What a Nightmare!

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

Aptly put. 

No one has an answer to this, but I wonder if a leader did what he strongly felt was right rather than what he was told to do via the hotline . . . would he be released? Would he be formally disciplined? In that case, it would probably depend on the perceived PR blowback. 

I personally know of a case where a really great bishop was very suddenly released after only a few months of serving because he would not follow the counsel given by the stake to not meet alone with a sister while counseling her.  The stake made it clear that the bishop was in good standing when he was released and had not committed any sin.  

That seems to be precedent for there not being room for a bishop who was determined to do what he felt was best when it was at odds with direction he had specifically been given.

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This... over and over and over again. What is wrong with the church's lawyers to not see how this could have saved a child/children from being abused for 7 years. I don't know how Kirton and McConkie can sleep at night. How is it reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion to do this? Arizona law people! Not Utah law! https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-child-welfare/2020/04/21/bisbee-man-confesses-hes-molesting-his-daughter-church-tells-bishop-not-report-abuse/2876617001/

But the law also allows clergy to not report if they are told of the abuse in confidence or during a confession. In those cases, state law says, clergy may withhold a report if the clergy member feels it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

 

ETA: Am I dense? Why is no one seeing that the AZ law handed the ok to report on a sliver platter?

Tacenda, how do we know that the church's lawyers knew enough to be able to save the children?  Reading the summaries from Calm, it looks like the bishops and others actually had very little knowledge of what happened.  It looks like the man told very little, the wife would hide/ignore the evidence, and the children were too terrified to say anything.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

What you post is true, the recidivism is very high in cases like these. However, you're making yourself as judge if you; feel, think, possibly, might, likely to, that he will repeat. Even when recidivism is high we are not to be his judge when honest repentance is being asked for. As Bishop or Stake President we should keep that confidentiality after the confession. Keeping that confession allows trust for the sinner to grow in the repentance process and help the sinner to continue in that path. Part of the meaning of the word Confidentiality it gives the person confidence that he can have trust in that person (Bishop) that thing (repentance). Besides, by reporting will muddy up the legalities of both a civil and/or criminal case.

Please keep in mind I am only speaking of a confessor who is truly placing himself in that path to forsake all his sins, never plans to repeat them and change his heart. I am not talking about the guy who comes in and confesses but he also says he will continue to be a molester. Then there is an obligation to report in my opinion.

Is not Christs atonement enough to give the one who seeks a change of heart that strength to make the change he is looking for?

For all that, even the Church imposes a lifelong ban on youth/children callings (via annotated records) for all sex offenders, no matter how long ago or how long the period of "good behavior." So the Church, institutionally, is every bit as preemptively judgmental about this. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Aptly put. 

No one has an answer to this, but I wonder if a leader did what he strongly felt was right rather than what he was told to do via the hotline . . . would he be released? Would he be formally disciplined? In that case, it would probably depend on the perceived PR blowback.

I would expect the leader to be sued by the perpetrator for breaking the law.

[Tacenda]

Just now, webbles said:

I would expect the leader to be sued by the perpetrator for breaking the law.

Not Arizona law! 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I personally know of a case where a really great bishop was very suddenly released after only a few months of serving because he would not follow the counsel given by the stake to not meet alone with a sister while counseling her.  The stake made it clear that the bishop was in good standing when he was released and had not committed any sin.  

That seems to be precedent for there not being room for a bishop who was determined to do what he felt was best when it was at odds with direction he had specifically been given.

It's understandable. I'm just glad I never had to face this with chaperoned interviews. I really feel that it renders interviews not interviews . . . 

What I'm less sure of is whether a bishop who goes against legal counsel from the hotline in not saying anything would then be recommended for formal discipline. I don't think so, but like you say, I don't think Salt Lake would be very happy about it. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, webbles said:

Tacenda, how do we know that the church's lawyers knew enough to be able to save the children?  Reading the summaries from Calm, it looks like the bishops and others actually had very little knowledge of what happened.  It looks like the man told very little, the wife would hide/ignore the evidence, and the children were too terrified to say anything.

Again, read the law. If it's child sexual abuse, which I'm pretty sure the bishop knew about and explained to the attorneys, there was a perfect way to report the dude, if you read over what I keep c/p of Arizona law. Why do I keep having to do this? Are we saying that the church's attorneys are infallible? 

Why is no one seeing this?

But the law also allows clergy to not report if they are told of the abuse in confidence or during a confession. In those cases, state law says, clergy may withhold a report if the clergy member feels it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

I would expect the leader to be sued by the perpetrator for breaking the law.

I don't think it's against the law to break confidentiality. It might be one thing or another as far as a church is concerned, and it might (maybe) hinder prosecution, but it isn't illegal. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 4/21/2020 at 5:41 PM, rongo said:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-child-welfare/2020/04/21/bisbee-man-confesses-hes-molesting-his-daughter-church-tells-bishop-not-report-abuse/2876617001/

I've never really liked how Church legal handles reporting (it varies by jurisdiction), and I've wondered about conflict between what a bishop is told to do and doing what he feels he should, when there is a conflict. 

I feel really bad for the bishops, because I know from experience that the counsel received is "Don't report this." I know that there are issues of confidentiality, but I think that if this happened to me, I would tell the person that if he didn't turn himself in, then I would. And, I know that this is contrary to what the abuse hotline tells them. 

LDS Bishop’s are not like Catholic Priests or Bishops, they can report crimes told them in a confessional, (and have done so) if it involves the safety of a child, spouse or other member of the Church. 

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, webbles said:

Tacenda, how do we know that the church's lawyers knew enough to be able to save the children?  Reading the summaries from Calm, it looks like the bishops and others actually had very little knowledge of what happened.  It looks like the man told very little, the wife would hide/ignore the evidence, and the children were too terrified to say anything.

I agree in this case the prosecution seems to vastly overestimate how much church leaders knew.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I personally know of a case where a really great bishop was very suddenly released after only a few months of serving because he would not follow the counsel given by the stake to not meet alone with a sister while counseling her.  The stake made it clear that the bishop was in good standing when he was released and had not committed any sin.  

That seems to be precedent for there not being room for a bishop who was determined to do what he felt was best when it was at odds with direction he had specifically been given.

Was he told someone else had to be in the room or someone else had to be in the building? For the former it is rare but there are people I know in the church that I would not want to meet alone with if I was a bishop. For the latter that is general policy.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Again, read the law. If it's child sexual abuse, which I'm pretty sure the bishop knew about and explained to the attorneys, there was a perfect way to report the dude, if you read over what I keep c/p of Arizona law. Why do I keep having to do this? Are we saying that the church's attorneys are infallible? 

Why is no one seeing this?

But the law also allows clergy to not report if they are told of the abuse in confidence or during a confession. In those cases, state law says, clergy may withhold a report if the clergy member feels it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

 

Confidentiality is "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion".

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's against the law to break confidentiality. It might be one thing or another as far as a church is concerned, and it might (maybe) hinder prosecution, but it isn't illegal. 

I doubt it is a criminal matter but I bet you could pursue civil litigation and sue over it.

[The Nehor]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

For all that, even the Church imposes a lifelong ban on youth/children callings (via annotated records) for all sex offenders, no matter how long ago or how long the period of "good behavior." So the Church, institutionally, is every bit as preemptively judgmental about this. 

Not entirely true. The annotation can be removed but it requires First Presidency permission. I have no idea how often that happens.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not entirely true. The annotation can be removed but it requires First Presidency permission. I have no idea how often that happens.

I think it's very, very rare. Can you imagine the nightmare it would be if an annotation were removed, and that person then had other victims in a primary class or in the youth? In my experience, repentant offenders understand and aren't bitter about the lifelong annotation. 

It also takes decades, and multiple rejected applications to the First Presidency to be rebaptized if the excommunication was for that. The First Presidency wants to be absolutely sure that there are no more problems, or potential for problems. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by rongo

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt it is a criminal matter but I bet you could pursue civil litigation and sue over it.

I think so, too. Which is why bishops would be well advised to "do what they're told" from Church legal, even though it might seem like not the right thing to do.

I hate this liability society we've developed for ourselves and allowed to engulf us over generations. 

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I agree in this case the prosecution seems to vastly overestimate how much church leaders knew.

Was he told someone else had to be in the room or someone else had to be in the building? For the former it is rare but there are people I know in the church that I would not want to meet alone with if I was a bishop. For the latter that is general policy.

I don’t know the specifics. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's against the law to break confidentiality. It might be one thing or another as far as a church is concerned, and it might (maybe) hinder prosecution, but it isn't illegal. 

I don't know the law but I did hear of https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/01/child-molesters-wife-sues-mormon-church-for-95-million-says-husband-is-in-prison-because-clergy-reported-his-confession.html.  So someone thinks it could be at least worthy of a lawsuit.

Edited to add:

Apparently in Iowa, it is against the law.  Iowa statute 622.10        makes it illegal for the clergy (and a list of others) that received confidential information to testify on it.  There might be other states/countries where it is illegal like that.

Edited April 25, 2020 by webbles

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Again, read the law. If it's child sexual abuse, which I'm pretty sure the bishop knew about and explained to the attorneys, there was a perfect way to report the dude, if you read over what I keep c/p of Arizona law. Why do I keep having to do this? Are we saying that the church's attorneys are infallible? 

Why is no one seeing this?

But the law also allows clergy to not report if they are told of the abuse in confidence or during a confession. In those cases, state law says, clergy may withhold a report if the clergy member feels it is “reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.”

 

Why do you not think any one is seeing that?

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, webbles said:

Why do you not think any one is seeing that?

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.

[webbles]

24 minutes 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.

According to the news report:

Quote

“The church conveyed that he needs to continue counseling sessions, and that there's no duty to report to authorities due to the clergy-penitent privilege,” Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent John Edwards testified in August 2018.

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

Quote

A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, as a Christian Science practitioner or as a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion.  This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest may otherwise make of the minor.

Also interesting is subsection L:

Quote

In any civil or criminal litigation in which a child's neglect, dependency, physical injury, abuse, child abuse or abandonment is an issue, a member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest shall not, without his consent, be examined as a witness concerning any confession made to him in his role as a member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which he belongs.

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

[webbles]

I found an interesting law review that talks about happens when someone breaks a confidentiality privilege (priest-penitent, doctor-patient, lawyer-client) and discloses to the authorities of a crime outside of the court room.  It's 57 pages and you can read it at https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=law_lawreview.

It mentions a few cases:

* A psychologist learns from a patient that she had murdered her son.  The psychologist breaks the doctor-patient confidence and informs the police.  The police get a confession but during the trial, the defendant tries to strike the confession because it is "tainted".  The court rules that it isn't.

* A minister and certified counselor learns of child abuse from the perpetrator.  The minister/counselor breaks the priest-penitent confidence and informs the police.  The police are able to find evidence but during the trial, the defendant tries to strike all of the evidence because it is "tainted".  The court rules that it isn't.

According to the law review, the main reason why the evidence was not considered tainted is because the breaking of the confidence happened outside of the court room and/or trial.  If the defendant had already been under investigation or in a trial and the confidence was broken, then all evidence connected to it would be tainted.

So, if a bishop felt like he needed to alert the authorities, his breaking of the priest-penitent confidence shouldn't cause future evidence to be tainted (at least in some jurisdictions).  His testimony couldn't be used in court but it could be used to start an investigation.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

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

I wonder if this was also explained to the bishops by the hotline (we only have the secondhand report of one agent who appears to have one likely short given the limited details he shared interview with either bishop and he did leave out some important relevant imo details until pushed on them by the attorney as in his client trying to share corrected information she remembered with another agent who was in her ward after the free trial).

Knowing the mother's reaction to shut down any interference by others as well as what sounds to me like basic refusal to discuss it any more than she had to in the counseling sessions and likely knowing her emphatic denials of any abuse to questioning by her closest friend (visiting/Primary teacher likely shared concerns about family with leadership, probably other asked her as well since they were ready to help her leave), the bishops could have reasonably assumed the woman and kids would deny it if questioned by police (as she in fact did to the extent she could even after he was arrested for sometime, insisting she had no knowledge of the sexual abuse, etc). Given what he had confessed to in the sessions (oral), they might have also assumed there might be no definite physical evidence of rape. 

They may have therefore assumed it might be possible the only evidence would be their report of the confession and they likely would not be able to testify.  

He had confessed to recording it originally, he might have told the bishop he erased it or that it would never be found.  He obviously put extreme pressure on his wife and kids not to say anything, I just can't conceive he wouldn't try to prevent the bishop and others from contacting police.  I can see the agent leaving out this info if told him by the bishop as irrelevant in his view to his report on whether or not the mother had actual knowledge prior to the arrrest ( the point of reporting the bishops' knowledge) and there would be no need for the attorney for the mom to bring it out in the presentencing hearing. 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not Arizona law! 

I don't think you can assume this, there may be or have been conditions attached.  I see it as a definite possibility, but would like to know from an attorney what the Arizona law was in 2010-2012 and if it was truly as simple as 'if the bishops wanted to report it they could'.  

Webbles appears to have found one of the conditions...they could report, but not testify.  This raises a big issue for me if accurate.

If the bishops were fearful there would be no other evidence available (the man was an arrogant ******* by all reports and I can see him bragging he was untouchable as a law enforcement officer), they may have worried sharing the confession would put the family in extreme danger.  If he was so easily admitting multiple times of abuse and likely acting as if it was nonconsequential (since this is how he acted later about having the "perfect life"), I can see that being part of a "and you can't do anything about because she isn't going to say anything because she knows better/doesn't care" or "you can put me in prison, but when I get out you and they will be dead".  He had to be saying something in all those sessions beside admitting he did it.  There seems little reason to see him as changing over the years that much, except for getting more out of control according to the friend.  His affairs were a longtime thing for example, iirc (he had been suspended at work for lending his car to smuggle to an illegal he was having an affair with according to the friend).

The friend said his violent temper was well known, he had been fired by the Patrol for threatening a terroristic act and she was preparing for the day she needed to take him out at either work or church and testified he would have followed his wife if she tried to leave him and kill the family.  Makes me wonder the way she talked if she was so certain of it, that she figured she would get an opportunity to shoot him prior to having to leave the family with others or if she figured it was inevitable for him to kill his family so it was still better odds to leave and hope police would be able to protect them.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Calm

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think you can assume this, there may be or have been conditions attached.  I see it as a definite possibility, but would like to know from an attorney what the Arizona law was in 2010-2012 and if it was truly as simple as 'if the bishops wanted to report it they could'. 

Here's the law from 2010: https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2010/title13/13-3620.html. The same website has it for 2010-2012 as well as a few other years: https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/. The sections talking clergy appear to be similar between 2010 and today.

While I was trying to find earlier versions of the law, I happened to come across a lawsuit from the 1988 that involved the church and child abuse.  You can see the legal opinion from an appeals court related to this case at https://casetext.com/case/church-of-jesus-christ-v-superior-court.

In the case, a stake president heard about a possible child abuse and asked the bishop to confront the man.  The man confessed to his bishop and was excommunicated.  The stake president then alerted the Arizona authorities per the code 13-3620(A).  The opinion quotes sections A, G, and C.  Section A from 1988 doesn't appear to have the line that allows clergy to not alert like Section A of today.  But there is an ellipsis so it might be skipping that part.  Sections G and C from 1988 are similar to section L of today, though.

Interestingly, this old case might impact the current lawsuit against the bishops.  The 1988 case was around the issue of when priest-penitent confidence is waived.  The perpetrator in that case had apparently also communicated several years earlier with two bishops and a stake counselor related with the child abuse.  After he was arrested, he confessed to the abuse and told the authorities of those conversations.  A victim filed a civil lawsuit against him and against the 2 bishops and 1 stake counselor for negligence.  The church argued that any conversations between the perpetrator and the church officials was confidential and could not be disclosed.  The final court opinion was that the perpetrator had waived the confidentiality when he told the authorities about the conversations and what was contained in them.  I don't know if the current perpetrator did any confession before he committed suicide but the wife appears to have spoken a little about the conversations with the bishop.  So any conversation where the wife was present might have the confidentiality waived.  But conversations with just the perpetrator might still be confidential and it would be against the law to force the bishops to testify.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, webbles said:

The church argued that any conversations between the perpetrator and the church officials was confidential and could not be disclosed.  The final court opinion was that the perpetrator had waived the confidentiality when he told the authorities about the conversations and what was contained in them. 

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.