What evidence or documents have plaintiffs submitted in discovery alleging Harvest Christian Fellowship’s knowledge or cover-up?
Executive summary
Plaintiffs have primarily lodged detailed federal complaints and attached narrative allegations that describe internal reports, a 2004 internal investigation, alleged funding records, and eyewitness reports they say show Harvest Christian Fellowship knew of — and in some instances continued to fund — Paul Havsgaard’s work despite warnings [1] [2] [3]. Public reporting so far summarizes what the complaints allege but does not provide a full, verified list of specific discovery documents produced in court; plaintiffs’ filings request additional information and seek documents that would prove a cover-up [4] [1].
1. The core documents: complaints and narrative exhibits filed in federal court
The foundation of the allegations is the multi‑plaintiff federal complaints themselves — lengthy filings (one described as 74 pages) that narrate decades of conduct, identify individuals, allege timelines of abuse from roughly 1998–2008, and assert Harvest’s supervisory and financial role with Havsgaard and the “Harvest Homes” in Romania [1] [3] [5]. Those complaints are the plaintiffs’ opening theory of the case and include specific allegations intended to justify discovery requests — not, in the reporting available, a catalog of every document that has actually been produced in discovery [1] [4].
2. Alleged internal reports and a 2004 investigation that plaintiffs say were suppressed
Plaintiffs’ complaints assert that reports of suspected abuse began as early as 1999 from multiple sources — children, Romanian employees, volunteers from California, the wife of a Harvest pastor, and Harvest pastors — and that an internal investigation was completed in November 2004 whose results were provided to missions pastor Richard Schutte [6] [1] [2]. Reporting cites the allegation that those 2004 findings were not acted on aggressively and that Schutte continued directing funds to Havsgaard for years afterward, a central piece of plaintiffs’ claim that the church knew and failed to stop the abuse [2] [1].
3. Financial records and payment allegations the plaintiffs point to
Multiple pieces of reporting summarize plaintiffs’ assertions about a financial trail: plaintiffs allege Harvest funded Havsgaard’s Romania operation, depositing as much as $17,000 per month into his account and that the ministry paid severance on the order of $200,000 when the operation was shut down, claims intended to show institutional support and complicity [7] [4]. Coverage also says plaintiffs allege Havsgaard used children for U.S. fundraising and that some fundraising trips brought Romanian children to the U.S., allegations framed to connect Harvest’s giving to direct access to the children [7] [8]. These financial assertions appear in the complaints; the publicly available reporting does not reproduce bank records or formal accounting documents produced in discovery [7] [4].
4. Eyewitness and circumstantial evidence cited: volunteers, employees and coercion claims
Plaintiffs’ filings and media summaries rely heavily on testimonial and circumstantial evidence: alleged reports from Romanian staff, volunteers who traveled from California, former residents describing torture and sexual abuse, and claims that extraordinary threats and coercion prevented earlier suits [6] [9] [3]. Some complaints detail specific abusive practices and internet‑related exploitation at local sites, descriptions meant to be corroborated in discovery by witness statements and potentially electronic records [10] [3]. Again, public accounts summarize these allegations rather than listing which witness statements or forensic records have been turned over in court [10] [3].
5. What plaintiffs have officially sought in discovery — and what reporting does not (yet) show
Public filings and press materials indicate plaintiffs and their counsel (McAllister Olivarius and others) are explicitly seeking documents about Harvest decision‑making, prior complaints, communications among church leadership, financial transfers to Havsgaard, and any internal investigative files to prove systemic negligence or concealment [4] [1]. However, the news reporting reviewed does not list specific discovery productions — such as emails, board minutes, bank statements, or witness interview transcripts — that have actually been produced to plaintiffs; it instead summarizes the allegations and the documentary categories plaintiffs say they will pursue [4] [1].
6. Church response and the evidentiary contest that will follow
Harvest has publicly disputed many of the factual claims, calling the lawsuits “sensational” and “a form of financial extortion” while asserting the focus should be on the alleged perpetrator, not the church; the church also says it reported allegations to law enforcement and disputes plaintiffs’ characterization of its role, setting up a contested discovery phase where plaintiffs must convert allegation into authenticated documents and the church will seek to rebut them [7] [3] [2]. Given the materials available in public reporting, the central takeaways are the categories plaintiffs claim to possess or seek — internal investigation results, witness reports, and financial records — but reporters have not published a verified list of specific discovery documents actually produced to date [1] [4].