Update on McKenna Denson Lawsuit (Hearing Schedule)

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Come on kllindley, she clarified what she was referring to (and realized the two of you were speaking of different levels of investigation).  And she is correct that if an actual investigation is opened and a case is pending trial, the accused is not allowed to be alone with the alleged victim(s).  There also does not need to be any "direct evidence" for the police to respond to a call and investigate or question those involved when a report is made regarding the abuse of a minor.  She's correct.  

Do a search for:

.during sex abuse investigation suspect "not allowed to be around minors" (copy that into google)

You'll see it's pretty standard procedure for this to take place.  I can give you some specific statues of law in different states where this is mandated too.

You should probably just drop this (or open a new thread as to not derail this one further)

 

I am still not clear on what is meant by "investigation" by Julie, especially given the links she posted and this comment by you:

"And she is correct that if an actual investigation is opened".

Does there have to be some evidence outside an accusation to remove the person from the home?  Not meant to be badgering, but want to understand.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know!  My brother has had some rough experiences, but he knows he has to investigate and ask questions.  He’s always very careful to protect the feelings of any minors involved and shield them as much as possible during this time.  It’s really a crumby part of his job (one of many actually).

I wonder if things have changed in how they ask questions. My daughter was almost 4 when she was inappropriately touched by her friend's father at their home. I will never forget when I was loading the dishwasher and she came to me and told me about it. He had told her to get some candy up in a cupboard and to climb on top of the counter. She told me he touched her by her bottom. I was so shocked that this had happened, and the guilt of letting her play at this neighbors house was sickening to me, and I even let her go to the store with her friend and this man. So naive and stupid was I. 

We went to the bishop first because this neighbor was in our ward. And he was the brother of a couple's wife and we had even been out to dinner with them. So here I was in a rock and a hard place but I felt he needed to be stopped. My bishop said there wasn't much he could do other than call this guy in to speak with him. Which he did, and the guy denied it.

So I decided to call the police and they said they would interview my daughter but the way they did it was they couldn't outright ask her what happened but had to use a doll and have her show where he touched her yet they didn't ask her outright if she had been touched by the man. It was insane, she didn't know what they were asking. So the burden was on her to figure out what they wanted since they weren't allowed to lead her as the victim. It was really strange, I was so upset that they couldn't outright ask her in plain language. 

Do you know what this means? All I know is that nothing happened to the neighbor, but my husband and I freaked out and didn't know how to handle that this man did this and got away with it. My husband would throw rocks at their house at night out of frustration. Now thinking back I don't know why we didn't confront him face to face, very strange the way we reacted.

[Calm]

Rather than using the term investigation for what happens prior to an official inquiry, maybe describe it as " checking out" or "asking questions" and describe what that might involve?  Because "open an investigation" to me means official.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Calm

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nothing wrong with that.  This is what bishops do on a regular basis.

The thing, though, is that bishops shouldn't compel such things.  

I think you have a myopic perspective on why the Church has its bishops work with the helpline.

In virtually no other circumstance would it be reasonable to say, in essence, "Hmm.  This representative of an organization has received information about a difficult and potentially complex legal issue.  HE BETTER NOT SEEK ANY LEGAL ADVICE!  LAWYERS ARE EVIL!"  😁

</irony>

Bishops are functioning as an agent/representative of the Church.  There are many laws throughout the country that create specific legal obligations and conditions for bishops (and other religious ministers).  These laws change all the time.  It does not make sense to suggest that bishops who receive information in their capacity as religious ministers and representatives of the LDS Church should not get correct legal advice on how to proceed.

The helpline's primary purpose is to help bishops as they help abuse victims.  I think you err in characterizing the helpline as principally "trying to protect the Church."

You really think I said anything about not seeking legal advice?  If the helpline is principally to help bishops then ok (and remains essentially what I said, in my estimation).  Either way, I maintain it is best for people who know about illegal activity to take it legal authorities and not to the bishop.  Surely the help line can help the bishop deal with it and I don't belie that at all.  Good for them and the Bishops.  The problem is of course the help line is for bishop's.  Taking knowledge of illegal activity to appropriate authorities is much more helpful.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then you would potentially be putting yourself and the Church at substantial risk.  If a bishop hears about allegations of abuse, it is his legal responsibility to report it to the police.  Simply telling the person to "go tell the police" is not sufficient.

That's fine and is essentially what I meant.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This sort of knee-jerk, the-church-said-do-x-so-I'm-not-gonna-do-it rejection of the Church's efforts to help bishops as they help abuse victims is, I think, quite misguided.

There's no knee-jerk rejection here.  And I think as demonstrated above you've mischaracterized what I've said.  I didn't say anything about not seeking legal advice but somehow that's what you assumed I meant.  It gets pretty silly when this happens in a knee-jerk reaction type of way in these conversations.    

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Those who have been called as bishops by and large are very grateful for the helpline.  And they aren't typically in the business of defying the Church's plainly sensible guidelines that are designed to help bishops properly address allegations of abuse (and do a good job at it).

Thanks,

-Smac

They better be grateful.  My goodness without it they are left on an island and have been all too often.  Even with it they've often seemed a bit unprepared and unhelpful.  It would have been nice for instance if the bishop who heard from Rob Porter's wife about abuse did something useful.  But he did not, and the helpline was in place.  So, it's not the solution for it all.  It is helpful for bishops, no doubt.  But it would have been much better for his ex-wife to go to legal authorities than to her bishop.  That's the type of stuff I'm addressing.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if things have changed in how they ask questions. My daughter was almost 4 when she was inappropriately touched by her friend's father at their home. I will never forget when I was loading the dishwasher and she came to me and told me about it. He had told her to get some candy up in a cupboard and to climb on top of the counter. She told me he touched her by her bottom. I was so shocked that this had happened, and the guilt of letting her play at this neighbors house was sickening to me, and I even let her go to the store with her friend and this man. So naive and stupid was I. 

We went to the bishop first because this neighbor was in our ward. And he was the brother of a couple's wife and we had even been out to dinner with them. So here I was in a rock and a hard place but I felt he needed to be stopped. My bishop said there wasn't much he could do other than call this guy in to speak with him. Which he did, and the guy denied it.

So I decided to call the police and they said they would interview my daughter but the way they did it was they couldn't outright ask her what happened but had to use a doll and have her show where he touched her yet they didn't ask her outright if she had been touched by the man. It was insane, she didn't know what they were asking. So the burden was on her to figure out what they wanted since they weren't allowed to lead her as the victim. It was really strange, I was so upset that they couldn't outright ask her in plain language. 

Do you know what this means? All I know is that nothing happened to the neighbor, but my husband and I freaked out and didn't know how to handle that this man did this and got away with it. My husband would throw rocks at their house at night out of frustration. Now thinking back I don't know why we didn't confront him face to face, very strange the way we reacted.

The police have to be careful because kids pick up on language being used and are highly suggestive.  There are some major cases that destroyed people's lives and traumatized kids because the interviewers didn't let the child lead the conversation so they have become more cautious over the years.  Parents can taint the children's awareness in how they respond as well, especially if they panic or angry....but how in the world are they able to avoid that.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

That sounds like not all  reports of sexual abuse are seen as mandatory even in a mandatory state.

I don't read it that way.  I think a teacher is required to report any suspected abuse.  Would you really want to try to wiggle out of doing that if a child had come to you and confided they were being abused?

Always err on the side of protecting the child, IMO.  I'm not sure why anyone is arguing against doing this (reporting suspected child abuse).

Here's more specific reading on this:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf#page=2&amp;view=Professionals required to report

And now I'm truly off of here!

Edited July 20, 2018 by ALarson

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't read it that way.  I think a teacher is required to report any suspected abuse.  Would you really want to try to wiggle out of doing that if a child had come to you and confided they were being abused?

Always err on the side of protecting the child, IMO.  I'm not sure why anyone is arguing against doing this (reporting suspected child abuse).

Here's more specific reading on this:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf#page=2&amp;view=Professionals required to report

And now I'm truly off of here!

I recently accepted a job as a safety aid, a program within the school district called "Safe Schools Intervention" and their job that is listed on the website is:

-Risk assessments for safe school violations, including aggression, drugs, sexual misconduct, fire-setting, harm to self, etc.

-Consultation to local school case management

-Parenting classes and other community resource information

-Mental health screening, consultation and referral

-Safe school intervention support for local schools

-Training to school staff on drug addiction, anxiety, personal boundaries, depression, and sexting. 

Luckily I will be trained in this position! My supervisor told me the other day that I was to call him if I suspect abuse and they would call child protection services. So I wonder how well I will do at this. Very worried I'll drop the ball and not pick up on anything. But glad the schools have this program to help students that struggle and get the help they need.

 

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather than using the term investigation for what happens prior to an official inquiry, maybe describe it as " checking out" or "asking questions" and describe what that might involve?  Because "open an investigation" to me means official.

Sorry, guilty as charged 😐

I did conflate the two and it caused confusion (I tried to clarify in my post to kllindley).  

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70698-update-on-mckenna-denson-lawsuit-hearing-schedule/?do=findComment&comment=1209836084
 

Thanks Alarson for doing a better job at differentiating between the two!

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if things have changed in how they ask questions. My daughter was almost 4 when she was inappropriately touched by her friend's father at their home. I will never forget when I was loading the dishwasher and she came to me and told me about it. He had told her to get some candy up in a cupboard and to climb on top of the counter. She told me he touched her by her bottom. I was so shocked that this had happened, and the guilt of letting her play at this neighbors house was sickening to me, and I even let her go to the store with her friend and this man. So naive and stupid was I. 

We went to the bishop first because this neighbor was in our ward. And he was the brother of a couple's wife and we had even been out to dinner with them. So here I was in a rock and a hard place but I felt he needed to be stopped. My bishop said there wasn't much he could do other than call this guy in to speak with him. Which he did, and the guy denied it.

So I decided to call the police and they said they would interview my daughter but the way they did it was they couldn't outright ask her what happened but had to use a doll and have her show where he touched her yet they didn't ask her outright if she had been touched by the man. It was insane, she didn't know what they were asking. So the burden was on her to figure out what they wanted since they weren't allowed to lead her as the victim. It was really strange, I was so upset that they couldn't outright ask her in plain language. 

Do you know what this means? All I know is that nothing happened to the neighbor, but my husband and I freaked out and didn't know how to handle that this man did this and got away with it. My husband would throw rocks at their house at night out of frustration. Now thinking back I don't know why we didn't confront him face to face, very strange the way we reacted.

Wow, I’m so sorry you had to go through that!  You did the right thing, IMO.  Too bad he just got away with it though.  Such a tough situation.

There are trained interviewers who should have been called in (after the initial visit) to talk to your daughter who work with children.  Maybe they weren’t available back when this happened to your daughter?

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You really think I said anything about not seeking legal advice? 

Well, yes.  You seem critical of the helpline.  Below you say "The problem is of course the help line is for bishops."  That just strikes me as a bizarre thing to say.

So which is it?  You deny that you are opposing bishops "seeking legal advice," but you also say that the helpline for bishops to get legal advice is a "problem."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.  If so, I am open to correction.  How is a helpline for bishops to get legal advice a "problem?"  Could you elaborate on that?

Quote

If the helpline is principally to help bishops then ok (and remains essentially what I said, in my estimation).  Either way, I maintain it is best for people who know about illegal activity to take it legal authorities and not to the bishop. 

It's not an either/or situation.  Surely you can see that.

Our ward's bishop has a very good relationship with most members of the ward.  He has had many, many experiences where people bring their problems to him.  These problems can be financial, some are about employment, some social, some sexual, some mental health, some medical, some marital, some criminal, some legal, some about education, and so on.  The bishop has a number of resources available to help members of the Church.  LDS Social Services can help with mental health and family counseling.  LDS Employment Services can help with job training, placement, job searches, and so on.  Fast Offerings can help with short-term issues pertaining to rent, utilities, car repairs, etc.  The Bishops Storehouse can provide food.  Deseret Industries can provide clothing, shoes, home furnishings, etc.

Often, a bishop can provide love and encouragement and guidance on how to proceed on these issues.  That's the bulk of what a bishop does.  He points people in the right direction as to personal matters, both spiritual and temporal.

So it seems bizarre to suggest that a members cannot look to help from a bishop about how to address some forms of "illegal activity" (usually involving family members).  It seems very strange to say, as you do above, that members of the Church should take such matters to the police and not to the bishop.  Why can't they do both?  They certainly are not obligated to take such matters to the bishop, but what's the point of discouraging or constraining them from doing so?  This is particularly strange given that abuse victims and their immediate family members are often confused / scared / upset / traumatized by the abuse.  They don't know where to go, what to do, how to respond.  They may be reluctant to tell anyone, including the police.  And yet your recommendation for Latter-day Saints in such circumstances is that they not go to their bishop?  To not seek out advice from someone they trust?  To not disclose abuse allegations to a person who is obligated by law to report it?

I really do not understand your position.

Quote

Surely the help line can help the bishop deal with it and I don't belie that at all. 

Well, it sure seems like you do belie that.  You are saying that "it is best for people who know about illegal activity to take it legal authorities and not to the bishop."

The helpline is only helpful when the bishop is notified of abuse allegations, and here you are publicly advocating that Latter-day Saints not notify their bishops about abuse allegations.

Quote

Good for them and the Bishops.  The problem is of course the help line is for bishop's.  Taking knowledge of illegal activity to appropriate authorities is much more helpful.  

Again, this is not an either/or situation.  And lots of people are reluctant, for many and diverse reasons, to report abuse "to appropriate authorities."  But many are willing to talk to their bishop.  And bishops are, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., obligated by law to report allegations of abuse (of children, anyway).  This is facilitated by the helpline, which connects bishops to trained attorneys who help the bishops navigate the legal issues that may arise, which often includes reporting the abuse "to appropriate authorities."

And yet you want to stop the Church and its bishops from helping where possible.  You want to frustrate the opportunity for bishops to facilitate the reporting of abuse allegations to the police.  You are saying that "it is best for people who know about illegal activity to take it legal authorities and not to the bishop."

I just don't understand this line of reasoning.

Quote

They better be grateful.  My goodness without it they are left on an island and have been all too often. 

I agree.  

Quote

Even with it they've often seemed a bit unprepared and unhelpful. 

Meh.  I'm not going to fault bishops in this regard.  Addressing sexual abuse is very difficult.  Frankly, I think bishops are better off when they A) facilitate the reporting of abuse, B) arrange, when appropriate, mental health counseling for victims and family members, C) arrange emergency measures (getting victims away from immediate risk of harm), but otherwise D) not try to be a therapist and police officer all rolled into one, and instead provide comfort and reassurance and guidance.

Bishops have some very good resources available to them. Training from the Church, the helpline, oversight from the stake president, access to funds and other resources from the Church.

Quote

It would have been nice for instance if the bishop who heard from Rob Porter's wife about abuse did something useful.  But he did not, and the helpline was in place.  So, it's not the solution for it all. 

Yes, it could have been.  It was a solution that was not used, that's all.

I think it's unreasonable to use one anecdote from a news cycle to tarnish the work of bishops in the LDS Church generally.  Bishops doing their job and doing it well is not newsworthy, but it happens.  All.  The Time.  A soundbite from MSNBC or the NY Times is not a fair sampling of how LDS bishops are faring in their duties.

Quote

It is helpful for bishops, no doubt. 

Oh, brother.  You seem intractably resistant to the idea that the helpline helps abuse victims.  The "help" in "helpline" pertains to bishops helping abuse victims.

Quote

But it would have been much better for his ex-wife to go to legal authorities than to her bishop.  That's the type of stuff I'm addressing.  

Again, it's not an either/or situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Wow, I’m so sorry you had to go through that!  You did the right thing, IMO.  Too bad he just got away with it though.  Such a tough situation.

There are trained interviewers who should have been called in (after the initial visit) to talk to your daughter who work with children.  Maybe they weren’t available back when this happened to your daughter?

This happened about 25 years ago.

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This happened about 25 years ago.

Speechless Tacenda.  I just can't imagine...you did all the right things.  Many hugs for the many hours you might have lived these moments.  Love to you and your family.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Speechless Tacenda.  I just can't imagine...you did all the right things.  Many hugs for the many hours you might have lived these moments.  Love to you and your family.

Thanks Jeanne, it changed me forever, who knows maybe it lead to my disbelief, or my inability to trust in the system or leaders also.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This happened about 25 years ago.

I'm sorry to hear about this.

I and my wife have long had a very clear understanding about her never leaving me alone with small children in our home, including nieces/nephews.  I have the same rule in place for our sons (they are never left alone with smaller children).

I also make sure all doors in the house are always left open when kids are visiting.

I also never change diapers or help little ones go to the bathroom.

I pretty much never pick up or carry visiting children, or have them sit on my lap or anything like that.  High fives, fist bumps, and a very rare side hug is about it.  If a little one wants a hug or to be picked up or whatever, I have my wife or older daughter do it.

I never transport a child or youth anywhere alone.  I either have my wife do it, or I bring one of my older children with me.

I never babysit, and I don't let my sons babysit.

My wife trusts me, and I trust myself.  However, I hope that relatives and friends and neighbors may feel a bit more at ease when they know two adults (one of which is always a woman) is present when their kids are visiting our home.  Plus I want to reduce the risk of misunderstandings and/or false accusations.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Jeanne, it changed me forever, who knows maybe it lead to my disbelief, or my inability to trust in the system or leaders also.

I think the Church has changed a lot in the intervening 25 years.  The bishops aren't perfect, but they have much better training and resources available to them now.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Jeanne, it changed me forever, who knows maybe it lead to my disbelief, or my inability to trust in the system or leaders also.

I’m so sorry this happened to your family. Because of family history, we’re almost paranoid about our kids’ safety. Trust lost is often very difficult to regain. 

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  You seem critical of the helpline.  Below you say "The problem is of course the help line is for bishops."  That just strikes me as a bizarre thing to say.

So which is it?  You deny that you are opposing bishops "seeking legal advice," but you also say that the helpline for bishops to get legal advice is a "problem."

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you.  If so, I am open to correction.  How is a helpline for bishops to get legal advice a "problem?"  Could you elaborate on that?

It's not an either/or situation.  Surely you can see that.

Ok I'll clarify.  The help line being for bishop's is a good thing.  I most definitely can see that.  But in terms of victims of abuse or other perhaps illegal activity, the help line is for bishops.  It's not for the victims, per se.  Now I get that the helpline can help the bishop help the victims.  Sure.  But for me, I'd say go to the proper authorities rather than the bishop, at least initially.  "Problem" may be overstating it.  But, whatever the case--the help line is for bishops.  

I think it's great that bishop's can get legal advice through the help line.  

 

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our ward's bishop has a very good relationship with most members of the ward.  He has had many, many experiences where people bring their problems to him.  These problems can be financial, some are about employment, some social, some sexual, some mental health, some medical, some marital, some criminal, some legal, some about education, and so on.  The bishop has a number of resources available to help members of the Church.  LDS Social Services can help with mental health and family counseling.  LDS Employment Services can help with job training, placement, job searches, and so on.  Fast Offerings can help with short-term issues pertaining to rent, utilities, car repairs, etc.  The Bishops Storehouse can provide food.  Deseret Industries can provide clothing, shoes, home furnishings, etc.

Often, a bishop can provide love and encouragement and guidance on how to proceed on these issues.  That's the bulk of what a bishop does.  He points people in the right direction as to personal matters, both spiritual and temporal.

So it seems bizarre to suggest that a members cannot look to help from a bishop about how to address some forms of "illegal activity" (usually involving family members).  It seems very strange to say, as you do above, that members of the Church should take such matters to the police and not to the bishop.  Why can't they do both?  They certainly are not obligated to take such matters to the bishop, but what's the point of discouraging or constraining them from doing so?  This is particularly strange given that abuse victims and their immediate family members are often confused / scared / upset / traumatized by the abuse.  They don't know where to go, what to do, how to respond.  They may be reluctant to tell anyone, including the police.  And yet your recommendation for Latter-day Saints in such circumstances is that they not go to their bishop?  To not seek out advice from someone they trust?  To not disclose abuse allegations to a person who is obligated by law to report it?

I really do not understand your position.

I've said I have no problem with someone going to the bishop and legal authorities (granted I said police and meant a rather looser concept of going to legal authorities).  I would recommend anyone who has suffered abuse particularly as that abuse is ongoing and illegal, that person is likely better off going to legal authorities than to a bishop, initially.  That doesn't mean a bishop can't help nor the help line.  it can.  But I'd still recommend victims go to legal authorities first.  I will say if someone has a question or are confused or scared and watns a bishop's advice.  Ok.  Fine by me.  

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, it sure seems like you do belie that.  You are saying that "it is best for people who know about illegal activity to take it legal authorities and not to the bishop."

The helpline is only helpful when the bishop is notified of abuse allegations, and here you are publicly advocating that Latter-day Saints not notify their bishops about abuse allegations.

Again, this is not an either/or situation.  And lots of people are reluctant, for many and diverse reasons, to report abuse "to appropriate authorities."  But many are willing to talk to their bishop.  And bishops are, in most jurisdictions in the U.S., obligated by law to report allegations of abuse (of children, anyway).  This is facilitated by the helpline, which connects bishops to trained attorneys who help the bishops navigate the legal issues that may arise, which often includes reporting the abuse "to appropriate authorities."

And yet you want to stop the Church and its bishops from helping where possible.  You want to frustrate the opportunity for bishops to facilitate the reporting of abuse allegations to the police.  You are saying that "it is best for people who know about illegal activity to take it legal authorities and not to the bishop."

I just don't understand this line of reasoning.

Let me clarify...and not to the bishop initially.  I think that's best overall.  There may be extenuating circumstances that I'd see it reasonable to bypass the rule, but generally I think victims are better off going to legal authorities first.  

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  

Meh.  I'm not going to fault bishops in this regard.  Addressing sexual abuse is very difficult.  Frankly, I think bishops are better off when they A) facilitate the reporting of abuse, B) arrange, when appropriate, mental health counseling for victims and family members, C) arrange emergency measures (getting victims away from immediate risk of harm), but otherwise D) not try to be a therapist and police officer all rolled into one, and instead provide comfort and reassurance and guidance.

Bishops have some very good resources available to them. Training from the Church, the helpline, oversight from the stake president, access to funds and other resources from the Church.

Yes, it could have been.  It was a solution that was not used, that's all.

I think it's unreasonable to use one anecdote from a news cycle to tarnish the work of bishops in the LDS Church generally.  Bishops doing their job and doing it well is not newsworthy, but it happens.  All.  The Time.  A soundbite from MSNBC or the NY Times is not a fair sampling of how LDS bishops are faring in their duties.

Oh, brother.  You seem intractably resistant to the idea that the helpline helps abuse victims.  The "help" in "helpline" pertains to bishops helping abuse victims.

Again, it's not an either/or situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've already said the help line most certainly could be helpful to abuse victims in a less direct way.  I'm simply pointing out the helpline is for bishops.  You keep adding assumptions to my words and ideas.  

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Ok I'll clarify.  The help line being for bishop's is a good thing.  I most definitely can see that.  But in terms of victims of abuse or other perhaps illegal activity, the help line is for bishops. 

It's for bishops who are in the process of helping abuse victims.

Quote

It's not for the victims, per se. 

It's not for them to call.  But it is indisputably in existence as a resource for bishops to help abuse victims.

Quote

Now I get that the helpline can help the bishop help the victims.  Sure.  But for me, I'd say go to the proper authorities rather than the bishop, at least initially. 

I have no particular objection to that.  "At least initially" changes quite a bit.

Quote

I've said I have no problem with someone going to the bishop and legal authorities (granted I said police and meant a rather looser concept of going to legal authorities).  I would recommend anyone who has suffered abuse particularly as that abuse is ongoing and illegal, that person is likely better off going to legal authorities than to a bishop, initially. 

Have you ever worked with victims of abuse?  Have you sat or spoken with them minutes or hours after the abuse has happened (or after the parent has learned about past abuse)?  Do you have any experience with how they are feeling in that moment?

I previously commented on this (earlier in this thread, IIRC):

Quote

Have you ever worked with victims of sexual abuse (particularly by family members)?  As I see it three of the biggest impediments to them getting help are A) a feeling of helplessness, a lack of control over their lives, and B) profound confusion and despair at the abuse, and C) misplaced feelings of shame and guilt.  Going to the police can come across as exacerbating these things. 

If the police get involved, then the abuser may end up getting arrested (which can be distressing when it's a family member, even to the victim). 

If the police get involved, then the "secret" is out, which may enhance the confusion / despair / shame / guilt (at least that's the fear the victim may have).

If the police get involved, then the police (and/or DCFS) intrude into the home, ask very sensitive questions, and do so by the coercive power of government.  The victim's sense of helplessness or lack of control might actually get worse (again, that's the fear the victim may have at the prospect of contacting the police).

And so it goes.  But you know what?  The police and DCFS still need to be involved.  That is the decision our society has made, and I think it's a necessary one.  So my point is that sometimes the victim may not want to call the police (because of the above concerns), which is why a disclosure to the bishop becomes so valuable.  Bishops, after all, are generally good and decent men, and they have an obligation to monitor the welfare of their flock, and in most jurisdictions they have a legal obligation to report most allegations of abuse.  The Church, recognizing this, has spent considerable time and effort to create a helpline for bishops, a helpline that works (see above).  Bishops are not perfect, but they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse.

I think perhaps you and I are not really very far apart on this issue.

Quote

That doesn't mean a bishop can't help nor the help line.  it can.  But I'd still recommend victims go to legal authorities first.  I will say if someone has a question or are confused or scared and watns a bishop's advice.  Ok.  Fine by me.  

I have no qualms with people calling the police first.  But the simple reality is that a lot of abuse victims (and/or their family members), in the moment, are scared about going to the police.  You are advocating that they do something many of them do not want to do.  To some extent, we as a society have taken that decision away from them.  That's a sensitive moral issue, I think.  I'm big on people making their own decisions, and I'm not persuaded that law enforcement and prosecutors get it right every time.  Nevertheless, allegations of sexual abuse need to be addressed.  But ironically, I think the point you are advocating (go to the police first, then possibly to your bishop) may end up backfiring because many people would resist the first part (going to the police) and may end up skipping the second part (disclosing to the bishop) as well.

In contrast, going to the bishop first means that there is a disclosure of abuse to a person who is obligated by law to report it to law enforcement.  Overall, then, this likely increases the likelihood of the issue being communicated to law enforcement.

Quote

Let me clarify...and not to the bishop initially.  I think that's best overall.  There may be extenuating circumstances that I'd see it reasonable to bypass the rule, but generally I think victims are better off going to legal authorities first.  

I've already said the help line most certainly could be helpful to abuse victims in a less direct way.  I'm simply pointing out the helpline is for bishops.  You keep adding assumptions to my words and ideas.  

Fair enough.  Thank you for clarifying.  I apologize to the extent I misread you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 20, 2018 by smac97

[rongo]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A bishop is, among other things, an agent for the Church of Jesus Christ. I am not altogether acquainted with policy in this matter. But I would simply say if one is not willing to abide by Church policy, one ought not be acting in that capacity. 

I am very grateful for the counsel through the helpline, in the main. My only difference is where the line is blurred between legally proper and expedient, and morally/ethically right is in question. I remember once (about a non-abuse issue) being told "you have no legal obligation to report that," and when I asked whether I had a moral or ethical obligation to report, was simply told verbatim (with no commentary or deviation), "you have no legal obligation to report that."

The incident that really made me think involved five victim families in my ward (whose abuse occurred before my tenure), with a confessed abuser in another ward. The bishop did everyone by the book and in consultation with the helpline, except he had the man tell each of the sets of the parents. He told his mother what had happened, and she flew in from another state, took him with her, and lawyered up. From that point, he denied his multiple confessions (some of which were lengthy texts expressing remorse to one of the mothers), and the tactic was "no comment." And that's where it stands. County prosecutors are not willing to go to trial, even with the confessions and witnesses to confessions (and the texts), because the victims cannot testify (they were too young to remember). If he had confessed to me, I think I would have demanded that he turn himself in as a small beginning of good faith on the road to repentance and reconciliation. 

In the incident I referred to earlier, the man's father called me up livid and wanted to know what his son had told me, and what I had told him. I told him he would have to ask his son; I wouldn't tell him anything. "You told him to turn himself in, didn't you?" he demanded (I had told him to cooperate with the police, and things moved so quickly it made our heads swim. He went with them and waived his rights and recorded a police confession to many things I don't know the specifics of). The dad threatened to sue me and the Church (I don't know how successful that would or could be), and they fought things until finally accepting a plea deal of 17 years without parole, lifetime probation after that, class 3 sex offender and lifetime ankle monitoring. I think the prosecutor laid out just how long of a sentence it would be if convicted, and they had his recorded confession. 

I suppose that a bishop might conceivably be civilly liable if he makes someone turn himself in, but in some things, I don't care. In all of the wrangling over legal strategy and rights, it seems to me that the primary job of the bishop --- helping to repent --- is thrown to the wayside. Often, doing what makes legal sense as a defense tactic interferes with and runs counter to what needs to happen to be forgiven. If I were guilty of something heinous, I would pay the uttermost farthing in terms of full cooperation, minimizing pain to the families, fully confessing to ecclesiastical and legal authorities, and otherwise doing everything possible to make an effort to restore and reconcile (this is one of those things where only the atonement can make right --- we are powerless to restore what has been taken or lost). I think turning oneself in is an important first step on a very long road, but often this is never taken. It is compelled by the system. 

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

I am very grateful for the counsel through the helpline, in the main. My only difference is where the line is blurred between legally proper and expedient, and morally/ethically right is in question. I remember once (about a non-abuse issue) being told "you have no legal obligation to report that," and when I asked whether I had a moral or ethical obligation to report, was simply told verbatim (with no commentary or deviation), "you have no legal obligation to report that."

Isn't that what you'd expect?  Legal advice would seem to fall under the stewardship of the lawyer.  Moral and ethical under that stewardship of the bishop.

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

I suppose that a bishop might conceivably be civilly liable if he makes someone turn himself in

How could a bishop "make" someone turn themselves in? 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I am very grateful for the counsel through the helpline, in the main. My only difference is where the line is blurred between legally proper and expedient, and morally/ethically right is in question. I remember once (about a non-abuse issue) being told "you have no legal obligation to report that," and when I asked whether I had a moral or ethical obligation to report, was simply told verbatim (with no commentary or deviation), "you have no legal obligation to report that."

That seems right.  The lawyers are there to clarify legal obligations, not moral/ethical ones.  In the absence of legal compulsion, wouldn't the bishop disclosing or not disclosing be left to the discretion of the bishop?

In other words, bishops are at liberty to report allegations of abuse that they are not legally required to report.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The incident that really made me think involved five victim families in my ward (whose abuse occurred before my tenure), with a confessed abuser in another ward. The bishop did everyone by the book and in consultation with the helpline, except he had the man tell each of the sets of the parents. He told his mother what had happened, and she flew in from another state, took him with her, and lawyered up. From that point, he denied his multiple confessions (some of which were lengthy texts expressing remorse to one of the mothers), and the tactic was "no comment." And that's where it stands. County prosecutors are not willing to go to trial, even with the confessions and witnesses to confessions (and the texts), because the victims cannot testify (they were too young to remember). If he had confessed to me, I think I would have demanded that he turn himself in as a small beginning of good faith on the road to repentance and reconciliation. 

I don't think you can "demand" that.  And if you received his confession from him, you would have been bound by the priest/penitent privilege.  And if you breached that privilege, your testimony would not, I think, be admissible, nor would any evidence collected as a result of it (the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine).  In other words, your breach could undermine criminal charges against the abuser.

I hope I am misunderstanding you.  That you are not suggesting that a bishop can or should disregard the priest/penitent privilege.  That a bishop can or should use a threat to breach that privilege in order to "demand" or coerce a penitent into turning himself in.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I suppose that a bishop might conceivably be civilly liable if he makes someone turn himself in, but in some things, I don't care.

I don't think civil liability is an issue.  See here (page 5).  However, if you "make" or coerce an individual to "turn himself in" (by, say, threatening to report him if he doesn't), you are potentially creating huge problems.  For the abuser (who may be able to get evidence excluded if it stems from a violation of the priest/penitent privilege), the abused (who would not see justice done if the case against the abuser is undermined by your breach), and the Church (since its rights relative to the priest/penitent privilege are implicated, and members trust in bishops could be challenged, such that abusers would be less inclined to confess serious misconduct because bishops may breach the privilege).

1 hour ago, rongo said:

In all of the wrangling over legal strategy and rights, it seems to me that the primary job of the bishop --- helping to repent --- is thrown to the wayside.

No, not thrown by the wayside.  Your job still exists, but in a context that includes many different considerations.  The rights of the accused, the rights of the victims, the rights of the Church, and so on.

Moreover, there is no such thing as coerced repentance.  A bishop threatening someone unless he "turn{s} himself in" seems coercive.  

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Often, doing what makes legal sense as a defense tactic interferes with and runs counter to what needs to happen to be forgiven.

Yes.  But we can't run roughshod over the legalities.

The importance of the priest/penitent privilege is hard to overstate.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

If I were guilty of something heinous, I would pay the uttermost farthing in terms of full cooperation, minimizing pain to the families, fully confessing to ecclesiastical and legal authorities, and otherwise doing everything possible to make an effort to restore and reconcile (this is one of those things where only the atonement can make right --- we are powerless to restore what has been taken or lost). I think turning oneself in is an important first step on a very long road, but often this is never taken. It is compelled by the system. 

Alas, yes.  Failing to repent is a continuation of the sin, isn't it?

But the solution is not to force a confession.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Isn't that what you'd expect?  Legal advice would seem to fall under the stewardship of the lawyer.  Moral and ethical under that stewardship of the bishop.

 

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems right.  The lawyers are there to clarify legal obligations, not moral/ethical ones.  In the absence of legal compulsion, wouldn't the bishop disclosing or not disclosing be left to the discretion of the bishop?

In other words, bishops are at liberty to report allegations of abuse that they are not legally required to report.

Yes, I had the agency to do whatever I chose, but I have had it emphasized emphatically (redundant, I know) by hotline attorneys that the Church doesn't want us to do or say anything in certain things. Even when it feels morally or ethically wrong. My question to them was more rhetorical, thinking out loud, than anything, but it was annoying to simply have the carefully-worded, tightly-scripted legal advice simply repeated ("you have no legal obligation to report that"). Even a little empathy would have been nice ("I can certainly understand and empathize with the dilemma you find yourself in").

[smac97]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Yes, I had the agency to do whatever I chose, but I have had it emphasized emphatically (redundant, I know) by hotline attorneys that the Church doesn't want us to do or say anything in certain things.

Okay.  What "certain things?"  

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Even when it feels morally or ethically wrong. My question to them was more rhetorical, thinking out loud, than anything, but it was annoying to simply have the carefully-worded, tightly-scripted legal advice simply repeated ("you have no legal obligation to report that").

I think the Church wants to be extremely careful.  They want to limit attorneys advising bishops about legal issues, not moral / ethical / doctrinal ones.  Lawyers have no business intruding into such matters.

If a bishop needs guidance on the moral/ethical (but not legal) aspects of performing his duties as bishop, he should go to his priesthood leaders, not to lawyers.

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Even a little empathy would have been nice ("I can certainly understand and empathize with the dilemma you find yourself in").

I think the lawyers are just trying to be careful.  They don't want to intrude into non-legal areas.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

How could a bishop "make" someone turn themselves in? 

Merely by making it clear that if he didn't,  you would. Not gunpoint or anything like that.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think you can "demand" that. 

Only in the sense of the above. 

Quote

And if you received his confession from him, you would have been bound by the priest/penitent privilege.  And if you breached that privilege, your testimony would not, I think, be admissible, nor would any evidence collected as a result of it (the

"Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine).  In other words, your breach could undermine criminal charges against the abuser.

All the more reason for the turning in and legal confession to come from him, not me. 

Quote

I hope I am misunderstanding you.  That you are not suggesting that a bishop can or should disregard the priest/penitent privilege.  That a bishop can or should use a threat to breach that privilege in order to "demand" or coerce a penitent into turning himself in. 

You are not misunderstanding me. I have thought about it. I have never done it, but I have thought about what ifs. I'm not sure that the legal ramifications of the breach are as cut and dried as that, and theologically, it is not a sacred covenant like in the Catholic Church. 

Quote

I don't think civil liability is an issue. 

See here (page 5).  However, if you "make" or coerce an individual to "turn himself in" (by, say, threatening to report him if he doesn't), you are potentially creating huge problems.  For the abuser (who may be able to get evidence excluded if it stems from a violation of the priest/penitent privilege), the abused (who would not see justice done if the case against the abuser is undermined by your breach), and the Church (since its rights relative to the priest/penitent privilege are implicated, and members trust in bishops could be challenged, such that abusers would be less inclined to confess serious misconduct because bishops may breach the privilege).

That's a good point, if it is true that breaching it would invalidate testimony and witnesses. I'm not sure that's actually true that it would, though.

Quote

Moreover, there is no such thing as coerced repentance.  A bishop threatening someone unless he "turn{s} himself in" seems coercive . . . But the solution is not to force a confession.

Another good point. Where I'm coming from, it's more like saying, "Look, pal, you say you're sorry and you want to repent. You can't unless you make full restitution, as much as lies in your power. And you can't begin to do that without coming clean and paying the societal/legal price for this. To say nothing of doing everything you can to help victim families. Are you willing to do this and manfully face the long and tough road ahead? Or, are you going to make the legal system fight you at every step?" Etc.

Edited July 20, 2018 by rongo

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ithink the Church wants to be extremely careful.  They want to limit attorneys advising bishops about legal issues, not moral / ethical / doctrinal ones.  Lawyers have no business intruding into such matters.

If a bishop needs guidance on the moral/ethical (but not legal) aspects of performing his duties as bishop, he should go to his priesthood leaders, not to lawyers.

I think the lawyers are just trying to be careful.  They don't want to intrude into non-legal areas.  

There is definitely that: not wanting Church legal to give ecclesiastical counsel to ecclesiastical leaders. 

A major theme that has cropped up several times is that Church legal is very concerned about the erosion of protections under clergy privilege. I have been told more than once that we don't want to do anything that would erode that or give precedent for eroding it. And I understand and agree with that. It's just that in certain egregious and heinous things, it doesn't seem morally or ethically right --- like in the instances I shared vague info about.