What a Nightmare!

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Ratbag said:

I think if asked, the Church would support a law requiring all bishops and stake presidents to report child abuse. 

I'm skeptical of that.

For starters, I'm pretty sure that support for such a measure has never been proffered before - including earlier this year when HB90 was up for discussion in Utah. 

Also, the Church has a pretty solid track record of standing up for religious liberty, and disposal of the priest-penitent privilege would most assuredly be an erosion of religious liberty. 

 

Quote

The Church has a policy of mandatory prosecution for embezzlement of tithing and offering funds. 

If you say so. Sounds like a sensible enough policy.

 

Quote

Child abuse is egregious beyond belief.  

I agree. In fact, I'm right there with Jesus when it comes to that whole bit about millstones and large bodies of water. 

But, as I mentioned before, I've yet to see anything which leads me to believe that removing the priest-penitent privilege would be a net benefit for society.

 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Because you now have involved additional outside (non-clergy) people who aren't even law enforcement, either. That now makes the confession not confidential at all. Had he asked the hotline if he should have the young man tell the parents, I'm certain that he would have been strongly advised not to. It only went to the police when the parents took it to them. 

Thing is, that's the only way other victims were found --- the pointed questions by the upset parents. "You also babysat for this family, right? Did you do this there, too?" Shoes dropped and new families kept cropping up. 

I babysat quite a bit when I was a youth, and my oldest son has as well, but those days are long gone, I think. Parents just can't risk having boys babysit, and there is a chance that false accusations might be made. It's sad. 

I get why it stops being confidential.  I'm just curious why you think the hotline would have advised the bishop to not have the young man tell the parents?

I would expect the hotline to advise the bishop to not tell the authorities since the confession was done initially in confidence but I don't see why the hotline would advise the bishop to not include others.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Also, the Church has a pretty solid track record of standing up for religious liberty, and disposal of the priest-penitent privilege would most assuredly be an erosion of religious liberty. 

The Church also has a solid track record of late changing things on a dime, when it deems that the PR hit is too much. 

cf. The reversal of the November policy regarding gay marriages and children, after only a couple of years, and after President Nelson having repeatedly defined it as revelation. It was head-spinning how quickly that was reversed, because of the "pain" from the policy that had been reported. This, after saying they had war-gamed all possible permutations in deciding on the policy. 

I'm sure if the optics are deemed bad enough, we could see some change here, and quickly. I'm not talking about getting rid of confessions or requiring leaders to report. I'm thinking more of detailed guidelines, changes to what the attorneys tell leaders (not just a blanket "Do nothing and say nothing" in almost all cases), maybe more aggressive reporting on the bishops' behalf by Kirton McConkie (which they do in some circumstances, but probably could in many more where ongoing danger is known). 

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, webbles said:

I get why it stops being confidential.  I'm just curious why you think the hotline would have advised the bishop to not have the young man tell the parents?

I would expect the hotline to advise the bishop to not tell the authorities since the confession was done initially in confidence but I don't see why the hotline would advise the bishop to not include others.

I can't see the attorneys advising the bishop to bring any people into the loop outside of the stake president and the hotline personnel. If he confesses to parents, it is all but ensured that it's going to escalate up to law enforcement or an embarrassing media event. Or at least the risk of that exists.  

 

[rongo]

As I think about this, I think the purpose of LDS confession needs to be defined. To me, it is only about helping the sinner become reconciled to God and His Church (true repentance). This can't happen unless and until as full of restitution as possible is made, and with what we are talking about, this includes confessing to victims and victim families, and willingly cooperating with the legal system. 

Those who have raised Constitutional rights have a very good point, and one that cannot be taken lightly. But, at the end of the day, if the person and the leaders are serious about potential forgiveness and healing, those rights take a back seat to doing the right thing. 

The extent to which leaders can preempt these rights is a good point. Good-better-best: best of all, it should be the person himself. But when he refuses, the Church still has a responsibility to protect current and future victims, the flock, and to a lesser extent, the Church's good name. 

Many leaders currently are put in a bad spot because of what they know and what they are being told to do. It's not a good place to be.

[Thinking]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church also has a solid track record of late changing things on a dime, when it deems that the PR hit is too much. 

cf. The reversal of the November policy regarding gay marriages and children, after only a couple of years, and after President Nelson having repeatedly defined it as revelation. It was head-spinning how quickly that was reversed, because of the "pain" from the policy that had been reported. This, after saying they had war-gamed all possible permutations in deciding on the policy. 

I'm sure if the optics are deemed bad enough, we could see some change here, and quickly. I'm not talking about getting rid of confessions or requiring leaders to report. I'm thinking more of detailed guidelines, changes to what the attorneys tell leaders (not just a blanket "Do nothing and say nothing" in almost all cases), maybe more aggressive reporting on the bishops' behalf by Kirton McConkie (which they do in some circumstances, but probably could in many more where ongoing danger is known). 

Perhaps the line in a popular hymn Do what is right, let the consequence follow will be changed to Do what is legal and no consequence will follow.

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that if clergy start reporting abuse from confessions that it will stop all kinds of abuse is foolhardy.

Yeah, the unstated assumption by those who favor removing the priest-penitent privilege seems to be that people will just continue confessing to their clergy after the law has changed them all into mandatory reporters.

Only that's preposterous. Once you change the rules of the game, all of the actors are going to change their behavior accordingly.

Consider, by way of analogy, how airline hijackings used to work. For years, airlines would have their planes hijacked from time to time. Sometimes the hijackers were seeking asylum, sometimes they were attempting to make some sort of political statement, etc. But regardless of the motive, the 'airline hijacking game' invariably played out the same way. You would certainly be delayed; you might even end up on a slight detour to another country; but if you remained calm and suffered through it, you were invariably bound to be just fine. Inconvenienced, but fine.

All of that changed in September of 2001. After the first three planes were deliberately crashed into buildings, the passengers on Flight 93 realized that the hijackers were playing a different kind of game, and since that point in time everyone else's behavior has changed accordingly. 

Turning clergy into mandatory reporters would play out the exact same way. Sure, you might be able to catch a few unsuspecting child abusers before they all learn the rules of the game have been changed. But once people learn the game has changed - and remember, this will be discovered quickly - they will simply stop confessing those kinds of things to clergy members. 

And that's unfortunate. People talk about the confessional as though it were some kind of black box designed expressly to protect child molesters. But take these people away from their priest and you are also taking away a voice - quite possibly the only voice - that is going to be counseling them to seek help, change their behavior, confess their crimes, and make amends to society. 

 

[rongo]

On 4/21/2020 at 6:59 PM, smac97 said:

By way of a hypothetical: A bishop receives an allegation of abuse.  The purported abuse took place many years ago, such that the statute of limitations precludes prosecution.  The person reporting the allegations has a history of mental illness.  The person, an adult, is alleging misconduct by his father against his siblings.  The (adult) siblings deny the abuse occurred.  The purported abuser denies the allegations.  There is no evidence of abuse except for the uncorroborated allegations.

Assuming no legal duty to report, should the bishop nevertheless report the allegations to law enforcement?

Like Martha Nibley Beck, huh?

This hypothetical is very different from the cases we are talking about (statute of limitations hasn't run out, family aren't denying and disputing the allegations, access to children still exists, etc.)

No, I wouldn't be worried about reporting in your above hypothetical. I'm sure the hotline counsel would be not to, and I would not have a problem at all with that.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Turning clergy into mandatory reporters would play out the exact same way. Sure, you might be able to catch a few unsuspecting child abusers before they all learn the rules of the game have been changed. But once people learn the game has changed - and remember, this will be discovered quickly - they will simply stop confessing those kinds of things to clergy members. 

And that's unfortunate. People talk about the confessional as though it were some kind of black box designed expressly to protect child molesters. But take these people away from their priest and you are also taking away a voice - quite possibly the only voice - that is going to be counseling them to seek help, change their behavior, confess their crimes, and make amends to society. 

I don't want clergy to be mandatory reporters. I want our clergy, anyway, to be able to use common sense and conscience on a case-by-case basis.

The problem with that is that mileage varies, and varies greatly, in terms of judgment, common sense, conscience, etc. 

I don't have a good omnibus solution. 

[Danzo]

Everyone here seems to be under the assumption that he Priest penitent privilege belongs to the priest (or the Church)

The privilege belongs to the penitent.

The attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.

Most people don't like the idea of Criminals having rights until they themselves are accused of a crime.

None of you here are going to appreciate privileges until you start realizing that there may be times in your life that you need to be frank with your attorney, spouse, doctor or bishop without fearing that talking to these people is just another way of calling the police.

This protections given protects all of us, you just can't pick and choose.

[Calm]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

If he confesses to parents, it is all but ensured that it's going to escalate up to law enforcement or an embarrassing media event. Or at least the risk of that exists.

But from what I hear the Church at most only discourages the clergy from going to police, there is no issue with others doing so, including attorneys for the Church. In fact I have heard plenty of encouragement for the predator turning themselves into police. And there is no issue when it is a victim informing a bishop of going to LE, so why would it be an issue if parents did?

Except for the unfortunate aspect of it being a member who is the predator, why would the Church be at all embarrassed in this case?  They come out looking rather good imo. 

Edited April 24, 2020 by Calm

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't want clergy to be mandatory reporters. I want our clergy, anyway, to be able to use common sense and conscience on a case-by-case basis.

The problem with that is that mileage varies, and varies greatly, in terms of judgment, common sense, conscience, etc. 

I don't have a good omnibus solution. 

There are many times that breaking the law is the right thing to do, but when you choose to break the law, you need to be aware of the consequences.

Breaking privilege may be justified in some cases, but the person breaking it has to live with the consequence of that as well.

These might include having the person get away with their crime ( the person can assert the privilege to prevent the bishop from testifying and excluding all evidence obtained from the bishop's actions).  People who are being abused and those who are abusing might be hesitant from seeking help from this bishop (or any bishop) because of the bishop breaching confidence. 

Children might be sent to CPS where often they are much worse off.

There is also the possibility that the bishop might be getting incorrect advice from the churches attorneys. Attorneys are not infallible, the work with limited information.  I deal all of the time with the consequences of bad legal advice given by attorneys.

Unfortunately there is no solution that is right every time. You need to go by the spirit.

However if you are going to break the law, its good to have some idea of the consequences.

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Danzo

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't want clergy to be mandatory reporters. I want our clergy, anyway, to be able to use common sense and conscience on a case-by-case basis.

The problem with that is that mileage varies, and varies greatly, in terms of judgment, common sense, conscience, etc. 

I don't have a good omnibus solution. 

I have a solution I am comfortable with.  The priest should only serve to help the penitent know how to gain forgiveness from the Lord.  Not in any way shielding that person from the police or legal authorities.

I don't know how to make it any simpler than that.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I can't see the attorneys advising the bishop to bring any people into the loop outside of the stake president and the hotline personnel. If he confesses to parents, it is all but ensured that it's going to escalate up to law enforcement or an embarrassing media event. Or at least the risk of that exists.  

 

I was under the impression that the hotline is too ensure that the bishop follows the law of the area with respect to reporting; the hotline is not to prevent law enforcement from hearing about crimes.  If the action is legal (such as bringing in the parents), then I don't see why the hotline would discourage it.  Every instance that I've read about the hotline has always dealt with helping the bishop follow the law, not with hiding crimes.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

Every instance that I've read about the hotline has always dealt with helping the bishop follow the law, not with hiding crimes.

Hotline people often call the police in fact as reported in news and by those who use the hotline. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The Church also has a solid track record of late changing things on a dime, when it deems that the PR hit is too much. 

cf. The reversal of the November policy regarding gay marriages and children, after only a couple of years, and after President Nelson having repeatedly defined it as revelation. It was head-spinning how quickly that was reversed, because of the "pain" from the policy that had been reported. This, after saying they had war-gamed all possible permutations in deciding on the policy. 

I'm sure if the optics are deemed bad enough, we could see some change here, and quickly. I'm not talking about getting rid of confessions or requiring leaders to report. I'm thinking more of detailed guidelines, changes to what the attorneys tell leaders (not just a blanket "Do nothing and say nothing" in almost all cases), maybe more aggressive reporting on the bishops' behalf by Kirton McConkie (which they do in some circumstances, but probably could in many more where ongoing danger is known). 

Spot on!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

(not just a blanket "Do nothing and say nothing" in almost all cases), maybe more aggressive reporting on the bishops' behalf by Kirton McConkie (which they do in some circumstances, but probably could in many more where ongoing danger is known). 

I wonder if your perception might be coloured by what your local laws are so you hear of instances where there is less assertive behaviour more. OTOH, I have heard several bishops from the US and Canada report their experiences with the hotline were significantly different, much more direct in contacting LE etc. as appears to be appropriate for the laws in their area. These bishops in talking with them have often expressed surprise that others see the Church or its legal reps as so passive in abuse situations. 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I think we could really use detailed, explanatory guidance from the Brethren on the rationale, parameters, etc. for confession. As you point out, there is a wide range of strongly held views on this among active members, but there is literally almost no explanation or guidance from the Church on this. The hotline/legal help's focus is on protecting the Church. 

Even though we have a great legal mind in the First Presidency, I'm not sure that we have anything like the Catholic canon lawyers who actually understand the full implications of the sacraments (most Mormons have no idea what that word even means) and can articulate it.  That leaves your local bishop dependent on the Holy Spirit and the hotline.  Maybe that's a good thing, even though I tend to go in the other direction.

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm arguing for the exact opposite fro the Catholic Church's hiding and moving of serial pedophile priests. I'm arguing that our clergy should sometimes insist on people confessing of horrific things turning themselves in and cooperating fully with law enforcement. That's very different from the Catholic situation. The Church's good name is definitely an important consideration, since there are cases where leaders know of probable danger and are told not to do anything. This doesn't feel morally or ethically right, and is a tough spot for leaders to be placed in. And, it looks terrible and is unjustifiable when this is learned publicly, via lawsuits and the media. The only justification for it seems to be grounded in Catholic terms of the sanctity of the seal of confession, or speculation that this will spike the wheel for prosecution.

I guess you misunderstood me on Church reputation.  It should be the last thing on your agenda.  Do what is right, let the consequence follow -- including hurting the good name of the Church of Jesus Christ.  Protecting the Church reputation by lying, cheating, and the like, always comes back to haunt the Church and its leadership.  It is a primary indicator of lack of the Holy Spirit.  Many Catholic dioceses have declared bankruptcy, closed many churches, and had to sell vast properties to pay the negative civil judgments.  Not to mention the many regular Roman Catholic members who have permanently left the Church.  The Pope has unwisely refused to follow the good recommendations of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

5 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the original reason for confession still stands, and will still be undergone by the truly repentant (working through the process of repentance the right way). I acknowledge concerns that people may not be willing to confess with the possibility that clergy will insist on cooperation with law enforcement,

This is where we are at loggerheads.  There can be no such insistence if the so-called "sanctity of the seal of confession" is to mean anything at all.

5 hours ago, rongo said:

but I think there will still be sincere people who will do everything possible to atone for what they've done. The man I referred to desperately wanted to make an appointment with me, and when I couldn't meet until 6:00 PM, he went over to one of my counselor's houses. He was immediately shut down by him and told he has to meet with me, say no more. He and his wife came in together at 6:00, and they were both terrified. I told him that he should expect contact with law enforcement soon, and I exhorted him to cooperate fully (he had told his sister in Missouri, and she had called the police. She called him and told him, and told him to go straight to his bishop). Local police came to his house the next day and asked him to come down to the station with them. He waived his Miranda rights at the station and did a recorded confession and he was taken to jail. Originally facing 65 years, he pleaded down to 17 and that was that. His confession to police and the investigation turned up a lot more than what he had told me (other victims, computer evidence, etc.). I called the hotline after meeting with him, but things moved very quickly (I was impressed by how quickly, and between different states, too). Fortunately, I didn't have to do anything. I was called down to the station to be with the wife at her request, once he was taken away, and the detective and she filled me in on what had happened.

I don't think he's the norm. I think most will panic and dig in with self-preservation. But, many people who have done terrible things really do believe in the Plan of Salvation and the Restoration, and for them, confession is submitting to priesthood keys as part of "doing all they can do" in the repentance process. For them, full cooperation with law enforcement is a relief because you are doing literally all you can do from that point, with nothing left off the table, and you rely on the atonement for everything else. You cannot make the situation right or eliminate the damage, but you can show good faith and do what you can to mitigate suffering for the victims. I think this should be our ecclesiastical focus. 

This account is certainly a good example of what a bishop and the family of the perp should do, and the detectives and the courts are no doubt very respectful of that process.  Also, he had a good attorney.  But you are right.  That is not the norm.  Most of those perps are sociopaths, and the very embodiment of evil.

In other cases, the innocent are punished very severely.  In the New Zealand case I mentioned, the innocent guy was excommunicated, even though everyone on the High Council knew he was innocent.  He had been found guilty in a court of law and was now going to prison.  Nothing else could be done.  Even he agreed with all that and shrugged it off -- he was so faithful that he was willing to wait until he was fairly judged on the other side of the veil.  Reminds me of the similar case in which teenage Helmut Hubner, who was beheaded by the SS for treason, was excommunicated from the LDS Church by his local leaders, only to be reinstated later by SLC.  Who is right?  Who is wrong?  Easy to say only with an eternal view.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Where I live, we made everyone age 18+ a mandated reporter last year. We'll see how that works. One of the greatest risks in child protection is so thoroughly overwhelming the system with unsubstantiated reports that genuine problems are missed.

Yes.  A very dangerous approach.  Only those qualified to distinguish the real from the fantasy should be mandated reporters.  Innocent people have been killed by police owing to false reports by neighbors.  They meant well, but misunderstood the actual circumstances.

[Vanguard]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

So you are OK with people being able to confess their sins confidentially to a lawyer and a doctor and a spouse but not to a spiritual leader?

 

 

Already answered and expanded upon in my previous post. Can you answer my question and expand upon it?

[Danzo]

21 hours ago, Vanguard said:

Perhaps in a close knit faith community the role of a bishop (ward father?) is qualitatively different than an attorney or doctor. The attorneys and doctors are your friend for a fee (as with any other profession) whereas the bishop has a much more substantial stewardship that extends far beyond a person/s material and/or legal well-being. When a bishop is hamstrung from taking definitive action to protect an innocent child in his own faith community for which he has spiritual oversite, it seems much more a travesty when these things go unreported. I'm ok with the doctors and lawyers - I never looked to them for my own spiritual well-being and growth anyway.

Does that actually seem that far-fetched to you?

If a person knows that talking to a bishop is the same as talking to the police, then people won't talk to the bishop.   The bishop won't know, and the bishop can do nothing to help anyone.  His role as a faith community leader is diminished in that he can no longer help people in his community.  He will be even more hamstrung from taking definitive action to protect innocent Children if he  doesn't know. 

In this case, someone was trying to do something (although not enough). If person didn't talk to the bishop, than nobody would be doing anything.

You think it is a travesty when these things go unreported only because the bishop didn't do enough (in peoples opinion).  I think you will be trading not doing enough, for not doing anything at all.

 

Do you know what is really frustrating?  When people suspect, but don't know anything.  Its more common than you might think. 

No concrete evidence of anything, nobody saying anything, but everyone thinking something is wrong, something is off.  You really can't report anything, but somehow you just don't that everything is right with a family and their children.

Nobody want's to say anything because they know that if they do, it will be directly reported to the police, and nobody is ready for that.  So the problem festers and gets worse and worse.  

This can often be avoided if there is a safe person to talk to.

This is what the priest penitent privilege protects.

 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I was under the impression that the hotline is too ensure that the bishop follows the law of the area with respect to reporting; the hotline is not to prevent law enforcement from hearing about crimes.  If the action is legal (such as bringing in the parents), then I don't see why the hotline would discourage it.  Every instance that I've read about the hotline has always dealt with helping the bishop follow the law, not with hiding crimes.

Well, it also is a very useful resource for other legal issues, too. I'm very grateful for the hotline's help getting local police and the FBI off my case. They delivered a lengthy and very detailed questionnaire they wanted me to answer as a teacher for a student who was also a ward member (involving domestic terrorism, not abuse or sex offenses). I wasn't comfortable answering a lot of the questions (family mental health, etc.). None of this was sex offender related, but I didn't want to be on record with the courts about a lot of the family's private lives (charitably described as "complicated"). One call to the hotline, I scanned and sent them the questionnaire, and they called the agencies and got them off my back. After a follow-up "C'mon, this isn't a big deal, just answer the questions," delivered via the principal. It was nice to be able to say, "My attorney is already in contact with them, and I've been told to direct any inquiries back to him."  

The hotline doesn't try to "hide crimes." It does seek to keep leaders completely shielded from testifying and being involved with court proceedings of investigations, which is mostly a very good thing. 

[Vanguard]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If a person knows that talking to a bishop is the same as talking to the police, then people won't talk to the bishop.   The bishop won't know, and the bishop can do nothing to help anyone.  His role as a faith community leader is diminished in that he can no longer help people in his community.  He will be even more hamstrung from taking definitive action to protect innocent Children if he  doesn't know. 

In this case, someone was trying to do something (although not enough). If person didn't talk to the bishop, than nobody would be doing anything.

You think it is a travesty when these things go unreported only because the bishop didn't do enough (in peoples opinion).  I think you will be trading not doing enough, for not doing anything at all.

 

Do you know what is really frustrating?  When people suspect, but don't know anything.  Its more common than you might think. 

No concrete evidence of anything, nobody saying anything, but everyone thinking something is wrong, something is off.  You really can't report anything, but somehow you just don't that everything is right with a family and their children.

Nobody want's to say anything because they know that if they do, it will be directly reported to the police, and nobody is ready for that.  So the problem festers and gets worse and worse.  

This can often be avoided if there is a safe person to talk to.

This is what the priest penitent privilege protects.

 

Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating. I still can't get beyond the notion this privilege affords the perpetrator a potential 'get out of jail free' card. As long as he follows the prescription the bishop lays out (short of confessing to legal authority), he can eventually work his way back into the gospel's good graces all the while running a real risk of re-offending. Or - absent a legal authority confession - will he always be prevented from having full privileges reinstated? And what of the victim? Where is any chance of reparative therapy if all actions the bishop recommends comes with the caveat 'as long as the perpetrator is not incriminated'? It seems to place the privilege of the perpetrator above the potentially desperate needs of the young, mentally compromised, or senior victim.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

When people suspect, but don't know anything.  Its more common than you might think. 

This is what happened with the visiting teacher/friend in theOP case. She knew the family for seven years and with her training and experience was positive abuse was going on in the home, but for seven years couldn’t get the kids or mom to open up about no matter what she tried and she was trying weekly it sounds like (every Sunday when she saw the mom) the last two years. The kids and mom wore long sleeves and long skirts all the time so she couldn’t see bruises if they were there (thinking they likely were given it was Arizona). Once the dad was arrested, the kids started talking about home and the mom shared other stuff, but still downplayed it. 

She is now getting sued as the lawyer for the girls thinks she should have reported abuse as a mandated reporter...her only evidence though was the kids acting up at church and a gut feeling.  That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. 

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is what happened with the visiting teacher/friend in theOP case. She knew the family for seven years and with her training and experience was positive abuse was going on in the home, but for seven years couldn’t get the kids or mom to open up about no matter what she tried and she was trying weekly it sounds like (every Sunday when she saw the mom) the last two years. The kids and mom wore long sleeves and long skirts all the time so she couldn’t see bruises if they were there (thinking they likely were given it was Arizona). Once the dad was arrested, the kids started talking about home and the mom shared other stuff, but still downplayed it. 

She is now getting sued as the lawyer for the girls thinks she should have reported abuse as a mandated reporter...her only evidence though was the kids acting up at church and a gut feeling.  That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. 

She actually should have, that is what the public is asked to do, if we suspect abuse we call the hotline. Our identity will be anonymous and the social worker will investigate. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/faq/can6

copy and paste:

What should I do if I suspect child abuse and/or neglect?   

Answer:

All states have a system to receive and respond to reports of suspected child abuse and neglect. If you suspect a child is being harmed, or has been harmed, you should report your concerns to the appropriate authorities, such as child protective services, in the state where child maltreatment is occurring. Each state has trained professionals who can evaluate the situation and determine whether help and services are needed. Most states have a toll-free number to call to report suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare Information Gateway, a service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, provides a list of Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Numbers and information on how to make a report in each state.

Another resource for information about how and where to file a report of suspected child abuse or neglect is the Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline. Childhelp can be reached 7 days a week, 24-hours a day, at its toll-free number: 1.800.4-A-CHILD (1.800.422.4453).

Edited April 24, 2020 by Tacenda