What a Nightmare!

[Calm]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So many crimes have been stopped, sooner than child abuse it seems. If animals are abused animal control or the police come in

You generally only hear about crimes when police or other authorities come in. And most crimes don’t end up  years later in newsworthy lawsuits if they aren’t reported early on. This can make it seem abuse cases are at a higher rate of neglect than other crimes, but more than likely they are not. 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

I agree. The predator has given up his right to be considered first or equally imo when they engage in such harm of another human being, though their needs should be considered after the victims. And give the best research apparently is that such a privilege likely leads to more victims being found, at this time I think clergy-penitent privilege should stay intact.  
 

Also, ensuring those with tendencies who have not given in to abusing others yet have available avenues to help them to never become predators often requires predators to have protections that may prevent victims from getting help.  This help can prevent more victims by preventing more predators, which is even better imo than being able to help them after damage is done.  Thus it is a very good thing for both potential victims and potential abusers. I wish more, much more was done in this area. 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

The judge seemed bewildered the bishops hadn’t reported.  

I think I may have missed this part of the exchange. This would be in relation to the investigation of the bishops' actions?

 

Quote

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?

Possibly. Or perhaps the judge is aware of additional information - information that perhaps was never disclosed by the bishops to church legal (e.g., a pattern of continuing, ongoing abuse as opposed to only a confession of prior abuse). 

 

Quote

Just to clarify...

What are the implications in your view for the investigation?  

Which investigation? I thought the perpetrator hanged himself already. 

 

Quote

Is it only not being able to testify or will it possibly taint evidence uncovered found through the sharing of info by the clergy. 

Well, not being able to testify is potentially a pretty big deal - especially if the police aren't able to prove the case otherwise.

Take a hypothetical example not too distant from the case at hand, one where you have a pedophile abusing infants who are obviously incapable of testifying themselves. If law enforcement is unable to uncover any other evidence, the guy is likely going to walk away; and he'll be on his way with a nice little tutorial on how to better avoid getting caught in the future. 

For those who are in the 'think of the children' camp, I don't see how they manage to overlook these kinds of potential consequences when brandishing their arguments in favor of mandatory reporting. How would they feel if they reported someone to the police - someone known to be guilty - yet their communication to the authorities ultimately ends up in helping a known predator escape  prosecution and potentially enables him/her to more effectively perpetrate abuse in the future. 

 

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

That would account for the potential loophole with respect to having the spouse be present for the counseling sessions. It would be reasonable to assume spousal privilege would apply to her, so the clergy-penitent privilege would remain in effect. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

I don't think so.  Somewhere, somehow, one must come clean.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

This would be in relation to the investigation of the bishops' actions?

He just mentions it as an aside during the sentencing part, how if the mom had been willing to say something this horrific abuse wouldn’t have happened for so long and then he added the bishops could have done something in a sentence or two. I can find it on the transcript if you want.  I am reading tone into it, of course. 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Which investigation? I thought the perpetrator hanged himself already. 

correction, that was not what I was thinking. Any general investigation.  It appears from what webbles posted fruit of the poisonous tree doesn’t apply, just no testifying. But I am wondering if a different part of the law covered tainting.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calm

[alter idem]

The laws are different for different states, countries, and that creates a quagmire for the church regarding confession to Church authorities. If reporting is optional, as in Arizona, there's no legal requirement to obligate Bishops to break that confidentiality unless they want to take responsibility themselves and likely be embroiled in a legal mess they didn't sign up for that brings all kinds of fallout.  It makes Bishops more isolated and reticent, or complacent, imo, if they call church lawyers and are essentially told 'you have no obligation to report that ', no wonder some choose to stay silent and rationalize what happens later by using this to salve their conscience. 

Some are concerned that requiring Bishops to report confessed crimes will keep criminals from confessing. I'm not sure this should be given much weight, since the question to be asked is;. why are they confessing?  Some confessors want a form of absolution without the consequences, they don’t really want to go through the full repentance process, but instead want to quiet their own conscience, lessen their own guilt, as they continue to commit crimes. They won't  confess to their criminal behavior; that goes beyond their purpose for confessing because they aren't convinced they did something criminal.   I think, psychologically,  for these kinds of confessors, it's just another form of manipulation on the perpetrator's part. (they are expert at manipulation) it essentially spreads the guilt around to others.

I see no reason when a crime is confessed to, a Bishop cannot demand that a confessor go to the authorities or sanction the Bishop reporting it, as part of the repentance process. If the person refuses, then the charade ends, as they don't really want to truly repent and change with the help of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   I wonder if informed the confessor refused to tell the police,  if church lawyers would feel more strongly the obligation to report to authorities, so they could investigate.   If church legal knew the man was not willing to go through the actual repentance process, then allowing him to pretend at it makes a mockery of the sincerely repentant and the church process.  Why allow the church to become morally complicit in hiding criminal behavior?  Simply because it's not legally obligated doesn't mean they are not morally obligated. And that's my disappointment with church legal authorities, where I think changes must be made.

I also seriously question the foolhardy decision of the Bishops who thought they were qualified to provide counseling for something as twisted as a father sexually assaulting his little daughter and the mother not being willing or able to leave the marriage, but instead accepted counseling and the responsibility to protect the children, when she obviously wasn't capable of protecting herself.  It's clear from what I read, this was a seriously dysfunctional family which demanded intervention. I believe there may have been some possibilities to change this outcome if wiser decisions had been made, but keeping it 'in house', not even trying to get professionals involved, was a terrible decision. That's on the heads of those two Bishops.  To think it was handled this way for years, to the point where the new baby girl was sexually abused as well, before anything was done to stop it, is beyond me.

[Calm]

Quote

I also seriously question the foolhardy decision of the Bishops who thought they were qualified to provide counseling for something as twisted as a father sexually assaulting his little daughter and the mother not being willing or able to leave the marriage, but instead accepted counseling and the responsibility to protect the children, when she obviously wasn't capable of protecting herself.  It's clear from what I read, this was a seriously dysfunctional family which demanded intervention. Ibelieve there may have been some possibilities to change this outcome if wiser decisions had beenmade, but keeping it 'in house', not even trying to get professionals involved, was a terrible decision. That's on the heads of those two Bishops.  To think it was handled this way for years, to the point where the new baby girl was sexually abused as well, before anything was done to stop it, is beyond me.

We have no clue what the bishops attempted to do beyond a report from the mother who had obvious difficulties in communication and was known to present things in ways to protect herself and downplay events even when there was no legal need (telling her daughter after both parents were arrested iirc that it was nonsense for her to say she was raped) and a few sentences from the homeland agent who interviewed them once and asked them one or two questions if the report was complete, which imo it likely wasn’t as it wasn’t in regards to something else.  It didn’t need to be for the purpose of the hearing. 

Given the bishop had excommunicated the husband, they had no other power over him.  He rarely went to church. He had numerous affairs.  Seems no desire to be rebaptized. He did not seem to have respect for authority as reported by the BP friend. So no way to pressure him.

The mother...threaten her with excommunication if she didn’t remove the kids when church was the only social outlet the husband allowed her to have without him?  Seems like that could have backfired big time, likely removing kids from the influence of others.  

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calm

[bsjkki]

15 minutes ago, alter idem said:

The laws are different for different states, countries, and that creates a quagmire for the church regarding confession to Church authorities. If reporting is optional, as in Arizona, there's no legal requirement to obligate Bishops to break that confidentiality unless they want to take responsibility themselves and likely be embroiled in a legal mess they didn't sign up for that brings all kinds of fallout.  It makes Bishops more isolated and reticent, or complacent, imo, if they call church lawyers and are essentially told 'you have no obligation to report that ', no wonder some choose to stay silent and rationalize what happens later by using this to salve their conscience. 

Some are concerned that requiring Bishops to report confessed crimes will keep criminals from confessing. I'm not sure this should be given much weight, since the question to be asked is;. why are they confessing?  Some confessors want a form of absolution without the consequences, they don’t really want to go through the full repentance process, but instead want to quiet their own conscience, lessen their own guilt, as they continue to commit crimes. They won't  confess to their criminal behavior; that goes beyond their purpose for confessing because they aren't convinced they did something criminal.   I think, psychologically,  for these kinds of confessors, it's just another form of manipulation on the perpetrator's part. (they are expert at manipulation) it essentially spreads the guilt around to others.

I see no reason when a crime is confessed to, a Bishop cannot demand that a confessor go to the authorities or sanction the Bishop reporting it, as part of the repentance process. If the person refuses, then the charade ends, as they don't really want to truly repent and change with the help of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   I wonder if informed the confessor refused to tell the police,  if church lawyers would feel more strongly the obligation to report to authorities, so they could investigate.   If church legal knew the man was not willing to go through the actual repentance process, then allowing him to pretend at it makes a mockery of the sincerely repentant and the church process.  Why allow the church to become morally complicit in hiding criminal behavior?  Simply because it's not legally obligated doesn't mean they are not morally obligated. And that's my disappointment with church legal authorities, where I think changes must be made.

I also seriously question the foolhardy decision of the Bishops who thought they were qualified to provide counseling for something as twisted as a father sexually assaulting his little daughter and the mother not being willing or able to leave the marriage, but instead accepted counseling and the responsibility to protect the children, when she obviously wasn't capable of protecting herself.  It's clear from what I read, this was a seriously dysfunctional family which demanded intervention. I believe there may have been some possibilities to change this outcome if wiser decisions had been made, but keeping it 'in house', not even trying to get professionals involved, was a terrible decision. That's on the heads of those two Bishops.  To think it was handled this way for years, to the point where the new baby girl was sexually abused as well, before anything was done to stop it, is beyond me.

Perfectly said.

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

correction, that was not what I was thinking. Any general investigation.  It appears from what webbles posted fruit of the poisonous tree doesn’t apply, just no testifying. But I am wondering if a different part of the law covered tainting.

I think it depends. I believe one of the cases webbles mentioned said something about had there been a violation of privilege after the investigation had already begun, that might have caused problems. You've got to get into the weeds of the rules of evidence for the jurisdiction to start sorting all of that out. 

 

[rongo]

51 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Perfectly said.

Strongly seconded. 

It is beyond frustrating to have it repeated, "You have no legal obligation to report that," even when asked, "What about a moral or ethical obligation?" (that's happened to me). The hotline exists to protect the Church and check boxes, not really to protect victims. You get that feeling when you call.

And, the hotline and the attorneys aren't perfect, either, even as legal robots. I was released two years ago (well, I moved two years ago. I actually wasn't released until November 2018, but that's a separate issue). I got a call from the hotline two weeks ago about a case from 2-3 years ago. I and our stake president had strongly recommended annotation, and we were told via the hotline that it would be done. It had not been done, and 2-3 years removed, they were wondering what the rationale was. So, I told them over again. They said they would have the man's bishop call me to discuss. When he calls me (this was last week sometime), he said that the man in question has been doing great, and had just been ordained an Elder in fact. When I told him about the four victim families, the recorded confession (surreptitious, but legal in the state it was recorded without his knowledge), and the detailed confession via text to one of the victim's mothers, together with in-person confession to three of the four victim parents --- he made it clear that he and his stake president don't see a need to to address this further. I was incredulous. He lied to both of them in interviews, obviously, and given the number of times and the circumstances (premeditation involved), he's not magically "all better and ready to move on." 

So, no, I don't see the hotline as a panacea or even terribly useful in helping a bishop do the right thing. It checks legal boxes for the Church and gives cover and deniability. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, alter idem said:

Some are concerned that requiring Bishops to report confessed crimes will keep criminals from confessing. I'm not sure this should be given much weight, since the question to be asked is;. why are they confessing?  Some confessors want a form of absolution without the consequences, they don’t really want to go through the full repentance process, but instead want to quiet their own conscience, lessen their own guilt, as they continue to commit crimes. They won't  confess to their criminal behavior; that goes beyond their purpose for confessing because they aren't convinced they did something criminal.   I think, psychologically,  for these kinds of confessors, it's just another form of manipulation on the perpetrator's part. (they are expert at manipulation) it essentially spreads the guilt around to others.

This encapsulates the mindset and the "lay of the land" with serious crime confessors pretty well. Most do feel bad, which is why they are beginning to coming clean to their bishop (sort of --- it's common for more shoes to drop and more skeletons to be found as you dig --- it is very common for the first confession not to be a full one). But, I think most really expect it to begin and end with getting it off their chest, and have no idea of the years of difficult repentance/probation in the Church, and the legal ramifications of making amends if they are serious about it. Many really do have a simplistic view of a Catholic confessional where they will be told to say three Hail Mary's and be beaten with a few stripes, and they'll be good to go. 

I don't think fewer will confess if the Church more actively required them to cooperate with the legal system. I think most would think it would never get that far, unless we start posting Kirton-McConkie waivers advising them that this is possible. Maybe they'll want to cook up some legalese along those lines. 

Quote

I see no reason when a crime is confessed to, a Bishop cannot demand that a confessor go to the authorities or sanction the Bishop reporting it, as part of the repentance process. If the person refuses, then the charade ends, as they don't really want to truly repent and change with the help of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   I wonder if informed the confessor refused to tell the police,  if church lawyers would feel more strongly the obligation to report to authorities, so they could investigate.   If church legal knew the man was not willing to go through the actual repentance process, then allowing him to pretend at it makes a mockery of the sincerely repentant and the church process.  Why allow the church to become morally complicit in hiding criminal behavior?  Simply because it's not legally obligated doesn't mean they are not morally obligated. And that's my disappointment with church legal authorities, where I think changes must be made.

I agree. I disagree with a) the sacred sacrament confessional mindset, and b) those who insist that this will lead to a flood of tainted/poisoned prosecutions. I think it's as simple as I've wargamed in my mind (happily, never having faced it live), where after the ecclesiastical counseling about what needs to happen to atone and be forgiven, you lay it on the table that he must cooperate with the police. This should come from the person, but if he refuses, then I will. But, it should be you, if you are serious and honest about wanting to make this right. Are you? Do you really want to ultimately be forgiven and clean from this? And if so, the victims and their families need confidence, peace of mind, and closure. Are you really telling me you want to keep twisting the knife into them by dragging your feet on this? 

I think some/many would agree to turn themselves in, and others would probably want to lawyer up and clam up at that point. But, win, lose, or draw, the shot would be fired across the bow from the Church's standpoint, at any rate. 

A separate challenge is the Stockholm Syndrome where victims and families refuse to take themselves out of situations, even with help. We see this with battered women who repeatedly refuse to press charges (my wife and I worked with a woman like this when we were first married, and it was heart-breaking. She came beaten up at work all the time, but not once was he charged, although he was arrested a couple of times. When victims of age won't testify, that's pretty much that). Some families make it hard for leaders and police/social workers to help them. I think this will always be with us to an extent. 

Edited April 28, 2020 by rongo

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It is beyond frustrating to have it repeated, "You have no legal obligation to report that," even when asked, "What about a moral or ethical obligation?" (that's happened to me). The hotline exists to protect the Church and check boxes, not really to protect victims. You get that feeling when you call.

It seems to me that the purpose of a legal hotline should be to provide you with legal advise.

Moral and ethical advice falls soundly within the purview of your ecclesiastical leaders (e.g., your stake president), not the church's retained lawyers. 

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, alter idem said:

The laws are different for different states, countries, and that creates a quagmire for the church regarding confession to Church authorities. If reporting is optional, as in Arizona, there's no legal requirement to obligate Bishops to break that confidentiality unless they want to take responsibility themselves and likely be embroiled in a legal mess they didn't sign up for that brings all kinds of fallout.  It makes Bishops more isolated and reticent, or complacent, imo, if they call church lawyers and are essentially told 'you have no obligation to report that ', no wonder some choose to stay silent and rationalize what happens later by using this to salve their conscience. 

Some are concerned that requiring Bishops to report confessed crimes will keep criminals from confessing. I'm not sure this should be given much weight, since the question to be asked is;. why are they confessing?  Some confessors want a form of absolution without the consequences, they don’t really want to go through the full repentance process, but instead want to quiet their own conscience, lessen their own guilt, as they continue to commit crimes. They won't  confess to their criminal behavior; that goes beyond their purpose for confessing because they aren't convinced they did something criminal.   I think, psychologically,  for these kinds of confessors, it's just another form of manipulation on the perpetrator's part. (they are expert at manipulation) it essentially spreads the guilt around to others.

I see no reason when a crime is confessed to, a Bishop cannot demand that a confessor go to the authorities or sanction the Bishop reporting it, as part of the repentance process. If the person refuses, then the charade ends, as they don't really want to truly repent and change with the help of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   I wonder if informed the confessor refused to tell the police,  if church lawyers would feel more strongly the obligation to report to authorities, so they could investigate.   If church legal knew the man was not willing to go through the actual repentance process, then allowing him to pretend at it makes a mockery of the sincerely repentant and the church process.  Why allow the church to become morally complicit in hiding criminal behavior?  Simply because it's not legally obligated doesn't mean they are not morally obligated. And that's my disappointment with church legal authorities, where I think changes must be made.

I also seriously question the foolhardy decision of the Bishops who thought they were qualified to provide counseling for something as twisted as a father sexually assaulting his little daughter and the mother not being willing or able to leave the marriage, but instead accepted counseling and the responsibility to protect the children, when she obviously wasn't capable of protecting herself.  It's clear from what I read, this was a seriously dysfunctional family which demanded intervention. I believe there may have been some possibilities to change this outcome if wiser decisions had been made, but keeping it 'in house', not even trying to get professionals involved, was a terrible decision. That's on the heads of those two Bishops.  To think it was handled this way for years, to the point where the new baby girl was sexually abused as well, before anything was done to stop it, is beyond me.

This a thousand times!

[rongo]

29 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It seems to me that the purpose of a legal hotline should be to provide you with legal advise.

Moral and ethical advice falls soundly within the purview of your ecclesiastical leaders (e.g., your stake president), not the church's retained lawyers. 

Of course. The problem is when that legal advice runs counter to conscience and common sense (and yes, I am aware of the theoretical possibility of "tainting" a prosecution). 

I never expected to get moral or ethical advice from the hotline; it's just off-putting to only have a legal mantra repeated when you ask, rhetorically, in exasperation, what about the moral and ethical obligations. 

[rongo]

From our attorneys here, can the Church settle a claim against the two bishops? I would guess no, since it is they and not the Church being sued. I'm hoping (but am afraid not) that they aren't on an island by themselves in this. 

[alter idem]

On 4/25/2020 at 9:58 PM, 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.

Whether or not it's admissable in court shouldn't really matter as far as notifying authorities of a crime. I think under Arizona law, bishops had the option to report the alleged sexual abuse which I assume means they would not be subject to liability. 

[alter idem]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

We have no clue what the bishops attempted to do beyond a report from the mother who had obvious difficulties in communication and was known to present things in ways to protect herself and downplay events even when there was no legal need (telling her daughter after both parents were arrested iirc that it was nonsense for her to say she was raped) and a few sentences from the homeland agent who interviewed them once and asked them one or two questions if the report was complete, which imo it likely wasn’t as it wasn’t in regards to something else.  It didn’t need to be for the purpose of the hearing. 

Given the bishop had excommunicated the husband, they had no other power over him.  He rarely went to church. He had numerous affairs.  Seems no desire to be rebaptized. He did not seem to have respect for authority as reported by the BP friend. So no way to pressure him.

The mother...threaten her with excommunication if she didn’t remove the kids when church was the only social outlet the husband allowed her to have without him?  Seems like that could have backfired big time, likely removing kids from the influence of others.  

If these two Bishops are being sued, they'll have a chance to explain themselves and why they made the decisions they did. Maybe there will be some rational explanation for not involving professional counselors or not insisting on the extended families being consulted and made aware the wife needed help. I think these Bishops were woefully out of their league and I'd like to know why they failed to see that. How could they not recognize the wife needed help too, she needed private professional evaluation, counseling and intervention due to her own obvious problems.  Just the fact that her husband refused to allow visitors, forced the girls  to dress a certain way and would only allow her to go to church and nowhere else alone, the family situation was one of a sexually abusive man imprisoning his wife and children, abnormal, disturbed, when you throw in the fact the Bishops already knew about the sexual abuse going on. How can this not have been considered unacceptable  to the Bishops? I have a hard time understanding how these Bishops could have chosen to do no more than counsel with the husband and wife, then later, excommunicate him, but yet still not take advantage of the option to report what they knew, at the least, putting it in the hands of law enforcement to deal with. Instead they  left it for authorities to stumble onto it years later after it escalated to more victims and years of abuse. 

 

[alter idem]

Maybe the whole clergy penitent privilege shouldn't be considered a part of lds church confessional processes.  Our Bishops do not absolve sin, that's the holy ghost's job,  that's not their job.  They can put the person right with the church, but they don't themselves remove or wash away sin. In our church system, a bishop serves as a facilitator and counselor in helping a penitent to go through the process of repentance and in the case of criminal behavior,  answering to the law for crimes committed is a vital part of that process in the form of making restitution. It may not involve prison time, that's up to the legal system. But a person who commits a crime should know that in this church,  we honor and  uphold the law of the land, and making restitution by facing legal consequences  is a required step in the process of repentance. Maybe this needs to be emphasized to members and ecclesiastical leaders alike. 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, alter idem said:

. I think these Bishops were woefully out of their league and I'd like to know why they failed to

I think there is a good chance you are right. The first bishop is a medical doctor and perhaps he saw that as enough.
 

The second bishop may not have been aware of details and been told it was resolved by the previous bishop while the wife in interviews with the new bishop assured him all was well. The reason the whole ward more or less could have been ready to help her leave might have been just his well known affairs, but it sounds like his temper may have been as well known. A lot depends on how the grapevine worked. If it worked for the affairs, it seems like it would work for his temper. 
 

Do excommunication records (since he was apparently excommunicated by the first bishop) show why someone is excommunicated as in details?  Would it have show sexual abuse of child as opposed to just a generic abuse of family member?  And would this be available to the second bishop even if he wasn’t working with the father for reinstatement (this seems highly unlikely given the man’s affairs and lack of attendance).

I think the detail that screws up our ability to judge is his known violence. I see it as very easy he threatened the first bishop and likely the second at least knew of it. This guy was willing to threaten his bosses at a federal law enforcement agency.  If he implied to the bishop (as he said at times at work)that any hint of police would lead to him killing his family and maybe ‘taking out’ the bishop and his family as well or other church members and if he bragged about his bosses allowing him to do what he wanted similar to how he bragged about his wife knowing and not caring and the bishop believing there would be little to no evidence (Adams may have told the bishop he destroyed the recording...I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have been careful after the confession to remove evidence and it was the fact nothing was done for years that led him to be so careless), I can see that having a huge effect on whether or not to turn him in. He would obviously know how to get guns as a border patrol, so all he would likely need was his freedom and even if there was some evidence of what he confessed, that likely wouldn’t result in a life sentence for him like the later stuff would. 
 

I cannot imagine having to decide between reporting abuse where I couldn’t be assured kids would be taken away from both parents and hidden in the system so they would hopefully no longer be victimized and having them left in the care of the mother who would likely go to family for help, thus enabling her husband to track them down and kill them. 
 

I am not insisting this is what the bishop had to consider, but given the man’s history as reported by several I would be very, very surprised if threats had not been made. 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 4/27/2020 at 9:46 AM, Tacenda said:

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. 

As someone who has known that children were being abused and also that there was nothing I could do about it short of possibly crippling or murdering the abuser personally I think you live in a fantasy world. If you cannot sleep at night knowing this never work or volunteer in the this field. It will kill you. You also seem to believe that an anonymous report to CPS would stop it. That is very unlikely. They might investigate but unless the abuser REALLY screws that up nothing is likely to come of an anonymous unsubstantiated report.

Animals are abused at a much higher rate than children. That is in no way a solved problem. Also, sad fact: the movement to criminalize child abuse in the US grew out of the earliest animal rights movement. You also seem to believe that an investigation will always find proof. It often does not and CPS has neither the budget nor the legal standing to ensure it does not happen by any means necessary.

[alter idem]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think there is a good chance you are right. The first bishop is a medical doctor and perhaps he saw that as enough.
 

The second bishop may not have been aware of details and been told it was resolved by the previous bishop while the wife in interviews with the new bishop assured him all was well. The reason the whole ward more or less could have been ready to help her leave might have been just his well known affairs, but it sounds like his temper may have been as well known. A lot depends on how the grapevine worked. If it worked for the affairs, it seems like it would work for his temper. 
 

Do excommunication records (since he was apparently excommunicated by the first bishop) show why someone is excommunicated as in details?  Would it have show sexual abuse of child as opposed to just a generic abuse of family member?  And would this be available to the second bishop even if he wasn’t working with the father for reinstatement (this seems highly unlikely given the man’s affairs and lack of attendance).

I think the detail that screws up our ability to judge is his known violence. I see it as very easy he threatened the first bishop and likely the second at least knew of it. This guy was willing to threaten his bosses at a federal law enforcement agency.  If he implied to the bishop (as he said at times at work)that any hint of police would lead to him killing his family and maybe ‘taking out’ the bishop and his family as well or other church members and if he bragged about his bosses allowing him to do what he wanted similar to how he bragged about his wife knowing and not caring and the bishop believing there would be little to no evidence (Adams may have told the bishop he destroyed the recording...I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have been careful after the confession to remove evidence and it was the fact nothing was done for years that led him to be so careless), I can see that having a huge effect on whether or not to turn him in. He would obviously know how to get guns as a border patrol, so all he would likely need was his freedom and even if there was some evidence of what he confessed, that likely wouldn’t result in a life sentence for him like the later stuff would. 
 

I cannot imagine having to decide between reporting abuse where I couldn’t be assured kids would be taken away from both parents and hidden in the system so they would hopefully no longer be victimized and having them left in the care of the mother who would likely go to family for help, thus enabling her husband to track them down and kill them. 
 

I am not insisting this is what the bishop had to consider, but given the man’s history as reported by several I would be very, very surprised if threats had not been made. 

Perpetrators will use the threat of violence against their families or against others to try to cow others into doing nothing, into becoming complicit by knowingly turning a blind eye or hiding evil behavior.  The threat of killing his family, or killing others is in itself a crime and if he was making threats at work, he should have been reported for that.  I don't know what others would do, but in my opinion, I think morally, it is wrong to let evil stand unopposed.  To allow him to manipulate others into silence, to hide his crimes because he threatened them, that's wrong too and all the more reason for him to be exposed and his crimes reported, including his threats against others. Sometimes we have to make a stand against evil, in all it's forms, and put ourselves at risk.  It isn't easy to do the right thing, and it sometimes comes at a cost.  I guess a person put in this terrible situation would have to determine what they can live with.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, alter idem said:

The laws are different for different states, countries, and that creates a quagmire for the church regarding confession to Church authorities. If reporting is optional, as in Arizona, there's no legal requirement to obligate Bishops to break that confidentiality unless they want to take responsibility themselves and likely be embroiled in a legal mess they didn't sign up for that brings all kinds of fallout.  It makes Bishops more isolated and reticent, or complacent, imo, if they call church lawyers and are essentially told 'you have no obligation to report that ', no wonder some choose to stay silent and rationalize what happens later by using this to salve their conscience. 

Some are concerned that requiring Bishops to report confessed crimes will keep criminals from confessing. I'm not sure this should be given much weight, since the question to be asked is;. why are they confessing?  Some confessors want a form of absolution without the consequences, they don’t really want to go through the full repentance process, but instead want to quiet their own conscience, lessen their own guilt, as they continue to commit crimes. They won't  confess to their criminal behavior; that goes beyond their purpose for confessing because they aren't convinced they did something criminal.   I think, psychologically,  for these kinds of confessors, it's just another form of manipulation on the perpetrator's part. (they are expert at manipulation) it essentially spreads the guilt around to others.

I see no reason when a crime is confessed to, a Bishop cannot demand that a confessor go to the authorities or sanction the Bishop reporting it, as part of the repentance process. If the person refuses, then the charade ends, as they don't really want to truly repent and change with the help of the gospel of Jesus Christ.   I wonder if informed the confessor refused to tell the police,  if church lawyers would feel more strongly the obligation to report to authorities, so they could investigate.   If church legal knew the man was not willing to go through the actual repentance process, then allowing him to pretend at it makes a mockery of the sincerely repentant and the church process.  Why allow the church to become morally complicit in hiding criminal behavior?  Simply because it's not legally obligated doesn't mean they are not morally obligated. And that's my disappointment with church legal authorities, where I think changes must be made.

I also seriously question the foolhardy decision of the Bishops who thought they were qualified to provide counseling for something as twisted as a father sexually assaulting his little daughter and the mother not being willing or able to leave the marriage, but instead accepted counseling and the responsibility to protect the children, when she obviously wasn't capable of protecting herself.  It's clear from what I read, this was a seriously dysfunctional family which demanded intervention. I believe there may have been some possibilities to change this outcome if wiser decisions had been made, but keeping it 'in house', not even trying to get professionals involved, was a terrible decision. That's on the heads of those two Bishops.  To think it was handled this way for years, to the point where the new baby girl was sexually abused as well, before anything was done to stop it, is beyond me.

Oh, we could start reporting things said in confession. We just have to say that confessions and membership councils are not confidential and make them routinely shareable. Then there is no privilege legally. Just make sure you want that done. Then the summons start rolling in as bishops are dragged into divorce courts to tell what they heard. Bishops can announce the sins of the members from the pulpit or tell the local gossip if they get frustrated about a situation. It will be great fun.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do excommunication records (since he was apparently excommunicated by the first bishop) show why someone is excommunicated as in details?  Would it have show sexual abuse of child as opposed to just a generic abuse of family member?  And would this be available to the second bishop even if he wasn’t working with the father for reinstatement (this seems highly unlikely given the man’s affairs and lack of attendance).

Yes, only the current bishop of the ward can access those notes. It used to be you would request a copy of the proceedings be mailed to you from Salt Lake before it went digital. The record of the council is usually pretty general and are instructed to do so. It is nowhere near a court reporter or something of that nature. It should be specific enough to convey the seriousness of the sin though.