Proposed bill in utah to eliminate priest/Penitent privelege (re: Child abuse)

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rpn said:

I don't think most people understand how the laws prevent people from getting help to address their perversions so they don't act on them.   Lets say someone is struggling with the feelings, maybe have even acted upon them in the past, and seeks professional help.   Those professionals are mandatory reporters which means that a perp cannot fully disclose without being reported.    Some might say so what they deserve it.   But getting help means that people don't perp.   They need to have access to the few professionals who agree to provide therapy for perps  (it is hard work and few therapists are willing/able to do it).

And not just "the few professionals," either.  They need to be able to talk to a spouse.  Or clergy.  Hence both categories often have privileges associated with them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

I guess the idea would be to compel Catholic priests, Latter-day Saint bishops, etc. to report confessions of abuse.

So everyone seems to be taking this seriously.

Yes, we have seen clergy "not report abuse."  That is the effect of the privilege.  Likewise, attorneys, psychologists, etc. also "do not report abuse" when the perpetrator discloses it

Well, let's dig in a bit...

1. The Bill: Let's take a look at the bill itself.  It proposes to amend Utah Code sec. 62A-4a-403 ("Reporting requirements").  This statute provides as follows:

The bill, if passed, would eliminate subparts (2) and (3) pertaining to priest/penitent privileges.

2. An Affirmative Duty by "Any Individual" to Report: The above statute creates an affirmative duty on "any individual."  In other words, if any private citizen "has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect" this statute compels him or her to "immediately report the alleged abuse or neglect to the nearest peace officer, law enforcement agency, or office of the division."  The bill, having eliminated subparts (2) and (3) (which exempted clergy), would compel clergy to "immediately report the alleged abuse or neglect" to law enforcement.

Theoretically, the bill could result in a bishop being punished for calling the bishop's hotline prior to calling law enforcement (since the statute would compel him to "immediately report the alleged abuse").

I had not previously known that this provision exists.  I wonder if it is constitutional.  If it amounts to compelled speech, or is unconstitutionally vague (what does "has reason to believe" mean?), or triggers "fruit of the poisonous tree" concerns, or is otherwise problematic on constitutional grounds.  I hope some of the lawyers that hang out here with more experience than I, will weigh in on this point.

3. Criminal Penalty for Failure to Report: A subsequent portion of the statute, Utah Code sec. 62A-4a-411 ("Failure to report -- Criminal penalty"), criminalizes a failure to report:

A "class B misdemeanor" is punishable by up to six months in jail and fine of up to $1,000.

I'd be interested to see how often this statute is enforced.

4. Complications: It seems like the bill, if passed, could create some complications because the foregoing statute, Utah Code sec. 62A-4a-403, is not the only law pertaining to reporting concerns about child abuse.  For example, let's take a look at the privileges found in the Utah Rules of Evidence:

These evidentiary rules pertain to testimony that can be used in court.  There is also a spousal privilege, an attorney/client privilege, a doctor/patient mental health therapist/patient privilege, a somewhat limited "news reporter" privilege, and a limited "first responder peer support" privilege. 

Utah also has a state statute pertaining to privileges: Utah Code sec. 78B-1-137 ("Witnesses -- Privileged communications").  This statute, like the foregoing evidentiary rules, prohibits the compulsion of testimony of certain persons as to certain communications.  The statute provides for a spousal privilege, an attorney/client privilege, a priest/penitent privilege, a doctor/patient privilege (applying to physicians, surgeons, and PAs), a "public officer" privilege, a "sexual assault counselor" privilege, and a "victim advocate" privilege. 

This statute also has an interesting preamble: "There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate."

I assume the legislature lacks the authority to override the evidentiary privileges in the Rules of Evidence, which I think are promulgated by the Utah Supreme Court, a co-equal branch of government. It's not directly relevant here, though, since the proposed bill does not seek to alter Rule 503 (the one pertaining to priest/penitent privileges) or Utah Code sec. 78B-1-137.  

5. Singling out the Priest/Penitent Privilege: I think it's odd that Rep. Romero is singling out the priest/penitent privilege for elimination when, as noted in the above evidentiary rule and statute, there are several other privileges that also pertain to "somebody admit{ting} to hurting a child in a sexual manner."  These privileges include "professionals" such as doctors and lawyers.  So it seems like Ms. Romero is not exactly playing it straight when she states "I’m asking religious leaders, just like any other professional, that if somebody admits to hurting a child in a sexual manner, they need to be reported" (emphasis added). 

"Religious leaders" are not situated like "other professional{s}."  There are some pretty substantial First Amendment implications associated with the privilege.

6. Initial Impression: My first impression is that the bill will likely not cut constitutional muster.  I think the legislature will see that coming, and hence will not pass the bill (or else Gov. Herbert will not sign it into law).

If passed, the bill would punish clergy for not reporting confessions of abuse.  I think such nondisclosures are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.  Consequently, the bill would effectively punish clergy for constitutionally-protected exercise of their religion.  

Everyone involved in this wants to protect children.  But the preamble to the above statute bears emphasis: "There are particular relations in which it is the policy of the law to encourage confidence and to preserve it inviolate."  There are some pretty good reasons to allow certain limited segments of society from being punished for not disclosing confessed misconduct.  See, e.g., here:

And here:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

What are your thoughts?  You always provide interesting insight.  As someone who's not religious in the sense you and a lot of folks here are, this bothers me.  I have no stake in it yet taking away the right religious and secular authorities have traditionally had as far as keeping things private is a step in the wrong direction.  All you're going to do is keep the bad people away and discourage those who really need help from seeking it out.  We already have a huge problem with trust in this society, this will only make it worse I think.

 

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, poptart said:

What are your thoughts? 

See item 6 in my post: "My first impression is that the bill will likely not cut constitutional muster.  I think the legislature will see that coming, and hence will not pass the bill (or else Gov. Herbert will not sign it into law)."

50 minutes ago, poptart said:

As someone who's not religious in the sense you and a lot of folks here are, this bothers me.  I have no stake in it yet taking away the right religious and secular authorities have traditionally had as far as keeping things private is a step in the wrong direction. 

That is my general thought as well.

50 minutes ago, poptart said:

All you're going to do is keep the bad people away and discourage those who really need help from seeking it out.  We already have a huge problem with trust in this society, this will only make it worse I think.

Yep.

The governent already has huge power over us.  I'm not particularly enthused about endlessly ceding more power to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See item 6 in my post: "My first impression is that the bill will likely not cut constitutional muster.  I think the legislature will see that coming, and hence will not pass the bill (or else Gov. Herbert will not sign it into law)."

That is my general thought as well.

Yep.

The governent already has huge power over us.  I'm not particularly enthused about endlessly ceding more power to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it.  I've softened my stance against the LDS and a few others, for all the drama I really do think you guys are trying, at least compared to others who used to do more back in the day.  The USA doesn't have the safety net other countries do and now with our family values more or less gone I wonder what will happen when religious institutions can no longer do the good they used to.  Selfishness and entitlement is expensive in more ways than one, it's going to be peoples children/grandchildren who have to suffer because of the short sighted choices people have been making. 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, poptart said:

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it.  I've softened my stance against the LDS and a few others, for all the drama I really do think you guys are trying, at least compared to others who used to do more back in the day. 

Thank you.  For all the disparagements I read about my faith, it's nice to have our efforts acknowledged.

26 minutes ago, poptart said:

The USA doesn't have the safety net other countries do and now with our family values more or less gone I wonder what will happen when religious institutions can no longer do the good they used to.  Selfishness and entitlement is expensive in more ways than one, it's going to be peoples children/grandchildren who have to suffer because of the short sighted choices people have been making. 

We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nacho2dope]

I am not sure if this is relevant to this topic:
 An Oregon woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for $9.54 million after her husband's confession to church leaders led to his arrest, conviction and imprisonment on child sexual abuse charges. By Associated Press, Wire Service Content Jan. 8, 2020, at 10:43 a.m.8 hours ago

 

 

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I am not sure if this is relevant to this topic:
 An Oregon woman is suing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for $9.54 million after her husband's confession to church leaders led to his arrest, conviction and imprisonment on child sexual abuse charges. By Associated Press, Wire Service Content Jan. 8, 2020, at 10:43 a.m.8 hours ago

Discussed on the first page.  See here.

Some interesting details:

Quote

The lawsuit, which accuses local church leaders of violating confidentiality and the "priest-penitent privilege," contrasts sharply with other cases accusing the church claiming the exact opposite — failing to report abuse to authorities and treating sex abuse like a sin instead of a crime.

Yep.

A few weeks ago the "religion and money" story (which usually involves religious leaders spending money on frivolities) was that the Church is not spending enough.

Now, the "religion and sex abuse" story (which usually involves religious groups failing to disclose allegations of abuse) is that the Church is being sued for disclosing allegations of abuse.

What a weird world.

Quote

The man's confession was meant to be confidential, said the family's attorney Bill Brandt. He said local clergy's actions "totally violated church policy."

But does violating church policy give the wife and kids grounds to sue?

Quote

"It's been devasting on the family," Brandt said. "They lost a husband and a father."

Yes.  Because that "husband and father" committed a crime.  Not because the Church "violated church policy."

Quote

Timothy Samuel Johnson and his wife Kristine Johnson were members of a Stayton ward when his wife learned he had "engaged in inappropriate conduct" with a minor known to him, according to the lawsuit. 

After learning of the sexual abuse, the couple followed church doctrine by having Johnson confess and repent his sins before church clergy and the official church court. 

The clergy portrayed that such a confession and repentance was dictated by church doctrine, and church doctrine required strict confidence of such confessions, according to the lawsuit. 
...
Johnson confessed to local leaders and members of the church court that he had sexually abused a minor. 

But what leaders failed to advise Johnson of is that if he confessed to the abuse, they would report his actions to local law enforcement, according to the lawsuit. 
...
The lawsuit filed in Oregon singled out a man who served as a counselor to Johnson's bishop, claiming the church failed to properly supervise him and train him of his obligations as a member of the clergy.

That last bit is interesting.  It sounds like the counselor in the bishopric was the one that disclosed the alleged abuse to the police.

Quote

Church leaders' actions deprived Johnson's wife and children of his companionship, society, love and income, according to the lawsuit.

"(Clergy) knew or should have known that violating the doctrine of confidentiality under the circumstances alleged in this complaint would most certainly injure (his wife and children) financially," Brandt said. 

Actually, no.  Mr. Johnson's actions deprived his wife and children of his companionship, society, love and income.

For legal purposes, establishing "causation" between an act and a harmful effect can be a complex exercise.  Moreover, if their legal theory is that the Church is liable because it contravened its own policies regarding confidentiality, I don't think that works.  In fact, the "ecclesiastical abstention" doctrine may be implicated here.

That's not to say that I am indifferent to such a contravention.  I just don't think the wife and kids have a legal remedy for it.  It is not the business of the civil courts to punish a religious group for not following its internal policies.

Quote

Church leaders were in a special position of trust with Johnson and his family. Brandt said they violated this trust when they failed to "disclose that despite the express doctrine of confidentially intended to assist the family through difficult times," leaders would report the abuse to law enforcement. 

Brandt said he's not aware of any other case in Oregon involving the breach of clergy confidentiality. He added that many members of the church were "appalled" by the actions of the church leader who allegedly violated this confidentiality and reported the abuse. 

"The church leader who allegedly violated this confidentiality and reported the abuse" would seem to have been the counselor in the bishopric.

If he did so, that is disoncerting.  Good luck convincing the church members in Turner, Oregon that the local leaders can be trusted to keep confidences (or, at least, the members who may have the most need to confess).  

And why would the counselor even be involved or known about the allegations?  I would have thought a disciplinary council would have been convened at the stake level.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[Nacho2dope]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Discussed on the first page.  See here.

Sorry I missed that.  Thank you

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

Sorry I missed that.  Thank you

No worries.  Here is another article on this story.

[smac97]

More details here:

Quote

Further complicating matters, the lay clergy member who reported the abuse outlined in this lawsuit, Brian Saari, is a pharmacist, according to the plaintiff’s lawyer. Pharmacists also are listed as mandatory reporters of child abuse in Oregon -- whether they’re on the job or not when they learn about alleged abuse, according to state officials.

But Bill Brandt, the Salem attorney representing the woman and her four children, said the lawsuit isn’t basing its claims on the mandatory reporting law. Rather, it faults the church for a breach of confidence, he said.

Brandt said the church teaches members that they must confess to their transgressions in order “to get back in good favor with the church.” And after they do, the church will offer them counseling and ensure that the reasons that led to their behavior are addressed, Brandt said. That’s all within the structures of the church, which assured the family that Brandt is representing that the confession would remain private, he said.

“That was a promise,” Brandt said.

The lawsuit drew outrage in Oregon and elsewhere from nonprofit organizations that support child abuse victims. Officials said failing to report pedophiles can enable them to operate unfettered and victimize more children.

The clergy member who tipped off investigators should be thanked for doing the right thing, said David Clohessy, former national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which supports victims from all religious organizations.

“It’s not just a parent’s job to protect their kids from predators, it’s the job of every single adult,” Clohessy said. “So adults who do put the safety of kids first should be applauded not penalized.”

Clohessy said he believes the woman in this lawsuit has misplaced her blame. “She should be grateful to the church officials, rather than bitter,” he said.

Legal observers noted the juxtaposition of this lawsuit with thousands of others that have followed sex abuse scandals in many faiths, claiming clergy remained silent, hid abuse or did nothing to prevent it.
...
Legal experts said the Oregon lawsuit is rare because it faults a clergy member for doing the opposite -- speaking up about a crime.

Christine Bartholomew, an associate professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law, said while it might be surprising, many clergy do want to testify about supposedly privileged communications, especially if the information they have to share is about violent crimes that have been committed.
...
Bartholomew said the lawsuit against the Mormon church could discourage clergy members from reporting child abuse out of concern that they’ll be sued.

“If successful, this litigation would push courts and these religious organizations toward less transparency than more,” Bartholomew said. “And you have to wonder if that would create the environment where abuse can really fester.”

Interesting stuff.

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

How long has Texas been doing this?  Enough to see what impact it might have?

I live in a jurisdiction that went down this road last year. Because the member I work for was the one to resume debate on the bill, we thoroughly researched the matter, including contacting the jurisdiction that our government openly modelled its proposed legislation on. I ended up speaking with a senior member of the government department tasked with enforcing these laws there. His response: they have no clue how to enforce these laws. Have they resulted in increased reporting? Demonstrably not.

I also consulted directly with our Catholic archbishop. He said he would simply instruct his priests to ignore the law, and no doubt that is what he has done. How can anyone prove this one way or another? He also pointed me to some internal research from the Catholic Church to indicate that these kinds of laws, as some have noted above, run the risk of reducing confessions and therefore leaving offending even further in the shadows.

Now, I'm one that is sickened by the institutional response to paedophile priests in the Catholic Church in the past, as is the member whom I serve, herself a former Catholic. As a consequence, she voted with the government as a means of 'messaging' that disgust, but neither she nor anyone else I spoke to believes that these kinds of laws will have any practical benefits. And some worry that they will have negative impacts. For example, where I live, it is now possible to confess to a solicitor or a GP with the established legal assurance of privilege, but not to a clergy member. Are we really convinced that lawyers and medical doctors are more capable of helping people repent, seek help and/or turn themselves in than priests, rabbis, imams and bishops are?

Edited January 9, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[poptart]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thank you.  For all the disparagements I read about my faith, it's nice to have our efforts acknowledged.

We'll see.

Thanks,

-Smac

I put aside a lot of what I had seen after I saw Elder Holland make comments on being nice to the LGBT community, that and finding out just how much money they throw at helping homeless LGBT youth in Utah.  I've had jobs here working for wealthier people and well, a few times the LDS church came up.  First thing they do is run off the mouth on how selfish they are to the poor.  Hmmm, go to the midwest or deep south sometime, plenty of Jesus loving folks down there who have an attitude along the lines of you're poor because you've made God made, die in the street.  Something that took me a while to figure out, just because the members of an org are rotten to the core, doesn't mean the leadership nor the org itself is bad.  When I do bash religious people I do try to leave the org itself alone.  Case in point I still remember meeting more than a few mormons who had the attitude of i'm Gods elect, they were horrible human beings who really don't do good folks like the people here justice.  That being said, the compassion of some of the Bishops, LDS charities and others who do work in the community blows me away.  The goods members donate also stuck out, go to a good will then a DI and you can tell the difference.  That and how members could go there and get just about whatever they needed.  That's how Christianity used to be and sadly really isn't anymore. 

 

If I may ask since you're a legal scholar?  I'm in nursing now and will probably be switching back to an admin role this year, besides job security the other main reason why I did this is to make sure mom gets the best care she can get.  Facilities here are awful, moms never seeing the inside of one.  My brothers and her side of the family are thrilled but in our case that's how they are, very different from what i've seen from people here.  Anyway, reading the whole mandatory reporter thing here worries me.  Nurses are now going through the same lawsuit/malpractice nonsense doctors have been going through for a while now, pretty much every single, child free nurse I meet who's in school or recently graduated plans on doing traveling nursing to dodge a lot of this, not to mention the better pay.  Tijuana is becoming quite the medical mecca due to mexico not having the malpractice problems the USA has.  They're literally sueing medical out of places and making the nursing/doctor shortage worse.  Reading the mandatory articles that you and a few others here have posted and commented on send chills down my spine.  Millenial parents irritate me, they tend to be entitled beyond belief.  We get CA transplants here who move in, drive the cost of everything up and have no respect for the way of life we've had here forever.  The parents have that attitude of society should raise my kids not me, I could picture some kid injuring himself and if no one comes to the rescue the parent trying to sue everyone in sight, as a nurse and mandatory reporter I'm easy pickings.  Besides living quietly and being cold and aloof (I'm already like that IRL.....) what else could I do short of the move i'm planning?  Your input and wisdom is appreciated.  Thanks.

Edited January 9, 2020 by poptart

[Meadowchik]

In related news, Montana reverses a ruling:

https://nbcmontana.com/news/local/court-reverses-35m-verdict-against-jehovahs-witnesses?fbclid=IwAR3OVgUoF3IuI1TPDaQiHw0HChiWQopRpqXzfn68vY9iwk9MpuHvc-OKuLU

Quote

 

HELENA, Mont. — The Montana Supreme Court has reversed a $35 million judgment against the Jehovah's Witnesses for not reporting a girl's sexual abuse to authorities.

The state's high court said in a 7-0 decision Wednesday that the church is not required to report because its doctrine requires that clergy keep reports of child abuse confidential.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Or did the Church receive information about the abuse other than through the confessor, such that it was legally obligated to report the allegations (from this other source) to law enforcement?

I think it was likely this last one.  I would be quite surprised if the Church waived the privilege without Mr. Johnson's consent...............................

The clergy-penitent privilege is rarely challenged.  Perhaps in this case, if the confession was not merely to one member of clergy (bishop or stake pres), but to an entire high council, that could mean that confidentiality could no longer be maintained.  Is the priest-penitent privilege ended when it is extended to an ecclesiastical court?

Edited January 9, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The clergy-penitent privilege is rarely challenged.  Perhaps in this case, if the confession was not merely to one member of clergy (bishop or stake pres), but to an entire high council, that could mean that confidentiality could no longer be maintained.  Is the priest-penitent privilege ended when it is extended to an ecclesiastical court?

In this case, it sounds like a counselor in the bishopric was the one who notified law enforcement.  And he may have done so ostensibly in relation to his "mandatory reporting" obligations as a pharmacist.

I would think the privilege would apply to those who become privy to confessed information through formal channels.  So a stake president would be bound by the privilege if a bishop notifies him of confessed misconduct.

By way of analogy, it is my understanding that the "attorney/client privilege" applies to support staff, such as paralegals and secretaries.  If that privilege can be extended to such persons, wouldn't the priest/penitent privilege likewise be extendable to, say, members of a high council and stake presidency participating in a disciplinary council?

I haven't done research on these questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 9, 2020 by smac97

[provoman]

On 1/8/2020 at 8:12 AM, smac97 said:

 

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Montana Supreme Court reverses 35 million judgement against Jehovah Witness for failure to report abuse.

Court opinion

Edited January 9, 2020 by provoman

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

In this case, it sounds like a counselor in the bishopric was the one who notified law enforcement.  And he may have done so ostensibly in relation to his "mandatory reporting" obligations as a pharmacist.

I would think the privilege would apply to those who become privy to confessed information through formal channels.  So a stake president would be bound by the privilege if a bishop notifies him of confessed misconduct.

By way of analogy, it is my understanding that the "attorney/client privilege" applies to support staff, such as paralegals and secretaries.  If that privilege can be extended to such persons, wouldn't the priest/penitent privilege likewise be extendable to, say, members of a high council and stake presidency participating in a disciplinary council?

I haven't done research on these questions.

Thanks,

-Smac

I did a bit of amateur research and that appears to be correct.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

In this case, it sounds like a counselor in the bishopric was the one who notified law enforcement.  And he may have done so ostensibly in relation to his "mandatory reporting" obligations as a pharmacist.

I would think the privilege would apply to those who become privy to confessed information through formal channels.  So a stake president would be bound by the privilege if a bishop notifies him of confessed misconduct.

By way of analogy, it is my understanding that the "attorney/client privilege" applies to support staff, such as paralegals and secretaries.  If that privilege can be extended to such persons, wouldn't the priest/penitent privilege likewise be extendable to, say, members of a high council and stake presidency participating in a disciplinary council?.............................

I see your point, Spencer.

[smac97]

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

I put aside a lot of what I had seen after I saw Elder Holland make comments on being nice to the LGBT community, that and finding out just how much money they throw at helping homeless LGBT youth in Utah.  I've had jobs here working for wealthier people and well, a few times the LDS church came up.  First thing they do is run off the mouth on how selfish they are to the poor.  Hmmm, go to the midwest or deep south sometime, plenty of Jesus loving folks down there who have an attitude along the lines of you're poor because you've made God made, die in the street.  Something that took me a while to figure out, just because the members of an org are rotten to the core, doesn't mean the leadership nor the org itself is bad.  When I do bash religious people I do try to leave the org itself alone.  Case in point I still remember meeting more than a few mormons who had the attitude of i'm Gods elect, they were horrible human beings who really don't do good folks like the people here justice.  That being said, the compassion of some of the Bishops, LDS charities and others who do work in the community blows me away.  The goods members donate also stuck out, go to a good will then a DI and you can tell the difference.  That and how members could go there and get just about whatever they needed.  That's how Christianity used to be and sadly really isn't anymore. 

Thank you for sharing this.

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

If I may ask since you're a legal scholar? 

Kinda sorta.  I would consider myself quite well-informed about many aspects of property law, tort law, consumer finance, contract law, federal and Utah procedure, and a few other areas.  But criminal law?  Nope.  Not a scholar.  Family law?  Securities?  Patents/IP?  Human resources?  Healthcare law?  Maritime?  International?  Estate planning?  Nope to all.  Not a scholar of these.

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

I'm in nursing now and will probably be switching back to an admin role this year, besides job security the other main reason why I did this is to make sure mom gets the best care she can get.  Facilities here are awful, moms never seeing the inside of one.  My brothers and her side of the family are thrilled but in our case that's how they are, very different from what i've seen from people here.  Anyway, reading the whole mandatory reporter thing here worries me.

That's understandable, I suppose.  I just realized that Utah has a mandatory reporting law that ostensibly applies to everyone in the state.  Failure to report allegations of abuse is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and up to six months in jail.  Oi.

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

Nurses are now going through the same lawsuit/malpractice nonsense doctors have been going through for a while now, pretty much every single, child free nurse I meet who's in school or recently graduated plans on doing traveling nursing to dodge a lot of this, not to mention the better pay.  Tijuana is becoming quite the medical mecca due to mexico not having the malpractice problems the USA has.  They're literally sueing medical out of places and making the nursing/doctor shortage worse. 

I'm sorry to hear that.

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

Reading the mandatory articles that you and a few others here have posted and commented on send chills down my spine.  Millenial parents irritate me, they tend to be entitled beyond belief.  We get CA transplants here who move in, drive the cost of everything up and have no respect for the way of life we've had here forever.  The parents have that attitude of society should raise my kids not me, I could picture some kid injuring himself and if no one comes to the rescue the parent trying to sue everyone in sight, as a nurse and mandatory reporter I'm easy pickings. 

I'm not sure the situation is quite as bad as that.  I am not aware of widespread litigation or criminal prosecutions for failure to report allegations of abuse.  It seems to be more of an aspirational/motivational thing.

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

Besides living quietly and being cold and aloof (I'm already like that IRL.....) what else could I do short of the move i'm planning? 

As I am only licensed in Utah, my advice is necessarily limited to this: Seek advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

I suspect he/she will tell you to not sweat it too much.

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, poptart said:

Your input and wisdom is appreciated.  Thanks.

Wish I could do more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

An update: Bill requiring clergy to report child abuse confessions opposed by Utah Catholics, House speaker

Quote

As religious opposition both in and out of Utah mounts against a proposed bill that would require all allegations of child abuse to be reported to authorities — including those stated in religious confessionals — a powerful legislative leader has opposed the bill.

House Speaker Brad Wilson won’t support the bill in its current form, according to a statement he sent to the national Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

“I have serious concerns about this bill and the effects it could have on religious leaders as well as their ability to counsel members of their congregation,” Wilson, R-Kaysville, said in the statement circulated by the Catholic League Tuesday. “I do not support this bill in its current form, and unless significant changes are made to ensure the protection of religious liberties, I will be voting against this bill.”

Not surprising, really.  "Religious liberties" is a reference to constitutional protections.  I surmised in the OP that the legsilature would be reluctant or unwilling to pass a bill that "will likely not cut constitutional muster."  I may have been incorrect about that point (in that such a bill may be constitutional, since apparently other jurisdictions have similar laws).  However, I think the underlying rationale - infringement on religious liberties - remains.

Quote

Wilson’s statement comes after the Catholic League, a national organization aimed at defending religious freedom and free speech rights of Catholics, encouraged supporters to contact the speaker to express concerns about HB90. Catholic League President Bill Donohue said the bill would “gut the confidentiality of the confessional seal.”

After receiving hundreds of emails, Wilson sent the response to the Catholic League, which then circulated the statement in a news release Tuesday.

Hmm.  This makes me want to contact my rep in the legislator, and Mr. Wilson.

Quote

Also Tuesday, the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City issued a statement asking Utah Catholics to urge legislators to oppose the bill, saying it would force Catholic priests to choose between violating the law or committing a “mortal sin” that could be grounds for excommunication.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City, said she “looks forward” to having a discussion with the speaker about her bill. While she and Wilson “may not see eye to eye,” she said she is “moving forward with it” regardless.

Romero defended her bill as not one that targets a specific religion, but rather one that’s aimed at protecting victims of sexual abuse.

“My concern is more about protecting children and making sure people who violate them are held accountable,” she said, “because what they’re doing is criminal.”

I'm a bit concerned about Romero's position.  In the OP I noted that she incorrectly states that she wants religious leaders to have the same reporting obligations as "any other professional."  Again, religious leaders are not situated like "other professional{s}."  There are constitutional considerations in play. 

Moreover, there are also constitutional considerations underlying the attorney/client and news reporter privileges, which Romero's bill does not affect.  Why not?  Why is she ignoring the privileges recognized at law for these "professional{s}"?

We also have, on public policy grounds, privileges for doctor/patient, therapist/patient, first responders, and "victim advocates."  These don't seem to be based on constitutional requirements, but are nevertheless recognized in the law.  Why isn't Romero going after these?  Why is she singling out only the religion-based privilege?

Quote

Romero’s bill propels Utah into the debate of whether to join other states — North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas and West Virginia — that have removed reporting exemptions for clergy. The Roman Catholic Church, among other faith groups, has opposed similar bills in other states, including in California, where the bill was pulled from consideration amid opposition from the Catholic Church.

I'm surprised Texas has such a provision.

Quote

The statement from the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City urges Utah Catholics to ask state legislators to oppose the bill “that forces individuals to choose between the most sacrosanct part of their religious beliefs and imprisonment — the very situation the First Amendment was meant to protect against.”

“The motivation for the bill is understandable, to uncover and stop the abuse of children,” the statement says, “but HB90 will not have this intended effect.”

Confession and penance are “central” to the Catholic faith, and give Catholics the opportunity to “reveal our conscience to God,” the diocese said, noting it helps Catholics participate fully in their faith. Additionally, being required to report the confession or commit a crime puts priests in a difficult position.

“For a Catholic priest, revealing the contents of a person’s confession is a mortal sin and grounds for automatic excommunication,” the diocese said. “In the past, priests have been tortured and given their lives rather than break their solemn vow to protect the seal of confession. This isn’t just a convenient means of maintaining confidentiality, it is a sacred duty and thus critical to the free exercise of our religion. HB90 places a Catholic priest in the untenable position of violating state law and facing criminal penalties or violating canon law and facing excommunication.”

Hmm.  I think our Catholic friends are perhaps erring here in putting too much emphasis on the perspective of the clergy.  I think broader arguments about religious liberty, and comparisons to the rationales used to defend the doctor/patient privilege (that it encourages candor from the latter), would be more persuasive.

Quote

The Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City noted that supporters of the bill suggest that “clergy hear about abuse regularly and do nothing,” but a priest hearing a confession of criminal wrongdoing “may require the penitent to self-report to law enforcement, seek counseling, offer to talk with the person outside of the confessional and accompany him or her in the act of self-reporting, or require some other similar act of restorative justice through penance.”

This is an excellent point.  I'm glad they presented it.

Quote

Romero, who was raised Catholic, said she “understands our sacraments and it’s not my intent to go against them.” She said legislative counsel reviewed the bill and determined it does not violate any religious freedom.

“My intent is to protect children,” she said. “This isn’t about the Catholic Church. This is about religious institutions ensuring that people aren’t hiding under the guise of confession to get away with hurting children. ... Because the trauma they experience from sexual assault doesn’t just impact them, it impacts the entire community, it impacts our families. For me, that’s more important than protecting a perpetrator who will likely hurt other children.”

Again, Romero doesn't seem to be playing it straight here.  

Has she said "This is about attorneys and law firms ensuring that people aren’t hiding under the guise of the attorney/client privilege to get away with hurting children"?

Has she said "This is about medical doctors and mental health therapists ensuring that people aren’t hiding under the guise of the doctor/patient privilege to get away with hurting children"?

No, she hasn't.  I am increasingly curious as to why.

In fact, Romero sort of gives something away here:

Quote

Facing opposition from the House speaker, who could have influence over whether the bill even gets a committee hearing, it’s unclear whether Romero’s bill will be considered during the legislative session beginning Jan. 27.

“I’m hoping my colleagues will give this bill a fair hearing and they understand why this is an important piece of policy,” Romero said. “I hope we can follow the lead of other states who have placed the best interests of children over religious institutions.”

Sounds like she's singling out "religious institutions."  

Has she said  “I hope we can follow the lead of other states who have placed the best interests of children over lawyers and doctors and therapists”?  Nope.  Because that would be a cheap shot against lawyers and doctors and therapists, who I submit are collectively just as concerned about "the best interests of children" as Ms. Romero. 

And it's a false dilemma, too.  And short-sighted.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2020 by smac97

[Tacenda]

I will continue to post these articles, I know it's annoying to a few here. But needs to be done for change.

https://truthandtransparency.org/news/2020/1/30/court-documents-reveal-mormon-bishops-failure-to-report-led-to-continued-abuse-and-an-additional-victim?fbclid=IwAR2-55PbXech0fe4c2WqTePhbFWDbVsaNxl65guvfidRJibaWDcAfYGYkgU

Herrod told Edwards that he believed the initial confession from Paul occurred in 2011. During this confession, it was disclosed to the bishop that the Adams daughter, who was six years old at the time, was being sexually abused and that the assaults were being video recorded. Herrod said that over the next 2 years, Paul continued to come and see him on a regular basis and often told him that the abuse was ongoing. Leizza was present during many of these confessions and, according to Herrod, would usually have no reaction to the disclosures. In 2012, a new bishop was installed and Herrod was no longer involved in the matter.When asked why he never called the police, Herrod explicitly stated that he had received instructions from the Mormon Church’s legal team in Salt Lake City not to report the abuse, but continue the one-on-one “counseling sessions” instead.

 

And yet another case, where authorities did nothing!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-teen-who-helped-expose-the-boy-scouts-child-abuse-epidemic-and-the-mormon-churchs-cover-up

Edited January 30, 2020 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Two in one day..

https://kutv.com/news/local/ag-utah-man-in-position-of-trust-admits-to-raping-babies-children-women-for-decades

I don't know what they mean by "position of special trust", but he did serve a mission and attend BYU. This is one of the worst cases of child sexual abuse. Watched my grandbaby girl today, and I can't stomach that this man did what he did to a baby. Over and over I say how I'd kill anyone that would touch her, and I would. In fact my anger, has me wanting to get to this sick P.O.S and doing harm.  

NORTH SALT LAKE, Utah (KUTV) — A man who held "a position of special trust" over his victims has admitted to abusing several children, some as young as one, and two adult women for decades beginning in 1992, the Utah Attorney General's Office says.

Edited January 31, 2020 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

Tacenda,

What you point out here is tragic.  Is there any evidence that the man confessed his abuse to clergy, who then did nothing about it?  If not, then it's not relevant to this thread.

Thx,

-Ken

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Tacenda,

What you point out here is tragic.  Is there any evidence that the man confessed his abuse to clergy, who then did nothing about it?  If not, then it's not relevant to this thread.

Thx,

-Ken

Do all of your posts always belong in threads? My comments aren't always, because I'm unable to start topics, so I'm sorry if I do it too much. 

[smac97]

On 1/30/2020 at 9:54 AM, Tacenda said:

I will continue to post these articles, I know it's annoying to a few here. But needs to be done for change.

https://truthandtransparency.org/news/2020/1/30/court-documents-reveal-mormon-bishops-failure-to-report-led-to-continued-abuse-and-an-additional-victim?fbclid=IwAR2-55PbXech0fe4c2WqTePhbFWDbVsaNxl65guvfidRJibaWDcAfYGYkgU

Herrod told Edwards that he believed the initial confession from Paul occurred in 2011. During this confession, it was disclosed to the bishop that the Adams daughter, who was six years old at the time, was being sexually abused and that the assaults were being video recorded. Herrod said that over the next 2 years, Paul continued to come and see him on a regular basis and often told him that the abuse was ongoing. Leizza was present during many of these confessions and, according to Herrod, would usually have no reaction to the disclosures. In 2012, a new bishop was installed and Herrod was no longer involved in the matter.When asked why he never called the police, Herrod explicitly stated that he had received instructions from the Mormon Church’s legal team in Salt Lake City not to report the abuse, but continue the one-on-one “counseling sessions” instead.

This is a terrible story, to be sure.

I guess I am wondering, though, if your proposed cure may - in the aggregate - be worse than the disease. 

In your post you call "for change."  I assume the proposed "change" is the elimination of the priest/penitent privilege.  Is that correct?

What are your thoughts about the other privileges?  Do you likewise propose to abolish the attorney/client privilege?  The doctor/patient privilege?  The spousal privilege?

Thanks,

-Smac