Child Abuse And The Mormon Response

[mpittsmrp55]

I've been very curious lately about the church response to sexual child abuse. , in regards to mandatory reporting laws. I'm a student at Cardozo School of law where I've had Professor Marci Hamilton for a number of classes. For those of you who know anything about the issue, you'll likely recognize professor Hamilton's name. She'd been very active in criticizing the church in its response initiative.

In viewing her research I've attempted to approach it with an open mind, quelling my knee jerk reaction to immediately jump to the defense of the Church. I've had to genuinely ask myself whether the Church is doing all it can to prevent continued abuse among members and to achieve immediate cessation once a Church leader becomes aware of the issue.

If anyone is interested, I put together a short survey to gauge what people know about the Church policy, and also to find out what they initially feel that it should be. I'd love feedback on the survey and on this post.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XYG3BJG

[LDS_RM]

calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

[Buzzard]

calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

With the diversity of reporting requirements across various jurisdictions, calling the church helpline is the prudent response. In some states a bishop can be criminally charged if he learns of child abuse, even if the perpetrator confesses it directly to him in a clergy-penitent situation. In others, he can be sued by the confessee for breaking the "seal of confession". And there are plenty of attorneys ready to pounce on the churches deep pockets on both sides of the equation.

In practice, even in areas where confessional conversations are priveliged, turning oneself in to civil authorities would be a required part of any repentance process. I think the days of bishops covering up for abusers and trying to deal with the situation internally are pretty much done.

[LDS_RM]

With the diversity of reporting requirements across various jurisdictions, calling the church helpline is the prudent response. In some states a bishop can be criminally charged if he learns of child abuse, even if the perpetrator confesses it directly to him in a clergy-penitent situation. In others, he can be sued by the confessee for breaking the "seal of confession". And there are plenty of attorneys ready to pounce on the churches deep pockets on both sides of the equation.

In practice, even in areas where confessional conversations are priveliged, turning oneself in to civil authorities would be a required part of any repentance process. I think the days of bishops covering up for abusers and trying to deal with the situation internally are pretty much done.

yes there is a diversity of reporting, which Bishop should be trained immediately after they are set apart as Bishop. Calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop, calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.

[Buzzard]

yes there is a diversity of reporting, which Bishop should be trained immediately after they are set apart as Bishop. Calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop, calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.

Sooo...once a bishop has been trained, if he comes across a situation with legal implications that he may not fully grasp, he should just wing it? We all agree that children come first, but that shouldn't have to conflict with protecting the church's good name-and their assets.

[KevinG]

CFR (real proof) that the church hotline exists to "protect an entity" and not the children. That is a nasty accusation.

The Hotline is there to provide the Bishop or other ecclesiastical leader with counsel on how to proceed with reporting in their jurisdiction to provide the best follow up for the victims and avoid getting the volunteer leaders in trouble with the law. There is also a wide network of referral psychologists and local resources victims and perpetrators can be connected with.

As far as the "response" predatory behavior is one of the few sins someone can be excommunicated for without a church disciplinary counsel. Those who have committed crimes against children are not allowed in callings where they deal with children the rest of their lives. As far as eternal consequences those who offend little ones are better off with a millstone hung about their neck and drowned in the sea.

But any additional temporal consequences are up to the local legal authorities. Would you advocate improvisation or vigilantism by church officials when it came to responding to crimes committed by members in their units?

[LDS_RM]

Sooo...once a bishop has been trained, if he comes across a situation with legal implications that he may not fully grasp, he should just wing it? We all agree that children come first, but that shouldn't have to conflict with protecting the church's good name-and their assets.

we are discussing Child abuse and US laws on reporting, it is not a complicated situation. Report the abuse unless you learned of the abuse during a confession of the abuse.

[KevinG]

I have some issues with the survey. It could result in very bad results.

The survey cannot be answered correctly. Some of the choices should be and not or. The answers will depend on situation and jurisdiction also.

You should ask if the survey takers are in Bishopric or Stake Presidency positions - the general membership does not have training or knowledge of the proper response.

[KevinG]

we are discussing Child abuse and US laws on  reporting, it is not a complicated situation. Report the abuse unless you learned of the abuse during a confession of the abuse.

You are misinformed.  The reporting requirements vary from state to state (http://www.childwelf...policies/state/) and incorrectly reporting a crime could let the perpetrator off the hook for their actions.  

I deal with this issue in professional coaching.  If someone reveals something outside of the professional relationship I counsel them that I may have to report any revelations of spouse or child abuse depending on their state requirements.  Fortunately the kind of counseling I do outside of Church rarely ventures into non-business territory but sometimes people will try to assuage their guilt when someone is listening.

Edited April 26, 2012 by KevinG

[Calm]

calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

Do you have firsthand or accurate information about just what the call involves in order to judge it this way?

If a child isn't in immediate danger, as in being attacked or kidnapped within the next half hour, is there any inherent harm to the child for the bishop to call the hotline to make sure he is handling the matter in an appropriate way?

I think requiring the bishops to call a hotline rather than immediately calling law authorities will actually result in more calls to the authorities as the bishops won't be relying solely on their own judgment whether there is child abuse or not. Bishops are emotional beings as well as any other human, they may not remember accurately what they are supposed to do in moments of crisis. As mentioned above, do you want an improper reporting to result in a perpetrator getting off due to the bishop's evidence being not allowed? Do you think it is a good idea for the bishop to worry about the confessional privilege in states where this cannot be invoked for cases of child abuse and others? Having a hotline puts the worrying in the laps of those who are best suited for it, those trained in the local rules and regulations so that the best legal approach to holding a perpetrator responsible can be undertaken for any locality. This is what will result in the best protection for all children in the long run.

If there was not this hotline for the bishop, I could see some on borderline cases, fearful of the impact on all involved (what if it is a false accusation and the child is taken from loving parents unnecessarily for example, something that can be very traumatic), deciding to view it as less than child abuse for the time being while investigating it himself....something he is not trained to do and something that could result in further harm to the child. Having somewhere safe for all concerned (no chance of rumours getting out) through the hotline results, imo, in more effective treatment any accusation and less likely for bishops to make mistakes of any kind, but especially those involving the child.

The hotline, imo, does more than just hook the bishop up with a lawyer, IIRC it has the latest info on child services as well.

Edited April 26, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

yes there is a diversity of reporting, which Bishop should be trained immediately after they are set apart as Bishop. Calling the lawyer first is little or nothing to do with protecting a Bishop, calling the lawyer first is about protecting an entity.

An "entity?"

Really?

And what "entity" would that be?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Duncan]

my idea for any issue involving legal issues like this is to call the police then the Church, let the cops figure out things and when the dust settles the Church can get involved if need be

[LDS_RM]

You are misinformed. The reporting requirements vary from state to state (http://www.childwelf...policies/state/) and incorrectly reporting a crime could let the perpetrator off the hook for their actions.

I deal with this issue in professional coaching. If someone reveals something outside of the professional relationship I counsel them that I may have to report any revelations of spouse or child abuse depending on their state requirements. Fortunately the kind of counseling I do outside of Church rarely ventures into non-business territory but sometimes people will try to assuage their guilt when someone is listening.

keving, most states have a clergy/confession exemption to mandatory reporting of child abuse. My statement concerning reporting unless learned during a confessional is generally correct, if not the rule for all US States.

[Calm]

When it comes to legal matters, going by the 'general rule' can get you into big trouble.

[rpn]

I applaud bishops who call to find out what the heck they are supposed to do about this. The hotline isn't just to help them understand the difference between their duty of confidentiality to a perp who confides in them, and their duty to protect the innocent. It is also to help them understand what they need to do to help each of those involved get what they need in difficult circumstance. And reporting child abuse doesn't always result in timely and effective response, either.

And a bishop can (and bishops do) take a number of steps to protect a child without violating the confessional, including advising the perp to move out of the home and to encourage spouse to get help for the child, telling the innocent spouse that if she wants to move out of the home, the bishop will help her do it. Advising the innocent spouse (or parents of the victim) to never leave the children alone with the perp, and to take the children for counseling, offering to pay for it, releasing perps from callings and assigning them a chaperone at church, even interviewing the innocent spouse or asking the parents to be allowed to interview the victim, in an effort to get the information from someone in a situation which is NOT protected by the confessional.

What people don't seem to understand is that confessional privilege opens a door to stopping the problem. There is value in having a place where a perp can go to get help when they want to stop but can't do it by themselves. A perp knows that they can't be frank with a counselor (which is also a mistake since the mandatory report just assures the person won't get help and how does that help stop the problem) without being arrested. I'm sure some feel like, well locking them up is a good thing. Of course they should pay a price. But prosecution of perps is NOT always the way that best helps either the victim or prevents others from being victimized. And virtually everyone who is arrested for child abuse will someday be back in the community. So the first priority should be preventing the abuse from every happening to someone else, not revenge for what has already happened.

The question about whether a person has to give up his constitutional rights to remain silent in order to be repentant is one that I have spent some time wrestling with, including discussing it with priesthood leaders. If we believe that our constitution is divinely inspired, then we have to say that waiving the Fifth Amendment privilege is not a requirement of repentance. (Although I strongly suspect that a guilty plea to any crime that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt may be, because making a victim go through a trial under those conditions seems to compound the injury.)

Edited April 26, 2012 by rpn

[selek1]

calling a lawyer first, who is paid to protect an entity, is not acting in the best interest of children.

Ironically, "RM"- a child is an "entity"- and one of the "entities" being protected.

Your insinuation (however vague and asinine) that the Hotline exists only to protect the Church is entirely without merit or foundation.

It is beyond ironic that you (and others) are insisting that the only proper course of action (when confronted with the monstrous crime of child abuse) is to act in haste and without consideration or concern about the law.

In what sort of world must one live to believe that hasty, ill-considered, or knee-jerk responses are automagically the wise and correct course?

Edited April 27, 2012 by selek1

[KevinG]

keving, most states have a clergy/confession exemption to mandatory reporting of child abuse. My statement concerning reporting unless learned during a confessional is generally correct, if not the rule for all US States.

It is quite complex. I provided a link. There is no reasoning with you if you refuse to take advantage of the evidence before you.

therefore I am convinced you are not willing to abandon a good gripe against the LDS even when provided with evidence that it is not valid.

Time to ignore the ranting.

[LDS_RM]

Kevin it is not complex. From the link you provided, there was information on 41 US jurisdictions. 28 exempt clergy from mandatory reporting if the information is gained during a confession of the perpetrator. 11 do not exempt Clergy.

For 2 it was not clear, those 2are New Mexico and Wyoming. Do you care to articulate why you think it is complex. A member of Clergy is either a mandatory reporter or not. And your link shows how easy it is to determine whether a member of Clergy is a mandatory reporter.

[LDS_RM]

Selek, I take then, you consider mandatory reporting to be a knee-jerk, unwise ill conceived approach without concern for the law.

Yes there is irony, and it is your statement. Some states mandate by law - the consent of the governed - that even Clergy are mandatory reporters of child abuse.

[selek1]

Selek, I take then, you consider mandatory reporting to be a knee-jerk, unwise ill conceived approach without concern for the law.

I have said or implied nothing of the sort.

It is you, not I who insists upon serving up the tainted banquet of "consulting the hotline" versus "mandatory reporting".

Except where one chooses to deliberately and falsely insist otherwise, the two are not contradictory.

Such a false dichotomy is borne either of willful deceit or blind ideology- but it has no bearing on the situation that an LDS ecclesiastical leader may face.

In point of fact, I believe and accept the 12th Article of Faith.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Where mandatory reporting is, in fact, the law of the land- that is precisely the action the Church will direct. As such, your complaint that "Some states mandate by law - the consent of the governed - that even Clergy are mandatory reporters of child abuse." is irrelevant.

Contrary to your shrill insistence, we are not contradicting or thwarting the law in any way.

There is no conflict between "consulting the hotline" and "doing what the law requires".

You have manufactured that dichotomy out of whole cloth, along with the hateful insinuation that the Hotline exists solely to protect the Church.

And no- it has not gone unnoticed that you neither answered my questions.nor provided any sort of justification for your hateful smear.

It is a common tactic in high-pressure sales to place the victim/customer in a position where they must "choose quickly" or "act now" in order to compel an action (a purchase) that might otherwise prove unattractive or even unwise.

"You must act now!" is almost universally a red-flag indicating that the speaker is pulling a fast one.

Likewise, certain unscrupulous law enforcement officers have pressured or cajoled suspects into answering questions or allowing even illegal searches without allowing them to consult their attorneys- and then twisted those innocent statements into either an admission of guilt or justification for other abuses.

Your insistence that a Bishop must "act now" instead of taking the brief moments necessary to consult a wise and valuable resource has the same tinge of unenlightened and agenda driven self-interest.

Edited April 27, 2012 by selek1

[LDS_RM]

Selek1, it is humorous your position. You describe mandatory reporting as "act now" and unenlightened, yet you express no outrage that a person who happens to be a member of clergy must report I.e. "act now" if that person knows of child abuse, and that knowledge was gained in a non confessional setting or a setting unrelated to that persons clergy position.

[selek1]

Selek1, it is humorous your position. You describe mandatory reporting as "act now" and unenlightened,

This is what normal people call "a lie".

I have said nothing of the kind. In point of fact, I have acknowledged that there are instances where mandatory reporting is both legal and appropriate.

It is you- and you alone- who insists that mandatory reporting is incompatible with taking the brief few moments necessary to consult the hotline.

Your entire premise has been that it is somehow disreputable or unreasonable for an LDS leader to consult the hotline when confronted with an allegation of abuse.

It is your contention that the only reasonable course of action is to report first and ask questions later.

You have offered no evidence in support of any of those contentions- and shown a considerable disingenuous in attempting to avoid doing so.

That being the case, neither of our positions is humorous. Domestic abuse is tragic.

It becomes even less funny when mated to a Je accuse! mentality.

Robespierre has been dead for nearly two hundred and twenty years. "Guilty until proven innocent" should be allowed to lie just as dead.

yet you express no outrage that a person who happens to be a member of clergy must report I.e. "act now" if that person knows of child abuse

Why would this outrage me? In many places it is the law of the land, and is perfectly in accord with the 12th Article of Faith.

I have no objections to mandatory reporting- nor do any of the LDS clergy with whom I've served.

I simply object to your invidious and hateful accusations against the Church.

Edited April 27, 2012 by selek1

[KevinG]

LDS_RM would you act as your own counsel in a court of law if you thought the law seemed simple in your case?

If a church leader assumed the reporting requirement was simple in a state with laws protecting the confidentiality of confession and turned in a self confessed abuser improperly the abuser could go free!! How is that protecting the child?

The accusation that the church protects itself before its members, especially children, is absurd in the extreme.

(I really should learn to ignore better - I have a feeling this is going to be like explaining gravity to Humpty Dumpty)

[LDS_RM]

LDS_RM would you act as your own counsel in a court of law if you thought the law seemed simple in your case?

If a church leader assumed the reporting requirement was simple in a state with laws protecting the confidentiality of confession and turned in a self confessed abuser improperly the abuser could go free!! How is that protecting the child?

The accusation that the church protects itself before its members, especially children, is absurd in the extreme.

(I really should learn to ignore better - I have a feeling this is going to be like explaining gravity to Humpty Dumpty)

Kevin, I am not sure what your complaint is. What is your link suppose to prove? Your link allows a person to select a state and select clergy as mandatory reporter, that is a pretty simple set up. Can you explain how the issue is so complex, especially considering the link you provided.

Granted NM and WY are difficult to understand from the link you provided. However for 28 US jurisdictions the issue is pretty clear, clergy must report UNLESS the knowledge is gained from the abuser during a confession of the abuser to the clergy.

Edited April 27, 2012 by LDS_RM

[Calm]

The Church hotline can give advice on how best to report an abuse case in order to give it the attention it deserves (as in immediate if necessary). Since details vary from situation to situation, this is not something that is easily handled simply by looking up a list to see state requirements or even in a one time training session. It makes sense to me that bishops consult experts in the field in order to guarantee as much as possible that the proper treatment of both abused and abuser and all those involved is given and not messed up through poor communication.