Fact check: What were the allegations against the Romanian Angels ministry?

1. How survivors describe the shelter: ‘A torture chamber’ and methodical cruelty

Survivors portray the Romanian Angels shelter in Bucharest as an institution where systematic and humiliating punishments were routine, reporting methods such as forcing children to kneel on walnut shells, tying children to beds or radiators, and other forms of physical coercion that amounted to torture in their accounts. Victims Marian Barbu and Mihai-Constantin Petcu specifically call the environment a “torture chamber,” framing the allegations not as isolated incidents but as a sustained regime of abuse affecting multiple children over time; these descriptions emphasize both physical and psychological humilation and align across independent survivor statements and reporting ^{[2] [3]}. The high specificity of the claims—detailing how children were lured, disciplined and physically restrained—supports a portrait of repeated practices rather than one-off misconduct, and survivors link the tactics to a deliberate culture of control within the shelter.

2. The central accused: Paul Havsgaard and the claim of divine justification

Accusers identify Paul Havsgaard, described as a former pastor connected to the ministry and to U.S. church networks, as the principal alleged perpetrator, accusing him of sexual and severe physical abuse of children at the Bucharest shelter. Survivors report that Havsgaard justified his actions by invoking religious authority—saying “I know what God wants; what I want, God wants”—which frames the alleged abuse as not only criminal but also doctrinally rationalized in the eyes of the accused, raising questions about how spiritual authority was used to silence or coerce victims. Reporting indicates these allegations are central to civil complaints filed in the United States, where survivors are pursuing legal accountability tied to Havsgaard’s alleged conduct and the ministry’s oversight ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Recruitment, trafficking and promises of rescue: Luring the vulnerable

The accounts assert a pattern where vulnerable street children were recruited through promises of food, shelter and education, then allegedly subjected to abuse once inside the shelter, suggesting elements consistent with trafficking or exploitation rather than purely charitable care. Survivors say the ministry’s outreach targeted children with immediate needs, offering relief and hope that facilitated compliance and dependence; once inside the closed environment of the shelter, those protections reportedly vanished and were replaced by control and abuse. This dynamic—recruitment via aid promises followed by deprivation and harm—frames the allegations within broader concerns about exploitation under the pretense of humanitarian or religious work ^[2].

4. Institutional responsibility: Claims of negligence and missed warnings

Beyond individual culpability, the allegations raise questions about organizational negligence, asserting that church leaders and the ministry failed to act on warnings about poor living conditions and abuse, and in some accounts ignored or suppressed complaints. Survivors and reporting accuse the broader church network of either not adequately supervising the shelter or dismissing red flags, which transforms the issue from isolated criminal acts to potential systemic failure in oversight, safeguarding and accountability. These claims underpin legal arguments that institutions associated with the ministry bear civil responsibility for enabling or failing to prevent harm, and they shape public scrutiny of the ministry’s practices and governance ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Divergent narratives and what is not yet settled: legal status and potential agendas

While reporting and survivor testimony present grave allegations, the legal status and full evidentiary record remain contested, and parties implicated may dispute characterizations, offer different factual accounts, or advance defenses tied to reputational protection; the public record cited comprises survivor statements and media reports that fuel legal claims but do not by themselves constitute final adjudication. Media accounts emphasize survivor testimony and lawsuits filed in the U.S., which frame narratives in ways that can influence public perceptions and potential institutional responses; conversely, implicated individuals and organizations may emphasize charitable intent or procedural defenses. The reporting signals strong allegations warranting investigation and legal resolution, while also highlighting the importance of due process and the need to assess corroborating evidence as cases proceed ^{[1] [2] [3]}.