Abuse Hotline Article

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These are civil suits, and the LDS Church only pays out money when it appears that the case against them is strong -- in which the LDS leaders did not perform due diligence, or in which they actually did harm.  It is standard procedure to avoid expensive trials, in which the result cannot always be predicted anyhow, so that settlements are often reached, and judges actually prefer settlements out of court.

The police have nothing to do with civil suits.  The police and prosecutors file criminal charges, which can result in jail and prison time and registration as a sex offender.  Civil suits are normally filed only after the criminal process is over.

Thanks Robert! Not too smart sometimes.

Does it bother you that that kind of money is spent? Would it be best to just start telling people to go to the police? Sure, provide counseling or a body to care, but not tell people to not go to the police, like has happened so many times in the past.That is definitely a reason to sue, especially if the perp goes onto further abusing during the repentance process, but really can't that be done in prison/jail? That's the way to really repent.  

[The Nehor]

I have no skin in this game and can only report some anecdotes. I sign therapy checks to pay for members and I know at least one of them is for recovering from abuse (I have no idea if the abuser was or is a member) and it is possible more of them are for abuse recovery.

This is from some time ago and I will keep it vague so it is hopefully safe to share.

I do volunteer work for children who have suffered abuse and/or neglect and I have walked a bishop through the CPS process when trying to work out a course of action to help some children. The hotline was called. We made sure that the kids were with their grandparents when CPS got involved so the children would be more free to talk about what was going on and if the parents were arrested they would be with someone who could care for them and not get stuck in foster care. We got someone involved to contact CPS. Sadly CPS could not find anything actionable. For several months afterwards I saw a man and every time I saw him I felt the perfectly rational urge to give him a severe beating that preferably ended with broken kneecaps so he could never walk again.

Some would say the church failed in this instance but did it? Did we do all we could? The church cannot prosecute a case and we did everything we could to try to help the abused by not contaminating the investigation, consulting with legal experts for advice, and giving the victims a chance the best way we knew how. Do some leaders screw it up? Probably, but this thread’s broad brush that local church leaders are all in cahoots with Salt Lake to cover up abuse and silence the victims makes my blood boil. I have seen Bishops in tears wishing they could do more to help.

Edited May 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[changed]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That would be interesting from a legal point-of-view. What would be even more interesting is how many priests would choose jail over excommunication. 

Anyone in jail for child abuse should also be ex-communicated - it should not be a choice between the two.

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

These are civil suits, and the LDS Church only pays out money when it appears that the case against them is strong -- in which the LDS leaders did not perform due diligence, or in which they actually did harm.  It is standard procedure to avoid expensive trials, in which the result cannot always be predicted anyhow, so that settlements are often reached, and judges actually prefer settlements out of court.

The police have nothing to do with civil suits.  The police and prosecutors file criminal charges, which can result in jail and prison time and registration as a sex offender.  Civil suits are normally filed only after the criminal process is over.

 

Jail time is needed.  Being registered on the sex offender list is needed.  Protecting abusers from being listed in the sex-offender registry or protecting them from jail time is wrong.  

 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Robert! Not too smart sometimes.

Does it bother you that that kind of money is spent? Would it be best to just start telling people to go to the police? Sure, provide counseling or a body to care, but not tell people to not go to the police, like has happened so many times in the past.That is definitely a reason to sue, especially if the perp goes onto further abusing during the repentance process, but really can't that be done in prison/jail? That's the way to really repent.  

Yes - it would be best to have everyone go to the police.  these cases should be handled by trained 3rd party professionals who do not know the victim or the abuser and have no hidden agendas when it comes to the church.  

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, changed said:

Anyone in jail for child abuse should also be ex-communicated - it should not be a choice between the two.

I think you misunderstood my point. In the Catholic Church, if a priest breaks the confessional seal (reveals what was said in confession), he is automatically excommunicated by the act. This excommunication can be lifted only by the Pope. My point was, if a priest was threatened with jail unless he reveals a confession, I wonder how many priests would choose jail over excommunication. The patron saints of confession are priests who allowed themselves to be tortured and killed rather than reveal what was said in confession.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, changed said:

Anyone in jail for child abuse should also be ex-communicated - it should not be a choice between the two.

Just for clarification, the Catholic Church holds the priest sinner confessional sacred. If a priest divulges information from the confessional he will be excommunicated. If the law requires reported and he does not, he will go to jail. So the priest must make a choice. 

[changed]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think you misunderstood my point. In the Catholic Church, if a priest breaks the confessional seal (reveals what was said in confession), he is automatically excommunicated by the act. This excommunication can be lifted only by the Pope. My point was, if a priest was threatened with jail unless he reveals a confession, I wonder how many priests would choose jail over excommunication. The patron saints of confession are priests who allowed themselves to be tortured and killed rather than reveal what was said in confession.

 

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Just for clarification, the Catholic Church holds the priest sinner confessional sacred. If a priest divulges information from the confessional he will be excommunicated. If the law requires reported and he does not, he will go to jail. So the priest must make a choice. 

 

Thanks for the clarification - these are the types of policies that lead to the steller track record of priests.  

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, changed said:

Thanks for the clarification - these are the types of policies that lead to the steller track record of priests.  

I'm not going to argue or defend it (no point really) but I will point out that the policy was officially promulgated as being binding on the whole Church in 1215. Not that being old necessarily means good, but it's not a recent policy that was meant to protect predatory priests. One of the patron saints was killed by the king when he refused to disclose the queen's confession.

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, changed said:

That is right - it is common enough for the church to have forms for it (did the abuse happen by a high priest in leadership positions?  at a church activity?  in the church building?  etc. etc.) and yet - there are NO cases of the church actually putting an abuser in jail.  

The only abusers in jail were put there through privately funded trials - through secular routes.  The church has never paid the lawyer fees for a victim - has only paid to support abusers through court cases.

Well, technically, the church doesn’t have the authority to actually put anybody in jail.

However, if what you are saying is that the church never reports abuse to the police, then you are mistaken. When the law requires disclosure to authorities the church complies with the law.

Just because the church reports an abuser to the police though, doesn’t ensure that the individual will actually be prosecuted and jailed, as was the case in this situation where the church reported the incident to police.

Quote

https://www.apnews.com/f2e98cbe839f4ad9adb4ca094a3d0f34

The alleged abuse was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church, who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, changed said:

Anyone in jail for child abuse should also be ex-communicated - it should not be a choice between the two.

Jail time is needed.  Being registered on the sex offender list is needed.  Protecting abusers from being listed in the sex-offender registry or protecting them from jail time is wrong.  

Yes - it would be best to have everyone go to the police.  these cases should be handled by trained 3rd party professionals who do not know the victim or the abuser and have no hidden agendas when it comes to the church.  

I agree, but don't have figures on how often complaints are handled by sending the victims to the police.  It may actually be policy now to send victims of crime to the police.  That would certainly protect the Church from a lot of blowback.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree, but don't have figures on how often complaints are handled by sending the victims to the police.  It may actually be policy now to send victims of crime to the police.  That would certainly protect the Church from a lot of blowback.

It may be better to send them to the protection agencies rather than police.  Police may have the bias of thinking of it as an investigation as opposed to treating the emotional as well as safety needs of the victim first.  I think it would be better to have someone who specializes solely in dealing with victims as first responder myself.

Church counseling appears to leave it open which professional to go to, but push for immediately seeking help.

Quote

If you or someone you know has been abused, seek help immediately from civil authorities, child protective services, or adult protective services. You may also seek help from a victim advocate or medical or counseling professional. These services can help protect you and prevent further abuse.

https://www.lds.org/get-help/abuse/in-crisis-talk-now?lang=eng

Interesting (to me) sidelight I came across looking for info on the process of reporting abuse.  A site whose purpose it to stop child abuse "NOW" still advises those involved in legal disputes/custody cases to consult their attorney before reporting as it may affect the case.  My inference is this means they think it is worth ensuring reporting is done in the way that best benefits the victim is important and just automatically filing a report with the police may not always benefit the victim most.  What if the abuser's attorney were able to convince the judge the report was false and filed out of spite or an attempt to sway opinion?  Instead of protecting the victim, it could end up giving custody to an abuser.  And the effort to get the best result for the child is thought in this case by the professionals to be learning legal ramifications from an attorney...consistent to the Church's approach.

https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/when-and-how-to-file

Quote

If you are involved with a family court case when sexual abuse concerns arise, it is advisable to consult with your attorney as you consider filing reports which allege child sexual abuse by someone related to your active case.

------

Also from the link, the info I was looking for:

Quote

Typically, Child Protective Services (CPS) will accept reports and consider investigating situations in where the person offending is in a caretaking role for the child – parent, legal guardian, childcare provider, teacher, etc. Their primary objective is to make sure the child is safe in their own home or when with adults who are responsible for their care.

The police usually take on the investigation of cases where the person offending has a non-caretaking role – family friend, neighbor, acquaintance, or unfamiliar adult or youth. In some cases CPS and the police will collaborate in the investigation, prosecution, and follow-up process. In some situations if one agency is not responsive you can seek the guidance or assistance of the other authority. Some families choose to file reports with both offices as they can and do share information between them when necessary.

You also have the option of filing with both authorities. If you file with an authority which is not best suited to take the report, ask them specifically who you should contact to file. Typically reports should be filed in the area where you believe the abuse took place, not necessarily where the people involved are right now.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may be better to send them to the protection agencies rather than police.  Police may have the bias of thinking of it as an investigation as opposed to treating the emotional as well as safety needs of the victim first.  I think it would be better to have someone who specializes solely in dealing with victims as first responder myself.

Church counseling appears to leave it open which professional to go to, but push for immediately seeking help.

https://www.lds.org/get-help/abuse/in-crisis-talk-now?lang=eng

Good advice.  However, bear in mind that nearly all of those agencies are staffed by mandated reporters, so that police will be notified by them.  From my experience in Los Angeles, police are very familiar with all the sources of assistance in such cases, and regularly transport women and children to confidential shelters.  On the other hand, I have seen some people fall between the cracks in the system.

[Calm]

For those who think Church leadership shouldn't get involved at all, it seems to me especially in the borderline cases leadership not having to wait, but being able to act immediately (write a check for alternative housing) is a benefit since not all reported cases will be acted on immediately or even at all by protective services/law enforcement.

Quote

Reports can be “screened out”

When a report is “screened out," no action is taken, or the report is transferred to a more appropriate agency. Usually, a report is “screened out” when:

There’s not enough information on which to base an investigation

CPS or police judge the information to be inaccurate or false

The information in the report doesn’t meet definitions for child abuse or neglect used by the protective authorities

When reports are “screened in”

When the protective authorities decide that the report may indicate child abuse, they must investigate the suspected abuse within a time period specified by state law, typically within 24 or 48 hours or up to 5 days, depending on the state. Sometimes there is a “preliminary” investigation to gather more information to determine whether or not they will proceed with a full investigation. However, when it is judged that there is no immediate danger to a child, CPS is allowed more time before they begin an investigation.

https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/what-might-happen-after-a-report-is-filed

US info above, outside the US there may be significant differences (they may lack protective services or not have laws against the less dramatic forms of physical abuse) which make it very important in my view to have alternative/charitable help the Church can provide.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

On 5/5/2019 at 3:44 PM, changed said:

""Abuse Help Line personnel should never advise a priesthood leader to report abuse""

What Clergy Need to Know About Mandatory Reporting

 

 

I have seen a copy of this that is easier to read. It looks to me like a tracking document for attorneys to ensure the right ones are paying attention if needed and to determine if the case is likely to involve the Church in some way.

There is likely another one specifically for victim’s needs, though that is guessing based on what I have heard reported by bishops in what they are being asked and told.

Also, being able to read it better, under the handwritten section, it states (all punctuation theirs):

”After the Abuse Help Line worker has obtained all of the facts and background info, he or she should DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE INCIDENT OF CHILD ABUSE HAS ALREADY BEEN REPORTED TO CHILD PROTECTION OR LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES.  IF NOT, Abuse Help Line WORKERS SHOULD INSTRUCT PRIESTHOOD LEADERS TO ENCOURAGE AN INTERESTED PERSON TO REPORT THE ABUSE. Individuals who may report include the victim, the perpetrator, or other third parties who know about the abuse (neighbors, parents of victims, spouse or family member of the perpetrator, etc.).”

This makes it clear reporting is seen as primary importance no matter what the involvement or liability of the Church is. 

Also the reason why abuse help line workers need to transfer the line to the lawyers rather than telling the priesthood leader to just report is not to cover the Church since they are first to encourage reporting by nonpriesthood leaders whether or not the Church is involved, but because there are laws that apply to clergy that kick in when it is a priesthood leader reporting in his role as leader, imo. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

For those who think Church leadership shouldn't get involved at all, it seems to me especially in the borderline cases leadership not having to wait, but being able to act immediately (write a check for alternative housing) is a benefit since not all reported cases will be acted on immediately or even at all by protective services/law enforcement.

https://www.stopitnow.org/ohc-content/what-might-happen-after-a-report-is-filed

US info above, outside the US there may be significant differences (they may lack protective services or not have laws against the less dramatic forms of physical abuse) which make it very important in my view to have alternative/charitable help the Church can provide.

Here in Utah, we have significant LDS Family Services available, and I have seen them in action.  A bishop can get some things done which might not be possible elsewhere.

[Vellichor]

20 hours ago, changed said:

Do you understand the difference between enabling someone and stopping harmful behavior?  My kids were abused because people in the LDS addiction recovery groups the abuser went to did nothing to stop him.  Years and years and years - child after child after child - and NO ONE STOPPED IT.  

https://www.openbible.info/topics/repentance

Changed, the purpose of addiction recovery groups is to focus on the 12 steps, not to discuss details of what group members have done. In fact, those kinds of conversations are discouraged. A person could participate for years and the facilitators wouldn't necessarily know anything about their history or the nature of their addiction.

Regardless, I am so sorry your children went through all that abuse. It sounds like a nightmare.

[lostindc]

These posts are becoming more common.  The church is a sinking ship unless significant changes are made.  I believe the current leadership is on the way to making the church a version of the community of Christ.  

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, lostindc said:

These posts are becoming more common.  The church is a sinking ship unless significant changes are made.  I believe the current leadership is on the way to making the church a version of the community of Christ.  

The idea that the fringe policy statements, rare abuse cases, and stuff that makes the news is somehow the center of the church is misleading. I have talked to people who assume that we must talk about homosexuality regularly after Prop 8 when I probably hear a lesson on Chastity once a year if that and it usually does not mention homosexuality. These things do not define us nor are they at the center of our faith. It is just the stuff that makes the news.

I am convinced you are absolutely and utterly wrong that we are transmuting to a watered down secular faith with a restorationist mythology.

[HappyJackWagon]

I predict that changes to this process and/or instituting background checks for all members who work with youth or children will be the next big policy change that everyone will get excited about. There will be a collective palm to forehead movement as everyone says "ah yes. It makes perfect sense. Why didn't we do this 30 years ago?"

Pres. Nelson is making some really good changes. A lot of them feel like low-hanging fruit so I think this one fits that category. No one will be upset about the church taking actions to protect youth and children. It will be praised as prophetic change.

Start the countdown clock!

Edited May 7, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I predict that changes to this process and/or instituting background checks for all members who work with youth or children will be the next big policy change that everyone will get excited about. There will be a collective palm to forehead movement as everyone says "ah yes. It makes perfect sense. Why didn't we do this 30 years ago?"

Pres. Nelson is making some really good changes. A lot of them feel like low-hanging fruit so I think this one fits that category. No one will be upset about the church taking actions to protect youth and children. It will be praised as prophetic change.

Yuck, I hope not.

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yuck, I hope not.

Are you responding to the notion of background checks?

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Are you responding to the notion of background checks?

Yes, it will be a costly administrative nightmare. You need everyone to sign off on being checked, you need lots of someones to read the results and not be a blabbermouth about unrelated crimes the check might find, someone will blab at some point, and you have people refusing Primary and Youth callings out of embarrassment for someone finding out about a non sex related crime from their past.

Then there is the huge cost exacerbated by the number of teachers and advisors due to the “two deep” policy and the often rapid turnover in callings, and you are in hell. When do you do the background check? Before the calling is extended or after? Do we just have perpetually ongoing annual checks for everyone? Do we check every time a calling changes? What about substitute primary teachers? Do we have to pre-screen them all in advance when they volunteer?

How many temples are we not building? How many missions are unopened? How many activities need to be skipped due to lowered ward budgets?

Add in that background checks are not that effective. They are touted by many....mostly those making a bundle off of selling them and anyone against them based on this is met with the “better then nothing” approach. I don’t buy other goods and services based on whether they are “better then nothing”. Sometimes nothing is the better choice.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, it will be a costly administrative nightmare. You need everyone to sign off on being checked, you need lots of someones to read the results and not be a blabbermouth about unrelated crimes the check might find, someone will blab at some point, and you have people refusing Primary and Youth callings out of embarrassment for someone finding out about a non sex related crime from their past.

Of course, there are other crimes that would be worthy of note. For example, finding out someone embezzled would be a red flag against calling that person as a financial clerk.

Then there is the huge cost exacerbated by the number of teachers and advisors due to the “two deep” policy and the often rapid turnover in callings, and you are in hell. When do you do the background check? Before the calling is extended or after?

After speaking to the individual to issue the calling and before sustaining or allowing that person working in that calling

Do we just have perpetually ongoing annual checks for everyone?

No. Background checks are usually valid for a year or two. However, I could see a new one being done more frequently if the person moves to another area.

Do we check every time a calling changes? What about substitute primary teachers?

No. Not necessarily every time there's a new calling, unless they don't already have a valid 2 year check. Yes, absolutely on substitutes.

Do we have to pre-screen them all in advance when they volunteer?

No need to pre-screen, but there would be benefit to the process if leaders knew who was or who was not willing to have a background check run.

How many temples are we not building? How many missions are unopened? How many activities need to be skipped due to lowered ward budgets?

How many children and youth are protected? Sure there is always a cost, but the church doesn't seem to be hurting for money. They could certainly spend a little on youth protection. Also, it may encourage leaders to keep volunteers in their callings for a more extended period of time instead of having to pay for background checks more frequently (depending how the process is set up)

Add in that background checks are not that effective. They are touted by many....mostly those making a bundle off of selling them and anyone against them based on this is met with the “better then nothing” approach. I don’t buy other goods and services based on whether they are “better then nothing”. Sometimes nothing is the better choice.

It's not really that difficult of a problem. Of course there are costs,  just like with scout badges, ward activities, etc. etc.  It's a normal part of doing business. I suppose you could argue about how many schools aren't being built or teachers being hired because everyone who works for the schools must be background checked, but that would be a pretty empty argument when it comes to schools. It's an equally empty argument for churches.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I predict that changes to this process and/or instituting background checks for all members who work with youth or children will be the next big policy change that everyone will get excited about. There will be a collective palm to forehead movement as everyone says "ah yes. It makes perfect sense. Why didn't we do this 30 years ago?"

Pres. Nelson is making some really good changes. A lot of them feel like low-hanging fruit so I think this one fits that category. No one will be upset about the church taking actions to protect youth and children. It will be praised as prophetic change.

Start the countdown clock!

I don't know if it would be considered prophetic; I think most people will just see it as smart. It's not going to help much but it could help a little and that would be a good thing.  I would guess that they would end up asking everyone in the ward to have one done since callings with the youth change so frequently and substitutes are often needed on the fly.  That would be very costly on a ward budget but i'm sure they could make it work.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not really that difficult of a problem. Of course there are costs,  just like with scout badges, ward activities, etc. etc.  It's a normal part of doing business. I suppose you could argue about how many schools aren't being built or teachers being hired because everyone who works for the schools must be background checked, but that would be a pretty empty argument when it comes to schools. It's an equally empty argument for churches.

 

I am not so sure it is an empty argument when applied to schools. Even if it isn’t an empty argument schools are also not in the habit of having two deep adults at all times and switching out teachers every year or two or schoolteachers being volunteers. Apples and oranges.

[jbarm]

I see background checks as being very ineffective, based on my own experience in large institutions. 

The background check's primary value is to mitigate an institutions legal liability, not to prevent criminal activity.  This phenomenon is the same with sexual harassment training and other such things. 

Institutions point to the fact that they provided training and therefore it isn't their fault. Identifying potential perpetrators is unlikely. 

Spending tens of thousands of dollars per congregation per year for a very ineffective report would be a colossal waste of resources. 

Jb