Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adjusting to youth safety rules


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

First let me start by saying I support the new rules for safety.  I took the training last week and support it. 

That said, as a youth leader, it is hard to adjust because most things I do without thought. 

I used to text girls to check in and see how their were doing with personal struggles.  Just so they knew I was thinking of them and to offer encouragement.  

If an extra leader was sick Sunday- no problem! The teacher would go ahead and teach the class.  Now we need to find a sub to sit in so the teacher isn’t alone teaching. 

We had a service project last week, six drivers.  Now we need six drivers and six additional adults per car.  I don’t think that will be easy. I’ve often taken girls home directly after activities.  No more. 

I used to to walk n talks with my girls.  Walk around the block talking about whatever.   No more , unless I have another leader along, which changes that dynamic dramatically.  I’ve helped girls stop panic attacks, self correct their purely experimental same sex behavior, gotten them to feel safe attending mutual, helped one find a therapist, etc.  

I’m afraid all that stops now.  I support it, sadly.  But so many things are now just disappointing- I feel like the strength I bring to the girls is now compromised because of the choices of pedophiles and power abusers.  Sad. 

Satan is doing a great job of separating youth from those who can help them.

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

..........................  

I’m afraid all that stops now.  I support it, sadly.  But so many things are now just disappointing- I feel like the strength I bring to the girls is now compromised because of the choices of pedophiles and power abusers.  Sad. 

I have a friend whose calling is Primary Teacher.  Last Sunday a girl in her two teacher class was disruptive (she has a disorder of some sort), so my friend took her out of the classroom and walked around with her inside the bldg.  That allowed the other teacher to successfully teach the class, and made the disruptive girl happy.  However, that violates the new directive/policy.  Are the new policies going to have to be adjusted to fit reality?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

First let me start by saying I support the new rules for safety.  I took the training last week and support it. 

That said, as a youth leader, it is hard to adjust because most things I do without thought. 

Some of it will require a bit of adjustment, but eventually the changes will just become the new normal.

 

Quote

I used to text girls to check in and see how their were doing with personal struggles.  Just so they knew I was thinking of them and to offer encouragement.  

Our YW leaders still do this - they just copy the class adviser on their texts as well. 

 

Quote

If an extra leader was sick Sunday- no problem! The teacher would go ahead and teach the class.  Now we need to find a sub to sit in so the teacher isn’t alone teaching. 

This one isn't too bad. Just flag down one of those people who attends that 'hallway class' which seems to exist in every ward.

 

Quote

We had a service project last week, six drivers.  Now we need six drivers and six additional adults per car.  I don’t think that will be easy. I’ve often taken girls home directly after activities.  No more. 

If you are going to/from an activity, you don't need to always have two adults - having multiple youth in the vehicle is satisfactory. So, in practice, this means that leaders who bring their own children will usually end up being the ones who are going to be giving other kids a ride home. 

 

Quote

I used to to walk n talks with my girls.  Walk around the block talking about whatever.   No more , unless I have another leader along, which changes that dynamic dramatically.  I’ve helped girls stop panic attacks, self correct their purely experimental same sex behavior, gotten them to feel safe attending mutual, helped one find a therapist, etc.  

I’m afraid all that stops now.  I support it, sadly.  But so many things are now just disappointing- I feel like the strength I bring to the girls is now compromised because of the choices of pedophiles and power abusers.  Sad. 

While extended one-on-one communication is discouraged, I imagine there is a bit of gray area when it comes to determining what counts as "extended." I would think that going for a brief walk, on a public road, in plain view of everyone wouldn't be too objectionable in most cases. 

I agree with your general sentiment though: it's sad that abusers have affected something like a 'hecklers veto' when it comes to adults interacting with youth at church. Especially since the kinds of kids who might be most vulnerable to abuse are often the very same kids who could really benefit from having a genuinely good, loving mentor take them under their wing and help them live up to their potential. 

 

Link to comment

In the end the spirit will let you know when to ignore the policy and when to follow it.  Sometimes you are just going to have to do what is right, and use the policy as your guideline.

Just remember, the policy is for the protection of adults and not following the policy is puts you, the adult at risk more than the youth. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have a friend whose calling is Primary Teacher.  Last Sunday a girl in her two teacher class was disruptive (she has a disorder of some sort), so my friend took her out of the classroom and walked around with her inside the bldg.  That allowed the other teacher to successfully teach the class, and made the disruptive girl happy.  However, that violates the new directive/policy.  Are the new policies going to have to be adjusted to fit reality?

We adjusted to this easily. The teachers stay in class. The Primary presidency monitors the hall and takes care  of disruptive kids and bathroom breaks. Works great. 

The Presidency has way less to do so providing support/supervision/security in the hall is a priority. 

Parents could be upset if they found very in depth texts from child to youth leader. I get it.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

First let me start by saying I support the new rules for safety.  I took the training last week and support it. 

That said, as a youth leader, it is hard to adjust because most things I do without thought. 

I used to text girls to check in and see how their were doing with personal struggles.  Just so they knew I was thinking of them and to offer encouragement.  

If an extra leader was sick Sunday- no problem! The teacher would go ahead and teach the class.  Now we need to find a sub to sit in so the teacher isn’t alone teaching. 

We had a service project last week, six drivers.  Now we need six drivers and six additional adults per car.  I don’t think that will be easy. I’ve often taken girls home directly after activities.  No more. 

I used to to walk n talks with my girls.  Walk around the block talking about whatever.   No more , unless I have another leader along, which changes that dynamic dramatically.  I’ve helped girls stop panic attacks, self correct their purely experimental same sex behavior, gotten them to feel safe attending mutual, helped one find a therapist, etc.  

I’m afraid all that stops now.  I support it, sadly.  But so many things are now just disappointing- I feel like the strength I bring to the girls is now compromised because of the choices of pedophiles and power abusers.  Sad. 

Agreed.  The changes are necessary and important things to protect people.  But there is some beautiful and meaningful 1-on-1 contact that unfortunately lost in the process. 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

While extended one-on-one communication is discouraged, I imagine there is a bit of gray area when it comes to determining what counts as "extended." I would think that going for a brief walk, on a public road, in plain view of everyone wouldn't be too objectionable in most cases. 

 

Yes, I have seen "line of sight" one-on-ones as being considered acceptable in another church that has probably more thorough safety protocols overall. But in this church's case (the Community of Christ) when they learn someone has a history of abuse, they require that person's agreement to at least three rules: 1)they must agree to not being a leader, 2)they must agree to never being alone with children, and 3)they must agree to having a chaperone at all meetings. If they do not agree to the conditions, they are not permitted to participate. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, I have seen "line of sight" one-on-ones as being considered acceptable in another church that has probably more thorough safety protocols overall. But in this church's case (the Community of Christ) when they learn someone has a history of abuse, they require that person's agreement to at least three rules: 1)they must agree to not being a leader, 2)they must agree to never being alone with children, and 3)they must agree to having a chaperone at all meetings. If they do not agree to the conditions, they are not permitted to participate. 

I would argue our protocols are more robust. They have to agree not to do stuff? Seems like weak enforcement. We mark the record so that those who need to know can keep an eye out.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would argue our protocols are more robust. They have to agree not to do stuff? Seems like weak enforcement. We mark the record so that those who need to know can keep an eye out.

It seemed like the agreement is a formal one with leaders which would be recorded. And the person would be monitored by a chaperone at all church activities to ensure they keep to their agreement.

Link to comment

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been any legal actions taken against the church for a sister who abused a child? It seems to me that the vast majority of these abuses are committed by men and teenage boys (maybe upwards of 95%?). I'm not saying that this policy is not a good one, but I mostly hear women reporting on it. Obviously I'm not present in priesthood meetings but I'm curious to know how the men are responding to the rules and training.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been any legal actions taken against the church for a sister who abused a child? It seems to me that the vast majority of these abuses are committed by men and teenage boys (maybe upwards of 95%?). I'm not saying that this policy is not a good one, but I mostly hear women reporting on it. Obviously I'm not present in priesthood meetings but I'm curious to know how the men are responding to the rules and training.

There has been a general increase proportionally of women abusing children in US society though men are still more commonly abusers. I have no idea what the ratio in the Church is.

I can state that in my ward it has been like pulling teeth to get everyone to take the training. This is not due to objections to it. It just seems to he a low priority. If anything my bishop has been more cautious about his interactions with youth then required. For youth interviews he leaves the door partially open with someone (Counselor, clerk, Secretary) right outside to prevent anyone from listening in. We have some white noise stuff in the hallway outside the office so even when I am on “guard duty” I could not hear anything unless they yell or do something loud. The only thing I have heard from them is laughter. Most want to understand the rules and we laid them out in Ward Council and everyone seemed fine with them.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, I have seen "line of sight" one-on-ones as being considered acceptable in another church that has probably more thorough safety protocols overall.

I think a 'line-of-sight' rule would be perfectly acceptable. 

 

Quote

But in this church's case (the Community of Christ) when they learn someone has a history of abuse, they require that person's agreement to at least three rules: 1)they must agree to not being a leader, 2)they must agree to never being alone with children, and 3)they must agree to having a chaperone at all meetings. If they do not agree to the conditions, they are not permitted to participate. 

In my wife's ward growing up, there was a fellow who was required to have someone shadow him at all times. Fortunately, I've never personally lived in a ward where that was a problem. 

 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think a 'line-of-sight' rule would be perfectly acceptable. 

 

In my wife's ward growing up, there was a fellow who was required to have someone shadow him at all times. Fortunately, I've never personally lived in a ward where that was a problem. 

 

The latter protocol is an especially labor-intensive commitment.

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Just out of curiosity, have there ever been any legal actions taken against the church for a sister who abused a child? It seems to me that the vast majority of these abuses are committed by men and teenage boys (maybe upwards of 95%?).

As for legal actions, I can't think of any prominent ones off the top of my head. However, I do know that abuse by female leaders has happened. One of my good friends served in the bishopric in another ward where everyone was upset with the bishop for not calling this nice old lady to serve in the primary. Only the bishop couldn't call her to serve in the primary based on an annotation in her record. 

 

Quote

I'm not saying that this policy is not a good one, but I mostly hear women reporting on it. Obviously I'm not present in priesthood meetings but I'm curious to know how the men are responding to the rules and training.

So far as I've been able to observe, no complaints and no problems. In fact, everyone from our YM's organization (save one) has already completed the training. 

And our bishopric has been quite positive about encouraging everyone - not just those who are required - to take it. The rule of thumb in our ward is this: if you teach children, or if you interact with children for your calling in any way, or if you so much as even see a child in the hallway at church, then you should take the training. 

 

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There has been a general increase proportionally of women abusing children in US society though men are still more commonly abusers. I have no idea what the ratio in the Church is.

I can state that in my ward it has been like pulling teeth to get everyone to take the training. This is not due to objections to it. It just seems to he a low priority. If anything my bishop has been more cautious about his interactions with youth then required. For youth interviews he leaves the door partially open with someone (Counselor, clerk, Secretary) right outside to prevent anyone from listening in. We have some white noise stuff in the hallway outside the office so even when I am on “guard duty” I could not hear anything unless they yell or do something loud. The only thing I have heard from them is laughter. Most want to understand the rules and we laid them out in Ward Council and everyone seemed fine with them.

My bishop has told everyone that if they don't take the training by the 22nd (the deadline given by the church) that they will be released (as per instructions from the stake).  That has helped a little bit.  People mean well, but it just becomes one more thing to do that's easy to put off.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There has been a general increase proportionally of women abusing children in US society though men are still more commonly abusers. I have no idea what the ratio in the Church is.

I can state that in my ward it has been like pulling teeth to get everyone to take the training. This is not due to objections to it. It just seems to he a low priority. If anything my bishop has been more cautious about his interactions with youth then required. For youth interviews he leaves the door partially open with someone (Counselor, clerk, Secretary) right outside to prevent anyone from listening in. We have some white noise stuff in the hallway outside the office so even when I am on “guard duty” I could not hear anything unless they yell or do something loud. The only thing I have heard from them is laughter. Most want to understand the rules and we laid them out in Ward Council and everyone seemed fine with them.

Thanks for your reply Nehor. Just to clarify, I'm referring to abuse of an "inappropriate touching" nature.  The phenomenon I've noticed (and been appalled by) in America is the Cougar syndrome. And I'm not talking BYU cougar. I still think that mothers teaching a group of children is, in general-even one on one, is one of the safest environments possible. That being said, I support the new policy and understand that the church wouldn't want to extend a privilege to the sisters that is not available to the brethren (by exempting the sisters from the policy/training). 

To your knowledge, has anyone in your ward had an issue with the online aspect of the training? I had a hard time with accessing it. It was stated that we need to be sure our membership number was updated (whatever that means) so I logged on and it was there with my correct name. It wouldn't let me access the training but didn't tell me what I was doing wrong. I tried for a couple of days and finally added a cell phone number and then it worked. But it was all guesswork on my part. It never said anything about a phone number. Very frustrating and I felt wasted some of my time because instructions weren't clear.

 

Link to comment
On 9/12/2019 at 9:57 AM, MustardSeed said:

I’m afraid all that stops now.  I support it, sadly.  But so many things are now just disappointing- I feel like the strength I bring to the girls is now compromised because of the choices of pedophiles and power abusers.  Sad. 

I feel for those who feel this way.  I'm sure that there are lots of people who were helped by leaders in the Church.  And not to denigrate them but I often say that the most significant things I learned growing up, I learned from comic books.  The thing that swayed my thinking on this issue goes like this.

If I was faced with a choice between:

a.  The absolute certainty that one-on-one interviews were causing harm, or

b.  The hope that one-on-one interviews might help someone,

I would go with certainty over hope.

If I'm wrong on this issue then I'm willing to accept what ever punishment God doles out to me in the next life for my decision.  But I know that I couldn't sleep knowing that someone is suffering because of on-on-one interviews because those who support them felt that those are harmed by these interviews some how deserved their fate, or that someone else's life was more important.  So rather than dealing with the certainty that someone is suffering because of a decision I made, I choose to suffer with those who aren't helped because they didn't have the opportunity to be in a one-on-one interview with an able Church leader.  For me this is the Christ like thing to do.

I think the thing that muddies the water on this issue is the concept of "one or all" as in "It is better for one man (Laban) should perish than for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief" or to put it another way, "Christ died that all may live."  The question in my mind is, does this concept of "one or all" apply in the context of interviews in the Church?

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

There is an uptick to female schoolteachers being charged with abusing boys.  No CFR. 

I've noticed this as well (or at least hear reports more often). Its hard to say if it is happening more frequently or if they are just caught more often now. The majority of the cases I've seen are exposed when text messages are discovered between the teacher and student. Having been a schoolteacher, this is so appalling to me!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...