Mormon church sued over not reporting father's abuse

[mrmarklin]

Anybody with $150 can sue anyone else and allege all kinds of horrible things..  Let's wait for the facts to come out before deciding if the Church has any liability.

[Stargazer]

On 12/10/2020 at 11:17 PM, mrmarklin said:

Anybody with $150 can sue anyone else and allege all kinds of horrible things..  Let's wait for the facts to come out before deciding if the Church has any liability.

Why?  It is so much more fun to make hasty judgements while not in possession of all the facts of a case!  

[Ipod Touch]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:35 PM, JAHS said:

when he and the wife so desperately want to give him a chance to repent

This isn't how it works.

This man committed grave sins against innocent kids. I understand that legally both the Bishop and the wife are protected by privileged and thus not technically required to report the abuse. But what mother knowingly allows her kids to be harmed?  I simply cannot comprehend this. Perhaps she was also being abused and felt that she couldn't report the crimes.  But absent that, I really don't know how a mother could let this go on.

[Ipod Touch]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:35 PM, JAHS said:

Warr knew of problems in the Adams household through her role as a visiting teacher, as well as through her friendship with Leizza Adams.

She is legally obligated to report child abuse, no?

[webbles]

49 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

But what mother knowingly allows her kids to be harmed?  I simply cannot comprehend this.

Same reasons for "what father knowingly allows his kids to be harmed".  Mothers are not all perfect nor all good.  We generally hear of issues where it is the father in the wrong but there are definitely mothers that harm their children or allow it to occur.  And sometimes these mothers consent to the harm of their children or even actively involve themselves.  That isn't to say that this particular mother consented, allowed, participated, etc.  I hope that either she didn't know or she was unable to prevent her husband or seek help.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

She is legally obligated to report child abuse, no?

She only suspected it, she had no proof. The kids said nothing, the mon strenuously denied it, she saw nothing firsthand. It was just strange behaviour, kids wearing long sleeves to church all the time, never saying anything about the dad. 

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

That isn't to say that this particular mother consented, allowed, participated, etc.  I hope that either she didn't know or she was unable to prevent her husband or seek help.

She admitted to beating the children herself because he gave her a choice of him or her doing it and she figured she would be ‘gentler’.  When asked how she should discipline her children after two years iirc of parent classes, she said she would give them vinegar until they threw up. She consented out of fear (he beat and raped her as well she claims and I see no reason to not believe her), allowed it and participated and was also dismissive of it, telling the older girl even after it all came out and there was video that it was nonsense for the girl to say she was raped. Mother has definite mental and emotional issues.  The father was away from home for three months while her friend begged her to leave and offered protection (she was border patrol as he was and ready to shoot him when he lost it as she figured was inevitable).  It is very difficult to understand her thought process. A very broken woman.  

Edited December 21, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/10/2020 at 4:17 PM, mrmarklin said:

Anybody with $150 can sue anyone else and allege all kinds of horrible things..  Let's wait for the facts to come out before deciding if the Church has any liability.

Trust me: It doesn't even take a lawsuit to allege all kinds of horrible things, to (attempt to) destroy someone's reputation, to (attempt to) affect his relationships with co-workers and supervisors adversely, and to affect his work environment adversely otherwise.  #Metoo!  #BelieveWomen!

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

Same reasons for "what father knowingly allows his kids to be harmed".  Mothers are not all perfect nor all good.  We generally hear of issues where it is the father in the wrong but there are definitely mothers that harm their children or allow it to occur.  And sometimes these mothers consent to the harm of their children or even actively involve themselves.  That isn't to say that this particular mother consented, allowed, participated, etc.  I hope that either she didn't know or she was unable to prevent her husband or seek help.

Yes, they do.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Trust me: It doesn't even take a lawsuit to allege all kinds of horrible things, to (attempt to) destroy someone's reputation, to (attempt to) affect his relationships with co-workers and supervisors adversely, and to affect his work environment adversely otherwise.  #Metoo!  #BelieveWomen!

This was happening long before the MeToo movement.  And plenty of women were destroyed by rumors the reason they got jobs, etc was because of sleeping with the boss, that they had affairs, or being labeled a ———, sex tapes.  It is not unique to men to be susceptible.   

Edited December 21, 2020 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

This was happening long before the MeToo movement.  And plenty of women were destroyed by rumors the reason they got jobs, etc was because of sleeping with the boss, that they had affairs, or being labeled a ———, sex tapes.  It is not unique to men to be susceptible.   

I won't argue the fact that it's not unique to men, but it's one thing to talk about it in the abstract: It's quite another to talk about it when it happens to oneself, and, unfortunately, I do have personal experience with that.

[Meadowchik]

There was more than ample information known and disclosed outside a confessional context to require reporting:

Quote

 

Cadigan said it is a fallacy that clergy cannot report abuse.

"It's a complete lie. Nothing will happen to them and there is no civil consequence. The have immunity to report this," Cadigan said.

According to the lawsuit, Adams first confessed the sexual abuse of a female relative — Jane Doe in the suit — to his bishop in 2011 or 2012. Another daughter was born after the confession, who was also abused and even raped as an infant and recorded. Cadigan said that not only should the crimes have been reported immediately, even if there was confession privilege, but that silence was broken long before the arrest by Homeland Security.

"Numerous members of the Mormon Church who held various offices knew of Paul’s abuse of Plaintiffs, as they would be apprised at weekly meetings of various ongoing issues with members within the Bisbee Ward," the lawsuit states.

Cadigan said any notion of secrecy was erased when Paul Adams was excommunicated and "the Defendants were aware that any alleged 'privilege' was waived by Paul when he disseminated the videos and pictures on the internet and shared with others."

The first bishop was also the family physician, giving him a further responsibility to report, according to Cardigan.

"All this bishop would have had to do is get counseling for these kids and let those counselors report it. Why didn't he do that? How could he live with himself?" Cadigan said.

The suit said the bishop closed his medical practice after his failure to report became public. Knowledge of the abuse came from other places than just confession, according to Cadigan. The suit states sex toys, lubrication and pornography were visible in the house to anyone in the home, including the visiting teacher named in the lawsuit who was there often and allegedly helped shred family documents after Paul Adams was arrested.

 

https://kutv.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-against-church-for-recommending-2-arizona-bishops-not-report-child-rapes-12-18-2020?fbclid=IwAR3VTXXPxK0YNaNsxGdbY-G9fCybEvAENd2BLfPmKifMG4AcRoHdvp88wO4

 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There was more than ample information known and disclosed outside a confessional context to require reporting:

https://kutv.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-against-church-for-recommending-2-arizona-bishops-not-report-child-rapes-12-18-2020?fbclid=IwAR3VTXXPxK0YNaNsxGdbY-G9fCybEvAENd2BLfPmKifMG4AcRoHdvp88wO4

 

My understanding is that lawsuits can make claims without having to prove them until they get into court, so I would like to see documentation outside the lawsuit itself. The court documents I read did not have the specifics claimed here and from what I remember such claims are contradicted by the testimony of the sister minister. Of course, she has reason to present a more favorable view, but I see no reason yet to privilege the lawsuit account over her in court testimony.  I am basing my current position on the documents I read of testimonies in the hearings.  
 

I am not defending the bishops, but again I don’t think we have heard from enough from the defense for them to make a fair judgment. At least with the first, it will need to be a very significant defense for me. For the second, I am iffy on as he sounds like he had no direct contact with the father outside of him occasionally attending church. There was nothing said about him going to the home. The sister minister said the mother had few visitors and don’t remember her saying the bishop was one of them let in the door.  

Edited December 22, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There was more than ample information known and disclosed outside a confessional context to require reporting:

https://kutv.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-against-church-for-recommending-2-arizona-bishops-not-report-child-rapes-12-18-2020?fbclid=IwAR3VTXXPxK0YNaNsxGdbY-G9fCybEvAENd2BLfPmKifMG4AcRoHdvp88wO4

 

I'm livid. 

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm livid. 

At who?

 

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

There was more than ample information known and disclosed outside a confessional context to require reporting:

https://kutv.com/news/local/lawsuit-filed-against-church-for-recommending-2-arizona-bishops-not-report-child-rapes-12-18-2020?fbclid=IwAR3VTXXPxK0YNaNsxGdbY-G9fCybEvAENd2BLfPmKifMG4AcRoHdvp88wO4

 

Where?

[webbles]

 

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

The first bishop was also the family physician, giving him a further responsibility to report, according to Cardigan.

 

If that is true, then I think it actually hurts their case.  Because as a doctor, he doesn't have any clergy-protection.  He would be a mandatory reporter and so he would definitely have reported it.  So, I would bet that the abuse wasn't as obvious as they are alleging.  I would bet that the bishop, as either the bishop or as the doctor, didn't know there was child abuse.

The other things they mention in that article also don't give enough information to show that the bishop and others knew about the abuse.

[The Nehor]

I love the idea that somehow if the Bishop had got the kids counseling the abuse all would have come out. That is laughably naive.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I love the idea that somehow if the Bishop had got the kids counseling the abuse all would have come out. That is laughably naive.

Or that somehow the Bishop could force the family into counseling. 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

At who?

 

Where?

At who: Livid at how the church's lawyers handled the case.

Where: In front of your eyes!

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Tacenda

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I love the idea that somehow if the Bishop had got the kids counseling the abuse all would have come out. That is laughably naive.

The requirement to report only depends upon a mandated reporter suspecting neglect or no accidental injury. So was the ward sharing common information about such suspicions? They didn't need to know the worst of the abuse in order for a mandated reporter to be required to report. 

I do think that a competent counselor has a reasonable chance of developing suspicion of neglect or non accidental injury if they conduct regular therapy sessions for highly traumatised children.

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

At who: Livid at how the church's lawyers handled the case.

Where: In front of your eyes!

 

I must have gone blind at some point and didn’t notice.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The requirement to report only depends upon a mandated reporter suspecting neglect or no accidental injury. So was the ward sharing common information about such suspicions? They didn't need to know the worst of the abuse in order for a mandated reporter to be required to report. 

I do think that a competent counselor has a reasonable chance of developing suspicion of neglect or non accidental injury if they conduct regular therapy sessions for highly traumatised children.

If the bishop shared some information with the Ward Council (probably little information) that falls under privilege and anyone reporting it could be sued. The lawyers claiming there is no threat under Arizona law for reporting in spite of penitent laws are wrong. The abuser could sue and win.

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If the bishop shared some information with the Ward Council (probably little information) that falls under privilege and anyone reporting it could be sued. The lawyers claiming there is no threat under Arizona law for reporting in spite of penitent laws are wrong. The abuser could sue and win.

Or, if it was common knowledge among various ward leaders that abuse or neglect was suspected, then priest-penitent privilege does not protect the bishop or any mandated reporter just because they have evidence of abuse from the abuser himself.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Or, if it was common knowledge among various ward leaders that abuse or neglect was suspected, then priest-penitent privilege does not protect the bishop or any mandated reporter just because they have evidence of abuse from the abuser himself.

One would think they would say that if that were the case. It would make the case more convincing.....against the ward members.......who are not a party in the suit.

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

One would think they would say that if that were the case. It would make the case more convincing.....against the ward members.......who are not a party in the suit.

The visiting teacher is named in the lawsuit with the bishops and according to the article I posted they are considering naming other ward members.