By Seth Richardson
Gazette reporters Mark Barna and Sue McMillin reported that representatives of the Cornerstone Baptist Church appear to have attempted to lure a seventh grade student into a church van near Russell Middle School last Thursday.
Cornerstone has been actively proselytizing children for some time and has baptized some children without their parents permission. Church members have been told not to trespass on school property in Colorado Springs District 11, particularly at Russel, Keller and Fremont elementary schools.
While church members have a First Amendment right to stand on public sidewalks and preach, even to school children, they do not have a right to lure children into vehicles or move them anywhere at all without parental permission.
Colorado statutes make such actions a felony. Here’s the statute:
18-3-304. Violation of custody order or order relating to parental responsibilities.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2.5) of this section, any person, including a natural or foster parent, who, knowing that he or she has no privilege to do so or heedless in that regard, takes or entices any child under the age of eighteen years from the custody or care of the child’s parents, guardian, or other lawful custodian or person with parental responsibilities with respect to the child commits a class 5 felony.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2.5) of this section, any parent or other person who violates an order of any district or juvenile court of this state, granting the custody of a child or parental responsibilities with respect to a child under the age of eighteen years to any person, agency, or institution, with the intent to deprive the lawful custodian or person with parental responsibilities of the custody or care of a child under the age of eighteen years, commits a class 5 felony.
(2.5) Any person who, in the course of committing the offenses described in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, removes a child under the age of eighteen years from this country commits a class 4 felony.
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense either that the offender reasonably believed that his conduct was necessary to preserve the child from danger to his welfare, or that the child, being at the time more than fourteen years old, was taken away at his own instigation without enticement and without purpose to commit a criminal offense with or against the child.
(4) Any criminal action charged pursuant to this section may be tried in either the county where the act is committed or in which the court issuing the orders granting custody or allocating parental responsibilities is located, if such court is within this state.
It’s important to note that while the statute title refers to “custody order” the statute itself is more expansive and includes simply taking a child under eighteen from the “custody or care” of the person legally responsible for the child.
When a child is in school, the school is the custodian of the child under a legal concept known as “in loco parentis”, which means “in the place of the parent.” Luring a child from school grounds, regardless of the reason for doing so, without the permission of the school authorities is a crime.
Once released from school, children are in the custody of the parent, whether or not they are in the physical presence of the parent. This custody extends to standing orders for the child to return home promptly and directly from school, and by interfering with that journey, anyone enticing or taking a child from that parentaly-approved route is violating the custody of the parent.
The Colorado Springs Police Department and the District Attorney should at a minimum warn the members of the church that while they are free to preach to or speak with children in public spaces, any attempt to physically interfere with or even delay that child’s journey home, or to lure the child into a vehicle and move them somewhere without the express permission of the parents is a felony. If the church members persist in such actions, they should be arrested.
In the meantime, parents should monitor the church members, using video cameras to document their activities, and if any child is lured into a vehicle, parents should use reasonable and appropriate physical force to arrest the individuals involved, as authorized by Colorado statute 16-3-201, which says “A person who is not a peace officer may arrest another person when any crime has been or is being committed by the arrested person in the presence of the person making the arrest.”
Citizens have both the power of arrest and the right to use reasonable and appropriate physical force when making that arrest under Colorado statute 18-1-707 (7), which says, “A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.”
UPDATE: Channel 13 News reported Friday night that the church issued a statement denying knowledge of the van or who the woman driving the van was.
This is of concern, and police should be searching for the van and its driver because if it’s not associated with the church, it might have been an abduction attempt utilizing the church’s proselytizing as a cover.
©2009 Altnews
Hey Tom. There seems to be some question about this recent incident, but after reading the history of this church, how can you be surprised?
If you would check with PD they might tell you who the other church was with the van. But they might not, they would like to put the subject to rest as well. I have been told the name of the the other church but am not willing to put them throught the same thing you and others have done to Cornerstone. Buy the way it was originally reported on the TV news stations and possibly other places, that it was a church van, I checked Cornerstone has buses not vans. The reason Cornerstone might have refused commit at first just might have been they wanted to do an investigation to gather facts before flighing off half cock as others seem to love doing.
For some reason my personal information (Name and e-mail address) will not delete from the system after I submited my comment. Anything posted after this posting May 7, 2009 in my name is not mine.
Tom, only your name is revealed to other readers when they view your comment. Your email address is required in order to post, but it is not displayed, nor is it used for anything other than for me to contact you personally if necessary. Your email address is not sold, distributed or given to anyone.
You all need stop you need repent and get the facts right they do not have vans
Hello Brother Kenith – thank you so much for defending out Honor.
You are a fine Deacon, and Stood with my family though many a Dark Hour.
Now that we have found out that it wasn’t Cornerstone Baptist Church that was trying to lure children into a van. I am sure we are going to see an immediate apology from all of those that said they did. I will be watching the news on every channel and buying news papers to read the headline story. But I will not be holding my breath. Because that’s what we do in this country. We hear a rumor and run to tell everyone so we can have the scoop, if it’s wrong, oh well we are off to see who else’s reputation we can ruin. I think it is time we start ruining reporter’s reputations that would do such a thing without first getting the facts.
The original story by Mark Barna and Sue McMillin cited an unknown source in identifying Cornerstone as the church that was proselytizing near Russell Middle school. There were two different issues involved; first was the issue of the luring of a child towards a van by a woman. It’s still unclear who the woman was and whether she was associated with the Cornerstone church or not. The second issue was proselytizing by church members on school grounds and the reaction of school officials to these trespasses.
In my column I referred to the report by Barna and McMillin, and I did indeed take their reportage at face value under the “fellow journalist” doctrine. As an opinion columnist I place reliance in the journalistic integrity of the other members of my profession and absent some evidence that an error was made by Barna or McMillin in their initial reportage, I stand by my original comments. Any news story is time-critical and deadlines dictate that when sources like Assistant pastor Ford Glover refuse to comment, reporters have no alternative but to report what they know, and opinion columnists are entitled to render opinions based on the information available at the time the column is written.
Unlike print editions however, online columns are amenable to editing, which I did as soon as I found out that the church had denied knowledge of the identity of the woman in the van. I added a statement to that effect immediately when I saw the Channel 13 report.
However, to my knowledge it has not yet been conclusively determined that the woman and the van involved were NOT associated with Cornerstone. Based again on reportage by the Gazette, the latest report by Caryln Ray Mitchell indicates that the woman is no longer being sought because the police feel that no crime was committed. Given the original story, which pointed out a pattern of conduct by Cornerstone members towards school children near Russell Middle School, I believe it is reasonable to take the position that the woman in the van was very likely associated with the church and that her identity and involvement are being denied by church officials who fear possible prosecution.
However, I am willing to grant the church the benefit of the doubt and will accept their statement that they have no knowledge or connection to the woman in the van. I will not, however, apologize for commenting on a properly reported story and the facts in evidence at the time the article was written. Cornerstone could have avoided these difficulties by being open and forthcoming about their activities when originally contacted by the Gazette. Because the church declined comment and did not deny the allegations, it was necessary and appropriate to report on what we knew when we knew it, and I stand by both the Gazette reports and my own column.
If Cornerstone does in fact know who the van driver was, or if representatives of the church wish to discuss the matter and make an official on-the-record statement, they are welcome to contact me or, I’m sure, the original reporters to clarify the issue and provide their side of the story, and I, for one, will be happy to report accurately what their statements are.