Proposed Changes Recommended For Reporting Confessed Child Abuse

[JulieM]

I have seen discussions today about this elsewhere online, but haven't seen it posted here.  I thought in light of the recently locked thread (where the Franklyn Curtis case involving the Mormon church was being discussed), it was relevant to us too.

How do members here feel about a Priest or Bishop being forced to reveal child abuse confessed to them in private?  Could the child involved in the Curtis case been spared the abuse if the Bishop had warned his mother about his repeated behavior as a child abuser?

Here is a link to the article and a couple of quotes from it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/royal-commission-into-child-sexual-abuse-recommendations/8804040

 

"Clergy who fail to report information about child sexual abuse heard during confession would face criminal charges under a series of sweeping changes to the criminal justice system recommended in a new report."

......

"The royal commission said it had heard evidence of multiple cases where abuse was disclosed in confession, both by victims and perpetrators."

"We heard evidence that perpetrators who confessed to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness again.

"We have concluded that the importance of protecting children from child sexual abuse means that there should be no exemption from the failure to report offence for clergy in relation to information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession."

 

[rongo]

I think this is something that the Church/priesthood leaders should do on their own (i.e., without being forced to). I differ from the Church on this, and have had to deal with the other end of this (victims in my ward, not the perpetrator). If a person confessed something like this to me, I would ask him/her if he/she was really contrite and wanted to do everything to make things right. When the answer is "yes," I would tell them that they need to turn themselves in to the police and cooperate fully with the investigation, and take whatever consequences follow. If they aren't willing to do that, I would inform them that I would contact the police, but that this should be them. Do they really want to do everything they can to repent?

This puts me at odds with the counsel you get by calling the abuse hotline, but it's the right thing to do. In my view, and in my experience.

[clarkgoble]

My understanding is that it's already policy to immediately report to the police any evidence of child abuse. I believe that in the United States that's been law for quite some time. It's a good law.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding is that it's already policy to immediately report to the police any evidence of child abuse. I believe that in the United States that's been law for quite some time. It's a good law.

I agree (if that's definitely the case).

But what about a bishop warning a potential victim (as in the Curtis case)?

I know that's not so black and white most likely.

rongo, I'd love your thoughts on that too as a bishop (iirc you are serving as one, right?).  Would you have told or warned the mother involved (in confidence)?

Edited August 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this is something that the Church/priesthood leaders should do on their own (i.e., without being forced to). I differ from the Church on this, and have had to deal with the other end of this (victims in my ward, not the perpetrator). If a person confessed something like this to me, I would ask him/her if he/she was really contrite and wanted to do everything to make things right. When the answer is "yes," I would tell them that they need to turn themselves in to the police and cooperate fully with the investigation, and take whatever consequences follow. If they aren't willing to do that, I would inform them that I would contact the police, but that this should be them. Do they really want to do everything they can to repent?

This puts me at odds with the counsel you get by calling the abuse hotline, but it's the right thing to do. In my view, and in my experience.

The Bishop's first duty is to protect the child (if in his Ward) or the wife (if physical abuse), and then the general public. One thing that we know about those who sexually assault children, is that they cannot be healed, ever, and without the crimal courts keeping tabs on them, they will do it again (even though many do).  Also, just as mental health care Dr's and workers, must report anything where the person is a danger to themself and others. So must Bishops, or Stake Presidents, or even Home Teachers, because this too is a Priesthood calling. In fact, since every calling within the Church as it relates to men is a Priesthood calling, this can put themselves and The Church at risk for criminal prosecution. Maybe it is the police officer in me, but I would not even let him leave my office before I was on the phone. I would not constrain him, I would inform him that I must do this, because as I said it would be my duty to do so, as a Bishop, a Father, a Grandfather and as a good citizen. I would also be required to do so if the Mother knew what was going on and allowed it, because the same rules would apply to her. When anyone knows and does not act in the best interest of the child, all become a part of the crime to lesser degrees. 

In our Ward once we had a brother move in from another State. There he served (at his request) in any calling he could dealing with the Young Men's Program. Sadly the only information that our Bishop was given was that he was spending so much time with the Young Men, via his calling it was causing "martial problems". So in the beginning he was given other callings, but used the Scouting Program (as most know, not many ever want to help in Scouting) where he helped with merit badges. Soon he became Scout Master, and as all seemed to be going well, he became Young Men's President again. I was High Priest Group President at the time, and had some Fathers who felt like he was trying to take their place as their fathers. Something I pointed out in PEC Meeting, and wondered why he had the calling due to past issues. The Bishop at the time wondered how I knew this, and why I brought it up in an open meeting. Keep in mind, no one knew what he was doing, (or I should say what he might be doing) but in hindsight it is very clear now. My son left scouting and refused to have anything to do with him, he (my son) said that there was just something very wrong with the brother. So one night (as we found out later) the Young's Men President, showed up in the dead of night with other Priests and vandalized out yard. When this came to light, he was dismissed. Slowly other complaints came to light, and he uprooted his family and moved out West. Within a year he was arrested and convicted of child molestation of a Priest, as he had talked his way back into become the Young Men President, again! The Bishop had long talks with all the young men to insure that allegations being spoken of where (hopefully) not true. 

So, more simply put, the protection of children "must be" the primary reason for contacting authorities, and not because of "what" might happen to us, or liability to the Church. Also, wives should be the first phone call, then the police, as another night should not pass where children might be in danger of any physical abuse. Sorry for the length of this reply, but I feel very strongly about this issue, as it relates to Spiritual matters and criminal matters. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding is that it's already policy to immediately report to the police any evidence of child abuse. I believe that in the United States that's been law for quite some time. It's a good law.

Evidence doesn't include confession (or "only" confession), and reporting to the police is *not* what you are told at the hotline. You are told "you have no legal obligation to report this." It is very important to the Church's lawyers to preserve the clergy privilege and not undermine it, and I don't want to casually erode it. But, I consider facing the legal consequences and doing everything you can to help victim families heal to be essential to real repentance. 

I'm with Papa Lee. I would inform the penitent that they need to report it themselves now, and if they didn't, then I would.

Edited August 17, 2017 by rongo

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 If a person confessed something like this to me, I would ask him/her if he/she was really contrite and wanted to do everything to make things right. When the answer is "yes," I would tell them that they need to turn themselves in to the police and cooperate fully with the investigation, and take whatever consequences follow. If they aren't willing to do that, I would inform them that I would contact the police, but that this should be them. Do they really want to do everything they can to repent?

This puts me at odds with the counsel you get by calling the abuse hotline, but it's the right thing to do. In my view, and in my experience.

If a perpetrator knew that you were going to report them to the police following their confession might that perpetrator then be less inclined to confess to you?  I fully agree that a bishops counsel to a perpetrator should be to turn themselves in, but changing clergy confidentiality may have unintended consequences.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Evidence doesn't include confession, and reporting to the police is *not* what you are told at the hotline. You are told "you have no legal obligation to report this."

I'm with Papa Lee. I would inform the penitent that they need to report it themselves now, and if they didn't, then I would.

I can't speak to the hotline, but it is law that they have to do it in many states. Utah law says it's not required if given as a confession but is required for any other information. Stated Church policy is that the prime focus is to protect victims. Membership records are supposed to be annotated if they are an abuse perpetrator. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think this is something that the Church/priesthood leaders should do on their own (i.e., without being forced to). I differ from the Church on this, and have had to deal with the other end of this (victims in my ward, not the perpetrator). If a person confessed something like this to me, I would ask him/her if he/she was really contrite and wanted to do everything to make things right. When the answer is "yes," I would tell them that they need to turn themselves in to the police and cooperate fully with the investigation, and take whatever consequences follow. If they aren't willing to do that, I would inform them that I would contact the police, but that this should be them. Do they really want to do everything they can to repent?

This puts me at odds with the counsel you get by calling the abuse hotline, but it's the right thing to do. In my view, and in my experience.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The Bishop's first duty is to protect the child (if in his Ward) or the wife (if physical abuse), and then the general public. One thing that we know about those who sexually assault children, is that they cannot be healed, ever, and without the crimal courts keeping tabs on them, they will do it again (even though many do).  Also, just as mental health care Dr's and workers, must report anything where the person is a danger to themself and others. So must Bishops, or Stake Presidents, or even Home Teachers, because this too is a Priesthood calling. In fact, since every calling within the Church as it relates to men is a Priesthood calling, this can put themselves and The Church at risk for criminal prosecution. Maybe it is the police officer in me, but I would not even let him leave my office before I was on the phone. I would not constrain him, I would inform him that I must do this, because as I said it would be my duty to do so, as a Bishop, a Father, a Grandfather and as a good citizen. I would also be required to do so if the Mother knew what was going on and allowed it, because the same rules would apply to her. When anyone knows and does not act in the best interest of the child, all become a part of the crime to lesser degrees. 

In our Ward once we had a brother move in from another State. There he served (at his request) in any calling he could dealing with the Young Men's Program. Sadly the only information that our Bishop was given was that he was spending so much time with the Young Men, via his calling it was causing "martial problems". So in the beginning he was given other callings, but used the Scouting Program (as most know, not many ever want to help in Scouting) where he helped with merit badges. Soon he became Scout Master, and as all seemed to be going well, he became Young Men's President again. I was High Priest Group President at the time, and had some Fathers who felt like he was trying to take their place as their fathers. Something I pointed out in PEC Meeting, and wondered why he had the calling due to past issues. The Bishop at the time wondered how I knew this, and why I brought it up in an open meeting. Keep in mind, no one knew what he was doing, (or I should say what he might be doing) but in hindsight it is very clear now. My son left scouting and refused to have anything to do with him, he (my son) said that there was just something very wrong with the brother. So one night (as we found out later) the Young's Men President, showed up in the dead of night with other Priests and vandalized out yard. When this came to light, he was dismissed. Slowly other complaints came to light, and he uprooted his family and moved out West. Within a year he was arrested and convicted of child molestation of a Priest, as he had talked his way back into become the Young Men President, again! The Bishop had long talks with all the young men to insure that allegations being spoken of where (hopefully) not true. 

So, more simply put, the protection of children "must be" the primary reason for contacting authorities, and not because of "what" might happen to us, or liability to the Church. Also, wives should be the first phone call, then the police, as another night should not pass where children might be in danger of any physical abuse. Sorry for the length of this reply, but I feel very strongly about this issue, as it relates to Spiritual matters and criminal matters. 

Bravo! This is what I probably failed to put as eloquently, in the thread that was closed yesterday! 

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If a perpetrator knew that you were going to report them to the police following their confession might that perpetrator then be less inclined to confess to you? 

Absolutely. And, I acknowledge that. Where people come in to confess, and are contrite, though, they should be willing to do whatever it takes, no matter what that is. Truly penitent people do feel this way, in my experience. The biggest problem in my experience is that the system does not come close to providing what victims and their families need and deserve.

I fully agree that a bishops counsel to a perpetrator should be to turn themselves in, but changing clergy confidentiality may have unintended consequences.

And, that is the Church's concern. It is a valid concern. If we cavallierly forfeit or cede clergy privilege, we may end up losing it altogether. 

[ksfisher]

Just now, rongo said:

Absolutely. And, I acknowledge that. Where people come in to confess, and are contrite, though, they should be willing to do whatever it takes, no matter what that is. Truly penitent people do feel this way, in my experience. The biggest problem in my experience is that the system does not come close to providing what victims and their families need and deserve.

 

 

 

I haven't been a bishop, so you can answer this better than I can - but how many people do you have who come in an confess a sin to you, but are afraid of the consequences of confessing that sin to other appropriate individuals?  And have you ever been able to work with those people and help them get to a point where they are willing to discuss the matter with others?

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I can't speak to the hotline, but it is law that they have to do it in many states. Utah law says it's not required if given as a confession but is required for any other information. Stated Church policy is that the prime focus is to protect victims. Membership records are supposed to be annotated if they are an abuse perpetrator. 

Records are annotated, which addresses protecting the flock and future victims. Where I differ from Church counsel (read: Kirton McConkie) is in what should be done when such things are confessed. These egregious things are so serious that I think protecting the public trumps confidentiality expectations from penitents. Yes, fewer may be willing to confess with this state of things, but those who truly feel sorry and want to do what they can to heal things will, even with this knowledge. And, hearing confession and administering formal discipline without requiring them to suffer the legal and temporal consequences (and give victim families what can be given) doesn't sufficiently help them repent and fully apply the atonement, in my view. 

When I've had disagreements with Church counsel and other leaders on this, I've asked, "What about the perpetrator's soul? Do we really want to help them to do what can be done on earth to repent of this, or not?" It seems to me that our policy of not requiring full restitution and amends does not do right by the perpetrator, either.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Evidence doesn't include confession (or "only" confession), and reporting to the police is *not* what you are told at the hotline. You are told "you have no legal obligation to report this."

Depends on the state you are in, I believe, what you are told.

[rpn]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

One thing that we know about those who sexually assault children, is that they cannot be healed, ever, and without the crimal courts keeping tabs on them, they will do it again (even though many do).

The research shows that there have been between 62 and 74% REDUCTION in the rate of recividism in adult offenders in the last 25 years.    They may always be a pedophile: but that doesn't mean they will keep perping.  (Sometimes they can't perp because states have civil commitment laws that keep them confined even after their sentences have ended, because they remain a risk.

Quote

I would ask him/her if he/she was really contrite and wanted to do everything to make things right.

I asked priesthood leaders once whether they believe one must forfeit their constitutional right to remain silent in order to be repentant.   If we all believe that God inspired our constitution, then we must believe that even those who are repenting are entitled to its protections.   Criminal proceedings doesn't always make "everything right", and often doesn't help anyone in the system (especially when you are speaking of the significant population of teen/young adult offenders that is acting out their own abuse trying to figure it out.   And the laws that require reporting make it near impossible for someone who wants to never do it again to get help so they won't, which seems rather counterproductive. 

I'd say Bishops don't need to violate the confessional.   If someone confessed to me and didn't authorize me to tell anyone including a disciplinary counsel, and I didn't therefore have the two witnesses, I would tell the perp what I was going to do,  and then approach the parents of the victims and suggest that they ask the victims if anyone has hurt them.   I couldn't tell the parent why I was asking, but I could strongly urge them, and help them find and pay for counseling for the children.   I could tell them I believed they should never allow their children to be alone with a category that would include the perp without identifying him as a perp),  without telling them that I'd heard there was a problem or anything that I heard in confessional.   And if I did all that (and supported them in following up, there is a high probability that the victims and their parents would make police reports, without my violating the sanctity of the confessional.  And I could release the perp from all callings and assignments, and tell him or her that he/she needed to physically be with another adult who agreed to the arrangement at all times he was in the building, and that he must turn and walk the other way, leave the room, and otherwise avoid any victims or persons who fit the demographics of their victims, and if he failed to do so, I would have a trespass order issued to keep him away from any church buildings.    I could convene a disciplinary council and inform him that until all criminal and civil proceedings had been started and finished, he would remain on at least probation (if I didn't have the two witnesses) which included everything that would be required if excommunicated.   If the victims requested it, I would ask the SP to authorize him to attend a different ward or no ward for a while (although I don't encourage this kind of thinking in survivors --- why give the bad guy space in their head, they didn't do anything wrong). 

And I absolutely could and would flag his/her records, and if I heard about it from a non-confessional source (like the parent of the victim, then I would encourage them to report it, and if they failed refused to do so, I would follow up my recommendation that they report it in writing, so it was really clear what my position was.    But I would not report it to authorities when I knew from another source unless I had concerns that the victim and similar demographics were not being protected.  If they weren't, then I would report it.

The problem isn't maintaining the sanctity of the confesssional.   It is not doing all the other things that protects current and future victims without violating the sanctity of the confessional so that a bishop has the opportunity to have influence on the perp, to help him chose something different, to help him understand that he remains a beloved child of God who can not do this stuff and must not do bad stuff, and in those frequent cases where it has arisen out of his or her own trauma, get trauma informed help to protect others and spiritually heal so that he has no more disposition to do evil.   As hard as it must be for any mortal bishop, the wicked also need shepherds.

The law that is proposed addresses a different kind of confessional than how ours are done.   I don't know if an Anglican or Catholic priest would give absolution without requiring much more than rosaries  from anyone who confessed sexual abuse or violence sins.   But if such an official continue to absolve the same kinds of sin, that would essentially be mocking the confessional.  

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by rpn

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I haven't been a bishop, so you can answer this better than I can - but how many people do you have who come in an confess a sin to you, but are afraid of the consequences of confessing that sin to other appropriate individuals?  And have you ever been able to work with those people and help them get to a point where they are willing to discuss the matter with others?

We're talking about child molestation. It's in a category all its own, in my book --- akin to murder or other heinous violent crime. 

Obviously, anyone (myself included) would be very hesitant (to say the least) to confess something to a bishop if they thought it likely that they would be required to turn themselves in to the police. I understand that. But, *if* that happens, my question for that person is, "Do you want to really be forgiven and made whole from this? Then, this is what you have to do, and here's why." I think it's in the realm of things that we aren't sure about forgiveness in this life or the next (e.g., murder), and so all one can do is all one can do and rely on the atonement for the rest. But, all one can do has to include being willing to suffer civil and criminal penalties, restitution to the victim families (including their peace of mind that justice has been served), etc. 

I'd better not talk about details about specific cases/incidents that I am aware of. 

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I have seen discussions today about this elsewhere online, but haven't seen it posted here.  I thought in light of the recently locked thread (where the Franklyn Curtis case involving the Mormon church was being discussed), it was relevant to us too.

How do members here feel about a Priest or Bishop being forced to reveal child abuse confessed to them in private?  Could the child involved in the Curtis case been spared the abuse if the Bishop had warned his mother about his repeated behavior as a child abuser?

Here is a link to the article and a couple of quotes from it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/royal-commission-into-child-sexual-abuse-recommendations/8804040

 

"Clergy who fail to report information about child sexual abuse heard during confession would face criminal charges under a series of sweeping changes to the criminal justice system recommended in a new report."

......

"The royal commission said it had heard evidence of multiple cases where abuse was disclosed in confession, both by victims and perpetrators."

"We heard evidence that perpetrators who confessed to sexually abusing children went on to reoffend and seek forgiveness again.

"We have concluded that the importance of protecting children from child sexual abuse means that there should be no exemption from the failure to report offence for clergy in relation to information disclosed in or in connection with a religious confession."

 

In the 80s when the Curtis case ocurred, there was great debate over wether or not the state should compell clergy to divulge information of a crime to be ocmmited or that laready has been commited. I remember siding on the idea of no they should not. Religious freedom would be jeopardized. Things have changed and now the state does compel clergy to do that very thing and it is current Church policy for its clergy to report crimes or potential crimes to authorities, even those discovered via confession. There is even a lawyer hotline based in church headquarters in Salt Lake City where a bishop may call in case he ever has any questions over reporting said crimes. These lawyers are people who know local state law in the US and I suppose in relevent foreign countries. 

The Curtis case, from what I read, was that an excommunicated but rebaltizes sex predator was invited into a home to live. A single mother of an 11 year old was the one who made the invite and set things up for the man to sleep in the same bed of her boy. First and foremost,  I believe this answers a question by ALarson, is the mother to blame over a bishop who knew that the person was a sex predator, I say YES, 110,000%. Sex predator or not, a mother is not to compromise her own child like that, period. Is the bishop to blame? Yes, he should have told the mother but I do not judge him as "bad" due to the 80s conflict above. Although I was only a teen at the time, I probably would have made the same decision as the bishop were I in his position at the time. I would not now but back then, I think that would have been a probability though I cannot say for sure how long I would have witheld that information from the mother. My conscience would bother me and I'd pray earnestly sbout it. The mother, however, was bad. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I'd better not talk about details about specific cases/incidents that I am aware of. 

Of course.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Evidence doesn't include confession (or "only" confession), and reporting to the police is *not* what you are told at the hotline. You are told "you have no legal obligation to report this." It is very important to the Church's lawyers to preserve the clergy privilege and not undermine it, and I don't want to casually erode it. But, I consider facing the legal consequences and doing everything you can to help victim families heal to be essential to real repentance. 

I'm with Papa Lee. I would inform the penitent that they need to report it themselves now, and if they didn't, then I would.

Years sgo our bishop called my wife andI in. She wasn't feeling well so I went alone. The bishop told me of an incident in Primary when the children were asked what being punished would be like. The purpose was to lead into talking about Hesus dying for us all. After some responses my daughter shouted, "it would be like getting beaten bloody by a bag of sticks!" I laughed when the bishop told me this but when I saw his facec directly, I stopped laughing. He was seriously concerned. Anyway, he said he called Salt Lake and the lawyer told him that according Texas law corporal punishment is permitted but if it ever draws blood it is considered abuse and that he, the bishop, was to call CPS if that was the case. Well, it wasn't the case. I know my daughter and she was either trying to be funny or reflecting on  a recent Family Home Evening leson we had on Jesus and the Atonement. 

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on the state you are in, I believe, what you are told.

Yes, this is true.

It also gets stickier if the person receiving the confession has an occupation in which they are a mandatory reporter. Keep in mind that the hotline is in place to protect the church from legal issues that may arise. I do not believe it is there to protect the individual serving in the calling and receiving the confession.  

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Years sgo our bishop called my wife andI in. She wasn't feeling well so I went alone. The bishop told me of an incident in Primary when the children were asked what being punished would be like. The purpose was to lead into talking about Hesus dying for us all. After some responses my daughter shouted, "it would be like getting beaten bloody by a bag of sticks!" I laughed when the bishop told me this but when I saw his facec directly, I stopped laughing. He was seriously concerned. Anyway, he said he called Salt Lake and the lawyer told him that according Texas law corporal punishment is permitted but if it ever draws blood it is considered abuse and that he, the bishop, was to call CPS if that was the case. Well, it wasn't the case. I know my daughter and she was either trying to be funny or reflecting on  a recent Family Home Evening leson we had on Jesus and the Atonement. 

So the bishop inferred from your daughter's response that you may be beating her? Wow, that's a leap.

I called the hotline once because a teenage girl reported to me that her mother had sat on her, pinning her arms to the floor and hit her in the face repeatedly with the front and back of the hand. I spoke to the parents about this to get their side of the story. They confirmed it was accurate and claimed it was their right as parents to discipline the girl however they saw fit. The hotline agreed and told me not to report.

Even though I told the SP about this and many more problems arose, the husband in that case is now my bishop.

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So the bishop inferred from your daughter's response that you may be beating her? Wow, that's a leap.

I called the hotline once because a teenage girl reported to me that her mother had sat on her, pinning her arms to the floor and hit her in the face repeatedly with the front and back of the hand. I spoke to the parents about this to get their side of the story. They confirmed it was accurate and claimed it was their right as parents to discipline the girl however they saw fit. The hotline agreed and told me not to report.

Even though I told the SP about this and many more problems arose, the husband in that case is now my bishop.

He did but as he presented it, a primary leader reported to him that we may have possibly been beating our daughter (bloody with a bag of sticks apparently). Once reported to thebishop he was under legal obligation to talk o us about it and call the authorities accordingly. He asked me point blank if we ever beat our daughter with a stick. I said no and gave the two possibilites I oreviously mentioned above as to why she would say such a thing. Don't be too harsh on our bishop. He was a great man, very wamr and loving. Under the law, since it was reported to him as a case of possible abuse, he was supposed to assume the possible worse and investigate in order to report any abuse to the law. If anyone jumped the gin, it would be the primary leader who reported it to him. 

"Even though I told the SP about this and many more problems arose, the husband in that case is now my bishop."

Better not get him mad.

I say this in jest because my conclusion is that kids can and do drive their parents mad. While the situation sounds brutal I side with the parents according to what you told me. If it was a countinual "ground and pound", I can see a case of abuse but my mother once held me down, didn't hit me but had she I would have deserved it. It was a moment I was a purly spastic. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

The Curtis case, from what I read, was that an excommunicated but rebaltizes sex predator was invited into a home to live. A single mother of an 11 year old was the one who made the invite and set things up for the man to sleep in the same bed of her boy. First and foremost,  I believe this answers a question by ALarson, is the mother to blame over a bishop who knew that the person was a sex predator, I say YES, 110,000%. Sex predator or not, a mother is not to compromise her own child like that, period. Is the bishop to blame? Yes, he should have told the mother but I do not judge him as "bad" due to the 80s conflict above. Although I was only a teen at the time, I probably would have made the same decision as the bishop were I in his position at the time. I would not now but back then, I think that would have been a probability though I cannot say for sure how long I would have witheld that information from the mother. My conscience would bother me and I'd pray earnestly sbout it. The mother, however, was bad. 

I disagree here.  The abuser is the one who is "110,000%" responsible for the abuse, not the mother.  Also the bishop shares some of that since he knew this man was a repeat child abuser and he did not warn the mother (even after he knew the man was in the house).  

Don't get me wrong, I do think it's very odd that the mother allowed this old man (87 years old iirc at the time) to sleep in the same bed as her son.  Creepy is the word I'd use!  But he was probably grandfatherly and it was a different time when things were not out in the open so much about abuse (the 80's) as now when it would be unheard of pretty much to allow that.  However, it's still poor judgement on the mom's part no matter how you look at it.  

But she is not the one to blame for her son being abused for so long.  That completely lies at the feet of the abuser, IMO.  I also feel very strongly that the bishop should have moved heaven and earth to get that man out of her house knowing the situation and knowing the man's past.

Edited August 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

He did but as he presented it, a primary leader reported to him that we may have possibly been beating our daughter (bloody with a bag of sticks apparently). Once reported to thebishop he was under legal obligation to talk o us about it and call the authorities accordingly. He asked me point blank if we ever beat our daughter with a stick. I said no and gave the two possibilites I oreviously mentioned above as to why she would say such a thing. Don't be too harsh on our bishop. He was a great man, very wamr and loving. Under the law, since it was reported to him as a case of possible abuse, he was supposed to assume the possible worse and investigate in order to report any abuse to the law. If anyone jumped the gin, it would be the primary leader who reported it to him. 

"Even though I told the SP about this and many more problems arose, the husband in that case is now my bishop."

Better not get him mad.

I say this in jest because my conclusion is that kids can and do drive their parents mad. While the situation sounds brutal I side with the parents according to what you told me. If it was a countinual "ground and pound", I can see a case of abuse but my mother once held me down, didn't hit me but had she I would have deserved it. It was a moment I was a purly spastic. 

This story is why I no longer want to substitute in the school system, too scary, thinking a student could say something untrue and I would be on the Channel 2 News that night. In fact I know a guy that had that happen in Salt Lake school district. He said after many interviews etc. he finally got his name cleared. Not saying sub's don't abuse though or teachers of course, but just don't want someone accusing me for nothing. And some children might say something, without meaning to have it come out a certain way. Like your daughter.

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The Bishop's first duty is to protect the child (if in his Ward) or the wife (if physical abuse), and then the general public. One thing that we know about those who sexually assault children, is that they cannot be healed, ever, and without the crimal courts keeping tabs on them, they will do it again (even though many do).  Also, just as mental health care Dr's and workers, must report anything where the person is a danger to themself and others. So must Bishops, or Stake Presidents, or even Home Teachers, because this too is a Priesthood calling. In fact, since every calling within the Church as it relates to men is a Priesthood calling, this can put themselves and The Church at risk for criminal prosecution. Maybe it is the police officer in me, but I would not even let him leave my office before I was on the phone. I would not constrain him, I would inform him that I must do this, because as I said it would be my duty to do so, as a Bishop, a Father, a Grandfather and as a good citizen. I would also be required to do so if the Mother knew what was going on and allowed it, because the same rules would apply to her. When anyone knows and does not act in the best interest of the child, all become a part of the crime to lesser degrees. 

In our Ward once we had a brother move in from another State. There he served (at his request) in any calling he could dealing with the Young Men's Program. Sadly the only information that our Bishop was given was that he was spending so much time with the Young Men, via his calling it was causing "martial problems". So in the beginning he was given other callings, but used the Scouting Program (as most know, not many ever want to help in Scouting) where he helped with merit badges. Soon he became Scout Master, and as all seemed to be going well, he became Young Men's President again. I was High Priest Group President at the time, and had some Fathers who felt like he was trying to take their place as their fathers. Something I pointed out in PEC Meeting, and wondered why he had the calling due to past issues. The Bishop at the time wondered how I knew this, and why I brought it up in an open meeting. Keep in mind, no one knew what he was doing, (or I should say what he might be doing) but in hindsight it is very clear now. My son left scouting and refused to have anything to do with him, he (my son) said that there was just something very wrong with the brother. So one night (as we found out later) the Young's Men President, showed up in the dead of night with other Priests and vandalized out yard. When this came to light, he was dismissed. Slowly other complaints came to light, and he uprooted his family and moved out West. Within a year he was arrested and convicted of child molestation of a Priest, as he had talked his way back into become the Young Men President, again! The Bishop had long talks with all the young men to insure that allegations being spoken of where (hopefully) not true. 

So, more simply put, the protection of children "must be" the primary reason for contacting authorities, and not because of "what" might happen to us, or liability to the Church. Also, wives should be the first phone call, then the police, as another night should not pass where children might be in danger of any physical abuse. Sorry for the length of this reply, but I feel very strongly about this issue, as it relates to Spiritual matters and criminal matters. 

Love this post.  You're a good man, Papa.