Church Loses "Emotional Distress Case"

[Bsix]

This is my first post on this rather long and emotional thread.

From what I read in the media reports the Church has been found 100% financially liable for the following reasons:

1. Around 1998 a Mormon Bishop was presented with a hearsay accusation and did not report the hearsay. (A friend of the abused daughter reported the allegation of abuse second-hand to the Bishop. It is unclear from the media reports that the Bishop ever had first-hand reports or evidence of abuse.)

2. Several years later, the Church did not report the abuse to authorities after the mother and Bishop were witnesses to the confession of guilt by the abuser. (This confession was based on the Bishop receiving a direct written accusation from the victim via a third party.)

That's it. The abuse was not committed by the clergy or official of the Church. The abuse was done in a private secular environment. The abuse was not committed within the context of a Church function or activity. The abuser did not have a position of Church authority over the victim. The Church did not actively protect the abuser by transferring him to another congregation etc.

With that as the context, I am disappointed with the result.

Based on the evidence concerning this case presented in the media, it is questionable as to whether the original Bishop had a firm basis to file a report concerning possible abuse. It is a clear he-said-she-said. The jury decided otherwise.

Based on the evidence concerning this case presented in the media, it is a mystery why the mother is not liable for reporting failures once the abuser did confess in a meeting with her and the Bishop.

Based on the evidence concerning this case presented in the media, I am mystified as to why the abuser is not financially liable for committing the actual abuse.

My conclusion is that this is little more a bread-and-butter case of transferring blame and finding some degree of solice by going after the deep pockets.

It will be interesting to see if the plaintiffs intend to profit from their lawsuit...or contribute to stopping sexual abuse and helping the other victims. I challenge the plaintiffs and their attorney to donate every last penny of this settlement to the The National Children's Advocacy Center or some other similar organization so that other victims of sexual abuse can be helped.

Regards,

Six

[Bsix]

Dill Pickle: Incidently, if the bishop's profession was one of a number of professions that also have a legal duty in cases of alleged child abuse, such as school counselor, psychologist, MD, etc., in addition to the church's legal duty, he would carry a personal duty. But that didn't come out in trial, so I'm assuming he doesn't have that personal duty via his profession.

Six: If we are talking about "legal" duties Dill's statement confuses the issues.

For starters, the media reports make it clear that there was no legal obligation for clergy to report sexual abuse in the state of Washington at the time these events took place.

Second, let us not forget that the extent of knowledge/proof that the original Bishop had is very much in dispute. From the media reports, he received a hearsay report of abuse from a third party -- a teenager friend of the victim. He acted and investigated. Whether or not he ever received any first hand claims or facts of abuse is undocumented and in dispute.

Thus, you have the Church being found liable for not reporting hearsay accusations in a matter that even if they did have actual proof, they were not legally required to disclose in violation ecclesiastical privacy protections.

Times are a changin'. Many states are now moving to a position where abuse claims, not matter how tenuous, must be reported. The notion of ecclesiastical privacy protections are under broad review. Essentially, the Church is being judged and penalized retroactively based on new and evolving standards.

Regards,

Six

[Confidential Informant]

Wow, what are the chances that one of the actual victims in this case would actually show up on this (rather obscure) board and start defending herself? No, really, what are the chances? Interesting that she hasn't come back, but then again, if it's really her, who could blame her?

Also, where did all this stuff about "blaming the victim" for her abuse come from? I haven't seen anyone blame Ms. Jessica for her abuse. In fact, I thinks it's been almost universally agreed that the only person who bears any fault here is her father, the actual abuser.

Are we, however, wrong to question the jury's decision in this case? Are we wrong to assume that, maybe in the heat of a highly emotional trial w/ very sympathetic victims, that maybe a jury rather loosely applied the law in order to reach a desireable verdict? Or is such a possibility completely unthinkable?

Finally, there is a lot bling bling counting going on and I think that's a bit premature. The Church has indicated that it will appeal the jury's decision and based on what I know of the case there is a real possibility that an appellate court, viewing the facts of the case under the cold glare of the actual law rather than the heat of an emotionally charged courtroom, will overturn the ruling or, in the alternative, drastically reduce the award amount.

I, personally, feel quite deeply for Ms. Jessica and understand fully why she may not have wanted to inform authorities of her situation. But I must admit that I simply do not understand her mother's actions. Why was everyone in this case seeming to rely on the Bishop to do their reporting for them when, if what I'm seeing is correct, he was only getting information second hand? Why did this girls mother not step up to the plate to protect her children?

I just don't get it.

C.I.

P.S. Abulafia, you asked if I thought the Church needed a change in policy. I support the listers who have noted that Church policy has changed. It's very telling that this case, as well as almost every other high-profile case, predate 1994, the year the Church made it's changes. That tells me the new policies are probably functioning pretty well.

Moreover, I think that new state laws have gone a long way toward alleviating the problem by more clearly spelling out the duty to report and who and when it attaches.

Lastly, I simply think that a great public awareness of the problem has contributed more than anything to helping get this problem up front.

ci

[The_Monk]

FWIW, she also appeared on this blog thread

[Confidential Informant]

For starters, the media reports make it clear that there was no legal obligation for clergy to report sexual abuse in the state of Washington at the time these events took place.

Correct. The "theory" under which this case was won was that the bishop was acting as a social worker. Since social workers had a duty to report, that's where the liability attaches.

That's why I'm almost sure that this case is likely to be overturned on appeal. The change in status recognized by the jury simply isn't defensible in reality.

C.I.

[juliann]

Correct. The "theory" under which this case was won was that the bishop was acting as a social worker. Since social workers had a duty to report, that's where the liability attaches.

So now the bishop will be prosecuted by the state for impersonating a social worker?

[Confidential Informant]

Correct. The "theory" under which this case was won was that the bishop was acting as a social worker.  Since social workers had a duty to report, that's where the liability attaches. 

So now the bishop will be prosecuted by the state for impersonating a social worker?

Well, one would assume. The logic of the decision would certainly support that notion.

C.I.

[Dill Pickles]

from the Pickle jar:

1. It started in 1988, when she was 7 yrs old, not 1998, Bsix.

2. 6-8 yrs later, she told a friend (when she was 13-15, junior high is 7-9 grade in Washington). The friend told the bishop; the bishop called the family in to his office. According to the account on the 1st page of this thread, "Hatch told her to be glad she had not told civil authorities, who would try to destroy her family." She had obviously told him of the abuse at some point prior to that statement, and his advice was that she not tell civil authorities because they "would try to destroy her family."

3. At that point, Hatch did not tell her mother she was being abused. She, however, thought her mother knew, and felt abandoned: "Hatch then spoke with her parents, but never mentioned the abuse, Kosnoff said. Believing her mother had been told, Jessica felt abandoned, she said."

4. At some point, he referred her to LDSSS.

5. An indeterminate number of years passed, in which the step father abused both girls, and then focused on the younger sister.

6. It is not clear from the articles when the mother knew, but it is clear that she did not know when Jessi had her initial meeting with Hatch.

7. LDSSS does have a duty to report and did have a connection with Jessi via the referral from Hatch. If the only way to access LDSSS is via the bishop, then that is likely how the attorney in question convinced the jury that the bishop was acting as an agent of LDSSS. The attorney maintains that because of LDSSS's intake process, the bishop clearly is part of LDSSS. LDSSS is wholly owned by the church. If LDSSS is liable, then the church is liable.

(Disclaimer: at no point have I stated what my own personal feelings are on this case, nor as we come up on Thanksgiving, should anyone make a judgment of Pickles in general based on this thread. Thank you for your support of Pickles everywhere.)

[clarkgoble]

nomdujour: Clark, who do you consider to be the "innocent neighbor?" A jury didnt award this willynilly. The evidence obviously weighed in favor of one side. You may choose to dismiss that, I understand. But at least we agree that one side clearly presented facts more favorably.

I certainly agree. I am merely saying that people here are debating the case without having the facts of the case. That seems inappropriate. And both sides are doing it. How on earth can I possibly comment on whether the jury made an appropriate decision without knowing the facts? Just because the jury decided doesn't entail that the decision was just. Just that it was made. We all know trials - especially civil trials - where there seems quite a bit of injustice involved.

What I worry about is the rather all too frequent situation on Forums where much heat and debate is generated with precious few facts involved.

nomdujour: The training is weak. Training seems to be more about motivation and feeling the spirit than practical advice.

I've certainly seen many Bishops making bad decisions. Not having been to the training I can't say. I think it is an issue with a lay leadership though. How can you possible ever give the training to lay members that people desire? The problem is that people want Bishops to be more than Bishops. (IMO) i.e. we expect too much from leaders. And admittedly part of that expectation probably lies in church culture.

nomdujour: I think there is a big gap between what members are expected to think a Bishop is capable of accomplishing and what Bishop is able of accomplishing. While you may see that as a weakness of the members and the members alone should be accountable for all things, I see it as a problem that should be fixed.

I think that's a fair comment. I think that perhaps informing members, probably many who've never been in leadership, the limits of leadership would be helpful. Those who've had to be leaders tend to take a very different perspective on things.

I tend to come from the school of thought that most members demand too much from both the church and the leaders. I see church as a place to facilitate individual service by members. It is not a place to expect service.

nomdujour: . . .but in this case, it is not just the molestor who is the "sick person doing ," but also the Bishops, Counselors and Stake President. And possibly more. And yes, the church now condems what they did, it is unclear whether the Church really condemned their choices at the time. The jury, who knows more than me, says the Church was wrong. Feel free to disagree.

Once again to urge caution one can be negligent without being complicit. I've not read the details of the decision, but from the quotes I've seen, the former and not the latter is what was claimed.

I stand by my comments that there are many irresponsible and harsh comments going back and forth here in an inappropriate fashion.

(More later as I continue to read through the posts made since last night)

[Del March]

from the Pickle: I didn't see your questions to Jessi as a person trying to understand what happened. I saw it as you trying an already decided case again on this forum, and in the process, extracting yet another pound of flesh from the person who is the true victim in this situation.

That's your problem if you want to read more into my questions than I actually meant. Here is what I said at the beginning of the post where I asked my questions:

Jessica,

if you're still around, I'd like to ask you some questions, in order to clarify my understanding, because all those conflicting reports don't help much.

If you want to accuse me of lying about my intentions, you're free to do so.

As for the other questions: The church is a legal entity, Del. As a legal entity, it has all sorts of legal responsibilities.

Yes, but it seems that the very matter of whether or not the Church had a legal duty to report the accusation of abuse is something that was decided by the jury at the end of the trial. As shown over and over on this thread, the matter of whether or not the Church has a duty to report such accusations is everything but a simple, black-and-white matter.

Teenagers are legally children until they're 18 in the USA. Maybe it's different in France.

Yes, teenagers are chldren until 18 in France too, but we don't call teenage girls "little girls" anymore.

Del

[Moksha]

from the Pickle jar: there are no winners in this situation and it saddens me beyond belief.

Some comments:

1. This has already been tried in court. After hearing testimony from both sides, a jury of 12 average people voted and came to a verdict. Asking Jessi to answer detailed questions about details of the case here seems like hubris. She has already been through more than one trial about this question; putting her through it again seems unFair. Let us leave off with trying this case again in this thread.

2. This lawsuit was not about what the perp did. That was established as a point of law prior to this lawsuit. This lawsuit was about stewardship, about what the bishop was supposed to do but did not do. Bishops act as the local contact of the church. They are the church's finger in the neighborhood. When bishops screw up in their official capacity, it is the church that screws up. The jury determined that the bishop had a duty which he did not fulfill. This is what we should be discussing, not details of this case. What duty, if any, did the bishop, and by extension the church, have to fulfill in this type of situation?

3. Jessi did not win anything; by no fault of her own, she lost that which is most precious and cannot be replaced, but that is not what was decided in this trial. What this jury found was that, once she reported the abuse, those that should have protected her did not. The jury awarded her damages, but money cannot replace what she lost. Protest the damages if you must, but claiming she "won" is both unFair and unChristlike. None here should have to be reminded of what she lost. She was not responsible for her situation and ridiculing or chastising her for seeking compensation from those who were supposed to protect her after she reported the abuse but didn't is both rehensible and misplaced. She trusted the church via her bishop and the church let her down. This lawsuit is not about the abuse she undoubtedly suffered. This lawsuit is about the protection she had a right to expect after she reported it to her bishop, which was not afforded to her. We should never forget that she suffered as a child, not just because her stepfather molested her, but because she was not protected after she reported him.

What we should be discussing is whether or not this little girl had a right to trust that the church would protect her after she told her bishop about the abuse. What we should not be doing is denigrating this girl's experience as some sort of perceived undeserved victimhood, cross examining her again in this forum, or personalizing our responses.

Back to your regularly scheduled defense of the church at all costs, even that of a child's misery.

Dill this is a very good analysis, the thing is the last sentence made me want to cry....

[USU78]

She had obviously told him of the abuse at some point prior to that statement, and his advice was that she not tell civil authorities because they "would try to destroy her family."

I note that Gurke does not mention here that the foregoing is disputed.

But then, we can't ever mention possible prejudices in Plaintiffs which might affect their testimonies.

[USU78]

Yes, teenagers are chldren until 18 in France too, but we don't call teenage girls "little girls" anymore.

Explain again what jeune fille means, please.

[Confidential Informant]

2. 6-8 yrs later, she told a friend (when she was 13-15, junior high is 7-9 grade in Washington). The friend told the bishop; the bishop called the family in to his office. According to the account on the 1st page of this thread, "Hatch told her to be glad she had not told civil authorities, who would try to destroy her family." She had obviously told him of the abuse at some point prior to that statement, and his advice was that she not tell civil authorities because they "would try to destroy her family."

Compare with:

LDS officials dispute the story, saying that Jessica Cavalieri did not tell Hatch about the abuse until approximately 1998 or 1999 and that Hatch then reported the abuse to police within weeks. They point to testimony from Jessica Cavalieri's best friend, who said the victim confided to her that she couldn't bring herself to tell her bishop about the abuse.

But the point on appeal which will ultimately win out:

Keetch said the trial judge allowed the jury to consider Hatch as acting in a social worker capacity when he was told of the abuse. Under Washington law, a member of the clergy is not required to report sexual abuse but a social services counselor is.

I would be really curious to read the court's ruling on this issue and see what logic it employed to come to the conclusion that a lay-cleric is somehow a licensed social worker.

"He's an engineer for Boeing," Keetch said, adding Hatch had no training or license as a social worker.

Like I said, no one had better start counting money yet.

C.I.

[Paul Osborne]

The LDS Church is not an insurance company.

Paul O

[USU78]

Back to your regularly scheduled defense of the church at all costs, even that of a child's misery.

Dill this is a very good analysis, the thing is the last sentence made me want to cry....

Nonsense, Moksha.

We are not children, nor are we old persnickity schoolmarms unable to look coldly and clearly at what's really going on here.

Dry your eyes. Wash your face. Put on the whole armor. Be a mensch, for heaven's sake.

And address, if you would, why, if we are not living under tyranny, the Church should be solely responsible for all damages ever suffered by the girls, notwithstanding its ephemeral involvement.

Answer that to my satisfaction and I'll share a hanky with you.

[Sput]

then the police were investigating Pete Taylor, the Church did refuse to cooperate. The prosecuting attorney did comment that she was very close to charging some Church leaders with obstruction of justice. I think that was the straw that broke the camel

[Del March]

Yes, teenagers are chldren until 18 in France too, but we don't call teenage girls "little girls" anymore.

Explain again what jeune fille means, please.

The litteral translation is "young girl", but the real interpretation is "young woman". The interpretation of "little girl" is its litteral translation: "petite fille".

Del

[USU78]

Yes, teenagers are chldren until 18 in France too, but we don't call teenage girls "little girls" anymore.

Explain again what jeune fille means, please.

The litteral translation is "young girl", but the real interpretation is "young woman". The interpretation of "little girl" is its litteral translation: "petite fille".

Del

Just pulling your leg, chere.

[Paul Osborne]

Oh beloved Charity, holy one of FAIR, bless you in this holiday season.

Again, keep your little nuisancy jibberish.

I can't wait for you to get the BOOT!

You're going to get kicked off, you silly boy.

Paul O

[Bsix]

1. It started in 1988, when she was 7 yrs old, not 1998, Bsix.

Six: I am aware of that. I was making reference to when the abuse was supposedly first reported to the original bishop.

2. 6-8 yrs later, she told a friend (when she was 13-15, junior high is 7-9 grade in Washington). The friend told the bishop; the bishop called the family in to his office. According to the account on the 1st page of this thread, "Hatch told her to be glad she had not told civil authorities, who would try to destroy her family." She had obviously told him of the abuse at some point prior to that statement, and his advice was that she not tell civil authorities because they "would try to destroy her family."

Six: With respect, that is the newspaper account from one side of the dispute. There is no documentary evidence to support that claim. The Bishop has stated a different set of events. He-said-she-said.

3. At that point, Hatch did not tell her mother she was being abused. She, however, thought her mother knew, and felt abandoned: "Hatch then spoke with her parents, but never mentioned the abuse, Kosnoff said. Believing her mother had been told, Jessica felt abandoned, she said."

Six: Again, that is the media's version plaintiff's telling of the event...for which there is absolutely no documentary evidence.

4. At some point, he referred her to LDSSS.

Six: With all due respect, that is not evident from the media accounts. I got the impression that the LDSSS referal was made by the second bishop in conjunction with the confession made years after the first bishop met with the family. Also, if a referral was made by the first Bishop, he may have made the referral for matters unrelated to sexual abuse.

5. An indeterminate number of years passed, in which the step father abused both girls, and then focused on the younger sister.

Six: That is sadly true.

6. It is not clear from the articles when the mother knew, but it is clear that she did not know when Jessi had her initial meeting with Hatch.

Six: We do know that she found out for sure at the same time the abuser made his confession to the second Bishop.

7. LDSSS does have a duty to report and did have a connection with Jessi via the referral from Hatch. If the only way to access LDSSS is via the bishop, then that is likely how the attorney in question convinced the jury that the bishop was acting as an agent of LDSSS. The attorney maintains that because of LDSSS's intake process, the bishop clearly is part of LDSSS. LDSSS is wholly owned by the church. If LDSSS is liable, then the church is liable.

Six: That assumes that Hatch made a referral related to the first meeting...and that he understood that there was sexual abuse...and that the counselor at the time understood that there was sexual abuse. I think this is an assumption based on speculation.

Regards,

Six

[nomdujour]

This was just revenge according to Jessica (if it is her). The only opinion i have is I do not know how money will fix this situation. The church has done plenty to protect its congregation from pedophiles. And that anyone loses their victim status as soon as they go after money. Those are my feelings and only feelings about cases such as this even with the Catholic church. In no way can money make everything better.

Interesting. I saw a brutal case of abuse of a child in 2003. The Bishop played a role in that event. A child was in intensive care and in temporary custody of CPS. The Bishop offered to summons the legal arsenal of the Church, which put the family in a very peculiar bind. It was a fiasco. There was a slpit in the ward because of the decisions of the leaders.

So, in my opinion, this is wrong, the church has not done enough. Maybe this is one case, maybe it is one of many. But it is enough to counter your claim that enough has been done. The fallout and actions that ensued, should have and could have taken place prior to a child ending up in ICU. Again, you may be right generally, but I know you are not correct empiracally.

A victim is still a victim if they want food. They are still a victim if they want shelter. So you are obviously splitting some hairs here. Are they no longer a victim when they go after more than $1,000 (as suggested by a previous post) or when they go after the money of the perpetrator, or when they go after institutional money, or when they go after the Lords money? Maybe that money ceased to be the Lords money when by the mistakes of the Lords servants the Lords rights were forfeited.

Money cant make everything better. But change can make something better. It looks like it took money to get something rolling to create change.

[Confidential Informant]

The Bishop offered to summons the legal arsenal of the Church, which put the family in a very peculiar bind.

I'm curious as to what "legal arsenal" he was referring to since a Bishop has no authority to dispatch a legal arsenal of any sorts and wards do not keep attorneys on retainer.

C.I.

[nomdujour]

Oh beloved Charity, holy one of FAIR, bless you in this holiday season.

Again, keep your little nuisancy jibberish.

I can't wait for you to get the BOOT!

You're going to get kicked off, you silly boy.

Paul O

Kicked off for what? Disagreeing? Thinking? Or not obeying the unwritten order of things, tasteless worship of Pahoran et al? Help me out, I missed the memo.

Do tell, what hurt your feelings? To whom shall I surrendor my membership card?

Don't you agree that the boot would speak volumes for the board and its moderators (who have assumed an unenviable job?)

[auteur55]

"I can't wait for you to get the BOOT!

You're going to get kicked off, you silly boy."

Amen to that.