Should Church Leaders Report Child Abuse When Confessed?

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Which brings us around to the issue:  Bishops aren't supposed to be quasi-deputized agents of law enforcement.

Of course not, but they are to report abuse if they learn of it from a parent who comes to them about their child being abused (if they are following the law and the instructions given by our church leaders). 

And that was what you described took place in your example.  I agree that what the alleged perpetrator told the Bishop is protected (but not what the parent reported).

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

Ok.  I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm happy to see the progress most have made in protecting victims of abuse and potential victims.  It's not perfect yet and probably never will be, but I've seen progress.  Exposure of abuse is a big part of this too....shining a bright light on the darkness of abuse will help to destroy it, IMO.  

I do believe that much needs to take place to protect people from being falsely accused as well....and that's why I'm a huge advocate of the two deep policy of the church and I also support another adult being present (if requested) for child/youth interviews.

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Of course not, but they are to report abuse if they learn of it from a parent who comes to them about their child being abused (if they are following the law and the instructions given by our church leaders). 

Yes, or if the child herself reports it.

Quote

And that was what you described took place in your example.  I agree that what the alleged perpetrator told the Bishop is protected (but not what the parent reported).

Excellent.  We agree.

Quote

 

Ok.  I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm happy to see the progress most have made in protecting victims of abuse and potential victims.  It's not perfect yet and probably never will be, but I've seen progress.  Exposure of abuse is a big part of this too....shining a bright light on the darkness of abuse will help to destroy it, IMO.  

I do believe that much needs to take place to protect people from being falsely accused as well....and that's why I'm a huge advocate of the two deep policy of the church and I also support another adult being present (if requested) for child/youth interviews.

 

I'm referring to many in this thread who have no patience for and call for the abolition of hard-won civil rights.  I'm referring to the movement among fellow LDS who want the confidentiality of communications with Bishops and Stake Presidents, a civil right of paramount importance as part of our free exercise of religion, severely curtailed in order to catch child abusers.  This is an hysterical response to a problem that's not remotely new.  I don't understand why anybody would see this as progress, instead of a return to the barbarity of the king's soldiers entering the sanctuary to arrest the individual who claims sanctuary rights, ripping him from the altar, and slaughtering him in the nave.  Folks don't know their history and don't know what it cost to achieve the rights we enjoy.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I'm referring to many in this thread who have no patience for and call for the abolition of hard-won civil rights.  I'm referring to the movement among fellow LDS who want the confidentiality of communications with Bishops and Stake Presidents, a civil right of paramount importance as part of our free exercise of religion, severely curtailed in order to catch child abusers.  This is an hysterical response to a problem that's not remotely new.  

Of course it's not new, but it is being exposed now more and victims are having more courage to come forward.  That's a good thing, IMO.  

And, I actually believe things are at a pretty good balance now as far as the rights of the abused being protected and also the rights and privilege of anyone confessing.  If there is immediate danger or ongoing abuse, the clergy can report it and I feel that's good.

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't understand why anybody would see this as progress, instead of a return to the barbarity of the king's soldiers entering the sanctuary to arrest the individual who claims sanctuary rights, ripping him from the altar, and slaughtering him in the nave.  

Wow...ok.  I doubt that anyone wants to "return to barbarity".  I think you may be the one with hysterical responses here 😂

But honestly,  the progress is great to see, IMO, and I really feel the church leaders are working with local leaders to help victims (and perpetrators too).  I still believe there could be more training on this for newly called Bishoprics....but I see improvement there as well.

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow...ok.  I doubt that anyone wants to "return to barbarity".  I think you may be the one with hysterical responses here 😂

I'm delighted to be an amusement, yet the ignorance of historical realities and the possible if not probable actions of governments in extremis WRT individual rights (see, e.g., Lincoln's abolition of habeas corpus during the hostilities), make this neither extreme nor trivial.  Your derision is ill-considered.

Quote

But honestly,  the progress is great to see, IMO, and I really feel the church leaders are working with local leaders to help victims (and perpetrators too).  I still believe there could be more training on this for newly called Bishoprics....but I see improvement there as well.

I don't call any infringement of civil rights "great to see."  Chacun a son gout, however.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't call any infringement of civil rights "great to see."  

Whose civil rights do you believe are being infringed on here? (Not potentially infringed on if more changes are made, but with the current laws and policies the church has in place.)

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Whose civil rights do you believe are being infringed on here? (Not potentially infringed on if more changes are made, but with the current laws and policies the church has in place.)

I happily admit I'm making a slippery slope argument, but historical precedent (Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War) rather militates towards taking them seriously.

[Danzo]

For all you who think mandatory reporting to the state  is going to fix everything, here is another news story in my area.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/07/man-accused-of-sexually-abusing-girl-oregon-child-welfare-workers-put-in-his-custody.html

Unfortunately this story isn't an anomaly. 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

For all you who think mandatory reporting to the state  is going to fix everything, here is another news story in my area.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/07/man-accused-of-sexually-abusing-girl-oregon-child-welfare-workers-put-in-his-custody.html

Unfortunately this story isn't an anomaly. 

What a sad story....there is evil in many places, I agree.  My heart breaks for the victim who was abused again by yet another perpetrator.  I hope he's prosecuted.

Of course, this does not mean it was wrong to report her initial abuse that went on for years.  Or that her first abuser should not also be prosecuted and held accountable for his actions.

Quote

Records say the Marion County Sheriff's Office investigated after the girl reported being abused for years.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

Quote

He reportedly told authorities that the girl was in danger of being abused, according to a Protection Action Plan filed last September. It is unclear who Schrecengost claimed the girl was at risk of being abused by.

The Marion County Sheriff’s Office began looking into the case after the girl said she had been abused for years, according to the Statesman Journal. It is unclear if the abuse she reported was carried out by Schrecengost or another person...

A second child was also removed from his custody before he was arrested, according to family court records.

 

I think the problem referred to by Danzo is the CHS may have taken the child out of a safer place and put her in the custody of her actual abuser.  Whatever they did, it appears to have made things worse for the seven year old, not better.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/25/foster-dad-begged-custody-girl-7-said-danger-raped-10462339/

Edited July 26, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the problem referred to by Danzo is the CHS may have taken the child out of a safer place and put her in the custody of her actual abuser.  Whatever they did, it appears to have made things worse for the seven year old, not better.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/25/foster-dad-begged-custody-girl-7-said-danger-raped-10462339/

Possibly.  It's a bit confusing what actually took place here.  Like I said, there are evil people in many places.  I'm glad someone reported this abuse and that this social worker is going to be held accountable (I'll try to read more about it...).

Good for her for speaking out and reporting:

Quote

The Marion County Sheriff’s Office began looking into the case after the girl said she had been abused for years, according to the Statesman Journal. It is unclear if the abuse she reported was carried out by Schrecengost or another person.

 

But, I still don't see what this has to do with not doing all one can do to stop abuse and report abuse when we learn it is taking place.  That's the policy from our leaders as well.  Unless it's the actual abuser confessing the abuse, we are to report it (and even then if it's ongoing abuse or anyone is in immediate danger).  I'm not sure why anyone would argue against this policy or law (if that's what they are objecting to?).

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[Danzo]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What a sad story....there is evil in many places, I agree.  My heart breaks for the victim who was abused again by yet another perpetrator.  I hope he's prosecuted.

Of course, this does not mean it was wrong to report her initial abuse that went on for years.  Or that her first abuser should not also be prosecuted and held accountable for his actions.

 

I agree these things should be reported, but the justice system, is only really tries good at Justice and only succeeds at times. In my opinion they just aren't that good at restitution, restoration and healing.

I think (and I have seen it  in practice) that the Gospel of Christ is much better at healing and restoration.   

I fear that  mandatory reporting requirements are going to prevent people from getting the help they really need and substitute that for the state's version which too often does more harm than good. 

 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly.  It's a bit confusing what actually took place here.  Like I said, there are evil people in many places.  I'm glad someone reported this abuse and that this social worker is going to be held accountable (I'll try to read more about it...).

I still don't see what this has to do with not doing all one can do to stop abuse and report abuse when we learn it is taking place.  That's the policy from our leaders as well.  Unless it's the actual abuser confessing the abuse, we are to report it.  I'm not sure why anyone would argue against this policy or law (if that's what they are objecting to?).

Government stepping in aggressively may be worse than not interfering...unfortunately while there are stats on abuse in foster care, they don't compare them to the home environments kids are removed from to see if they were better off in foster care or worse.

Quote

But compare those figures to studies done by independent researchers. In some cases, they went back and pored over case records. In other cases they really did ask former foster children what happened to them.

Here’s what they found:

A study of foster children in Oregon and Washington state found that nearly one third reported being abused by a foster parent or another adult in a foster home. That study didn’t even include cases of foster children abusing each other.

In a study of investigations of alleged abuse in New Jersey foster homes, the researchers found a lack of “anything approaching reasonable professional judgment” and concluded that “no assurances can be given” that any New Jersey foster child is safe.

A study of cases in metropolitan Atlanta found that among children whose case goal was adoption, 34 percent had experienced abuse, neglect or other harmful conditions. For those children who had recently entered the system, 15 percent had experienced abuse, neglect or other harmful conditions in just one year.

So is it any wonder that even Marcia Lowry, former executive director of the group that calls itself Children’s Rights and no friend of family preservation, says:

“I’ve been doing this work for a long time and represented thousands and thousands of foster children, both in class-action lawsuits and individually, and I have almost never seen a child, boy or girl, who has been in foster care for any length of time who has not been sexually abused in some way, whether it is child-on-child or not.”

This does not mean that all, or even many, foster parents are abusive. The majority do the best they can for the children in their care — like the overwhelming majority of parents, period. But the abusive minority is large enough to cause serious concern — or at least it should.

When the Arizona Republic found that its own reporting was turning up far more abuse in foster care than the state was letting on, they took a closer look. They found:

“Both in Arizona and nationally, there is a huge disconnect. In 2014, of 46 states that reported data to the federal Children’s Bureau, all claimed that fewer than 2 percent of children in foster care had been harmed in the prior year. Arizona said that barely a tenth of 1 percent of children in care were verifiably harmed.

“But in surveys going back for decades, from 25 percent to as high as 40 percent of former foster children report having been abused or neglected in care.”

https://youthtoday.org/2017/09/abuse-in-foster-care-research-vs-the-child-welfare-systems-alternative-facts/

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I  think (and I have seen it  in practice) that the Gospel of Christ is much better at healing and restoration.   

I fear that  mandatory reporting requirements are going to prevent people from getting the help they really need and substitute that for the state's version which too often does more harm than good. 

 

But I hope you’re not putting help and restitution for the abuser over the speaking out and reporting of the abuse so that the harm and pain hopefully will stop for the victim.  Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but the victim has to be the first priority, imo.  

Of course we also care about the abuser repenting.  But the stopping of the abuse is first.  That means somehow the abuse has to be revealed or reported.   

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Government stepping in aggressively may be worse than not interfering...unfortunately while there are stats on abuse in foster care, they don't compare them to the home environments kids are removed from to see if they were better off in foster care or worse.

https://youthtoday.org/2017/09/abuse-in-foster-care-research-vs-the-child-welfare-systems-alternative-facts/

I'm not getting into that discussion as there can be dangerous people working in any position.  There's no 100% guarantee when someone calls for help and abuse will never be 100% eliminated (IMO).  There are some really wonderful foster parents and social workers who work tirelessly to help keep kids safe or away from their abusive past.  I could post links for that as well....so I don't see much point in going back and forth regarding that.

I support the church's current policy and do believe it's balanced.  Does it 100% keep children and others from being abused?  No.  But the leaders are certainly trying to improve and help and do better training.

Edited July 26, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not getting into that discussion as there can be dangerous people working in any position.  There's no 100% guarantee when someone calls for help and abuse will never be 100% eliminated (IMO).  There are some really wonderful foster parents and social workers who work tirelessly to help keep kids safe or away from their abusive past.  I could post links for that as well....so I don't see much point in going back and forth regarding that.

I support the church's current policy and do believe it's balanced.  Does it 100% keep children and others from being abused?  No.  But the leaders are certainly trying to improve and help and do better training.

I agree, no need to post links.

I would add that stats that have 30% abuse rates in foster homes should impact how we address protection of kids, so that the attitudes of 'one size fits all' is avoided as much as possible.  For example, I don't believe kids should always be removed immediately from parents' care when abuse is alleged.  I understand not wanting parents to influence kids' reports, but with babies and toddlers who are so bonded to parents and can't be told what is happening, I think direct supervision of parental care might be a better first step (allowing parents to be in hospital rooms for example, where a nurse or other is present to ensure no harm).

My nephew was abused as a toddler by his babysitter.  When his parents took him into the hospital to see what was wrong, they were immediately separated from him for 2 days iirc while the investigation went on.  That separation appears to be as traumatizing or more so as the abuse from what we can tell by change of behaviour (before he shutdown when babysitter came over, after hospitalization nightmares and sleep issues showed up and lasted for years).

[Danzo]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But I hope you’re not putting help and restitution for the abuser over the speaking out and reporting of the abuse so that the harm and pain hopefully will stop for the victim.  Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but the victim has to be the first priority, imo.  

Of course we also care about the abuser repenting.  But the stopping of the abuse is first.  That means somehow the abuse has to be revealed or reported.   

Victim should always be the first priority, however, the victim's needs are not always served by automatic reporting. (They  certainly would if the abuse was ongoing, but not necessarily if the abuse was in the past). 

 

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the problem referred to by Danzo is the CHS may have taken the child out of a safer place and put her in the custody of her actual abuser.  Whatever they did, it appears to have made things worse for the seven year old, not better.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/25/foster-dad-begged-custody-girl-7-said-danger-raped-10462339/

If you want to see incompetence and child endangerment by multiple governments I recommend the “Dear Zachary” movie where a dad’s friends make a documentary for his son about his life after he was killed.

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But I hope you’re not putting help and restitution for the abuser over the speaking out and reporting of the abuse so that the harm and pain hopefully will stop for the victim.  Maybe I’m misunderstanding you here, but the victim has to be the first priority, imo.  

Of course we also care about the abuser repenting.  But the stopping of the abuse is first.  That means somehow the abuse has to be revealed or reported.   

The problem is that removing clergy privilege to help in one case could lead to more cases never being found. In the big picture what is more likely to help more people? I am not sure myself but tearing down institutions, especially over a case that actually ended as well as a child abuses can, might be a bad idea.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is that removing clergy privilege to help in one case could lead to more cases never being found. In the big picture what is more likely to help more people? I am not sure myself but tearing down institutions, especially over a case that actually ended as well as a child abuses can, might be a bad idea.

I was speaking of ongoing abuse needing to be reported.  I also have not done any tearing down of the church.  I believe good men are doing the best they can to follow the law and stop abuse too.  

I did hope some laws may change, but I honestly want to do more thinking about that now.  This thread has been a great discussion and very helpful for me.

Edited July 26, 2019 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree, no need to post links.

I would add that stats that have 30% abuse rates in foster homes should impact how we address protection of kids, so that the attitudes of 'one size fits all' is avoided as much as possible.  For example, I don't believe kids should always be removed immediately from parents' care when abuse is alleged.  I understand not wanting parents to influence kids' reports, but with babies and toddlers who are so bonded to parents and can't be told what is happening, I think direct supervision of parental care might be a better first step (allowing parents to be in hospital rooms for example, where a nurse or other is present to ensure no harm).

My nephew was abused as a toddler by his babysitter.  When his parents took him into the hospital to see what was wrong, they were immediately separated from him for 2 days iirc while the investigation went on.  That separation appears to be as traumatizing or more so as the abuse from what we can tell by change of behaviour (before he shutdown when babysitter came over, after hospitalization nightmares and sleep issues showed up and lasted for years).

This. My cousin and her husband had their kids taken due to suspicions of abuse. Luckily it was quickly resolved but it did mess with the kids for a while.

Foster care is a mess. My area recently privatized it a few years ago to fix the problem and now private agencies do the vetting. The oversight of foster homes is also privatized and farmed out. You can imagine how unsurprised I was that both organizations are owned by the same group of people. I am sure the oversight and scrutiny will be conscientiously done. 🤮

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you want to see incompetence and child endangerment by multiple governments I recommend the “Dear Zachary” movie where a dad’s friends make a documentary for his son about his life after he was killed.

I try not to watch depressing things. Reading about them is bad enough, add emotional music and it becomes almost a physical attack on me. Something I just don’t seem to be able to shut off (crappy commercials can set off tears if music is right).  Not sure if born with it because didn’t go to many soppy movies and music wasn’t used as much for older tv shows. Radio was sporadic in my home. But definitely started noticing it early 20s so suspecting it is something inherent in my brain.  Also visuals stay with me much longer. 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My cousin and her husband had their kids taken due to suspicions of abuse. Luckily it was quickly resolved but it did mess with the kids for a whil

I would like to know stats of how many kids are removed from parents/home where findings are parents are not at fault vs they are. Given parents are most likely abusers statistically, I would assume heavily weighted at fault assuming there is actual abuse, but if many cases are not abusive might shift it to not at fault majority, which would make default removal highly problematic imo due to the trauma it involves (kids can live in fear they will be taken from the parents again).

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I would like to know stats of how many kids are removed from parents/home where findings are parents are not at fault vs they are. Given parents are most likely abusers statistically, I would assume heavily weighted at fault assuming there is actual abuse, but if many cases are not abusive might shift it to not at fault majority, which would make default removal highly problematic imo due to the trauma it involves (kids can live in fear they will be taken from the parents again).

When CPS removes a child there has to be a hearing before a family court judge (usually within a week). This almost never returns the child. More often CPS does their investigation and finds no abuse or neglect but that is also not super common.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

More often CPS does their investigation and finds no abuse or neglect but that is also not super common.

Meaning the vast majority of time CPS gets involved, they find abuse by parents? 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning the vast majority of time CPS gets involved, they find abuse by parents? 

Not entirely. I meant then when there is an initial removal there is almost always abuse found. If there is no initial removal before the investigation then there is unlikely to be one. I have worked about a half dozen cases as a volunteer (meaning read the whole case history). In every single one there were multiple previous CPS investigations. I am told that is not an outlier. If there is removal most of the time it is because they are a “frequent flyer”.