Bishop Singh announces engagement to close friends from Seminary, 6 months after his official divorce, and excludes his sons and Roja from the message. Bp Singh would go on to say in a video on Jun 16th, 2023 that the relationship started 2.5 years after his official divorce.

"Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" and "any conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Clergy" is a violation of TEC's Of Standards of Conduct, Sec. 1.h.6 & 9 Canon 4: Of Standards of Conduct, Sec. 1.h.6 & 9

December 1st, 2022 email from Bishop Singh

Roja adresses Feb 24 2021 Episcopal Diocese of Rochester mailing, Presiding Bishop Curry says he thought Roja did not want to hear from him.

Roja's letter to Presiding Bishop Curry

Roja's email to Presiding Bishop Curry

Presiding Bishop Curry responds on Dec 19th, 2022 and states that he thought Roja did not want to hear from him - something Roja never said. Presiding Bishop Curry agrees to Zoom with Roja and provide pastoral care after reading her email and attached letter.

Roja's email exchange with Presiding Bishop Curry

Roja addresses lack of institutional support for families of Bishops with Presiding Bishop Curry. Domestic abuse is mentioned by both. Presiding Bishop Curry does not mention Title IV. According to Title IV, Canon 6, Section 3, "Any person other than the Intake Officer who receives information regarding an Offense shall promptly forward the information to the Intake Officer." Failing to do so is a violation of Title IV, Canon 4, Section 1, Subsection f, "In exercising his or her ministry, a Member of the Clergy shall...report to the Intake Officer all matters which may constitute an Offense".

February 22nd, 2023 Zoom Meeting audio

Title IV, Canon 6, Section 3 and Title IV, Canon 4, Section 1, Subsection f: Title IV, Canon 6.3 Title IV, Canon 4, Section 1, Subsection f

February 22nd, 2023 Zoom call transcript

February 22nd, 2023 Zoom invite

Nivedhan shares same open letter he sent to Presiding Bishop Curry and Bishop Singh's seminary friends on Dec 29, 2022 on Facebook.

Facebook Post

Nivedhan's June 14th, 2023 Facebook post

Nivedhan's open letter

Eklan shares same open letter he sent to Presiding Bishop Curry on Dec 29, 2022 on Facebook.

Eklan's June 14th, 2023 Facebook post

Eklan's open letter

Bishop Singh has blocked ex-wife and sons on all platforms, email, and phone. So, there is no "we" working through this. We have provided significant evidence that his 28 years of physical and emotional abuse had a real, ife-damaging impact in the lives of Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh. "Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" is a violation of of TEC's TEC's Canon 4: Of Standards of Conduct, Sec. 1.h.6.

I continue to maintain that these allegations are untrue but are a sign of deep hurt within my family. Bishop Singh

"Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" is a violation of TEC's Of Standards of Conduct, Sec. 1.h.6 Canon 4: Of Standards of Conduct, Sec. 1.h.6

Bishop Singh's July 2nd, 2023 Facebook post

Bishop Singh resigns from his post as Provisional Bishop of the Episcopal Dioceses of Eastern and Western Michigan.

Related news articles: Religious News Service Living Church The Roys Report

The Episcopal Dioceses of Eastern & Western Michigan Mailchimp notice

In the ongoing Title IV investigation involving Prince Singh, significant progress has been reported. The Episcopal Church's Reference Panel has met on multiple occasions (September 25, October 18, and November 3, 2023) to discuss the complaints specifically concerning the Singhs. Although an attempt was made to reach an accord with the Presiding Bishop-Designate regarding disciplinary actions, an agreement has not been reached at this stage.

Subsequently, on November 3, the matter was officially referred for a comprehensive investigation, as stipulated under Canon IV.6.8 and Canon IV.2. The Presiding Bishop-Designate has taken steps to appoint an Investigator to thoroughly examine the allegations presented by the Singhs. This investigation is being conducted independently of other Title IV complaints related to Bishop Singh’s ministry in the Diocese of Rochester.

The process of investigation is expected to be meticulous and time-consuming. Consequently, the Reference Panel does not anticipate having the Investigator’s final report ready for their next scheduled meeting on November 20, 2023. However, in compliance with Canon IV.6.9, periodic written status reports will be provided to keep the complainants informed of any developments. This approach ensures transparency and continued communication throughout the investigation process.

After careful consideration, on October 18th , the Reference Panel referred the matter for possible agreement with the Presiding Bishop-Designate regarding terms of discipline (an Accord). (Canon IV.6.8 and Canon IV.2) It was not possible to reach an Accord at this time... On November 3, 2023, the Reference Panel referred this Title IV matter for investigation. Rev. Barbara Kempf, Intake Officer

Rev. Barbara Kempf's November 6, 2023 email

The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, Vice President of the House of Bishops, informs Nivedhan Singh, Eklan Singh, and Jebaroja Singh that she has recused herself from handling the Title IV disciplinary matter involving allegations against Presiding Bishop Michael B. Curry and Bishop S. Todd Ousley due to her current pastoral relationship with Bishop Curry. The Rt. Rev. Herman Hollerith IV will take over her role in this matter. She also mentions that she has shared the Singhs' allegations with other bishops to keep them informed and hopes that the goals of Title IV will be realized in this and every matter.

January 10, 2024 letter from Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves

Rev. Barbara Kempf, the Intake Officer for Bishops in the Office of Pastoral Development of The Episcopal Church, has recused herself from handling the Title IV disciplinary matter involving allegations against Presiding Bishop Michael B. Curry and Bishop Todd Ousley, due to her role in a separate Title IV matter involving the Rt. Rev. Prince Singh and her appointment by the Presiding Bishop. The Rt. Rev. Herman Hollerith IV, serving as Presiding Bishop in this matter, has approved her decision and will appoint a new Intake Officer to serve in her stead.

January 16, 2024 letter from Rev. Barbara Kempf

January 16, 2024 email from Rev. Barbara Kempf

First interview with investigators is incredibly triggering for complainants, namely remarks by Pan McCaslin implying that Nivedhan is play-acting.

January 31, 2024 follow up email from Nivedhan Singh

The Episcopal Church announces new measures to increase transparency in disciplinary matters involving bishops. These measures include creating easily accessible paths on the church's website for reporting misconduct, viewing the status of current disciplinary matters involving bishops, and publishing an annual statistical report on complaints against bishops and their outcomes. Presiding Bishop Michael Curry has decided to make information public in these matters when he deems it pastorally appropriate. The goal is to strike a balance between transparency and privacy, aiming for healing, repentance, forgiveness, restitution, justice, amendment of life, and reconciliation among all involved or affected. The procedural progress of Title IV matters involving bishops will be disclosed in certain public situations, such as when a bishop's ministry is restricted or they are placed on administrative leave. Information on current and past cases, as well as resources to understand the Title IV process, are now available on the church's website.

February 22, 2024 letter from Presiding Bishop Curry

In June 2024, the Conference Panel convened in Newark, New Jersey, where five bishops presided over a two-day process involving testimony from the Singhs, their supporters, and Bishop Prince Singh. The panel found "clear and convincing evidence" of multiple violations by Bishop Singh, including persistent physical violence against his sons, chronic alcohol abuse, and deceptive conduct involving Church officials. Despite Singh’s denials and refusal to acknowledge his behavior, the panel unanimously concluded that his actions were unbecoming of a clergyman and recommended his deposition from ordained ministry. The Conference Panel underscored that Singh’s denial of the allegations and failure to demonstrate repentance or amendment of life made reconciliation impossible.

The Conference Panel’s conclusion was unequivocal: Singh’s continued exercise of ordained ministry was untenable, and deposition was the only suitable action to uphold the integrity of the Episcopal Church.

The Conference Panel finds that there is clear and convincing evidence, attested to by each of the Complainants, that the Respondent engaged in persistent and ongoing physical violence directed against each of his sons... for minor and seemingly random infractions such as asking for a stuffed Tigger. The Rt. Rev. Michael B. Hunn, President, Conference Panel of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

The Respondent has used and abused alcohol in ways that are chronic, often daily... The testimony also described at least one occasion when the Respondent offered to serve alcohol to a group of underaged minors in his home. The Rt. Rev. Michael B. Hunn, President, Conference Panel of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

The Respondent knowingly engaged in deception by stating that he had the approval and support of the Presiding Bishop for his new relationship and his divorce, when in reality he had hidden the true nature of the divorce from the Presiding Bishop. The Rt. Rev. Michael B. Hunn, President, Conference Panel of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

The Conference Panel... is now convinced, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent cannot be allowed to continue the exercise of ordained ministry under these circumstances... deposition from ministry to be the appropriate action for the good of the Church. The Rt. Rev. Michael B. Hunn, President, Conference Panel of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops

July 11th, 2024 Conference Panel decision

In September 2024, Bishop Michael Hunn provided an update on the progress of the Title IV process, clarifying the next steps following the Conference Panel’s findings. He acknowledged that the case had been referred to a Hearing Panel for adjudication. However, due to delays caused by General Convention elections and training for the newly constituted Disciplinary Board for Bishops, the Hearing Panel had not yet been formalized. Bishop Hunn assured the complainants that they would hear from the chair of the Hearing Panel once it was established. While intended to be reassuring, the update highlighted the slow pace and procedural hurdles that have characterized this case, adding to the complainants' frustrations and feelings of uncertainty.

September 21, 2024 email from Bishop Hunn

On October 31, 2024, the Rt. Rev. Sean Rowe, then Presiding Bishop-Elect, announced his intention to assume full authority over all Title IV matters involving bishops once he officially began his role on November 1. This decision marked a pivotal moment, as Rowe declared that he would handle ongoing disciplinary matters, including those previously overseen by Presiding Bishops-Designate and Intake Officers-Designate. While this letter ostensibly aimed to centralize authority and ensure continuity, it raised concerns about impartiality and the potential for overreach.

I plan to fulfill the Presiding Bishop’s role in all Title IV matters currently pending against Bishops. Presiding Bishop-Elect Rowe

None of the reasons for recusal will remain after November 1. Once I occupy the Office of Presiding Bishop, I will be in a position to carry out fully that Office’s responsibility in Title IV matters. Presiding Bishop-Elect Rowe

October 31, 2024 letter from Presiding Bishop-Elect Rowe

The draft Accord, released on November 22, 2024, proposed a two-year suspension for Bishop Singh without deposition, contingent on his "amendment of life." The document emphasized reconciliation with complainants, including Singh’s ex-wife, children, and former colleagues, but notably stated that Singh denied all allegations. This denial creates a fundamental contradiction: reconciliation and rehabilitation require acknowledgment of wrongdoing and contrition, neither of which Singh has shown.

The draft also assigns significant discretion to the Presiding Bishop to oversee Singh's rehabilitation and determine his readiness to return to ministry. However, this approach raised concerns from complainants about the lack of safeguards, given Singh’s history of manipulation and the Church’s previous failures in selecting qualified investigators and clinicians. Furthermore, the draft failed to separate Singh’s family abuse allegations from diocesan misconduct allegations, despite the complainants’ explicit requests.

Key Issues Highlighted:

• Contradiction Between Denial and Reconciliation: Singh’s denial of allegations directly undermines the reconciliation process outlined in the draft Accord.
• Oversight Concerns: The Presiding Bishop is granted unilateral authority to determine Singh's fitness for ministry, with no clear external checks or expertise.
• Failure to Separate Cases: The draft conflates two separate Title IV cases (family abuse and diocesan misconduct), diluting the gravity of each set of allegations.
• Insufficient Response to Manipulation Risks: Singh’s documented history of manipulation was not adequately addressed with robust safeguards.

This Accord arises out of two sets of allegations… The allegations may, if proven by clear and convincing evidence, constitute breaches of the Standards of Conduct under [multiple Canons]. Presiding Bishop Rowe

Although Bishop Singh does not admit and disputes the allegations… he voluntarily agrees to the terms set forth more fully below. Presiding Bishop Rowe

During the period of suspension, Bishop Singh shall collaborate with the Presiding Bishop to identify appropriate work that will lead to amendment of life. Presiding Bishop Rowe

November 22, 2024 proposed Accord from Presiding Bishop Rowe

In their response to the November draft of the Accord, the complainants formally rejected the proposed terms, emphasizing their failure to reflect the findings of the Conference Panel, which had recommended Bishop Singh’s deposition. The complainants outlined significant issues with the Accord, including its recharacterization of proven abuse as mere allegations, the lack of meaningful accountability measures, and its prioritization of Singh's rehabilitation over the safety and well-being of his victims. The response highlighted the manipulation evident in the Title IV process and stressed the inherent contradiction in promoting reconciliation without acknowledgment of harm. They also questioned the decision to combine two separate cases into one Accord, which diminished the gravity of each complaint and erased the unique harm experienced by the victims.

Singh’s ability to manipulate his superiors remains our central concern... Now, this draft Accord reflects our worst fear: that without a critical eye and a close examination of evidence, Singh would again be able to hijack the process while appearing a sincere, sympathetic, and even trustworthy figure. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

Your decision to single-handedly combine two distinct Title IV cases into one Accord rejects everything we have done to outline why Singh’s actions directly against us, as survivors, were so grave... It erases our experience as survivors. It erases us. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

This draft Accord, in its current form, rejects that assertion and is entirely unacceptable to us. If you finalize this Accord it will force us to abandon our hopes in Title IV and to seek justice through more public and legal means. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

December 5, 2024 letter from Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

The Presiding Bishop bypassed the Hearing Panel stage by drafting an Accord without fully considering the Conference Panel’s findings, which recommended deposition for Singh. While this alligns with Title IV process standards, it is unethical. The complainants had believed the Title IV process would conclude with a fair and transparent adjudication. This unexpected bypass undermines confidence in the Episcopal Church’s disciplinary system and raises questions about the integrity of the process.

Correct, I did not review the Conference Panel deposition order before drafting the Accord. Presiding Bishop Rowe

This letter, written after a December 6, 2024 meeting with Presiding Bishop Rowe, critiques the proposed Accord’s failure to ensure justice and accountability in the case of Bishop Prince Singh. While acknowledging Rowe’s admission that issuing the initial draft without reviewing the Conference Panel’s findings was a mistake, the letter underscores key concerns, including the Church’s lack of expertise in handling narcissistic behaviors, its failure to involve qualified clinicians, and its prioritization of Singh’s rehabilitation over safeguarding the Church community. The authors call for deposition as the only fitting resolution, pointing out that reconciliation and reinstatement are incompatible with Singh’s denial of all wrongdoing. They argue that the Accord, which centers on Singh’s rehabilitation, sends a damaging message about the Church’s tolerance for abusive behavior and its systemic neglect of survivors. The letter reiterates calls for separating the two Title IV cases, ensuring expert clinical evaluations, and emphasizing accountability over institutional preservation.

The current proposal grants you (Rowe) unilateral authority to decide whether Singh is fit to return to ministry… without proper clinical assessment by a qualified specialist, there is no basis for assessing progress. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

Singh’s behavior has been marked by manipulation, deceit, and abuse of authority… Placing Singh in any position where he has influence—even as a parish priest or administrator—would expose others to harm. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

The Church appears willing to allocate significant resources to supervise Singh’s ‘reformation journey,’ yet those same resources were unavailable for a proper investigation or the engagement of qualified clinicians. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

We cannot imagine a reconciliation with Singh under conditions where he is allowed to keep his title and status, because for him… that will always signal that his abusive actions were, in some way, footnotes to his calling in the Church rather than straightforward disqualifiers for ministry. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

December 10, 2024 letter from Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

In response to concerns raised during a December 6, 2024, meeting with Presiding Bishop Rowe, complainants received a draft outlining detailed steps for Bishop Singh’s "amendment of life" during his suspension. While the document listed measures such as psychological evaluations and truth-telling sessions, it failed to address repeated requests for separation of the two Title IV cases or include provisions to ensure accountability in oversight. The proposal continued to place Bishop Singh as a "collaborator" in his rehabilitation, despite his denial of all allegations—a glaring contradiction. This approach highlighted systemic failures, as complainants questioned whether resources could be effectively used in Singh’s rehabilitation, given his documented history of manipulation.

During the period of Suspension, Bishop Singh shall collaborate with the Presiding Bishop to identify appropriate work that will lead to amendment of life. Presiding Bishop Rowe

Participation in truth-telling work to include sessions where each allegation is described directly to Bishop Singh... by a Complainant at their choosing or some other person with knowledge. Presiding Bishop Rowe

A thorough psychiatric and psychological assessment conducted by a professional in the United States designated by the Presiding Bishop. Presiding Bishop Rowe

December 10, 2024 "Amendment of Life" email

The complainants emphasize significant concerns about the feasibility and appropriateness of the plan, pointing out Singh's history of manipulation and potential undiagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), which is esistant to treatment. They argue the Church’s past failures, such as allowing unlicensed individuals like David Singh to oversee counseling, demonstrate a lack of judgment and expertise in handling Singh's behaviors. The letter also questions the allocation of substantial resources to Singh’s rehabilitation and recommends redirecting funds to initiatives supporting survivors and systemic reform. The complainants stress that deposition remains the only appropriate course of action, as it prioritizes accountability and sends a clear message that manipulation and abuse are incompatible with ministry.

The respondent’s behavior throughout this process—and over decades—raises strong suspicions of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). Without a proper evaluation by a clinician with expertise in assessing NPD, any amendment of life plan risks being fundamentally misguided. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

Based on our experiences...rehabilitation may simply not be possible. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

The proposed plan would require significant financial resources and administrative oversight. These resources could be better spent on initiatives that address systemic issues, such as...supporting organizations that provide services to survivors of domestic and church abuse. Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

December 12, 2024 letter from Roja, Nivedhan, and Eklan Singh

The finalized Accord explicitly states that Bishop Prince Singh denies all allegations of misconduct. Yet, it includes provisions for "reconciliation" with his victims, including direct engagement with complainants at their discretion. This is a contradiction: reconciliation requires acknowledgment of wrongdoing and contrition, both of which are incompatible with Singh's blanket denial. This misalignment undermines the purpose of reconciliation as a process predicated on accountability and healing.

While the Presiding Bishop claims to have "heard from complainants," only two significant changes were made to the final Accord: an extension of suspension from two years to three and a clause allowing potential conversion to deposition if Singh fails to demonstrate amendment of life. Requests to separate the two Title IV cases and ensure independent assessments were ignored, leaving complainants feeling sidelined.

Bishop Singh does not admit and disputes the allegations and charges referenced above in both sets of allegations Accord, Section 4

During the period of suspension, Bishop Singh shall participate in reconciliation work addressing his relationships with his ex-wife and sons, as prescribed by the Presiding Bishop in consultation with his ex-wife and sons, and only upon their interest and consent Accord, Section 12c

December 12, 2024 Accord