Proposed Changes Recommended For Reporting Confessed Child Abuse

[rongo]

My daughter, when she was very little in junior Primary, told her teacher that her parents whipped her with a belt often. Her teacher came and asked me about it, and I was grateful for that, but I wondered how effective it would be to ask an abuser if allegations are true. I'm really glad she didn't take it upon herself to call CPS on her own. There is always a possibility that allegations are completely untrue, but it is very hard to put the genie back in the bottle once the wheels are turning. Even when there is no evidence, clouds hanging over people don't disperse easily.

I grew up in Southeastern Idaho (farming, almost 100% LDS), and many kids' parents administered corporal punishment. Many in our day and areas would regard this as abusive, but it wasn't.  

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

My daughter, when she was very little in junior Primary, told her teacher that her parents whipped her with a belt often. Her teacher came and asked me about it, and I was grateful for that, but I wondered how effective it would be to ask an abuser if allegations are true. I'm really glad she didn't take it upon herself to call CPS on her own. There is always a possibility that allegations are completely untrue, but it is very hard to put the genie back in the bottle once the wheels are turning. Even when there is no evidence, clouds hanging over people don't disperse easily.

I grew up in Southeastern Idaho (farming, almost 100% LDS), and many kids' parents administered corporal punishment. Many in our day and areas would regard this as abusive, but it wasn't.  

How do you figure?  Just because it was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it wasn't abuse.

Edited August 17, 2017 by ttribe

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

My daughter, when she was very little in junior Primary, told her teacher that her parents whipped her with a belt often. Her teacher came and asked me about it, and I was grateful for that, but I wondered how effective it would be to ask an abuser if allegations are true. I'm really glad she didn't take it upon herself to call CPS on her own.

You were not whipping her, were you?  (It's hard to tell by the way you wrote your post but wanted to make sure.)

Edited August 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

59 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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.

No disagreem nt. The abuser is the one responsible for abusing but I compared the mother and the bishop, not thr mother and the abuser. That js what ALarson originally asked if I recall correctly. The bishop shares some responsibility but I do not hold him accountable for the reasons I mentioned previously. I do hold the mother both accountable and responsible. 

[Darren10]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

How do you figure?  Just because it was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it wasn't abuse.

Kids inherently need a whoopin' when they get too fat out of line. We live in a time where society is too sensitive to these things. Of course all parenting should be done with love and patience but corporal punishment is not inhehently bad. 

 

[Darren10]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Consider yourself rep pointed.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

My daughter, when she was very little in junior Primary, told her teacher that her parents whipped her with a belt often. Her teacher came and asked me about it, and I was grateful for that, but I wondered how effective it would be to ask an abuser if allegations are true. I'm really glad she didn't take it upon herself to call CPS on her own. There is always a possibility that allegations are completely untrue, but it is very hard to put the genie back in the bottle once the wheels are turning. Even when there is no evidence, clouds hanging over people don't disperse easily.

I grew up in Southeastern Idaho (farming, almost 100% LDS), and many kids' parents administered corporal punishment. Many in our day and areas would regard this as abusive, but it wasn't.  

My husband's brother and his wife once talked about using a belt for punishment. I was so against it then and now. But maybe that's why all my kids are rebels. I even told my husband I didn't want him to spank, because he didn't know his own strength. And my mother would tell me how spanking can hurt the child's spine. She even mentioned that you could take a small willow branch if you needed to even do that at all. She was so cute, she'd have a plastic spatula and never ever even hit, just barely. She never touched me, but may have tried it on someone else in the family and they laugh about it cause she wouldn't really come down hard. That was then though. 

My methods weren't all that great, I would send them to their rooms, or if really angry, I would grab their arm and pinch it taking them to their room according to them. So I wasn't guiltless. I wish all of us had been taught a better way to discipline. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

No disagreem nt. The abuser is the one responsible for abusing but I compared the mother and the bishop, not thr mother and the abuser. That js what ALarson originally asked if I recall correctly. The bishop shares some responsibility but I do not hold him accountable for the reasons I mentioned previously. I do hold the mother both accountable and responsible. 

You should study the facts in the case (I'm trying to as well).  The bishop did nothing even after the mother discovered the abuse.  

The mother showed poor judgement, I agree. But she's not responsible for the abuse.  I would like to know why he was invited into their home and I'm trying to read more on this.  

This guy (Curtis) must have been a good manipulator to have abused and fooled so many.  It's a horribly sad story and the number of boys hurt and abused by him over the years is astounding.  This wasn't just one isolated case.

There were more than this one bishop who looked the other way too or didn't make sure he wasn't called to serve over young men.  Again, it's just really very sad and disturbing.

[USU78]

5 hours 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.

The only wrinkle you don't account for is the duty not to disclose if the information comes solely via the confessional.  In LDS terms, this means the Bishop/SP cannot disclose to anybody not in the church discipline loop without the consent of the penitent abuser.  That information, in order to be shared, must come from another source.

The sanctity of the confessional was bought with blood.  We'd be fools to give it up.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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. 

I believe you are mistaken, Darren.

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Kids inherently need a whoopin' when they get too fat out of line. We live in a time where society is too sensitive to these things. Of course all parenting should be done with love and patience but corporal punishment is not inhehently bad. 

 

Ummm, I am going to respectfully disagree with you and leave it at that.

[Duncan]

2 hours 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. 

That happened to me actually. When I was a teenager I had heard from the elders that it says in the Bible that beating your kids is okay, I think they were referring to "spare the rod" I dunno. Anyways one day our sunday school Teacher asked us if we had any questions that we were afraid to ask out loud that we could write them out. So, I asked where does it say in the bible that beating your kids is okay? just wondering what the verse was. Well, next week the teacher came in and was all weepy and told us that your parents should never beat you, that child abuse is real and it's never justified and then she asked us who wrote that question to meet with her after class. So, I did and she was trying to comfort me and I said that the elders told me about this verse and well, her demeanor changed lickety split!!! "I was stressing out all week over some stupid comment the elders made!!!!!", that problem went away quickly!

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

How do you figure?  Just because it was considered "acceptable" back then doesn't mean it wasn't abuse.

There is a difference between corporal punishment (e.g., spanking, whipping, etc.) and abuse --- although corporal punishment can be abusive if ---- it's abusive. They are not synonymous. 

The corporal punishment in SE rural Idaho in the 1980s in my farming community was akin to what I and my siblings received, when needed. i.e., not abusive.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You were not whipping her, were you?  (It's hard to tell by the way you wrote your post but wanted to make sure.)

No, no, no! Although we have spanked our kids, on occasion, and when needed.

But, it illustrates the caution that needs to be taken when weighing victim claims. Kids simply make stuff up sometimes, too --- innocently (i.e., not trying to get people in trouble or get revenge, etc.). It happens, or can happen. My daughter could have innocently set things in motion that would have been hard to undo, depending on who heard it and how they reacted.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is a difference between corporal punishment (e.g., spanking, whipping, etc.) and abuse --- although corporal punishment can be abusive if ---- it's abusive. They are not synonymous. 

The corporal punishment in SE rural Idaho in the 1980s in my farming community was akin to what I and my siblings received, when needed. i.e., not abusive.

[smh] Do you have some objective criteria for this, or should I just chalk it up to rationalization?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My husband's brother and his wife once talked about using a belt for punishment. I was so against it then and now. But maybe that's why all my kids are rebels. I even told my husband I didn't want him to spank, because he didn't know his own strength. And my mother would tell me how spanking can hurt the child's spine. She even mentioned that you could take a small willow branch if you needed to even do that at all. She was so cute, she'd have a plastic spatula and never ever even hit, just barely. She never touched me, but may have tried it on someone else in the family and they laugh about it cause she wouldn't really come down hard. That was then though. 

My methods weren't all that great, I would send them to their rooms, or if really angry, I would grab their arm and pinch it taking them to their room according to them. So I wasn't guiltless. I wish all of us had been taught a better way to discipline. 

You know, my wife and I have talked about this a lot. And, I don't want you heaping coals on your head or beating yourself up over "woulda, coulda, shoulda" about the past. But we can easily tell before it comes up for sure which parents are "spankers," and which are "non-spankers" (non-spankers won't spank on principle, no matter what, and they think that spankers are the worst people in the world"). You can simply tell by how the children are and act, and their response to authority figures (teachers, leaders, their parents at church or in public, etc.). In our experience, children who were spanked when needed are better academically, behaviorally, church-wise, in the work field, you name it. It's obvious. And the non-spanked kids are rebellious, surly, resentful at correction or direction, etc.

It's not like spankers whale away on their kids constantly. It's the "ultimate option" that is on the table when lines are crossed. In our family, it was a very rare occurrence, but we didn't do any of the ridiculous nonsense like "time out" or "I'm going to count to ___," which is humiliating for the parents in public because the kids just calmly wait for them to reach the count and, "Yeah? And?" --- with no consequence of consequence. One of the worst things for my is to see kids constantly win the power struggle with their frustrated and powerless parents in public. It is humiliating and degrading --- and it reinforces the wrong things to the child and creates bigger problems later on.

It's like with international relations. Parents/nations have to be a credible threat to be taken seriously, and there have to be ultimate options on the table beyond which a person/nation is willing to escalate (this involves not constantly moving the "red lines" to avoid administering the ultimate option. It has to be carried out when promised to be credible).

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

[smh] Do you have some objective criteria for this, or should I just chalk it up to rationalization?

You could chalk it up to my observation and experience. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. Not available in all 50 states. See store for details.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours 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. 

I find this response incredibly depressing.

Let me repeat what happened. A mother was upset with her teenage daughter so she pinned her to the ground, straddling the teen with her knees on her arms so she couldn't move. The mother then repeatedly hit the girl in the face with the front and back sides of her hands. When questioned about this, the parents didn't suggest it was a one time thing. They claimed the right to hit the child in the face repeatedly. This wasn't some bad girl, either. She may have sassed back at her  mom or something common like that. But you side with the parents? Man, I'm glad I'm not your child.

I gave my kids a swat on the behind when they were 3 or so if they were "really bad" but I grew out of that poor parenting model pretty quickly. My children are all well behaved, well adjusted, good kids and I've never spanked and I've certainly never struck them in the face repeatedly. So I admit I find it exceptionally difficult to understand why this would be justified. This is just poor and abusive parenting.

 

[Glenn101]

6 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."

 

A branch president told me a long time ago that if a person comes to him and confesses to a crime such as child abuse he had to report it. I have not read that part of the handbook either then or now, so I am not sure if it was in the CHI or if it was counsel he received when he upon his calling as a branch president. The idea is (which I agree with) is that complete repentance includes confessing to the proper authorities and accepting the discipline demands of the law.

Glenn

[rongo]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

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)?

I would absolutely have told/warned the mother. But then, I would turn in someone who is dangerous who refuses to turn himself in, and this is contrary to the counsel received from the hotline. I even asked once, when repeated by the Kirton McConkie lawyer over and over like a mantra "You have no legal obligation to report that," "Yeah, but what about a moral obligation? I understand that you have to tell me I 'have no legal obligation,' but I have to live with myself at the end of the day." The response to that was "You have no legal obligation to report that."

It was less than helpful. 

Other times, with other situations, it was helpful. But I've never gotten an answer as to what, if anything, would happen from the Church to a bishop who reported someone or insisted on them turning themselves in. I even started a thread here a while ago talking in vague terms about this. I'm pretty sure a bishop wouldn't be released or reprimanded, but who knows?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

The only wrinkle you don't account for is the duty not to disclose if the information comes solely via the confessional.  In LDS terms, this means the Bishop/SP cannot disclose to anybody not in the church discipline loop without the consent of the penitent abuser.  That information, in order to be shared, must come from another source.

The sanctity of the confessional was bought with blood.  We'd be fools to give it up.

I'll admit I'm far less convinced of the sanctity of the confessional. But that's probably a tangent. To the topic at had all you need to do is a modicum of investigation independent of the confession and you'll have information you're free to act upon. Any Bishop that didn't do that would be acting neglectfully in my view. 

Sometimes I wonder about people. The story is that the Stake President over that Bishop that was drugging and abusing teens down in Springville last month had been warned by someone in government. The person couldn't be explicit due to laws. (Probably what he said was already illegal) Yet according to the stories I've heard the Stake President didn't act on the warning. (Forgive me if the stories I've heard are in error) The point is though that when there's danger it's our duty to spend the time to find out as soon as possible! If we don't I strongly feel God will demand an accounting one day and we are complicit in the damage done.

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

You could chalk it up to my observation and experience. Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited. Not available in all 50 states. See store for details.

So, no objective criteria on how to differentiate when hitting a child is okay and when it's abuse.  Well, that's not very useful.  Sounds like rationalization is far more likely.

Edited August 17, 2017 by ttribe

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You should study the facts in the case (I'm trying to as well).  The bishop did nothing even after the mother discovered the abuse.  

The mother showed poor judgement, I agree. But she's not responsible for the abuse.  I would like to know why he was invited into their home and I'm trying to read more on this.  

This guy (Curtis) must have been a good manipulator to have abused and fooled so many.  It's a horribly sad story and the number of boys hurt and abused by him over the years is astounding.  This wasn't just one isolated case.

There were more than this one bishop who looked the other way too or didn't make sure he wasn't called to serve over young men.  Again, it's just really very sad and disturbing.

"You should study the facts in the case..." - You keep saying things like that. "I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I believe you are mistaken, Darren.

It could be. I am going off what my bishop told me in the meeting I described. I have never met a counterpoint to that until now but it does look as if the state does not compel clergy to report a confessed crime but I do believe LDS policy is to report them.

[Jeanne]

I am not understanding all the questioning on this...handbook or not...whatever..you do what is right!!!