The following is the GRACE's September 8, 2010, "Supplement to GRACE Amended Final Report."
The text, with all footnotes, is available online at
That site does make it possible to download the report, but only if you
log in to Facebook and give consent to share all of your Facebook
data. That seems an unnecessary invasion of privacy, especially
for MKs, who indisputably should be able to obtain the material without
giving up any privacy. Hence, this writer has copied the text
page by page.
Some of the footnotes -- those supporting statements by MKs -- merely
give coded numbers of MKs. Those footnotes are omitted from the
text that follows. All footnotes that include statements are
included, with the number in parentheses, and are placed at the end of
the paragraph in which they occur.
Spelling errors, minor grammatical errors such as "it's" for "its", and
minor stylistic discrepancies such as converting "MK#x" to "MK #x",
have been corrected.
Now, the report, as described above:
At the request of NTM, GRACE is providing additional detail as to the
information obtained with respect to six current or former NTM
personnel. To assist NTM in assessing this evidence, GRACE shall
elaborate on pertinent definitions of sexual abuse, physical abuse or
other misconduct and will also consider these definitions in the
context of NTM's child protection policy manual. Based on this
manual and various clinical and legal definitions of child
maltreatment, as well as the evidence summarized in the GRACE report
and this supplementary report, GRACE stands behind its personnel
recommendations with respect to five of these personnel. A sixth
individual has scheduled a conference call with GRACE and we will wait
until after the call to finalize our information for NTM.
Sexual abuse or other sexual misconduct
Although New Tribes Mission was communicating some sort of child abuse
policy to field workers as early as 1992, (1) their first written
policy was in place at least by 2000 with amendments made in 2002 and
2009. The current "NTM-USA Child Protection Manual" was revised
in February 2010.(2) According to this manual, "New Tribes
Mission has zero tolerance for those who abuse children ... These
policies and guidelines pertain to NTM-USA members, volunteers and
children."(3) NTM-USA applies its child abuse policies to any
child under the age of 18.(4)
(1) According to Field Committee notes from 1992, the policy on child
sexual abuse was as follows: "If it is a homosexual act with a
child the person will be dismissed immediately and may never be
considered for membership in the mission again. If it is a
heterosexual act the person will be dismissed immediately but could be
considered for ministry again in the future depending on the
case. If it occurs on the field it is not necessary to report it
to the Senegalese or U.S. authorities. It must be investigated as
not doing so could be ruinous for the mission."
(2) NTM-USA Child Protection Manual (revised February 2010)
(3) Id. at 2.
(4) Id. at 3.
NTM-USA defines sexual abuse as including, but not limited to "verbal,
visual, and/or physical touch."(5) Visual sexual abuse includes
"peeping" and physical sexual abuse is defined as including "holding,
and kissing for the purpose of sexual gratification."(6) The
NTM-USA Child Protection Manual makes it clear this policy will be
NTM-USA will not accept an applicant who has been, at any
time during his/her adult life, convicted or confirmed
through an internal investigation of child sexual or
physical abuse. If any information unknown to NTM-USA at
the time of acceptance comes to light regarding a
conviction or confirmation through an internal
investigation of child sexual or physical abuse by a
member, that individual will be permanently dismissed.
An individual will not be allowed to serve with NTM-USA
where screening or other information reveals behavior
that reasonably indicates he or she would pose a risk of
sexually or physically abusing a child.7
(5) Id. at 3.
(6) Id. at 12
(7) Id. at 5.
The child protection manual of NTM-USA is consistent with the clinical
definitions of sexual abuse GRACE provided in its original and amended
report. The NTM-USA definition of sexual abuse as applying to any
child below the age of 18 is also consistent with many criminal
codes. In a number of states, unlawful sexual conduct includes
sexual contact with a child below the age of 18.(8) In 1978, New
Tribes Mission became headquartered in the state of Florida. In
Florida, it is a felony for a person 24 years of age and older to have
sexual activity with a 17 year old child.(9) Some version of this
statute dates back at least to 1943.(10)
(8) Charles A. Phipps, Children, Adults, Sex and the Criminal Law: In
Search of Reason, 22(1) SETON HALL LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL 1, 131,
136-141(1997) (noting that 48 states set the age of consent for sexual
penetration at 16 or higher. Six of these states set the age of consent
at 17 and twelve of these states, including Florida, set the age of
consent at 18).
(9) Fl. Stat. 794.05.
(10) See Rye v. Florida, 15 So.2d 255 (1943).
Physical Abuse and emotional maltreatment
Although corporal punishment was banned at the Fanda boarding school by
1993, and is now banned at all NTM boarding schools, GRACE recognizes
that corporal punishment was allowed at the school during much of its
operation. In recommending disciplinary action, GRACE selected
offenders and actions which, even under the standards in place under
criminal or civil codes at the time, would likely have been considered
(11) Christian Psychologist Dr. James Dobson is an advocate of corporal
punishment and yet in a 1978 publication he states that caretakers
should not spank for "accidents" or "mistakes" and that a caretaker
should never be "mean" or "harsh." Punishment inflicted under
these circumstances or in an atmosphere of "fear and oppression" is
improper. DR. JAMES DOBSON, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (1978).
In considering whether or not corporal punishment is excessive, courts
consider the child's age, the type of discipline inflicted, the means
used, the degree of injury or pain, and whether the punishment was
justifiable.(12) The issue of whether or not punishment was
"justifiable" has been considered by American courts as early as
1931.(13) Punishment is unjustifiable "when it is not warranted
by the circumstances, i.e., not necessary, or when such punishment,
although warranted, was excessive."(14)
(12) JOHN E.B. MYERS, EVIDENCE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT CASES THIRD EDITION VOLUME 1, page 301 (1997).
(13) People v. Curtiss, 300 P. 801 (1931).
These legal definitions of excessive force are consistent with NTM's
child protection manual, which defines physical abuse of a child as
that "which results in potential or non-accidental physical harm from
an interaction within the control of a parent or person in a position
of responsibility, power, or trust. Inflicted physical injury
most often represents unreasonably severe corporal punishment or
unjustified punishment. Physical abuse may involve single or
(15) NTM-USA Child Protection Manual (revised February 2010), p. 4.
In speaking of the punishments inflicted, many of the MKs themselves
made it clear that, even under the standards of that era, the
punishments they received were excessive. One MK noted "I call it
beating because we got spankings at home from my parents, and these
were not spankings. They used objects and were very
excessive." Another MK stated the "word 'spanking' is
inaccurate. It was not spanking, it was beating ... I was
spanked by my father, but it was always out of love." When
describing the difference between the corporal punishment she received
at Fanda with the corporal punishment she has inflicted as a mother,
another MK explained "I spank my kids and they can walk afterwards."
GRACE recommends that NTM consider these pertinent standards and, in
particular, its own child protection manual in making personnel
decisions. With respect to NTM's request for additional
information, GRACE provides the following additional information in
In a report dated January 14, 2003, Stan Donmoyer details a
conversation with a missionary and his wife and also with an MK (for
purposes of this section the MK will be referenced as "MK #1") who was
an adult at the time. While discussing revelations of sexual
abuse at the Fanda Missionary Boarding School, MK #1 became very
emotional and, during the course of the evening, gave a very detailed
account of being sexually abused by Reginaldo Goulart while at the
boarding school. During the course of this conversation, MK #1
also spoke of a second MK (MK #2) who told her that when she was at the
boarding school, MK #2 woke up several times and saw Mark Adams in the
room. According to the statement taken by Mr. Donmoyer, Mr. Adams
"would walk in and flash his light over their bodies, but they were
afraid and so just pretended to be asleep." MK #1 also reportedly
told Mr. Donmoyer that MK #2 reported "I know the way he touched me was
not right." However, GRACE interviewed MK #2 and she believes the
reference was to the effect "the way he looks at me was not
right." Although there are some conflicting documents, it appears
MK #1 was never in the Adams dorm and was relating events told her by
(19) In Mr. Donmoyer's report, he states he allowed the MK to speak at
length without interruption and this could explain why, when he later
turned the statement into a lengthy report, he did not correctly record
the statements made from MK #1 regarding Mr. Adams.
Mr. Donmoyer's report also summarizes a conversation with the parents
of MK #1, which was taken the same night as Donmoyer's conversation
with MK #1. According to this report, these parents recalled
"while in the states ... they went to visit the Adams and that Mark
just kept staring at" MK #1's "bust which they all noticed." That
night, MK #1 "refused to sleep anywhere but with her folks."
GRACE communicated with MK #1's father and he confirms that this visit
took place and that Mr. Adams was staring at his teenager's breasts to
the point where he "stood up, went over the table and placed myself
between (my daughter) and him, looking straight in his eyes. Then
all noticed what I did, and he didn't know if he would hide under the
table or what." The father also confirmed his daughter's fear of
the sleeping accommodations and that she slept in the same room as her
MK#1 also confirmed these events to GRACE.
MK #2 informed GRACE that while living in the dorm there was a man who
came into the dorm at night and stared at each girl as they lay in
bed. MK #2 said the girls wore only their underpants because of
the heat. This man would stare and MK #2 said she would lie very
still because she was scared. MK #2 does not have a clear memory
of the man but believes it was either Mark Adams or Bill
Poortvliet. However, this MK subsequently told GRACE she realizes
it was Mark Adams because, in part, she recalled how long he looked at
another girl who was in the Adams' dorm. When Mr. Adams came to
her bed, she pretended to be asleep.
GRACE interviewed Mr. Poortlviet who denies ever entering the girls'
dorm during the night. GRACE also interviewed Mr. Adams who
acknowledged entering the girls' dorms at night for legitimate purposes
such as checking the mosquito netting around the girls' beds. Mr.
Adams acknowledges that while conducting these checks, he may have
touched a girl but "to me, it was not sexual." Mr. Adams
acknowledged to GRACE that it may have been a better idea to have his
wife check the girl dorm rooms but that she was often busy taking care
of their own children.
After the release of the GRACE report, a male MK contacted GRACE and
questioned the contention that Mr. Adams checked mosquito netting, at
least not in the boys' dorm. Specifically, the MK reports:
I would also like to add that I was in the dorm at this
time, and to my recollection the only time anyone ever
came into our room late at night and shone flashlights on
us was when we were making noise and not settling down.
I don't recall Mark or anyone else ever coming to our
room after lights out for the sole purpose of checking
our mosquito nets. I remember several times waking up
and noticing the net untucked, so it was a problem. But
I never recall Mark or anyone else coming into the room
to remedy this in the middle of the night. And I was a
After the release of the GRACE report, MK #2 has written GRACE twice
and challenged the claim that Mr. Adams was simply checking mosquito
netting in the girls' dorm room. In the first e-mail the MK wrote
"I still don't feel his intentions were simply to 'check the mosquito
nets' as he put it." In a second e-mail, the MK wrote she was
"terrified of Mark coming into my room at night. This was the
year my panic attacks started."
A third MK living in the Adams dorm described herself to GRACE as a
sound sleeper but acknowledged that other girls told her about Mr.
Adams coming into the girls' dorms with a flashlight and that they were
A fourth MK told at least one other person that "something" happened
with Mr. Adams and reported this to her parents on a holiday
break. The MK's parents confronted Mr. Adams about this incident
and the MK apparently was outside the room and was upset when her
parents accepted Mr. Adams' explanation for this event.
Unfortunately, the MK has not responded to requests from GRACE to speak
about this reported incident and thus GRACE is unable to conclude that
this was related to Mr. Adams' entering of the girls' rooms at night.
From the information provided by NTM, it appears Mr. Adams resigned from NTM on May 1, 1994.
In the amended GRACE report, an incident was described in which an 8
year old MK was disciplined in the Adams dorm. This MK informed
GRACE she was one of three girls paddled for jumping on beds and that
the bruises lasted for several days. GRACE re-interviewed the MK
who was paddled when she was 8 and she informed us her paddling was
inflicted by Mrs. Adams, not Mr. Adams. However, Mr. Adams identified
an older girl he acknowledges having paddled, but could not remember if
the paddling left any bruises. He does recall that shortly after
the incident, he was directed by Bob Ames that all future spankings of
the female MKs should be carried out by Mrs. Adams. GRACE
corroborated this paddling episode with the identified female MK and by
one additional witness to at least part of the event.
Whether it is the conduct in the girl dorms, the incident in his own
home with a teenage MK, there is credible evidence that Mr. Adams
violated NTM's child protection policies.
In reviewing documents provided by NTM as well as interviewing more
than one witness with knowledge of the events, GRACE finds credible
evidence that Donna Beach engaged in intimate contact with a child who,
at best, was 17 years old. It appears that Ms. Beach was
approximately 31 at the time.
Although GRACE is aware of no evidence that Ms. Beach has
inappropriately touched any other child since the events discussed in
this report, GRACE considers the NTM policy on sexual contact with a
minor to be prudent and consistent with best practices for employers in
responding to instances of maltreatment. The actions of Ms. Beach
directly contradict the NTM policy on sexual contact with a minor.
One MK described Audrey DeJager as "strict and mean" who would "spank"
for a bad score on a test. This MK said that "Audrey nit-picked
... it was as though Audrey was trying to find something wrong with the
kids actions." The MK recounted an incident in which she was
physically disciplined for writing in a notebook. The MK reported
that Ms. DeJager beat her with a paddle and used such force that the
A second MK recalled an incident in which Ms. DeJager used such force
on a child that the paddle broke. This MK also recalled an MK
being taken into a "closet" (a room between the classrooms which
contained construction paper, etc) and beaten by Ms. DeJager with such
force that "I literally looked out the window because I thought
elephants were coming." The MK vividly remembers the "wailing" of
the child who was being beaten.
This second MK also spoke of cruelties inflicted upon her by Ms.
DeJager. The MK told GRACE of a time when Ms. DeJager refused to
allow her to go to the bathroom and she ended up urinating in her pants
while sitting in class. This same MK recalled a time when she was
instructed by Ms. DeJager to throw out some paint. The MK threw
it out in a wash basin. Unbeknownst to her, Ms. DeJager wanted
the paint thrown outside. She instructed the MK to wash out the
basin and then come to her house later that evening for
punishment. When the MK arrived at the house, Ms. DeJager was
cooking and wearing an apron. The MK does not recall in which
room she was struck or how many blows were administered. She does
recall "trembling" even before she was struck and she recalls that Ms.
DeJager struck her with a "very large" paddle with a flat handle.
The MK described Ms. DeJager as "terrifying" in the
manner in which she struck children.
At the request of NTM, GRACE e-mailed Ms. DeJager to inquire whether
she had any further information about these incidents. Ms.
DeJager declined to speak with GRACE, indicating she did not trust us.
Judy and Hammy Penner
GRACE interviewed or received written correspondence from ten MKs who
reported that the punishment inflicted by Judy and/or Hammy Penner was
excessive. Two MKs recall Judy Penner forcing them to eat their
One MK reports that Judy Penner slapped her in the face and also
"spanked" her if she was crying in bed. One MK reports that Judy
Penner broke her arm (hairline fracture) and this incident is
corroborated by a second MK. One MK says Mrs. Penner removed him
from class and "spanked" him because his toothbrush was not wet.
One MK reports Mr. and Mrs. Penner took him from his dorm room bed and
shined a gas light in his face until he told them what he did wrong
that day. Two MKs report that Mrs. Penner called them derogatory
names such as "stupid" and "ugly." One MK describes the emotional
and physical abuse she endured by Mrs. Penner to be worse than the
sexual abuse she endured from Mr. Brooks and that she still has
nightmares about the Penners. To get a sense of the strong
emotion expressed by a number of MKs, consider this posting on the
Fanda Eagles blog:
... this woman (and to a lesser extent her husband)
should never, ever have been responsible for children, in
any country at any time. She has affected my life and my
view of myself to such a huge level ... I was also forced
to eat my own vomit, and had the belt buckle scars, and
lived in fear of god's wrath, and was ridiculed and told
in exact words that I was ugly and weird for not
measuring up to an impossible standard I could never
Although several MKs remember the conduct of Mr. Penner was less severe
than that of Mrs. Penner, one MK recalls that both Mr. and Mrs. Penner
spanked him on his bare bottom with objects and that he suffered
welts. A female MK recalls Mr. Penner pulling up her nightgown
and whipping her with a belt buckle on the back of her legs.
Although GRACE was not allowed to interview the Penners prior to the
original release of the report, two MKs reported having confronted Mr.
and Mrs. Penner about their past conduct and that the Penners
apologized. Mr. Penner recently communicated with GRACE and
wrote, "We absolutely deny the allegations made against us personally."
In the original report, GRACE noted as a mitigating factor the Penner's
actions to protect children from being abused by Phil Gates. In
addition, Mrs. Penner was also proactive in protecting children from
the sexual misconduct of Norm Livingstone. Since this conduct
stands in such stark contrast from the actions of others who knew or
should have known about sexual abuse at the school, GRACE has balanced
this conduct against conduct that was abusive.
Additional corroborating evidence
As noted in the original report, many MKs suffer from depression and
other medical and mental health conditions, have had suicidal thoughts
and actions, and have struggled with chemical addictions. These
and other conditions are consistent with having endured trauma such as
was reported to GRACE.
GRACE also considered various statements made by those recommended for
disciplinary action. Of the 20 personnel recommended for
disciplinary action, GRACE interviewed 11. Two additional
personnel declined to speak with GRACE prior to the issuance of the
report but did speak with others about their actions. Of the
remaining seven, five were interviewed by NTM contemporaneous with the
events in question. Of the remaining two, one has communicated
with NTM and the other has asked for a meeting with GRACE after
September 18th. Many of the personnel discussed in our reports
made incriminating statements or outright confessions.