Proposed Changes Recommended For Reporting Confessed Child Abuse

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll admit I'm far less convinced of the sanctity of the confessional.

I had a situation where five victim families are or were at one time in my ward. The confessed molester had confided to his bishop, and he had the man tell all of the parents with him present. They came to me outraged, angry, etc., and when I asked the bishop some questions, he told me that he couldn't tell me anything because of confidentiality. I reminded him that the parents were in my ward, and that they had come to me, and as their bishop, I'm involved here. The parents are certainly involved. I reminded him that we all routinely share confidential information with other bishops when people move into or out of wards (without their consent or knowledge). Certainly this was a case where inter-bishop confidentiality was the wrong concern. Etc. He's an outstanding man and bishop, caught in a bad situation. And, he clammed up further after talking to the hotline.

For me, there are certain crimes and situations where I'm not really concerned with protecting the penitent's confidentiality rights. 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

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

Me too. It should read "too far" out of line. Being fat does not justify a whoopin'.

In all do seriousness, many problems result when there us not enough severe discipline in the home. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Darren10

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

The problem is that they are trying to protect the Church from being sued due to overanxious action by a Bishop. So they can report they gave that advice if they are sued for releasing information. And likely the individual Bishop wouldn't be sued. It sucks that the law is like that but that's why they do that. Lots of churches have been sued for disclosing confidential information. It's a catch-22 in a way. 

Consider someone who confesses to lewd thoughts and the Bishop warns parents. There's no possible criminal case and the Church is completely open to being sued over defamation of character unless it can distance themselves from the Bishop's actions. Admittedly suites in this case are difficult to prove since there's a malice component, but I'm sure the Church wants to avoid the lawsuits entirely. If they're referring back to a vague statement it's almost certainly due to prior court decisions. I might not like it and might even ignore it were I a Bishop, but I don't think I can fault the Church for it.

It's also worth noting that carve outs for confessions are being legally challenged, primarily due to abuse scandals related to the Catholic Church.

Edited August 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

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." 

I agree!  I don't understand those that defend a bishop who knew a man had abused numerous children, but didn't warn a mother to keep her young son away from him (after he learned the man was moving into their home).  

I love how you handle this issue.

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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!

You poor thing you. Must have been the most stressed out person in all if Canada...and for an entire week.

I think your teachers handled it well. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem is that they are trying to protect the Church from being sued due to overanxious action by a Bishop. So they can report they gave that advice if they are sued for releasing information. And likely the individual Bishop wouldn't be sued. It sucks that the law is like that but that's why they do that. Lots of churches have been sued for disclosing confidential information. It's a catch-22 in a way. 

I wonder if the Church could successfully be sued (meaning, have to settle or potentially lose the case) if a bishop required someone to turn himself in, or be turned in by the bishop himself. On what grounds? I don't see how a bishop or the Church can be sued for not keeping horrific crimes hidden through clergy privilege. Is clergy privilege violation even an actionable offense?

My discussion with this bishop led me to wondering about where clergy privilege actually fits in the Church. Some act as if it's a sacred ordinance with covenants, but it seems to me to be more something we do to garner trust with penitents, to make it more likely that they will be comfortable confessing things. If violated, that certainly violates that trust, but I don't see how it could be a sin, or illegal.

[Darren10]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

"Man, I'm glad I'm not your child."

Me too.

I've never come close to punishing my kids like that but I whooped two of them. Two times my oldest daughter for hitting her teacher in ir either PreK or Kindergarten, I forget, and once for beating her younger brother. Oh, once for beating him when they shared a room at a friend's house. I whooped my son twice. Once for telling me to "f*** off" and the other for saying "f*** You" to his mother. You would have lived being out bishop. 

Now, back to the original scenario. With the details you provided. Yes, the mother went overboard but not yo the point of getting CPS involved. If you want kids to get abused, put them into the child protection service. The homes they end up in with them... dude. That's bad! 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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

I found a couple of misspelled words, I hope the intent made it through. 

[Darren10]

By "whoopin'" I meN a smack on the arm. I've never used an object to punish my kids.  

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I wonder if the Church could successfully be sued (meaning, have to settle or potentially lose the case) if a bishop required someone to turn himself in, or be turned in by the bishop himself. On what grounds? I don't see how a bishop or the Church can be sued for not keeping horrific crimes hidden through clergy privilege. Is clergy privilege violation even an actionable offense?

I don't know. I'm not an attorney. That's the level of detail you really want someone experienced in the field to answer. I can't imagine a suite in such a case. I suspect the lawsuit would come if the person denied he'd actually confessed and there was no evidence. If you merely report it to the police there's no problem. If you start talking about it then I suspect there could be a lawsuit. It's frustrating because serial abusers usually are careful how they do it and so often can be hard to find evidence on. 

Fortunately I've never been called to a serious leadership position. Because I have to admit my sympathies are completely with the victims and not the abusers. If they're penitent turn themselves in. If they aren't then they get what's coming to them and all I'd care about is protecting the weak.

Edited August 17, 2017 by clarkgoble

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree!  I don't understand those that defend a bishop who knew . . .

My first real thought about this issue was years ago with Susan Brock. Her husband was a county commissioner (or something) in Maricopa County (massive county encompassing Phoenix and its suburbs all the way up to Wickenburg). She and her daughter had abused a boy in their ward for years. The boy's parents found out, and demanded a meeting with the stake president. With the Brocks, the victim's parents, and the stake president, Susan Brock denied everything. Later, Susan confessed to her bishop, and nothing was done. The parents finally had enough tangible evidence, and Susan Brock and the daughter were convicted and sent to prison. 

Talk radio went bonkers in the Phoenix area, and people excoriated the stake president and the bishop. I thought that it was unfair as far as the stake president, because all he actually knew was "they said - she said" --- her word against theirs. The bishop, though, knew from her own mouth. It's a terrible spot to be in, but I think of the quote from Gandalf in Lord of the Rings along the lines of "This isn't what you want, but history has put you in this position at this time, and . . . you're the man."

I remember at the time thinking, "I would have pushed the phone over to her and told her that she needed to call the police right there. Or I would."

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't know. I'm not an attorney. That's the level of detail you really want someone experienced in the field to answer. I can't imagine a suite in such a case. I suspect the lawsuit would come if the person denied he'd actually confessed and there was no evidence. If you merely report it to the police there's no problem. If you start talking about it then I suspect there could be a lawsuit. It's frustrating because serial abusers usually are careful how they do it and so often can be hard to find evidence on. 

Fortunately I've never been called to a serious leadership position. Because I have to admit my sympathies are completely with the victims and not the abusers. If they're penitent turn themselves in. If they aren't then they get what's coming to them and all I'd care about is protecting the weak.

All good points. I told the bishop that I would have asked the man if I could drive him to the police station so he could turn himself in, and so that I knew it. I think it would have been very easy (or that it is very easy) to have second thoughts after sleeping on it, or to decide to hunker down and not cooperate with anybody, if the turning-in didn't happen right away after receiving the conviction that this is the right thing to do. 

But, I can see how libel/slander accusations could arise if all there was was a secret confession.

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

"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."

It means to become more familiar with what actually took place here. This man was accused by 21 different victims of sexually abusing them and he confessed to many of these crimes (to several Bishops over the years). It's not a simple case, yet you continue to simplify it down to it was the Mom's fault.

Have you even read or searched to find out what actually was involved with this case? 

You should know that this is not a case of just one young boy being abused because his Mother allowed the 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.  There were many, many other children involved whose Mothers did not allow that.  Yet, you continue to state things like that one Mother was "110,000%" responsible for the abuse.  She was not (although she was negligent in my eyes or at the very least, foolish, trusting and naive).

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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.

Good for you, rongo!  So would have I (and so would the Bishop I'm serving with and he has actually done this).  

You would have saved this young boy from the horrible abuse that was inflicted on him if you'd been his Bishop.  

Of course, the repeat abuser is the one who is truly responsible for the abuse.  But, when someone knows and remains silent, they are at least complicit.

Edited August 17, 2017 by ALarson

[ttribe]

46 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Me too. It should read "too far" out of line. Being fat does not justify a whoopin'.

In all do seriousness, many problems result when there us not enough severe discipline in the home. 

I don't accept the notion that "not enough severe discipline" should include striking a child with an object or one's hand...or at all, for that matter.

[Danzo]

4 hours 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.

can you provide a reference.  It has always been my understanding (from what I have read) the the bishop didn't know about the persons past at the time the mother asked about it.

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

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.

I'm in the business where this is relevant. The privilege still exists. It belongs to the penitent, not the Church. The Church would be in deep kimchee if it instructed Bishops/Stake Presidents to violate the privilege.

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

It means to become more familiar with what actually took place here. This man was accused by 21 different victims of sexually abusing them and he confessed to many of these crimes (to several Bishops over the years). It's not a simple case, yet you continue to simplify it down to it was the Mom's fault.

Have you even read or searched to find out what actually was involved with this case? 

You should know that this is not a case of just one young boy being abused because his Mother allowed the 87 year old man to share a bed with her son.  There were many, many other children involved whose Mothers did not allow that.  Yet, you continue to state things like that one Mother was "110,000%" responsible for the abuse.  She was not (although she was negligent in my eyes or at the very least, foolish, trusting and naive).

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. In this case, it is because you two have read into the case and I am making things too simple for a more complex situation. Here's why I keep it simple (besides fir the sake of keeping it, well, simple.)

Even if you double or triple the number of allegations, to 42 and 63 respectively, against the perp, the mother still should never allow an 87 year old man to sleep in the same bed as her son. Likewise, even if you reduce the number of accusations to zero and even go further and give the man credit for doing great things for  children by twice the number of allegations, effectively rendering the allegation tally to -42, the mother should still never allow an 87 year old man to sleep with her 11 year old son. 

Furthermore, she was the primary caretaker of her son. Not some homeless member of her ward, not even the ward's bishop. She was. I hold her accountable to her responsibilities toward the well being of her son. The sin of sexual abuse is the perp's responsibility and accountability. As for the bishop, while I think he should have informed the mother, I do not hold him accountable for that responsibility unless you can show that he deliberately knew of impending  (not potential) danger and refused to tell the mother. I think there can be a case made where he is to held accountable if he did not follow up on the well bring of the family, particularly the child, but as for informing the mother? No, I say, and for the reasons I previously mentioned.

And for clarity, telling someone to research a topic so that that person will reach a predetermined conclusion is not a legitimate reason to call up in a person to research a topic. If anything it's a demonstration of haughtiness.

[Darren10]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm in the business where this is relevant. The privilege still exists. It belongs to the penitent, not the Church. The Church would be in deep kimchee if it instructed Bishops/Stake Presidents to violate the privilege.

Thanks for explaining. 

Isn't kimchee Korean cabbage?

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

I don't accept the notion that "not enough severe discipline" should include striking a child with an object or one's hand...or at all, for that matter.

OK.  I do. 

[USU78]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I wonder if the Church could successfully be sued (meaning, have to settle or potentially lose the case) if a bishop required someone to turn himself in, or be turned in by the bishop himself. On what grounds? I don't see how a bishop or the Church can be sued for not keeping horrific crimes hidden through clergy privilege. Is clergy privilege violation even an actionable offense?

My discussion with this bishop led me to wondering about where clergy privilege actually fits in the Church. Some act as if it's a sacred ordinance with covenants, but it seems to me to be more something we do to garner trust with penitents, to make it more likely that they will be comfortable confessing things. If violated, that certainly violates that trust, but I don't see how it could be a sin, or illegal.

"Requiring" somebody to turn himself in in pain of Church discipline happens all the time. Going public with a confidence belonging to an offender is absolutely not happening. This is a huge deal. A rogue Bishop disclosing confidences would subject himself and the Church up to big money liability.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Thanks for explaining. 

Isn't kimchee Korean cabbage?

Sauerkraut, actually.

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Thanks for explaining. 

Isn't kimchee Korean cabbage?

yes, don't you ever watch MASH?!

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Requiring" somebody to turn himself in in pain of Church discipline happens all the time. Going public with a confidence belonging to an offender is absolutely not happening. This is a huge deal. A rogue Bishop disclosing confidences would subject himself and the Church up to big money liability.

Under what law would it?

Say someone tells a bishop that he has molested children in many families. He wants to repent, and thinks initially that his confession, and informal sacrament and activity restrictions over a period of time will put this painful thing behind him and let him move on. In his meeting with the bishop, he learns that he will be facing more serious discipline that will result in years and years of severance from his covenants and loss of his membership. This is much heavier than he thought; he thought that his burden would be lightened by his meeting with the bishop and he would be able to move on from that point. He begins to second-guess his decision to confess at all. Then, the bishop informs him that he must tell the parents of his victims, with him present, and that he will have to turn himself in to the police and confess to everything. This horrifies him, and he decides that he isn't going to say another word to anyone. The bishop informs him that if he won't, then he (the bishop) will immediately tell the police and the families what he knows.

The man does nothing. He's terrified to do anything, and is unwilling to take this drastic step that is going to change the course of his life forever. The bishop is true to his word, and the man is arrested.

What big money liability would the bishop likely face? Under what law or legal argument would the Church and/or the bishop be found culpable liable? What if criminal investigation confirms that the charges are true, so that it isn't simply a matter of alleged confessional confidences vs. categorical denial?

Are clergy legally required, subject to civil penalties, to maintain clergy privilege?

Thanks in advance, USU78! This is a fascinating and relevant topic for me.

[strappinglad]

Does a doctor have to report to authorities if his patient confesses to a crime ? Does a lawyer have to report to authorities if his client confesses to a crime? Should the clergy be held to a different standard?