A mother describes her horror

A woman who suffered years of rape by her Exclusive Brethren husband says she walked into her room to find her now-former husband engaged in a sex act with their son.

But she was quizzed as to why she did not include this in an affidavit when seeking a protection order against the man who raped her.

The man, who cannot be named to protect his son and ex-wife’s identities, is on trial in the Palmerston North District Court, accused of sexually violating and indecently assaulting his son.

The Crown says he raped his son during bath time, in nearby sand dunes and at an alley behind his workplace.

The son said the rapes happened countless times, including on his birthday.

The defence says the allegations are false.

The jury has been told the man was jailed after pleading guilty to raping his wife, who gave evidence on Thursday.

While she did not go into detail about the crimes against her, she spoke about an incident with the man and her son.

She said she found the man and her son on a bed in their home. The man was naked and being fondled by their son, she said.

‘‘[The man] was groaning, as if he was receiving pleasure.

‘‘I walked in the room and said ‘what the hell are you doing?’.’’

She ended up leaving the marriage, obtaining a protection order against her husband and taking the children to a Women’s Refuge safe house.

She swore an affidavit in the process, describing the rapes and how the man treated her. Defence lawyer Fergus Steedman asked her why she did not include the bed incident in the affidavit.

‘‘You would expect people to think that is the worst thing you can describe.

‘‘Do you agree that what you have described seeing in the bedroom is as bad as it gets?’’

The woman said she was stressed and under time pressure to get the affidavit finished.

‘‘I had so much on my mind that I didn’t mention it.

‘‘It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.’’

She spoke about the afternoon and evening routine in the household, which she described as ‘‘a busy time’’.

Dinner would have to be ready by the time the man came home, and she would try to have the children bathed by then.

She said it was her ‘‘duty’’ as a woman in the Exclusive Brethren church to do so.

The man would rarely bathe the children, usually only when the woman was sick, she said.

A meeting between the man and woman was arranged by the Exclusive Brethren church after they had separated.

The woman said she was ‘‘shut out’’ of the church at that point, unable to eat or associate with fellow church members apart from specific church leaders.

‘‘At that stage I wanted to go back to the church.’’

But there was no making up between them. ‘‘He hadn’t changed like the Exclusive Brethren said he had changed.’’

Her son was placed in the care of her parents, which involved signing agreements with the church that she could not have him live with her until he was 18, she said.

‘‘That was to avoid disruption and so the Exclusive Brethren would have control over him.’’

Her son was moved from her parents’ house to those of other church members without her knowledge or permission, she said.

‘‘I wasn’t in the church, so I didn’t know.’’

The trial continues.