Proposed Changes Recommended For Reporting Confessed Child Abuse

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Here's what happened to me, granted in was 1994 and in Canada. Someone is authority in the Church molested me. I didn't even know what to do or think for about a month when I went to the Bishop, I was a teen at the time. He took what I said and told the perp's leader and then I had heard through the grapevine this person was removed from office and exed but I don't know for sure that was the case and that was it.I never told the police as a month had gone by and any evidence was gone, so how could I prove it beyond what I said? 

Oh wow, Duncan.  I'm so sorry this happened to you.  You are such an amazing person and add so much to this forum.  How awful for you.  But at least the man was discovered and punished.  Hopefully he never harmed another boy like he did you 

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh wow, Duncan.  I'm so sorry this happened to you.  You are such an amazing person and add so much to this forum.  How awful for you.  But at least the man was discovered and punished.  Hopefully he never harmed another boy like he did you 

Thank you! I saw him on facebook a few years ago an blocked him

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Both you and JulieM seem to want me to admit to a specific opinion. Thay my opinion as is is different from yours and thus wrong. 

Darren, you have every right to your opinion.  I just think you should really read about what this entire case entails.  There's a lot more to it than just one mother who used bad judgement by allowing this 87 year old man to sleep with her son (which I have acknowledged and not agreed with her doing this).  This man had already confessed to and been excommunicated for abusing young boys prior to that.  He also was convicted in a court of law for child abuse and served prison time.  If you want to continue to place the blame on just one of the numerous victim's mother for the abuse, you can of course believe that.  But, I feel the blame should be placed on the man who abused the many boys that he abused.

Edited August 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

He was convicted of child abuse, I believe, and served time in prison.  He also was excommunicated for confessed child abuse.  The abuse of the boy who we are discussing was not an isolated case.  He abused many other young boys.

Wouldn't it be in his church record that he'd been excommunicate for child abuse?  I have to believe a new bishop would be aware of that and exercise extreme caution when considering him for a calling dealing with young men or allowing him to be in a home where a young boy was present. 

I am not talking about the abuse, but the claims made about bishops knowing, especially the bishop of J Scott.  Was there anything besides the mother's testimony that demonstrated he was fully aware either at the time she asked him for advice (if this actually happened) or later on.  Iirc, the lawsuit was stopped before evidence was presented because the judge insisted the Church open their books.

I don't know what the process for notifying bishops was back then.  The Church has made changes, so we can't assume it was the way it is now.

I don't believe the Church had adequate safeguards in the past, but very few did.  I think it was possible it was slow in changing to implement safeguards, but that might simply be my lack of awareness.  I have been out of Primary and not involved in the youth for many years, so don't know the current rules or how well they are enforced, so I have no judgment on that.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"In the trial, evidence was presented showing that he moved around and was given callings where he worked with the youth."

Any chance you have a direct link to this (knowing the notoriety of the case, I am thinking google might not be too helpful with specifics and I am feeling lazy and you appear to be familiar with details...)

In regards to Bishop Foster being aware, the only thing I could find was a partial quote in a google book on the subject that stated that Foster's lawyer in the lawsuit stated the mother's claims about the bishop's comments and knowledge were alleged and iirc unproved and another partial quote that stated the Church claimed at the time of the alleged advice, Bishop Foster was unaware of Curtis' history.

It is from a book that is defeinitely told from the bias of the plaintiff and their lawyers (their PI just hated lying to people when she was trying to get them to incriminate themselves, the lawyer saw himself as a white knight, the prose was overly emotional/dramatizing and mind reading/psychoanalyzing for me.

The book is The Sins of Brother Curtis, google books has it and I read the pages I could access by doing a search on "Greg foster".  I have no clue how accurate it was in what could be documented.  It is reviewe here:

https://richardgilbert.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/qa-lisa-davis-on-a-mormon-tragedy/

"The LDS Church maintains Scott misunderstood the bishop, who was only trying to tell her he had heard about what had happened to her son and express his sympathies."

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-religion/882147/posts

Looks like the major part of the system was put in place in 1995:

"The church denies the allegations, and adds the lawsuits concern reports made before it took extensive measures to safeguard children, including a 1995 system that flags the records of members who have confessed to or have been convicted of sex abuse."

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

"In an interview, Von G. Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer representing the church, said it strongly believed that the case ''lacked merit'' and had settled only out of concern that the litigation, already a decade old, could continue for years more, at high cost.

Mr. Keetch said the decision was made after a number of rulings against the church by a county judge presiding over the case in Portland. Among the rulings were that the church could be held liable for the conduct of one member against another, and that the plaintiff could argue that the abuser was a clergyman because he held the title of high priest, which the church describes as a common lay designation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/us/mormons-paying-3-million-to-settle-sex-abuse-case.html

"Mr. Keetch, the lawyer for the church, quoted the bishop who advised the Scotts as saying in a deposition that he had known of no abuse accusations against Mr. Curtis.

Mr. Keetch said Mr. Curtis had been excommunicated in the 1980's in Pennsylvania, where he lived before moving back to Oregon. The decision to excommunicate, Mr. Keetch said, followed another Oregon bishop's notifying church authorities in Pennsylvania that Mr. Curtis had been accused of having ''inappropriately touched a child'' in an Oregon congregation different from the one where he and the Scotts were later members together.

Mr. Curtis was readmitted to membership ''after a fairly lengthy period of repentance,'' Mr. Keetch said, but never had any supervisory position over Mr. Scott and in fact had no leadership position at all. According to the church, the title of high priest is bestowed on Mormon men in good standing over the age of 40."

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

"In an interview, Von G. Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer representing the church, said it strongly believed that the case ''lacked merit'' and had settled only out of concern that the litigation, already a decade old, could continue for years more, at high cost.

Mr. Keetch said the decision was made after a number of rulings against the church by a county judge presiding over the case in Portland. Among the rulings were that the church could be held liable for the conduct of one member against another, and that the plaintiff could argue that the abuser was a clergyman because he held the title of high priest, which the church describes as a common lay designation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/05/us/mormons-paying-3-million-to-settle-sex-abuse-case.html

"Mr. Keetch, the lawyer for the church, quoted the bishop who advised the Scotts as saying in a deposition that he had known of no abuse accusations against Mr. Curtis.

Mr. Keetch said Mr. Curtis had been excommunicated in the 1980's in Pennsylvania, where he lived before moving back to Oregon. The decision to excommunicate, Mr. Keetch said, followed another Oregon bishop's notifying church authorities in Pennsylvania that Mr. Curtis had been accused of having ''inappropriately touched a child'' in an Oregon congregation different from the one where he and the Scotts were later members together.

Mr. Curtis was readmitted to membership ''after a fairly lengthy period of repentance,'' Mr. Keetch said, but never had any supervisory position over Mr. Scott and in fact had no leadership position at all. According to the church, the title of high priest is bestowed on Mormon men in good standing over the age of 40."

I'll see what I can find. You're quoting from the trial against the church but there also was a criminal trial where Curtis was convicted for this abuse of the boy and he went to prison.  I think that's where I read my information.  Iirc, he abused 5 boys in the ward just previous to this ward (after excommunication). and that bishop found out.  Then Curtis moved to the ward we're discussing.  The former bishop should have passed that information on as well when he moved along with it being in his church record that he'd been excommunicated for the many other boys he'd confessed to abusing.  He did report the confessions to church leaders (that Bishop).

In the trial against the church, they (the church) had fought tuning over Curtis's records  (that followed Curtis and the record the bishops saw) and lost that fight..  The court ordered them to release the records to the opposing attorneys and that's when the church settled and paid the 3 million dollars to the boy.  If nothing was in the records (about the abuse and excommunication) it's odd they'd settle and not continue fighting IMO.

Here's a link about that with more information too:

https://wwrn.org/articles/5885/

Both the mother and boy state the bishop knew of this former abuse and that even after Bishop Foster learned of his abuse, he did not punish the abuser (church court) or notify authorities and there's no record he did either.   I'm not surprised the Bishop (Foster) would deny that he knew though (of previous abuse) to protect himself and the church.  It'll be helpful if there were other witness statements.  I think Curtis was already dead though by the time this trail took place (against the church).  But other abuse victims or family members made statements iirc.

Maybe someone on here has served as a bishop back then (I think in the 80's) and would know what information would be noted in member's records if they were a confessed child abuser and had been excommunicated for child abuse.  Would their file be flagged or at least contain the information so they'd know to keep them away from youth if possible?  I'd think so, for protection against the church as well.  But it would help to hear from someone here if they know.

(I'll also try to find the information I found earlier. It will probably have to be on Monday as I'm leaving town this morning for a wedding this weekend.)

ETA:

calm, I did find more about what was in the church records and some other info.

I'll post it below and will keep searching when I get back if you'd like.

Below, I put in bold the part about Foster's church record they obtained.  So it appears the abuse was in the records for the bishop to see.  (Sorry about the format if it's weird, but I'm in a hurry and out the door!)

From SL Tribune...

"The Mormon church on Tuesday announced the $3 million settlement of a sex-abuse case brought by a Portland-area man abused by a high priest as a boy, as both sides raced to declare victory....
    Alleging negligence and emotional distress, Scott's lawsuit accuses the church of knowingly allowing a child molester to have access to children....
    The church admits no wrongdoing and settled the case Friday to avoid the cost of continued litigation, lawyers said Tuesday....
    Most cases similar to this one involve confidential settlements. Trial had been set for August, with the plaintiff seeking $1.5 billion in punitive damages.
    In his 1998 lawsuit filed in Multnomah County, Scott accused the church of hiding the fact that Curtis, one of its high priests, was a pedophile. Curtis was excommunicated from the church in 1983 in Pennsylvania but was rebaptized in 1984 in Michigan. In 1988, he joined the Brentwood Ward in Portland.
    Curtis lived with the Scott family twice, in 1990 and 1991, at Scott's parents' invitation. He repeatedly abused Scott on the second stay, when the two shared a bed because of lack of space in the Scott home. At the time, Curtis was 87 and Scott was 11. Curtis was later convicted of sex abuse....
    Scott's mother, Sandra Scott, had consulted her bishop, Gregory Lee Foster, about taking in Curtis to live out his years in the family's home. Foster advised her that she shouldn't because of his advanced age but said nothing about pedophilia, although he knew of complaints about Curtis, the plaintiff said in his suit.
    Foster, in a deposition, said he didn't remember the complaints at the time of his conversation with Sandra Scott. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, pp. B1, 9)

    However, according to Sandra Scott, Foster knew Curtis was a pedophile and yet did nothing to protect her son:

    The lawsuit claims that Curtis sexually abused at least five children in the Rocky Butte Ward in Portland, where he became a member. A bishop confronted Curtis and he admitted the molestation.
    Curtis joined another ward, where he told then-Bishop Gregory Lee Foster that he had abused in the past. Foster didn't report him because Curtis said he had repented, the lawsuit states. (The Salt Lake Tribune, February 10, 2001, p. A5)

    Sandra Scott says she called her former LDS bishop in 1993 to warn him that her son had been sexually abused by an aging Sunday school teacher her family had taken into their home.
    She said she was "dumbfounded" when the bishop told her he had known the late Frank Curtis was a pedophile, but that he did not tell the Scotts because Curtis had repented....
    The LDS Church maintains Scott misunderstood the bishop, who was only trying to tell her he had heard about what had happened to her son and express his sympathies. (The Salt Lake Tribune, September 6, 2001, p. B1)

    After the victim reported the crime, Curtis was charged with sexual abuse and plead no contest to the felony, but died a year later in 1995. Foster, the victims former bishop, was dropped as a defendant in the lawsuit, leaving the LDS Church to defend against accusations of knowingly allowing a pedophile to have access to children.

"It's not about the mistakes of an individual," said David Slader, Scott's lawyer, of Portland. "It's about the policy of the Mormon church to intentionally conceal and cover up its knowledge that one of its high priests is a child molester."
    A church lawyer told a Salt Lake City newspaper Tuesday that "No church, including this one, had the ability to track all its members and inform every bishop in the country about the members' past history."
    But internal Mormon documents, which The Oregonian obtained Aug. 17 from a public court file, memorialize both a 1982 disciplining of Curtis for, in the words of the church documents, "homosexual actions" and the 1983 excommunication for "homosexuality/child molesting." The words "child molesting" had been crossed out with a pen. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)

 

Next link and info ( just an overview of the case):

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/6/60/INSTANCES_OF_CHILD_SEXUAL_ABUSE_ALLEGEDLY_PERPETRATED_BY_MEMBERS_OF_THE_CHURCH_OF_JESUS_CHRIST_OF_LATTER-DAY_SAINTS-2017-06.pdf

 

(Page 19 of the document):

"LDS Franklyn Curtis abused "Plaintiff Jeremiah Scott, 22, of California and Jeremiah, sued the church in Oregon state court after an LDS ward Sunday school teacher was convicted of repeatedly sexually abusing him in Portland when he was 11 years old. The suit alleges negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming church officials knew Franklin Richard Curtis was a pedophile, but did not warn Scott's parents before they took Curtis into their home. Church attorneys have told Scott the church is able to pay punitive damages of $162 million, or twice the amount of the largest punitive damages award in Oregon history. But they say his request that the church produce any documents it has detailing income and financial interests, including tithing revenue and property values, goes too far. The church, which stopped releasing financial information in 1959, contends such disclosures would violate its First Amendment right to operate free from government entanglement. A Multnomah County judge in May allowed Scott to seek punitive damages, after his attorneys argued Scott's case and others like it showed a pattern within the church of failing to report, warn members about and prevent the sexual abuse of children. "This case is 6/13/17 Compiled by Deborah J. Diener RN BSN CLNC 18 of 316 DATE LOCATION PUBLIC DOCUMENT QUOTES about making the church live by the same laws the rest of us have to in protecting children," said lawyer Jeffrey Anderson of St. Paul, Minn., who represents Scott together with Bellevue, Wash., attorney Timothy Kosnoff….The lawsuit claims Foster knew Curtis had a history of sexually abusing children dating back to the 1970s, but gave him access to young children as a teacher and did not warn parents, including Scott, because Curtis had repented. He died in 1995." CURTIS-Franklin Richard Curtis 1.pdf https://www.culteducation.com/group/1057-the-mormon-church/14073-sex-case-may-pryopen-finances-of-lds-church.html"The ruling stems from a 1998 lawsuit by Jeremiah Scott, now 21, of Washington state. He accused a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints high priest of sexually abusing him repeatedly in 1990 and 1991, in Portland, when he was 11. The high priest was later convicted of the charges. The high priest, Franklin Richard Curtis, was 87 at the time of the abuse and has since died. The Oregonian typically does not name sex-abuse victims, but in this case, Scott consented.At issue is what the church knew about Curtis' past and when. Scott's lawsuit claims that the church knew of Curtis' past sex abuse when Curtis moved in with Scott's family but didn't warn them.When he moved to Oregon, Curtis had been excommunicated from a ward in Pennsylvania for sex abuse. Curtis was re-baptized in 1984, according to court records….Curtis became a member of the Rocky Butte Ward in Portland, where he sexually abused at least five children, according to the plaintiff's lawsuit. He was confronted by the Rocky Butte bishop and admitted the molestations. The bishop kept it quiet until parents began to complain, and then he only reported to Salt Lake City superiors of the church, not police, the complaint states.Then Curtis joined the Brentwood Ward, where he told then-Bishop Gregory Lee Foster that he had abused in the past, and Foster kept it quiet because Curtis said he'd repented.” CURTIS-Franklin Richard Curtis 2.pdf"

Edited August 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

I agree the Bishop would have been motivated to diminish his awareness of Curtis' history, just as the mother and son would have been motivated to inflate it.  Curtis died in 95.  From what little I could find on his trial, it appeared to end in a plea bargaining in 94 and he got probation ( probably due to health).

From what I read, when the lawsuit publicity began the plaintiffs held a press conference in front of the Salt LakeTemple and were making extreme complaints about how the Church was a haven for abusers as if there had been no extensive overhaul of the reporting and recordkeeping procedures many years.  Lowers for me the credibility of the lawyers if they are willing to make counterfactual dramatic statements like that.  They were also about to get hauled off for trespassing since they were on private property.  Given the lawsuit was in Oregon, seems purely a publicity stunt, a clever one, but minor lawbreaking...again showing to me the lawyers were willing to push the boundaries of right and wrong for their own agenda.

"If nothing was in the records (about the abuse and excommunication) it's odd they'd settle and not continue fighting IMO."  

It had already gone on ten years iirc and the judge had made obviously imo biased calls against the Church, for example ruling that Curtis was clergy because he was a High Priest though he had no leadership callings.  Even worse that simple membership in the Church meant the Church was liable, iirc it was the first ever such ruling of its kind.  It is not hard to see where it was going...even if they won, it would be at a major cost of time and exposure of the Church to future lawsuits with this judge setting up dangerous precedents.  Given the lawsuit was for 1.6 billion, 3 million was a substantial savings.

With this judge, if there was nothing in the records about the abuse and excommunications, all that did was remove Bishop Foster possibly from the litigation, it did nothing for the Church itself.  They were in a damned if they did, damned if they didn't situation.  If the records showed the bishop blameless, than the blame shifts fully back to SL for not properly sharing the info.  If they had shared the info with the bishop, then they were liable for the actions of their representative (the bishop)....or so it seems to me.  Because the Church was ruled liable for what a member did to a member...absurd...and on top of the Curtis was ruled to be clergy, there was no way the Church could have won with those rulings.  They would have had to appeal to have them overturned.  It would have ended up costing much more than the settlement in all probability.  The lawyers can correct me if I am wrong.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

Oh, I meant to post this because we all wonder why this mother would take an 87 year old into her home.  Here is at least what she stated about that and info I found:

"Sandra Scott said she met Curtis as a fellow Sunday school teacher in the Brentwood Ward in Portland, Ore., in 1990. When the 87-year-old Curtis expressed a desire to live out his final days in a family setting rather than the retirement home he was living in, she approached then-Bishop Gregory Lee Foster for advice.

"I wanted to be a good Mormon mother and wife," Scott said Wednesday. "I thought it might be a kind and charitable thing to do . . . to walk the extra mile as a benevolent servant of God."

The lawsuit claims Foster knew about Curtis' history of sexually abusing children dating back to the late 1970s.

Curtis spent some 40 years of his life in prison for crimes ranging from forgery to attempted murder and armed robbery before he converted to the LDS faith in his early 70s.

Church records show he was excommunicated in 1983 for sexually abusing children but rebaptized a year later.

About two years after Curtis moved out of the Scott home, the family moved to Washington state, where their son reported the abuse for the first time. In October 1993, they contacted Foster to warn him about Curtis.

Curtis pleaded no contest to a felony charge of sexually abusing Scott. He died in 1995."

I read somewhere else that she stated their living quarters were cramped or small and that's why Curtis had to share her son's room.  That's still odd and creepy, IMO!!!

Have a great weekend, calm!

Edited August 18, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

Yes they are so required, and it isn't a close question. It holds in all Common Law countries

Thank you and smac for the detailed responses, by the way!

Was the bishop I have in mind in error, then, when he had the man tell the victims' parents, in his presence, that he had molested their children? He did that prior to calling the hotline, and he was basically told that he shouldn't have done anything, and that nothing further should be said or done.

I know that smac said that it is a lot more complicated than to say that telling the parents and the police must be part of true repentance, or he doesn't sincerely want to repent (my characterization). But, this seems to say that in such cases, the bishop really can't insist on anything. He can encourage and try to convince, and perhaps he and the stake president can move to formally discipline based on the initial confession, but if the person is recalcitrant, that's it. 

I am not comfortable at all with acquiescing with not informing the parents (as a starting point). They, of all people, have rights, too (and the victims). 

From a legal defense perspective, I completely get invoking rights and not voluntarily stepping on land mines. Invoking rights and making use of legal protections makes absolute sense from a criminal defense perspective, but this is also directly at odds with the requirements of repentance for very serious things. And that takes me back to what is actually in the eternal best interests of the perpetrator and the victims. I don't think it's an over-simplification to say that full repentance requires full submission to and cooperation with doing everything possible to promote healing and making amends with the victims, and paying all temporal and spiritual prices. And this is suicidal from a criminal defense perspective.

ETA: I have been involved with, and am aware of cases where the person, though sorry, had the overriding concern of the full legal ramifications (upwards of 60 years in prison), and the terror of facing that overrides everything else. Legally, one would want to avoid or mitigate that at all costs. Repentance-wise, that very calculus negates full repentance. It's a very bad spot to be in.

Edited August 18, 2017 by rongo
ETA

[rongo]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a substantial mischaracterization.  There may or may not be a legal obligation to report.  That is what the hotline is there to help determine.  

To suggest that there is an across-the-board negative response to inquiries to the hotline is simply a falsehood.  I have first-hand experience with this.

I'm learning that the responses from the hotline may (and probably do) differ, based on location. 

This is true in my case. I have only ever been told "You have no legal obligation to report," regardless of the situation. Even when I asked follow-up questions, that carefully-worded line was simply repeated. So, it seemed "across the board" in my experience. 

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

So you are promoting . . . anarchy.  Each person decides for himself what is "right" and "wrong."  Each person becomes a law unto himself.  No need to consider the laws of the community in which we live.  No need to consider the rights of others.  Do whatever you want.  That's your solution?

Yep, that's anarchy.  Well-intentioned anarchy, I think, but anarchy nonetheless.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well..not necessarily..the only thing that I see as a problem in the church as far as this goes...(or one of the problems)...is that the darn handbook needs a good do over..a lot of policies need to change and leadership needs exact and correct ways to deal with things...then move on to gay policies and marriage outside temple policies and make them at least consistant.  Bishops and Stake presidents are not perfect..yeah..we know that...so give them some thing to work with that puts the child/membership and laws on  the same darn page.  Then....get some training!

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Translation: You are willing to utterly disregard profoundly important constitutional rights of churches and confessors.

Do you recognize that this is what you are doing?

There are two separate issues. One is what rights churches should be given and the other is how religions should act. You are conflating these two. My comments were mostly about what the Church should do, not what the state should do. (Although I do favor exceptions for confessions of murder and child abuse)

Second, it is not at all clear that privileging pastoral communications in an absolutist way is a constitutional right. There are challenges working their way up, but by and large most of these are done by statute and not a view of rights let alone an interpretation of what the 1st amendment guarantees. There is of course established jurisprudence going back to the early 19th century. And several prominent 20th century figures like Burger see it as constitutional. But exactly what the limits are isn't clear. That is one can accept the principle yet see exceptions, much as there are exceptions for free speech for things like disclosing military secrets.

[Calm]

Cramped or small, he could have slept on a couch or the kid on a pad on the floor...in the same bed is just wrong.

We hear nothing from the father in this case.  Anyone know why?  I was under the impression she was single, but the quote "mother and wife"seems to indicate she was married.

Be interesting to know how much Curtis paid for the privilege to see how much pure religion actually played into her decision.  If he was paying for food and not much more, that was an act of kindness to Curtis, but imo at too high cost to her son even if it had all been safe; She was stupid in how she went about it and quite likely ignoring the welfare of her son even if the guy had been a moral giant given the upheaval for him to have his space taken over by an 87 year old man, screwing up his routine, his ability to sleep even if the guy had only shared a bed with him and kept his hands to himself...they could have invited him over for meals, etc rather than having him move in.  Curtis was safe and comfortable at the assisted living where he lived.  Sure, maybe sweet old people deserve to be surrounded by others who can spend more time with them, but her son deserved his own life not to be heavily disrupted as it would have been even if all had gone well...she did not appear to think about what the cost of simply having an old dying ("spending his last year's", etc) man being pushed into his life.

There was the chance the guy could have died in his sleep and the son be the one to discover he was sleeping to next to a dead man.  At best she wanted to be a nice woman, but she wasn't the one doing the major sacrificing, her son was.  She seems to have given no thought to the process.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

   A church lawyer told a Salt Lake City newspaper Tuesday that "No church, including this one, had the ability to track all its members and inform every bishop in the country about the members' past history."
    But internal Mormon documents, which The Oregonian obtained Aug. 17 from a public court file, memorialize both a 1982 disciplining of Curtis for, in the words of the church documents, "homosexual actions" and the 1983 excommunication for "homosexuality/child molesting." The words "child molesting" had been crossed out with a pen. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)

 

Thanks for posting this.  I would have been very surprised if this man's church record didn't contain information regarding his continued child molestation and reason for his excommunication.  So, unless the Bishop didn't read Curtis's file, this is pretty strong evidence he would have known he was a child abuser.

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Curtis spent some 40 years of his life in prison for crimes ranging from forgery to attempted murder and armed robbery before he converted to the LDS faith in his early 70s.

Church records show he was excommunicated in 1983 for sexually abusing children but rebaptized a year later.

Wow, this guy sounds like he had a very troubled and violent past.  To know that after he was re-baptized he just continued abusing young boys is very disturbing too.  I hadn't heard the part about him spending "some 40 years of his life in prison" though. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is also a very serious moral question involved here.  A profound betrayal of the confessor's trust.

This thread seems to be an exercise in using righteous indignation to justify a mob mentality of guilty-until-proven-innocent, an-accusation-alone-justifies-a-bishop-in-going-rogue, who-cares-what-the-law-is-because-we-are-each-a-law-unto-ourselves.

In short, there are folks on this board who are advocating lawlessness.  They seem to have righteous motives, but lawlessness will always get out of hand.  It will always have serious and negative and unintended consequences.  

I confess I don't understand this. 

There is no law saying a Bishop can't act. Even the Church legal statement merely says you don't have to report. It never says you aren't to report. Mormons aren't Catholic. So you are going to have to make clear how a Bishop acting is either a mob mentality or lawlessness. 

No one confessing to a Bishop can assume the Bishop won't do anything. At a minimum confessing to a serious sin implies a Church court. If someone confesses to an affair, it's well within normal practice for the Bishop to ask the other member of the affair in for an interview to ask about the claim. i.e. there is no absolute privacy theologically. So far as I am aware there is nothing in the handbook demanding absolute secrecy either.

The Church's legal statement is almost certainly due to protection against lawsuits and not an ethical claim. The way it is worded in the hotline seems to strongly indicate this if reports in this thread are to be taken as accurate at least with respect to certain states. 

Most of the laws and jurisprudence relate to the Catholic belief that confessional is absolute and that priests are willing to go to jail for this. There simply is no equivalent Mormon doctrine and one can't assume from Catholic practice anything about how Mormons ought behave. Catholic practice arose over centuries during very different cultural expectations. If one wants to argue that we should adopt Catholic practice one has to make the argument explicit.

Finally ethics and law aren't the same thing. Sometimes (very rarely) the ethical thing involves breaking a law. In that case you should be prepared to suffer the consequences. Protecting a child may well be one of those cases although I've yet to see any evidence warning someone is illegal. At best you might be sued for violation of privacy in civil court. But that's not violating a law.

Edited August 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

Haven't finished reading..

"Foster, in a deposition, said he didn't remember the complaints at the time of his conversation with Sandra Scott. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, pp. B1, 9)"

If he said "remembered" and not "wasn't aware", I find that problematic.  Do people really forget those types of things?  Not in my experience.  I find it also problematic if he hadn't read the whole file at that time, but can imagine reasons why that might have occurred though I would expect it to be remedied when he had time if he was not aware of the mother's decision to take Curtis in and immediately if he had learned she had.

Is there any info that demonstrates the bishop did not just assume his advice had been taken?  Were the Scotts and Curtis attending church together?

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Haven't finished reading..

"Foster, in a deposition, said he didn't remember the complaints at the time of his conversation with Sandra Scott. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, pp. B1, 9)"

If he said "remembered" and not "wasn't aware", I find that problematic.  Do people really forget those types of things?  Not in my experience.  I find it also problematic if he hadn't read the whole file at that time, but can imagine reasons why that might have occurred though I would expect it to be remedied when he had time if he was not aware of the mother's decision to take Curtis in and immediately if he had learned she had.

Is there any info that demonstrates the bishop did not just assume his advice had been taken?  Were the Scotts and Curtis attending church together?

I have to believe that the Bishop would have been aware of where Curtis was living.  According to the records, the abuse took place over a 6 month period when he was living with the Scotts.  They were active members of the church from what I can tell (Curtis and the Scotts).  

[Calm]

"would have been very surprised if this man's church record didn't contain information regarding his continued child molestation and reason for his excommunication"

I understood that at that time those records were kept in SL and notations were not yet made on the ward level records (one of the 94/95 changes was to flag records). (Not saying this was wise or responsible if so)

It does appear from the affidavit, that there were some complaints listed.  Be nice to have a quote and not a paraphrase.  As well as what the actual procedures were.

22 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well..not necessarily..the only thing that I see as a problem in the church as far as this goes...(or one of the problems)...is that the darn handbook needs a good do over..a lot of policies need to change and leadership needs exact and correct ways to deal with things...

Are you aware of the current polices in place for this kind of thing or are you assuming it still operates pretty much as it did in the 80s?

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They were active members of the church from what I can tell (Curtis and the Scotts).  

I did not get the same impression (no real impression at all), what led you to believe that?

If the guy was 87 (was that at the time of his death or the assault) and in assisted living prior to moving in with the .Scott's, there is a good chance his church attendance was limited from what I have seen among the elderly in such states the past two years.  It was also in Portland where leaders might not be so intimately aware of the living conditions of their members.  No word of home teachers being in the home in the reports as far as I can tell.

From what .I have read elsewhere and above, it has been confirmed that there were internal records with all the criminal behaviour known as well as church proceedings dealing with him.  Whether or not Foster had those has not been established.

If the paraphrase of Foster's affidavit is accurate, he had been aware of the complaints previous to a conversation where he discouraged Scott's mother from taking in Curtis due to age, but claims he had forgotten at the time of the conversation....seems highly unlikely...maybe Sister Scott caught him rushing between meetings and info was shared in passing without time to think, but if so, he should have taken the time to read the reports and inform her even if he wasn't aware of Curtis moving in just in case there was any interaction between the Scotts and Curtis.  

I am surprised he was dropped as a defendant since he was according to Scott the only reason she took in Curtis.  If he had all the information needed and did nothing, that makes him immediately culpable, not the Church, it seems to me, though the Church needed better guidelines ( and got them in 94/95). That makes the motive  for the lawsuit appear to me to be more about money than justice.

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I did not get the same impression (no real impression at all), what led you to believe that?

If the guy was 87 (was that at the time of his death or the assault) and in assisted living, there is a good chance his church attendance was limited from what I have seen among the elderly in such states the past two years.

He was serving as a Sunday School teacher at the time Scott invited him to live with them (they were "fellow Sunday School teachers" from her statement).  She must have been a single Mom from what I can tell.

He was 87 years old at that time and again according to her statement, "expressed a desire to live out his final days in a family setting rather than the retirement home he was living in,".

I had read somewhere that he died in prison (serving out the sentence for this abuse), but have you read that he got out and died elsewhere?  Maybe they let him out before he died....

[changed]

This thread hits close to home.  My kids are actually in a court case right now in which a former bishopric member is the pedophile.  It's in the news already, although has not been connected to the LDS church yet although by the end of it I'm sure it will be.  It involves boy scouts, members of the ward, hidden cameras, and a LARGE number of children whose videos are now circulating among other perverts on the internet.  Some of the videos including children being molested.  It's worse than merely being molested - it's recorded molestation that was then sold so for the rest of their lives the videos are out there for everyone to watch.  My kids know something is up, but do not know they are in the videos - I think faces were photo shopped in most of the videos, and if this is the case, I'm hoping my kids never find out about it.  The most troubling thing with all of this, was this was happening while the person served in the bishopric.  His wife was also serving - as RS president.  This, in a church that is supposed to be led by God?  It also involves a few things in a patriarchal blessing... Currently I am forced to continue going to church as leaving church at this point would be revealing and thus damaging to my kids.  I'm currently very angry at God, and in consideration of so very many other situations that are and have happened in the world, now believe God to be an evil lying perverted hateful *******.  Outer-darkness sounds pretty damn good to me as it is the only place where no one can touch or hurt anyone.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

"would have been very surprised if this man's church record didn't contain information regarding his continued child molestation and reason for his excommunication"

I understood that at that time those records were kept in SL and notations were not yet made on the ward level records (one of the 94/95 changes was to flag records). (Not saying this was wise or responsible if so)

It does appear from the affidavit, that there were some complaints listed.  Be nice to have a quote and not a paraphrase.  As well as what the actual procedures were.

Are you aware of the current polices in place for this kind of thing or are you assuming it still operates pretty much as it did in the 80s?

I know that they made some changes after the 80's..  It just seems that there is still some confusion and inconsistencies in how this all works.  I hate that handbook..

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

This thread hits close to home....

This sounds recent given your posts on other threads...It must be horrible, I am so sorry.  I get the view of God at this point.  Hope you and yours can find peace in some fashion that works for you.  Bless you for putting your children's welfare first over what must be a huge need to remove the family from that environment.

Is counseling available?  Someplace where you and your spouse can fully express your anger and pain without worrying your kids will be affected?

Edited August 18, 2017 by Calm

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Thank you and smac for the detailed responses, by the way!

Was the bishop I have in mind in error, then, when he had the man tell the victims' parents, in his presence, that he had molested their children? He did that prior to calling the hotline, and he was basically told that he shouldn't have done anything, and that nothing further should be said or done.

I know that smac said that it is a lot more complicated than to say that telling the parents and the police must be part of true repentance, or he doesn't sincerely want to repent (my characterization). But, this seems to say that in such cases, the bishop really can't insist on anything. He can encourage and try to convince, and perhaps he and the stake president can move to formally discipline based on the initial confession, but if the person is recalcitrant, that's it. 

I am not comfortable at all with acquiescing with not informing the parents (as a starting point). They, of all people, have rights, too (and the victims). 

From a legal defense perspective, I completely get invoking rights and not voluntarily stepping on land mines. Invoking rights and making use of legal protections makes absolute sense from a criminal defense perspective, but this is also directly at odds with the requirements of repentance for very serious things. And that takes me back to what is actually in the eternal best interests of the perpetrator and the victims. I don't think it's an over-simplification to say that full repentance requires full submission to and cooperation with doing everything possible to promote healing and making amends with the victims, and paying all temporal and spiritual prices. And this is suicidal from a criminal defense perspective.

ETA: I have been involved with, and am aware of cases where the person, though sorry, had the overriding concern of the full legal ramifications (upwards of 60 years in prison), and the terror of facing that overrides everything else. Legally, one would want to avoid or mitigate that at all costs. Repentance-wise, that very calculus negates full repentance. It's a very bad spot to be in.

Assuming you have all relevant information, then the answer to your question turns on the setting in which and source from which the Bishop got the information.  If the sole and only source was the perpetrator and the setting was such that a reasonable person would expect the privilege to be applicable in that setting, then yes, the Bishop did a bad thing and, at very least, is at risk of discipline by the Church.  

At worst, the perpetrator could sue him and the Church and rightfully recover damages.  The Church has defenses because of its training programs, online and telephonic resources and handbook, but that never stopped anybody from suing the Church, which is an attractive target because of all of those donated $$.

And smac is absolutely right to elaborate on the societal costs of breaking the seal:

Innumerable priests and pastors (I'm unaware of any cases in the XIXth-XXIst Centuries) gave their lives to protect the privilege so that you and I can enjoy the repentance process without fear of state intrusion  ...  as well as the privilege's offspring:  husband/wife; doctor/patient; attorney/client; &tc.