. I am so sorry. Have you ever thought of forgiving and moving on to better things?
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2018, 12:51:02 pm »

Of course....forever the critics, never satisfied. I am so sorry. Have you ever thought of forgiving and moving on to better things?

Kind of early for you and Evergreen to start moving on don't you think?

Your pastors and church haven't even directly apologized to all of the women that were abused yet.  Such grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation is watered down and is a cheap substitute for the genuine thing.
Logged
HughHoney
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2018, 12:53:59 pm »

Quote
The full investigator’s report is a confidential document for the EC BOT only and the EC BOT will not release the entire report.  Other than what is reported here, its contents will not be shared or discussed with anyone including Evergreen staff and pastors.

 Shocked
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2018, 01:15:29 pm »

Your next comment was questioning whether or not an NDA actually exists (you know, the NDA in which the "total and complete accusation was that Mark hugged her at a karate class", that NDA) followed by criticizing John for obeying the non-existent NDA.

So much to process.

And, I repeat Huldah's question.

How do you know all this?
In my comment about John, I'm simply questioning the logic of this story and specifically the logic of the existence of an NDA. I have heard one does not exist.


You have heard a NDA does NOT EXIST?    Well it does, so you have been lied to , along with many of us.
 I asked my brother John van Dyck, if he had signed a NDA in the 1990's. He said "YES he had."  He did not give details.  I told him to his face that I was very upset he would have done that and that it was wrong.  I told him a lot of other things.  It was clear to him I was not happy with this being done.   If nothing inappropriate happened, why was a Non-disclosure signed? 

This stinks of a cover-up, and a huge stain on the church that Jesus loves and died for. 

The BOT also did not confirm or deny that a NDA between pastors existed.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2018, 02:00:32 pm »

A public apology to the victims would be a huge step in the right direction. An apology for the inappropriate conversations. An apology for the attacks and calling the victims liars (by MD supporters and relatives). An apology for refusing to admit the truth in the claims back in January.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2018, 02:06:38 pm »

Concerning Note D in the above statement, Joan Harris told me to my face that she spoke to “Evergreen” about releasing a report directly from her. That she would be able to write a separate report from the one the BOT would receive, that would be acceptable for release directly to the public. She then told me that they declined her offer. I don’t know who exactly at Evergreen she made that offer to as she did not give me a name.
Logged
searching
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2018, 02:16:30 pm »

The lies and slander continue about Suzanne. Bank fraud??? Really?

As far as I know as well all the Darling children including Jeromys Salvage project ministry have already  or plan on leaving Great Commision churches. If that is incorrect please make that known however a credible source informed me of that as well. Suzanne seems to also have been or is being investigated for bank fraud, and Joan concluded most of her allegations that involved physical touch were not true. As we see from the posting of BOT findings two other victims who came forward alleging innaproprate sexual conversations were valid. Praying for healing for everyone including evergreen, the rock, the Darlings, and most importantly the victims.
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2018, 02:28:54 pm »

and Joan concluded most of her allegations that involved physical touch were not true. As we see from the posting of BOT findings two other victims who came forward alleging innaproprate[sic] sexual conversations were valid.

I'm willing to evaluate your above statement Gracetoyou.  I didn't find this statement in the findings the BOT released.  Can you please tell us where you gained this additional information?

It wouldn't surprise me if the Darlings go on to continue their "ministries" elsewhere.  Jim McCotter, Mark Driscoll, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, other abusive leaders have done the same.  What gainful employment can Mark seek at the present time that would give him the same level of salary, power, and prestige he has received as a pastor?
Logged
OneOfMany
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 252



« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2018, 02:30:18 pm »


It wouldn't surprise me if the Darlings go on to continue their "ministries" elsewhere.  Jim McCotter, Mark Driscoll, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, other abusive leaders have done the same.  What gainful employment can Mark seek at the present time that would give him the same level of salary, power, and prestige he has received as a pastor?

Shivers in horror.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 995



« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2018, 02:54:50 pm »

and Joan concluded most of her allegations that involved physical touch were not true.

"Unsubstantiated" doesn't mean "not true." It simply means that it can't be proven.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 02:57:27 pm by Huldah » Logged
MoveOnNow
Obscure Poster (1-14 Posts)
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2018, 03:06:45 pm »

Searching why don’t you ask Suzanne yourself if you know her personally about the financial fraud of her business ? Which I’ve heard as well. I’m sure Joan discovered it while investigating everything. Do you know her personally? Why is she so quite on social media all of a sudden? because she was exposed by Joan to be lying about the physical allegations? my theory is she acted more like a surrogate for the victims that Joan was able to verify as having credible allegations against Mark? I would assume the darling family feels betrayed by gcc and thats why they have all decided to leave as an act of support for their father.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 995



« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2018, 03:16:44 pm »

Why is she so quite on social media all of a sudden? because she was exposed by Joan to be lying about the physical allegations?

Where does the report say any such thing? It only says that Suzanne was unable to prove the physical incidents. That's what "unsubstantiated" means.
Logged
Gracetoyou
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #19 on: July 01, 2018, 03:32:19 pm »

I didn’t mean to delete my last post. Was Natalie’s accusation proven? I was also told that Joan couldn’t prove her allegations as well.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1