Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

If you were on the receiving end of a false accusation, especially of the kind going on in Utah County back in the '80s, you would care a whole lot and not be pounding the drum for getting rid of the privilege based upon the specific charge.

I think there’s that risk of course, but I believe most who confess about being an abuser are telling the truth (such as in the opening post).  If it’s a victim talking to the bishop, the abuser isn’t protected by the privilege are they?  So does that apply?

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I would also extend that to any abuse confessed if the person is still in a role or position to continue abusing (such as was the case with the situation in the opening post)

But what constitutes their no longer being in a "role or position to continue abusing?" So long as they are free, there is a possibility that they could abuse someone else, right?

The exceptions to privilege are founded on the notion that it's acceptable to break confidence in order to prevent an actual harm: either one that is ongoing or one that is imminently present. But the simple fear that they might harm again based on previous behavior isn't enough to break privilege.

Perhaps you disagree, but I tend to think that this is a pretty good way of handling things.  

 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

I think there’s that risk of course, but I believe most who confess about being an abuser are telling the truth (such as in the opening post).  If it’s a victim talking to the bishop, the abuser isn’t protected by the privilege are they?  So does that apply?

Here's the situation I have in mind:  The penitent goes to the Bishop because of thoughts/urges that he hasn't acted upon; then a parent reports to the Bishop that the penitent abused her child.  If we were to grant exceptions because a child were involved, I fear, the Bishop could be compelled to testify as to what was said by the penitent, which could be used as evidence bolstering the parental report, leading to charges and, perhaps, wrongful conviction.  Such things have happened.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But what constitutes their no longer being in a "role or position to continue abusing?" 

If a parent, they need to leave the home (or remove the child from their care if necessary to protect them.). Release a youth or scout leader from that position.  And so on.  At least until it is looked into or investigated.

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Here's the situation I have in mind:  The penitent goes to the Bishop because of thoughts/urges that he hasn't acted upon; then a parent reports to the Bishop that the penitent abused her child.  

Then the abuser isn’t the one reporting the actual abuse to the church leader and isn’t protected by that privilege.  Correct?

And, I would believe the parent (enough to have it investigated).  Err on the side that protects the child.  Always, imo.

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[Danzo]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If a parent, they need to leave the home (or remove the child from their care if necessary to protect them.). Release a youth or scout leader from that position.  And so on.

You do realize that you the law often allows abusers to live in a home with the children.  

Parental rights are not automatically severed upon an accusation (or even a conviction) of abuse. 

I feel that some people think the law will do much more than it actually does (and that bishops, who have no legal authority, should punish people more harshly than the law).

[Amulek]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If a parent, they need to leave the home (or remove the child from their care if necessary to protect them.).

It would be nice if it were always that simple. For example, does it make a difference how many times the abuse occurred (e.g., only once as opposed to multiple times)? What if the abused child doesn't live at home but another child does - even though he has never abused that child so far?

Say the abuser leaves and you don't report. How long does he have to be gone before he gets to move back into his own home? 

Do you think it is appropriate (or even possible) for a clergy member to help a confessed abuser if said clergy member is able to enforce whatever repentance process he may wish upon the confessor under threat of prison?

 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

You do realize that you the law often allows abusers to live in a home with the children.  

Parental rights are not automatically severed upon an accusation (or even a conviction) of abuse. 

I feel that some people think the law will do much more than it actually does (and that bishops, who have no legal authority, should punish people more harshly than the law).

I think during an investigation, they have to never be alone with the children (or other children) and supervised if they do stay in the home.

Of course, that’s hard to enforce.  But I know a man who was going through that and he could not take his kids to soccer practices or be home even for their birthday party (around other kids).

It’s a tough situation for all involved.  I get that.  But keep the accused abuser away from being alone with the alleged victim or other potential victims.  That’s the best at least (during an investigation).  That protects the accused too.

Of course it’s more complicated when it’s a parent and not a leader, coach and so on.

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

I just saw this article:

"LDS Church leaders didn't report man who confessed to making child po*n, docs say" on the KUTV website (I can't post the link for some reason....but google that title and it will come up).

Here's a link to another article with the story:  https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/24/a-man-confessed-to-trading-illicit-images-of-kids-mormon-leaders-said-nothing/

I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this.  I hate seeing anyone protected who is causing harm to a child and I do believe that a church leader should report them to the police (mainly if the abuse is still taking place and more children may be harmed).  

I'd like to hear other's opinions on this too.  I believe the clergy / member confession is something that does need to be safe and protected.  But, at the cost of more children (or anyone) being harmed or the law continued to be broken?  Should the church leaders have done more in the situation described in the article?

 

In California it's legally required and AFAIK done.

[USU78]

19 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then the abuser isn’t the one reporting the actual abuse to the church leader and isn’t protected by that privilege.  Correct?

And, I would believe the parent (enough to have it investigated).  Err on the side that protects the child.  Always, imo.

It's the statement against penal interest that is of concern:  he doesn't come out and confess it, he just says that he is having trouble with thoughts/feelings, which might be deemed a confession.  If you're a juror and hear that, doesn't that turn the tide for you on finding guilt?

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It's the statement against penal interest that is of concern:  he doesn't come out and confess it, he just says that he is having trouble with thoughts/feelings, which might be deemed a confession.  If you're a juror and hear that, doesn't that turn the tide for you on finding guilt?

And you don’t know that a bishop would do that.  The actual abuse charge isn’t covered under the privilege in your example, correct?  Not if it’s from a parent of the child being abused (and or the child) and is not a confession by the abuser.  

If they end up confessing to abuse, then that would be covered by the privilege.  

Edited July 25, 2019 by JulieM

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Students have never enjoyed any sort of privilege for their communications with teachers, administrators, and other employees.  Therapists is an open question, depending.  Why are you dumping them in the same pot?  The attorney/client, doctor/patient and other privileges arose out of the priest/penitent privilege as states recognized that there are other kinds of communications that ought to have the same protection from state snooping.

I know you don't care.  Your posts make it clear.  But the privilege is, as smac (as I recall) has pointed out, partially enthroned in free exercise of religion.  The privilege keeps the state from being able to deputize priests for law enforcement purposes.  I don't want my stake president to be an arm of law enforcement.  Neither do you, if you thought about it.

Once upon a time bishops could be law enforcement officers.  I had a bishop who was a state trooper.  Another bishop had a state trooper (the same one to the left) and FBI agent as counselors. I understand this has been changed so that active LE officers are not called as bishops, because if someone confessed a crime to them that would blow priest/penitent out of the water, big time.  How could he do his job as bishop if his civilian job required him to arrest a confessee?

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

That’s not true.  I very much value this privilege. 

I just believe there should be exceptions allowed for when leaders learn of ongoing abuse or if any other harm may be inflicted on others if it’s not reported (especially if children are being abused or are in the care of an abuser).   Then the abuser has lost the right to that privilege, imo.   I believe that the protection of the abused comes above that right then.

But that does not mean the entire privilege should be thrown out or that I don’t care about it.

I think you haven't read the thread closely enough.  There's a difference between the perp confessing and the victim notifying.  Clergy/penitent applies in the former case, but not the latter (although there may be a wrinkled in some places if the victim doesn't want it reported). At least that's how I've understood it.

You've also missed another point in an earlier post. Danzo brought up that if a perp confessed to a past crime clergy privilege applied, but not if the perp confessed that he was going to commit a future crime.  In the case of the latter, the clergy must report to law enforcement.  This depends upon the jurisdiction, of course.

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I understand this has been changed so that active LE officers are not called as bishops, because if someone confessed a crime to them that would blow priest/penitent out of the water, big time. 

If it's changed it must be a fairly recent change (e.g., within the last five years or so) because the bishop in our old ward was an active LEO; a captain, in fact. Really enjoyed having him as a bishop - always had good stories.  

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I think you haven't read the thread closely enough.  There's a difference between the perp confessing and the victim notifying.  Clergy/penitent applies in the former case, but not the latter (although there may be a wrinkled in some places if the victim doesn't want it reported). At least that's how I've understood it.

You've also missed another point in an earlier post. Danzo brought up that if a perp confessed to a past crime clergy privilege applied, but not if the perp confessed that he was going to commit a future crime.  In the case of the latter, the clergy must report to law enforcement.  This depends upon the jurisdiction, of course.

No, we discussed those (just a bit later in this thread).  Thanks though!!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If a person confesses any such sexual crimes against children, the Bishop has a responsibility to report it to authorities. He should of course encourage the individual to turn himself (or herself) in to the police, but he must act immediately to insure the child or children are safe. Unlike the Catholic Church were the confessional is kept between the Priest and the person making the confession, I would hope the Priest would also act immediately on behalf of the child. In the LDS Church confessions are supposed the be keep secret and sacred fo everyone. However in our Church the Bishop has a responsibility to protect any in danger of harm, or a crime being committed against others of their congregation, or contact other Bishops or Stake Presidents. When I was a swore officer, if I had heard that someone was, or is committing crimes against children, I would have to notify authorities, or be chaged with a crime myself. I am glad that while a High Priest Group Leader, and a member of a Bishopric, I was never made aware of something involving child abuse. More specifically, sexual crimes against children. Sadly I knew of many more things, but all concerning consensual adults, or things that people could make restitution for.   

[rpn]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If someone confesses to bishop that they are about to kill someone, should bishop not be required report? 

No.  But just like counselors, if the bishop learns that, he should act to protect those who are at risk (which he can also do in cases in which a perp confesses).

(Like the recent MP did when he sent the missionary who'd been soliciting pictures before his mission, without telling mom anything about what kiddo had told him.)  

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I could go on, but there is ample evidence that the Church still adheres to the privilege, while also doing everything it can to stop ongoing abuse and report past abuse.

I think this is key and reflected in the Handbooks. Thank you for offering the legal facts needed to broaden perspectives on the issue. I think the point of promoting religious exercise is especially significant in any discussion involving our laws.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Once upon a time bishops could be law enforcement officers.  I had a bishop who was a state trooper.  Another bishop had a state trooper (the same one to the left) and FBI agent as counselors. I understand this has been changed so that active LE officers are not called as bishops, because if someone confessed a crime to them that would blow priest/penitent out of the water, big time.  How could he do his job as bishop if his civilian job required him to arrest a confessee?

I know at least one name was shot down for Bishop by the First Presidency because he was peripherally involved in law enforcement.

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Without the privilege, people will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be deprived of a voice encouraging them to "make things right."

This often applies to victims as well. Summary of actual conversation I had some years ago:

Young Man: So what sorts of things are you required to report to the police if I were to share them with you?

Hamba Tuhan: This, this and this.

YM: Oh.

HT: Is there something you want to discuss?

YM: Not anymore.

 

I've posted about this many times already, but where I live, our government completed a big consultation involving people with lived experience of abuse. One of the strongest messages was that victims in many, many cases are not looking for a legal or judicial solution and will avoid reporting if they think that will be what occurs. Another conclusion from the consultation was that victims are more likely to report to 'trusted others' than to police or other authority figures like teachers. The 'trusted others' category includes GPs and clergy.

Edited July 25, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this is short-sighted and facile.

It's also inaccurate.  I certainly do "put children first."  I can do that and advocate for the priest/penitent privilege.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I wasn't speaking directly to you Smac, just to the general public, that can hopefully do what is best for children. For far too long Utah and other states have left them to the last. They haven't put them first, ever. Now is the time.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think the church made a mistake saying that. Saying they have zero-tolerance for abuse means what exactly? Automatic excommunication for any form of abuse......even an isolated verbal incident? Zero-tolerance policies are generally stupid. They came in vogue for schools and have been used for huge amounts of injustice against students and teachers. Most situations are nuanced and nor recognizing that leads to stupidity.

No, it does not. Tearing down all the protections people have under the law at the hint that a child is in danger will in the long run harm all of us including children. What do we give up next? The presumption of innocence if it is possible a child was harmed by the defendant? If a child shows up at a hospital with a bruise do we drag the kids away from their parents because it is possible there was abuse without looking into it? Do we ban cars because children have died from being left in them?

If children’s physical safety comes first, full stop, over every other consideration it would be a horrible dystopian world. I am reminded of 1984 where the children knew that a report against their parents would make their parents disappear. Do we want that?

Of course reasonable precautions should be implemented and abuse investigated but the histrionics about children need to stop.

The histrionics about the danger to our children are what led to ridiculously high mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for drug possession, helicopter parenting, the satanic child sacrifice mania, and morons protesting everything from Dungeons & Dragons to Harry Potter as a threat to “THE CHILDREN!!!”

Great evils came out of that hysteria in my childhood. Can we please stop pretending it is some kind of trump card that overrides everything? It does not and should not.

The police are aware of every concern you have, Nehor.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The police are aware of every concern you have, Nehor.

Meaning what exactly?

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

.............

"LDS Church leaders didn't report man who confessed to making child po*n, docs say" on the KUTV website (I can't post the link for some reason....but google that title and it will come up).

Here's a link to another article with the story:  https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/07/24/a-man-confessed-to-trading-illicit-images-of-kids-mormon-leaders-said-nothing/

........................

We don't even know whether this story is accurate in any respect.  I checked the Utah sex offender registry, and no Benjamin Alyk is listed.  Indeed, if he was sentenced as a minor, then no court record could be accessed by the public.  What do we actually know about this?

[webbles]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We don't even know whether this story is accurate in any respect.  I checked the Utah sex offender registry, and no Benjamin Alyk is listed.  Indeed, if he was sentenced as a minor, then no court record could be accessed by the public.  What do we actually know about this?

He wasn't sentenced as a minor.  He was 20 when he was sentenced.  All of his criminal activities were as a minor, though.  His Utah sex offender listing is at http://www.icrimewatch.net/offenderdetails.php?OfndrID=6624865&AgencyID=54438

If you go to the original mormon leaks page, you'll find links to several court documents.  The one with all of the details about the confession to his Mission President and the disciplinary council are in the "Affidavit for Search Warrant" starting at page 17.