What is the status of the federal lawsuits against Harvest Christian Fellowship and Paul Havsgaard as of 2026?
Executive summary
A wave of federal civil lawsuits alleging decades of sexual abuse, trafficking and institutional cover-up tied to former Harvest Christian Fellowship pastor Paul Havsgaard is active in U.S. federal court, with plaintiffs growing from an initial two to scores of former residents as law firms continue to file new complaints; Harvest Christian Fellowship has denied institutional culpability and called the suits “financial extortion” while local authorities have reported no active criminal investigation accessible in the public record [1] [2] [3] [4]. Court action so far consists of multiple complaints pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California naming Havsgaard and, in many filings, Harvest leaders including Greg Laurie and missions pastor Richard Schutte; there are no sourced reports of convictions, criminal indictments, or resolved civil judgments in the reporting provided [5] [2] [6].
1. The filings: expanding federal litigation alleging abuse and trafficking
Since September 2025 plaintiffs’ counsel began filing civil complaints in federal court alleging that Havsgaard sexually abused and trafficked children in church-run homes in Romania and that Harvest Christian Fellowship and senior pastors negligently supervised or covered up abuse; the initial two-plaintiff suits quickly multiplied as attorneys said they would file many more, and reporting by law firms and outlets indicates at least 23 former residents planned to bring complaints and that additional cohorts of men and women had filed new suits through late 2025 [1] [2] [4] [5].
2. Who is named and what do the complaints allege
The lawsuits typically name former Harvest pastor Paul Havsgaard as the principal abuser and frequently add Harvest Christian Fellowship and senior leaders — including Greg Laurie and Richard Schutte — alleging systemic negligence, sex-trafficking violations, and a decades-long cover-up arising from Havsgaard’s operation of “Harvest Homes” in Romania from the late 1990s into the 2000s; pleaded facts across reports include claims of repeated sexual assault, forced prostitution, voyeurism and other abusive practices inside the homes [1] [7] [2] [8].
3. Church response and competing narratives
Harvest Christian Fellowship publicly disputed the suits, characterizing them as “financial extortion” and insisting that Havsgaard — not the church leadership — should bear responsibility; Harvest said the allegations were “shocking” but argued the institution and pastors should not be the primary targets, a rebuttal repeated in statements to the Associated Press and the church’s public communications cited by plaintiffs’ counsel [3] [6] [7].
4. Law firms, plaintiff strategy and anticipated growth of cases
Plaintiffs’ lawyers signaled an aggressive litigation campaign, with London-based and U.S. firms representing multiple survivors and announcing plans to file scores of complaints; media coverage and law-firm releases report a continuing tide of filings, including batches identifying new plaintiffs and expanding accusations to include women as well as men who lived at the homes [6] [4] [5].
5. Criminal investigations and limitations in reporting
Multiple news reports cite the Riverside Police as confirming there were no active investigations into Havsgaard at the times of inquiry, and journalists and outlets note difficulties reaching Havsgaard for comment; beyond the civil filings, the available reporting does not document criminal charges, arrests, or completed civil judgments as of the last sourced updates [3] [7] [5]. This reporting limitation means the public record—per the provided sources—shows pending federal civil litigation but no public criminal prosecution outcomes or court decisions reported through late 2025 and into the early narrative in 2026.
6. What to watch next in court and public accountability
Key next steps to monitor include docket activity in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California — including service of process, motions to dismiss, jurisdictional challenges, discovery disputes and any consolidation of complaints — as well as whether plaintiffs seek punitive damages or class treatment and whether prosecutors reopen or initiate criminal probes; plaintiffs’ counsel have publicly signaled ongoing filings and expect more claimants, while Harvest’s denials suggest protracted contested litigation ahead [5] [6]. Given the absence of reported resolutions in the cited coverage, the status as of these reports is active, expanding civil litigation with disputed institutional liability and no publicly reported criminal outcomes [4] [2] [3].