Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning what exactly?

The police have protocol that they have to follow.

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

Thanks.  Don't know why it wouldn't return data on "Benjamin Alyk."  

So Benjamin Aaron Alyk of Syracuse, Utah, was convicted of some 2nd degree felonies (distribution of voyeuristic images to under 14/ sexual exploitation of a  minor) on Sept 6, 2018.  And we have some details in a probable cause search warrant.  That doesn't tell us that the other details are accurate, and that the LDS Church is at fault.

Moreover, the article says that he was tried and sentenced as a minor (not while he was a minor) instead of trying him as an adult, and that he served his time in juvenile detention.  Being tried as a minor while an adult is what you are talking about.  That is a choice made by the prosecutor based on all crimes having been committed while he was a minor.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That doesn't tell us that the other details are accurate, and that the LDS Church is at fault.

Mate, the Church is always at fault. Once you embrace that fact, you don't need to bother with pesky details to fill in all the gaps.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, the Church is always at fault. Once you embrace that fact, you don't need to bother with pesky details to fill in all the gaps.

I reckon so, Hamba.  Guess I'm not woke enough yet.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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

So? The police do not decide policy.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The police have protocol that they have to follow.

Too specific. Think you can vague that up for me a little?

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Too specific. Think you can vague that up for me a little?

Haha, too funny. I just think the police/social workers etc. will follow guidelines about not thinking everyone is guilty before proven that way. That's why they urge people to call the hotline on child abuse no matter what if they think the child is being harmed. And they will then decifer whether they are or not. Too many times on the news lately that no one spoke up, recently it was a baby that was killed by it's father and there were signs that some people didn't react quickly enough about them.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Recently it was a baby that was killed by it's [sic] father and there were signs that some people didn't react quickly enough ...

I can't believe we still let babies have fathers. If we really cared about the children, we would have stopped that happening by now!

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Haha, too funny. I just think the police/social workers etc. will follow guidelines about not thinking everyone is guilty before proven that way. That's why they urge people to call the hotline on child abuse no matter what if they think the child is being harmed. And they will then decifer whether they are or not. Too many times on the news lately that no one spoke up, recently it was a baby that was killed by it's father and there were signs that some people didn't react quickly enough about them.

I have worked with CPS and law enforcement. Many of them are conscientious and careful. Many are not and assume guilt right off. I bet I can find more horror stories about police and CPS then you can about bishops and abuse.

What signs? Were they criminal or anything actionable?

Edited July 26, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

https://fox13now.com/2019/07/17/family-of-5-month-old-baby-allegedly-killed-by-father-trying-to-cope-with-loss/

Quote

McCrea said she knew her daughter's boyfriend had "severe anger issues" and was "abusive," but she never thought Johnson would hurt his own son

Quote

Neighbors told 2News they never saw it coming.

https://kjzz.com/news/local/utah-man-inflicts-deadly-head-trauma-to-5-month-old-son

Edited July 26, 2019 by Calm

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

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

Yeah, sometimes I forget that there may be many pages between a post and a response, and sometimes I find myself "correcting" someone long after the matter has been resolved.  One almost has to read through an entire thread to make sure one isn't boring everyone by making the exact same points, thinking one is being so very original.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[JulieM]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, sometimes I forget that there may be many pages between a post and a response, and sometimes I find myself "correcting" someone long after the matter has been resolved.  One almost has to read through an entire thread to make sure one isn't boring everyone by making the exact same points, thinking one is being so very original.

True!  I’ve done that myself (and some threads are hard to keep up with, this one grew fast )

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, the Church is always at fault. Once you embrace that fact, you don't need to bother with pesky details to fill in all the gaps.

I’ve seen no one here call the church bad or blame the church for the abuse being discussed (but may have missed some posts).  I think this has been a great discussion with some important and thought provoking questions asked.  I’ve learned some things about the laws and exactly what is the church’s responsibility when abuse is reported to them.

I see most all working towards helping the abused (and also the perpetrators) and hoping to see less cases reported in the future.

I definitely fall in the camp of believing all abuse should be reported (past and present).  There should be consequences for actions and harm inflicted on others and breaking the law. I worry much less about the abuser’s feelings and much more about protecting future victims (and current victims).  But I see that maybe some laws need to be changed if that’s going to happen (at least if the abuser is the reporter of the abuse).

Edited July 26, 2019 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’ve seen no one here call the church bad or blame the church for the abuse being discussed (but may have missed some posts).  I think this has been a great discussion with some important and thought provoking questions asked.  I’ve learned some things about the laws and exactly what is the church’s responsibility when abuse is reported to them.

I see most all working towards helping the abused (and else the perpetrators) and hoping to see less cases reported in the future.

There were some. The articles linked were designed to blame the church. Child abuse rarely makes the news unless it is particularly vile or if it can be used as a bludgeon. Sometimes that bludgeon is needed in cases were abuse is endemic to an area or culture or organization and is ignored. I am not convinced that the Church suffers from this problem though there are of course instances of abuse perpetrated by and against church members.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There were some. The articles linked were designed to blame the church.

Yes,  but ALarson made it clear he only wanted the questions discussed in his opening post (good questions too, I think) and not get into the negative or attacks.

The way many discussed these questions and have answered was very helpful (at least for me).  I see nothing wrong with asking questions and seeing where improvements can be made.  We can all do better, including the church.  But that does not mean they are “bad”.

Edited July 26, 2019 by JulieM

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I worry much less about the abuser’s feelings and much more about protecting future victims (and current victims).

But isn't 'protecting future victims' one of the byproducts that comes from maintaining privilege?

If abusers never confess or seek treatment for their past actions, how on earth are they ever going to get the help they need in order to change their behavior going forward?

If you change the law so that all abuse gets reported, then people will just stop reporting abuse to anyone.

Oh, there may be a few do-dos here and there that still confess, but most will just keep it to themselves and continue to harm others until they are eventually found out or caught. 

 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But isn't 'protecting future victims' one of the byproducts that comes from maintaining privilege?

Possibly (if they are still abusing).  But I wonder how much abuse the leaders learn about from the one who is currently inflicting the abuse versus the abused victim reporting it or another person?

That would be interesting to know.  Because then they are not protected by the privilege.

Edited July 26, 2019 by JulieM

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I definitely fall in the camp of believing all abuse should be reported (past and present).  

First, I assume you mean all allegations of abuse should be reported, correct?

Second, how do you propose to handle the priest/penitent privilege?  Destroy it?

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

There should be consequences for actions and harm inflicted on others and breaking the law.

I assume you mean that there should be consequences if there are actions and harm inflicted on others and breaking the law, correct?

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I worry much less about the abuser’s feelings and much more about protecting future victims (and current victims).  

I assume you mean you worry much less about the alleged abuser's feelings, correct?

If you were the target of a  false accusation of such a heinous crime, I am not sure you would be so cavalierly indifferent.

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But I see that maybe some laws need to be changed if that’s going to happen (at least if the abuser is the reporter of the abuse).

Which laws?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Possibly (if they are still abusing).  But I wonder how much abuse the leaders learn about from the one who is currently inflicting the abuse versus the abused victim reporting it or another person?

That would be interesting to know.  Because then they are not protected by the privilege.

In my experience, it's always been either the person being abused (two different cases involving children) or a person coming to us to report abuse (that the abused has told them about or asked for help and with permission to come to ward leadership).  I could ask the Bishop (if he'd share in general numbers or experience), but as far as I know....the actual person committing the crime of abuse (at the time they are still abusing) has not come forward to report themselves.

I think it's much more common for the abuser to confess years later out of guilt and regret.  And, that is what is protected by the privilege of the confession.

But if the person who was abused years ago, reports it to the leaders....they should report it, IMO.  That's where I believe improvements need to take place and I do see the leaders trying to make strides to improve.

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Which laws?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72072-should-church-leaders-report-child-abuse-when-confessed/?do=findComment&comment=1209918377

(If that’s correct?)

[ALarson]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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.

This is true and I agree.

I certainly hope that you continued to work with this victim (if they were a suspected victim of abuse and you believe that was possibly what was taking place here) and watched out for them as much as you could.  As leaders we also need to watch for suspicious behavior or just be aware.  I've had that happen in our ward as well.  Sometimes it's like walking a tight rope and as leaders we don't want anyone harmed or any false rumors starting either.  How did you handle this after the interview?  I know it's tough because it was done in confidence....but were you still closely in contact with them after this?

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

20 hours 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 wouldn't this part of Utah's state statute cover that?

Quote

(3)(a) When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, he is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though he may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator. (b) Exemption of notification requirements for a clergyman or priest does not exempt a clergyman or priest from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator. Laws 1988, c. 1. § 109; Laws 1993, c. 147, § 1; Laws 1994, c. 214, § 1; Laws 1994, c. 260

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Then wouldn't this part of Utah's state statute cover that?

No.  A report to a confessor-priest of inner-life issues is not, alone, evidence of a crime or the likelihood that a crime would occur in future.  To the extent those inner-life issues are anything, they are evidence of sin of the kind referred to by the Master in Matt 5.  The confessor-priest doesn't know at that point that any crime occurred or might/would occur.

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No.  A report to a confessor-priest of inner-life issues is not, alone, evidence of a crime or the likelihood that a crime would occur in future.

I agree.

But, you added this (so it was not "alone"): 

Quote

 

then a parent reports to the Bishop that the penitent abused her child. 

 

So, I see that the statute very much applies here ("When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, he is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though he may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator").  Also, there is no privilege there and the clergy should report the abuse.  

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.

But, you added this (so it was not "alone"): 

So, I see that the statute very much applies here ("When a clergyman or priest receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, he is required to give notification on the basis of that information even though he may have also received a report of abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator").  Also, there is no privilege there and the clergy should report the abuse.  

Which brings us around to the issue:  Bishops aren't supposed to be quasi-deputized agents of law enforcement.  If they are, who in their right mind would talk frankly and candidly with confessor-priests about prior acts, contrition, and repentance?

The hotline is going to have a warm body on the other end with memoranda outlining all of this for the particular jurisdiction a Bishop/Stake President is operating in.

Thus far, the priest-penitent privilege is eroded, but has not disappeared because of hysterical responses to the acts of child-abusing demons pretending to be people.