What a Nightmare!

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why is no one seeing this?

You seem to be seeing what you expect to see.  I am the one who went into the most detail about the case and this is what I said and still am questioning, though now webbles found that the bishops likely might not have been able to testify, it makes me wonder if that is the key (coupled with the likely threat of violence from the father):

Quote

Which all leads to me not getting why if it was legally optional for the bishops to report it, why they didn't at least call CPS.  Not clear on if the second bishop actually counseled with the parents or just contacted the abuse hotline about it (the confession apparently took place close to the end of the first bishop's tenure). Haven't read anything from the bishops firsthand and the homeland agent was naturally presenting things biased against the mother so may have left out stuff about the bishop as he did the mother (she wanted to talk to a FBI agent in her ward after the "free talk" interview, but was told to talk to her attorney instead so unlike how he represented her she looks like she was willing eventually to admit she knew about the abuse in the past), but if the father admitted to abuse continuing multiple times to the bishop after the mother promised to keep the kids safe...it would be obvious nothing was changing.  They excommunicated him for it relatively quickly, but nothing appears to have been done to ensure protection for the children...at least nothing was reported by the Homeland agent who reported the conversation with the bishop.  The judge in the sentencing seemed bewildered why the bishops didn't do something about it, so it appears it was a legal option to report it.

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Because no one is acknowledging that the bishop and the church lawyers skipped over it and didn't report the guy like they legally could have.

Because it is not true. The privilege is almost always held by the penitent. They decide whether it can be reported. The bishop does not have the legal option to ignore it. He can report it but anything uncovered based on that report would almost certainly be inadmissible and the bishop could be subject to civil liability.

[Tacenda]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because it is not true. The privilege is almost always held by the penitent. They decide whether it can be reported. The bishop does not have the legal option to ignore it. He can report it but anything uncovered based on that report would almost certainly be inadmissible and the bishop could be subject to civil liability.

In Arizona it appears he can report it. Where do you get the idea he doesn't have the legal option to ignore it? CFR ETA: I didn't read thoroughly at first, I see that you understand that he can report, but I don't understand what you mean about civil liability. The child's life is insurmountable to me I guess. It rises above all else.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

 

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

You seem to be seeing what you expect to see.  I am the one who went into the most detail about the case and this is what I said and still am questioning, though now webbles found that the bishops likely might not have been able to testify, it makes me wonder if that is the key (coupled with the likely threat of violence from the father):

Quote:

Which all leads to me not getting why if it was legally optional for the bishops to report it, why they didn't at least call CPS.  Not clear on if the second bishop actually counseled with the parents or just contacted the abuse hotline about it (the confession apparently took place close to the end of the first bishop's tenure). Haven't read anything from the bishops firsthand and the homeland agent was naturally presenting things biased against the mother so may have left out stuff about the bishop as he did the mother (she wanted to talk to a FBI agent in her ward after the "free talk" interview, but was told to talk to her attorney instead so unlike how he represented her she looks like she was willing eventually to admit she knew about the abuse in the past), but if the father admitted to abuse continuing multiple times to the bishop after the mother promised to keep the kids safe...it would be obvious nothing was changing.  They excommunicated him for it relatively quickly, but nothing appears to have been done to ensure protection for the children...at least nothing was reported by the Homeland agent who reported the conversation with the bishop.  The judge in the sentencing seemed bewildered why the bishops didn't do something about it, so it appears it was a legal option to report it.

 

Thanks Calm, your investigation skills are impeccable. I understand there is a lot I haven't seen, as you pointed out. But thank you for sharing your quote that I missed and how you wondered why CPS wasn't called in. I feel like I'm not going insane as much.  I guess we'll have to have a wait and see attitude, unless you want to delve more like you already have.  

Also, curious how they feel they can sue the bishops, sort of says that the bishops could have reported under the law. ETA: Also, it looks like the church attorneys have not returned several calls for comment. I wonder if the church will help the bishops out with representation, and funds if the two men have to pay out a sum. 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Tacenda

[webbles]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

But that couldn't apply retroactively right, only to testifying at the time he told authorities about them?

The perp confessed, bragged about to authorities, told them he had the perfect lifestyle as he could rape his daughters and his wife didn't care.  He did not mention talking to the bishop though.  His wife was the one who shared that info, either having suppressed it and been reminded when she read her journal where she had written out it or coming clean about it for some other reason.

In the court case from 1988, it was retroactive.  He told the authorities in 1984 about conversations he had in 1968 and between 1976-1980 with the bishops and stake leader.  The confidentiality of those conversations were waived because he told the authorities about it.  Those officials could be compelled to talk about the conversations.

In the present case, if the man never talked about his meetings with the bishop, then I don't think the bishop can be compelled to disclose what happened in those meetings.  But if the wife talks about them, then the bishop might be compelled to talk about the meetings that she was in.  It depends on whether she consents or waives the privilege.  The 1988 case talked about when a person might imply he/she waived the right.

[webbles]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In Arizona it appears he can report it. Where do you get the idea he doesn't have the legal option to ignore it? CFR ETA: I didn't read thoroughly at first, I see that you understand that he can report, but I don't understand what you mean about civil liability. The child's life is insurmountable to me I guess. It rises above all else.

In Arizona (and a lot of other places), most things that you tell your bishop in confidence can not be divulged by the bishop in court.  If the bishop divulges in court, he breaks the law.  Outside of the court, if he divulges that information, then he has breached confidence and you could sue him for that.  Imagine a case where you told the bishop in a confession that you had an affair.  And then the bishop tells your spouse.  Because he breached the confidence, you could sue him for that.  Same with confessing child abuse.  The bishop may tell others about it (and might even be legally required to) but he has breached the confidence and you can now sue him for that breach.  Arizona doesn't protect a bishop or clergy from being sued for disclosing child abuse details.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

In Arizona it appears he can report it. Where do you get the idea he doesn't have the legal option to ignore it? CFR ETA: I didn't read thoroughly at first, I see that you understand that he can report, but I don't understand what you mean about civil liability. The child's life is insurmountable to me I guess. It rises above all else.

I do not think you know what clergy-penitent privilege is or how it works. It is not an excuse you can use not to testify. If the requirements are met you literally cannot testify. It is not the Bishop’s call.

I know you enjoy the hyperbole about how the child trumps everything but the bishop confessing privileged information is not likely to get the child out of the home, get the abuser behind bars, or do much of anything.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I do not think you know what clergy-penitent privilege is or how it works. It is not an excuse you can use not to testify. If the requirements are met you literally cannot testify. It is not the Bishop’s call.

I know you enjoy the hyperbole about how the child trumps everything but the bishop confessing privileged information is not likely to get the child out of the home, get the abuser behind bars, or do much of anything.

You don't know squat about me.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

guess we'll have to have a wait and see attitude, unless you want to delve more like you already have

As far as I can tell, because the father committed suicide before his trial and the mother pleaded "no contest" so she didn't have to admit guilt nor did she testify at the hearing, all we have so far are the documents I have read about the mother's presentencing hearings that have any details.  If the lawsuit continues, we may get more info, but I would not be surprised if there is a settlement in the cases of the bishops and a dismissal in regards to the border patrol friend.

Stuff that webbles found was more important imo as in regards to the bishop stuff, what I added was there wasn't anything else to be added save what was reported in the articles.  I did provide some info on the type of people involved, but that is pure speculation and should be treated as such, dealing only with possibilities.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

court case from 1988, it was retroactive. 

What I meant was if a person effectively waives confidentiality in 2000 for a confession he made in 1990, no one can be held responsible for not informing ppolice in 1990 and whatever consequences followed that lack of info for 10 years.  It wouldn't make sense.  No one can predict confidentiality will be given up ten years in the future so they can share the info now.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

It depends on whether she consents or waives the privilege.  The 1988 case talked about when a person might imply he/she waived the right.

She was the one to contact the authorities to tell them about the meeting (originally on her own and then as directed by the FBI agent through her attorney), so I suspect they would rule it was waived unless there some oddball condition attached.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Also, curious how they feel they can sue the bishops, sort of says that the bishops could have reported under the law

There are so many trivial lawsuits out there, I think it would be foolish to assume that the existence of a lawsuit automatically means the bishops could have reported.

For example, there has been posted on the board a lawsuit against the Church iirc because Pres. oOaks had be part of a company the man believes helped his sister and others steal his dad's property and his inheritance or something when he has been barred from seeing his father (how can he claim his dad wants him to do this when he hasn't even spoken with his dad for over a year?) and other things making it clear the case is groundless.

Then there is the Nemelka group's lawsuit.

Not saying this lawsuit is based on irrational claims, just saying one shouldn't draw a conclusion of a fire every time one thinks they see smoke.  Might just be a cloud of dust.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You don't know squat about me.

So you are saying people who do not know squat about something shouldn’t speculate on it or wax histrionic about it? There was something about stones and glass houses.....

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you are saying people who do not know squat about something shouldn’t speculate on it or wax histrionic about it? There was something about stones and glass houses.....

No, what I meant is you don't know squat about me because I don't think I was hyperbolic. I meant to be taken literally. 

hy·per·bo·le

/hīˈpərbəlē/

 

noun

 

1. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

   "he vowed revenge with oaths and hyperboles"

[Amulek]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In Arizona it appears he can report it.

No, the only thing apparent is that you continue to misread or misunderstand Arizona law. 

According to the mandatory reporting statute (i.e., here), clergy are exempt from the mandatory reporting requirement if their religion respects the confidence of the confessional.

And similar to the Catholic Church, our church treats confessions as confidential, so the exemption applies. 

The exception to the exemption only applies to leaders in religions where they don't really have the concept of confession to begin with. So, for example, if you were a spiritual leader in a religion where confession isn't even a thing (say, e.g., the Bahai faith), then you would be exempt from the exemption and could therefore report the confessor to the authorities without any negative consequences.

But for LDS Bishops and Catholic Fathers (among others), violating the clergy-penitent privilege will likely expose both the clergy member and his church to civil liability for breaking the confidence of the confessional, and it potentially sets a dangerous precedent for the church as well. 

 

[Thinking]

34 minutes ago, Amulek said:

exempt from the exemption

+ ∞

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

But for LDS Bishops and Catholic Fathers (among others), violating the clergy-penitent privilege will likely expose both the clergy member and his church to civil liability for breaking the confidence of the confessional, and it potentially sets a dangerous precedent for the church as well. 

This post is helpful in understanding the duty.  Makes me wonder if the agent was accurate in reporting what the bishops said or misunderstood and therefore misremembered. (There is nothing direct from the bishops or the Church on how they would describe what was said.). I can see something like ‘you don’t have a duty not to report it if he gives you permission’ being messed into “you don’t have a duty”.
 

The judge seemed bewildered the bishops hadn’t reported.  Is this explained by a lack of awareness that we teach confidentiality in the confession and therefore the individual (I don’t believe Adams has the right to the label penitent) has the right to bar his confession from being shared as you have explained?

Just to clarify...

What are the implications in your view for the investigation?  Is it only not being able to testify or will it possibly taint evidence uncovered found through the sharing of info by the clergy. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Thinking said:

+ ∞

Please explain. 

[Thinking]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please explain. 

That phrase was just a classic double negative so I thought it deserved a mathematical thumbs up.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

No, what I meant is you don't know squat about me because I don't think I was hyperbolic. I meant to be taken literally. 

hy·per·bo·le

/hīˈpərbəlē/

 

noun

 

1. exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

   "he vowed revenge with oaths and hyperboles"

Then I will stick with my other option and that is histrionic. It has been shown that the changes you demand would make children less safe overall but you keep demanding it. So you are bemoaning the children while demanding things that hide their abuse more deeply. Okay.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then I will stick with my other option and that is histrionic. It has been shown that the changes you demand would make children less safe overall but you keep demanding it. So you are bemoaning the children while demanding things that hide their abuse more deeply. Okay.

I'm not saying change the law, I'm saying that I couldn't sit by and know a child is being abused if there was anyway to stop it, we should figure out a way. Be creative, whatever, but don't allow it. Like some have mentioned there doesn't appear to have been much of that going on, insisting that they turn themselves in, or move out of the home. Or the bishop could lie and deny anonymously turning them in. I don't know, but I do know no one should go to sleep at night knowing a child is being abused and they could have figured out a way to stop it.

So many crimes have been stopped, sooner than child abuse it seems. If animals are abused animal control or the police come in. But a child is a different matter apparently. Not all parents should raise a child if they harm like this, I know it's terrible to take a child from a family but one should investigate and ensure it doesn't happen, or isn't happening. Maybe the wife could have been spared as well, if she was being abused. 

And the jury is out on the children being more safe by not turning these people in or allowing confidential confessing. How do you know the person wouldn't confess still? If they truly wanted to get help? 

It's a tough one for sure. I wonder if the church had a better program for bishops to get help in dealing with this kind of thing as well.

ETA: I just emailed a lawyer in AZ, maybe they will give me some insight into the laws there.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

On 4/25/2020 at 3:41 PM, webbles said:

According to the news report:

If that is what the hotline told the bishop, then the church lawyers didn't "skip over" that section of the law.  There is "no duty to report" in Arizona law for clergy.

The actual law can be seen at https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm.  The relevant line is in the first paragraph of subsection A and it says

Also interesting is subsection L:

The bishop would not be able to testify against the man unless the man consented to it.

A bit more stuff about the privilege as it exists in Arizona:

The clergy-penitent privilege belongs to the communicant, Waters v. O'Connor, 209 Ariz. 380, ¶ 12, 103 P.3d 292, 295 (App. 2004), and the communicant may waive the privilege through a "'course of conduct inconsistent with observance of the privilege.'" Archibeque, 223 Ariz. 231, ¶ 18, 221 P.3d at 1050, quoting Bain v. Superior Court, 148 Ariz. 331, 334, 714 P.2d 824, 827 (1986). The privilege is not waived by the presence of a third party if the communicant "believed the communication would remain private and such belief is reasonable." Id. ¶ 16.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 4/21/2020 at 6:12 PM, ksfisher said:

One thing I think would happen is that people would stop confessing anything that might be considered a crime to their bishops.  I think this would be a shame as it would

1) cut off these people from the healing power of the atonement that confession to a bishop starts them on the path to receiving

and

2) close off a possible path for the perpetrator to turn himself in to the proper authorities.  Sometimes what a perpetrator may need is someone by his side when he does decide to go to the authorities.

Personally I think the well being of the victim is far more important than whether the perpetrator has access to the healing power of the atonement. If such a thing is even real the perpetrator can access Jesus through prayer and other means.

[Teancum]

On 4/21/2020 at 7:29 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

No matter the crime, rape, murder, etc., the priest-penitent privilege is clearly recognized in law. and the bishop or priest receiving the confession is bound to keep it completely confidential forever.  The bishop or priest is not a mandated reporter when he receives such information in the confessional.  Otherwise, no one would confess, and such sins could not be remitted.  It is completely understandable that someone who does not believe in such things would find it disgusting.  Hey, I believe and I'm disgusted.    However, that doesn't come to grips with the problem, Fair Dinkum.

I am pretty sure God could forgive without a confession if necessary.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

One thing I think would happen is that people would stop confessing anything that might be considered a crime to their bishops.  I think this would be a shame as it would

1) cut off these people from the healing power of the atonement that confession to a bishop starts them on the path to receiving

and

2) close off a possible path for the perpetrator to turn himself in to the proper authorities.  Sometimes what a perpetrator may need is someone by his side when he does decide to go to the authorities.

Personally I think the well being of the victim is far more important than whether the perpetrator has access to the healing power of the atonement.

The two sentiments ("the well being of the victim" and "the perpetrator ha{ving} access to the ... atonement") are not in conflict.

Nevertheless, the welfare of the victim is extremely important.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If such a thing is even real the perpetrator can access Jesus through prayer and other means.

What about the second point above?  Where the bishop facilitates the perpetrator turning himself in?

What about instances where the bishop helps with arrangements to protect and otherwise help the victim (immediate changes to the perp's physical proximity/access to the victim, arrange for counseling, etc.)?

Thanks,

-Smac