Mormon church sued over not reporting father's abuse

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

That should make discovery fun.

[webbles]

5 hours 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.

The law is https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

Quote

Any person who reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of physical injury, abuse, child abuse, a reportable offense or neglect that appears to have been inflicted on the minor by other than accidental means or that is not explained by the available medical history as being accidental in nature or who reasonably believes there has been a denial or deprivation of necessary medical treatment or surgical care or nourishment with the intent to cause or allow the death of an infant who is protected under section 36-2281 shall immediately report or cause reports to be made ...

So, it is "reasonable belief", not "suspecting".  Also, every single person is a mandatory reporter.  That means all of the ward members, all of the neighbors, all of the school teachers, everyone.  Why is it that only the ward would have suspected but on one else?  Why is it that only they are the ones that are being sued and not the school?  If you think it was that obvious, why did no one else report it?  I think it was less obvious than you or the lawsuit is saying.  Is there any proof yet that the bishop even knew about the child abuse?  Is there any proof that anyone knew of it?  Or even had a "reasonable belief"?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

there any proof yet that the bishop even knew about the child abuse?

The Homeland Security agent had one interview with both bishops and reported he was told that the man confessed to the bishop while the other learned of it when he was a bishop and called SLC about it iirc. They did not have the bishops testify at that time and any police or other interviews hadn’t be released yet that I could find. 

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

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.

I wouldn't necessarily read too much into that.  While my own experience with litigation is limited (thank God! ), if one wishes to sue a "deep pocket," one cannot simply name the deep pocket in the suit and be done with it.  One must figure out, according to one's theory of the case, who's in the chain of causality between where the alleged harm occurred and the "deep pocket" and name all of those intermediate parties, as well.  That doesn't necessarily mean, however, that everyone who's named is equally culpable.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

The law is https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

So, it is "reasonable belief", not "suspecting".  Also, every single person is a mandatory reporter.  

Ok, thanks.

5 hours ago, webbles said:

That means all of the ward members, all of the neighbors, all of the school teachers, everyone.  Why is it that only the ward would have suspected but on one else?  Why is it that only they are the ones that are being sued and not the school?  If you think it was that obvious, why did no one else report it?  I think it was less obvious than you or the lawsuit is saying.  Is there any proof yet that the bishop even knew about the child abuse?  Is there any proof that anyone knew of it?  Or even had a "reasonable belief"?

Both bishops testified that they reported the abuse to the church hotline but were instructed to not report to the authorities.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Both bishops testified that they reported the abuse to the church hotline but were instructed to not report to the authorities.

Testified in court or when they were interviewed by the homeland security agent who then testified?  Or something else that is documented and not just claimed in the lawsuit?
 

I am not disputing that this happened, I am just wondering if there is more documentation out there besides the lawsuit claims which may or may not be accurate. 
 

The second bishop told the Homeland Security agent iirc that he was checking on information he learned when he became bishop, so it would not have to be firsthand knowledge. I think that makes a difference, though whether it makes him less culpable depends on conditions I don’t believe we know enough about at this point (such as if the abuse was a factor in the excommunication or if it was the man’s adultery or something else).

Edited December 23, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Testified in court or when they were interviewed by the homeland security agent who then testified?  Or something else that is documented and not just claimed in the lawsuit?
 

From yesterday's article that I linked above:

"Bishops in the Church are instructed to call a 24-hour abuse helpline as soon as abuse is confessed or discovered. Both of the bishops said in court documents that they were advised, after calling the hotline, that there was no need to report the abuse to authorities because discovery of the abuse were privileged confessions as clergy. "

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not disputing that this happened, I am just wondering if there is more documentation out there besides the lawsuit claims which may or may not be accurate. 

 

The second bishop told the Homeland Security agent iirc that he was checking on information he learned when he became bishop, so it would not have to be firsthand knowledge. I think that makes a difference, though whether it makes him less culpable depends on conditions I don’t believe we know enough about at this point (such as if the abuse was a factor in the excommunication or if it was the man’s adultery or something else).

The church statement also clarifies that the bishop did know of abuse but (even if he knew only of a limited nature) he was instructed to not report. If he knew of zero reportable abuse then there would have been no reason for the church to cite priest-penitent privilege as a reason to not report.

From the attorney for the church:

"As clergy, the bishop was required by Arizona law to maintain the confidentiality of the father’s limited confession. Notwithstanding, the bishop took the few details he had and made efforts to protect the children, primarily through the mother. The bishop urged the family to report the abuse or give him consent to do so, but they refused. The bishop also convened a church disciplinary council and condemned the limited conduct he knew of in the strongest terms by excommunicating Mr. Adams from the Church in 2013. It was not until law enforcement made an arrest of the father that the bishop learned of the scope and magnitude of the abuse that far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected."

So with the excommunication the bishop condemned the level of abuse he knew about. How much did he know? That's not clear, but he knew abuse was happening. The abuse in this case is so terribly severe that only a small piece of it can be criminally actionable and obviously reportable. 

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

From the attorney for the church:

Thanks. I hadn’t read that particular article. He provided much more detail this time around, it seems to me....which was wise. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The abuse in this case is so terribly severe that only a small piece of it can be criminally actionable and obviously reportable. 

But the abuse that was confessed to was years back and as far as we know iirc, there is only documented evidence for the severe stuff happened later on.  We have no admission from the father to establish a timeline of his behaviors, how the abuse developed in severity overtime as it likely did.  That he even originally felt the need to confess, whether it slipped out or was intentional because of significant guilt demonstrates imo a very different frame of mind to his later behaviour, including suicide without confessing when he was charged.  The description of his later abuse behaviour (his bragging) as well as his open adultery and physical and verbal violence at work comes across as arrogant and totally lacking in guilt to me.  
 

Plus the mother is suspect as a witness imo due to her inconsistencies and apparently lack of comprehension of the damage that was being inflicted (since she went ahead and beat the children herself under his instruction, dismissed the idea that the eldest had been raped even after it all came out, and thought physical punishment to the level of causing vomiting is acceptable parental discipline even after taking many hours of parenthood classes. I don’t doubt he abused her as well, but I see it as possible she took later levels of abuse and told them as happening as soon as married to justify her own abusive behaviour.

If the father admitted to the original bishop, for example, to watching child p o r n and fondling his daughter once or a few times at the time of his confession and that is all the abuse he admitted to then or ever to the bishop and then in later sessions only admitted to struggling with the porn and thoughts while the mother told the bishop no further abuse was happening, that would match the above statement (child p o r n habit would be enough grounds for excommunication and the fondling is criminal, but if the bishop was assured that had stopped, he may have believed he didn’t have the right to report because of no ongoing abuse).

I would be sort of surprised if it was that minimal given how the original interviews/confessions were presented before, but also not surprised because of how typical it is for even confessed abusers to downplay the severity of their actions. They may admit to abuse, but not fully. I think this is common enough behaviour we should not assume just because the father confessed, he shared full or even many details. 

[Calm]

Just to repeat what I have said in the past...given what I have read in court documents I do believe it is quite possible, even likely in the case of the first bishop that there is culpability for not reporting the abuse...that there was enough known and not just suspected by the first bishop and possibly the second depending on what was shared with him. Assuming the first bishop shared those details with the hotline, I think that would lead to the Church being culpable as well in this case. 
 

Unless the border patrol agent/sister minister lied in court, I find it more difficult to see her as culpable as it does not appear to me that she was made aware of the confession and only had suspicions, even if strong. 

As far as the ward members being generally culpable because the abuse was discussed as a fact in ward councils...I have big doubts about that if the testimony of the sister minister is accurate.  It came across to me as the ward was highly concerned and very willing to help, but it was based on suspicion rather than knowledge of abuse.  Would not be surprised if also a healthy dislike of the father as his temper and adultery appears to have been common knowledge, but that is not abuse of children if they saw the temper only directed towards adults such as the sister minister described.  If they only saw it directed at adults, they may have believed the mother was being abused in spite of her denials and that the children’s behaviour at church (never talking about their dad and likely other stuff I can’t remember) was a result of their awareness of their father abusing their mother.  Also from the description of the mother, a lot of weirdness from the kids could be seen as a result of her own extreme social awkwardness and inability to communicate well. Her public mothering skills were probably quite lacking, but nonabusive.

 I may be projecting onto the ward and sister minister here based on my own experience of a similar family, minus the temper and abuse of the mother as far as I know.  I visit taught the mom for a short time and had one kid in a primary class back in the 80’s, was in the home once iirc, horrible place, reeked of cat urine and the kitchen was filthy and falling apart though the kids were always clean and well behaved at church...I knew the RS was working on that so while I would fantasize about fixing the house up and getting the kids decent bedrooms, it never occurred to me to report it...though I might these days.  The ward arranged for them to move into a nicer home and moved them; there was quite a bit of talk among church members about that disgusting experience...a lot of furniture went straight to the dump. I think my husband helped, I did not for some reason. Iirc she at least was getting parenting/cooking and cleaning instruction.  I am pretty sure the bishop was counseling them as well as the RS President helping out big time with the house issues.  

We took in the oldest son (17 or 18, very immature, but very obsessed with cleanliness...his bedroom has been spotless if poorly furnished) for a summer not long after (we were in the ward for three years and the last summer I was pregnant so I am guessing this all happened the first two years we were there) when it was revealed he had been sexually abused by the father. I believe (it was almost 35 years ago, memory is vague on somethings learned afterwards as the son never talked about it, we just discussed what he was doing and his future plans...he moved to his uncle’s where his older sister already was) the mother kicked the dad out as soon as she learned of it, but that could have just been the story told by her now I can see it with more educated eyes.  It was a shock to me, both parents seemed just weird and childish, self centered rather than twisted.  I thought the dad mentally and emotionally deficient, but had never thought he was twisted that way.  The kids’ socially awkward and withdrawn behaviour was so easily explained to me by the family life I saw, it never needed the addition of sexual abuse to explain it...just incompetent parenting.  So I have my own experience on how easy it is to miss taking that last step to parental criminal behaviour that needs to be reported when other significant issues are involved (as I got the impression from the description of the mom’s lack of certain skills and the home).

At this point I don’t believe there has been enough documented information released  (as opposed to lawsuit claims) on what the bishops and sister minister/primary teacher/coworker knew. That uncertainty due to inadequate imo info is what I am ‘defending’ here. I am not claiming it is unlikely the bishops or Church bear responsibility. I am suggesting we don’t know enough to make a judgment yet in regard to the lawsuit claim. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the abuse that was confessed to was years back and as far as we know iirc, there is only documented evidence for the severe stuff happened later on.  We have no admission from the father to establish a timeline of his behaviors, how the abuse developed in severity overtime as it likely did.  That he even originally felt the need to confess, whether it slipped out or was intentional because of significant guilt demonstrates imo a very different frame of mind to his later behaviour, including suicide without confessing when he was charged.  The description of his later abuse behaviour (his bragging) as well as his open adultery and physical and verbal violence at work comes across as arrogant and totally lacking in guilt to me.  
 

Plus the mother is suspect as a witness imo due to her inconsistencies and apparently lack of comprehension of the damage that was being inflicted (since she went ahead and beat the children herself under his instruction, dismissed the idea that the eldest had been raped even after it all came out, and thought physical punishment to the level of causing vomiting is acceptable parental discipline even after taking many hours of parenthood classes. I don’t doubt he abused her as well, but I see it as possible she took later levels of abuse and told them as happening as soon as married to justify her own abusive behaviour.

If the father admitted to the original bishop, for example, to watching child p o r n and fondling his daughter once or a few times at the time of his confession and that is all the abuse he admitted to then or ever to the bishop and then in later sessions only admitted to struggling with the porn and thoughts while the mother told the bishop no further abuse was happening, that would match the above statement (child p o r n habit would be enough grounds for excommunication and the fondling is criminal, but if the bishop was assured that had stopped, he may have believed he didn’t have the right to report because of no ongoing abuse).

I would be sort of surprised if it was that minimal given how the original interviews/confessions were presented before, but also not surprised because of how typical it is for even confessed abusers to downplay the severity of their actions. They may admit to abuse, but not fully. I think this is common enough behaviour we should not assume just because the father confessed, he shared full or even many details. 

I don't see how dismissing past abuse is acceptable when the minor children are still in the home. Whether they are or are not still in danger is not the bishop's ability to ascertain. 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't see how dismissing past abuse is acceptable when the minor children are still in the home. Whether they are or are not still in danger is not the bishop's ability to ascertain. 

No one is suggesting the bishop has the ability to foresee future harm or that the bishop dismissed the part abuse as acceptable.

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

From yesterday's article that I linked above:

"Bishops in the Church are instructed to call a 24-hour abuse helpline as soon as abuse is confessed or discovered. Both of the bishops said in court documents that they were advised, after calling the hotline, that there was no need to report the abuse to authorities because discovery of the abuse were privileged confessions as clergy. "

The church statement also clarifies that the bishop did know of abuse but (even if he knew only of a limited nature) he was instructed to not report. If he knew of zero reportable abuse then there would have been no reason for the church to cite priest-penitent privilege as a reason to not report.

From the attorney for the church:

"As clergy, the bishop was required by Arizona law to maintain the confidentiality of the father’s limited confession. Notwithstanding, the bishop took the few details he had and made efforts to protect the children, primarily through the mother. The bishop urged the family to report the abuse or give him consent to do so, but they refused. The bishop also convened a church disciplinary council and condemned the limited conduct he knew of in the strongest terms by excommunicating Mr. Adams from the Church in 2013. It was not until law enforcement made an arrest of the father that the bishop learned of the scope and magnitude of the abuse that far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected."

So with the excommunication the bishop condemned the level of abuse he knew about. How much did he know? That's not clear, but he knew abuse was happening. The abuse in this case is so terribly severe that only a small piece of it can be criminally actionable and obviously reportable. 

 

Per the bolded, it looks like the bishop didn't know a lot of what was happening.  The man was excommunicated for something but was it because of child abuse?  What about spousal abuse, infidelity, pornography, etc?

Yes, the bishop called the hotline for help.  And yes the hotline said that the communication was privileged communication and so it shouldn't be shared outside of the confessional.  But it doesn't appear that the bishop actually knew all that much.  And it doesn't appear that whatever was known was enough for him to be able to use his position as the family doctor to report it or for anyone else in the ward, neighborhood, school, etc to report it.

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I don't see how dismissing past abuse is acceptable when the minor children are still in the home. Whether they are or are not still in danger is not the bishop's ability to ascertain. 

Per some other things in this thread, it appears that the bishop did attempt to protect the family.  He called a ministering sister who would have a better chance to see problems.  He told the wife to watch out for things.  He was trying.

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No one is suggesting the bishop has the ability to foresee future harm or that the bishop dismissed the part abuse as acceptable.

I disagree, and was referring to this part of Calm's post:

7 hours ago, Calm said:

...but if the bishop was assured that had stopped, he may have believed he didn’t have the right to report because of no ongoing abuse).

 

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

Per the bolded, it looks like the bishop didn't know a lot of what was happening.  The man was excommunicated for something but was it because of child abuse?  What about spousal abuse, infidelity, pornography, etc?

Yes, the bishop called the hotline for help.  And yes the hotline said that the communication was privileged communication and so it shouldn't be shared outside of the confessional.  But it doesn't appear that the bishop actually knew all that much.  And it doesn't appear that whatever was known was enough for him to be able to use his position as the family doctor to report it or for anyone else in the ward, neighborhood, school, etc to report it.

Per some other things in this thread, it appears that the bishop did attempt to protect the family.  He called a ministering sister who would have a better chance to see problems.  He told the wife to watch out for things.  He was trying.

Yet he knew there was abuse, and was instructed by the church that priest-penitent privilege legally prevented him from reporting it.

 

[The Nehor]

Just now, Meadowchik said:

Yet he knew there was abuse, and was instructed by the church that priest-penitent privilege legally prevented him from reporting it.

 

It did.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It did.

No it does not. It only means they are not necessarily mandated reporters. They are, on the other hand, immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting.

ARS § 13-3620 (J)

 

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

Furthermore, none of that imposes limitations on reporting information they've received or observed outside the context of confessional, where in such instances they are legally required to report.

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

56 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No it does not. It only means they are not necessarily mandated reporters. They are, on the other hand, immune from civil or criminal liability for reporting.

ARS § 13-3620 (J)

 

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

Furthermore, none of that imposes limitations on reporting information they've received or observed outside the context of confessional, where in such instances they are legally required to report.

 

And if the Bishop reported it and that report was found to be inadmissible because it was privileged?

And if a bishop doing so was found to establish a precedent that the Church has no accepted expectation of confidentiality?

It would be dangerous to go down that road.

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet he knew there was abuse, and was instructed by the church that priest-penitent privilege legally prevented him from reporting it.

 

Did he know there was child abuse?  All I can see is that he knew there was abuse of some sort and that he contacted lawyers.  The only statement that I can see is where he's said that when the full truth came out, it "far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected".

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore, none of that imposes limitations on reporting information they've received or observed outside the context of confessional, where in such instances they are legally required to report.

Which the lawyers would have told him.  And since he was also their family doctor, he would have had to report anything he found there.  That would be an open/shut case since he doesn't have priest-penitent privilege.  But the lawsuit isn't over that.  Why?  If it was so obvious that abuse was happening, why not sue him for not reporting what he knew as a doctor?  Or maybe because it wasn't obvious.  Maybe because no one actually knew that abuse was happening, except for the man, his wife and the poor victims.

[mrmarklin]

27 minutes ago, webbles said:

Did he know there was child abuse?  All I can see is that he knew there was abuse of some sort and that he contacted lawyers.  The only statement that I can see is where he's said that when the full truth came out, it "far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected".

Which the lawyers would have told him.  And since he was also their family doctor, he would have had to report anything he found there.  That would be an open/shut case since he doesn't have priest-penitent privilege.  But the lawsuit isn't over that.  Why?  If it was so obvious that abuse was happening, why not sue him for not reporting what he knew as a doctor?  Or maybe because it wasn't obvious.  Maybe because no one actually knew that abuse was happening, except for the man, his wife and the poor victims.

You are all arguing without the full facts.  If in fact, the bishop called the Church hotline and received legal advice as to what to do and followed it, he is likely innocent.  I don't think the church hires dolts as its lawyers.  Whatever the advice at the time likely complied with the law as then understood.  The Church has every incentive to give the bishops good advice, because in the end, it has the deep pockets and ultimate liability for the actions of its agents.

I'm done.  Some of you like to post just for the sake of it, apparently.🙄

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And if the Bishop reported it and that report was found to be inadmissible because it was privileged?

And if a bishop doing so was found to establish a precedent that the Church has no accepted expectation of confidentiality?

It would be dangerous to go down that road.

This is law.

 

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

ARS § 13-3620 (J)

 

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm

 

 

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

This is law.

Okay madam counsellor. I wouldn't bet on it though.

Does that civil immunity cover only government suits or do they include those whose privilege you may have breached? Could someone argue that breaching confidentiality constitutes malice?

I don't know. Do you?

Edited December 24, 2020 by The Nehor

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

Did he know there was child abuse?  All I can see is that he knew there was abuse of some sort and that he contacted lawyers.  The only statement that I can see is where he's said that when the full truth came out, it "far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected".

Which the lawyers would have told him.  And since he was also their family doctor, he would have had to report anything he found there.  That would be an open/shut case since he doesn't have priest-penitent privilege.  But the lawsuit isn't over that.  Why?  If it was so obvious that abuse was happening, why not sue him for not reporting what he knew as a doctor?  Or maybe because it wasn't obvious.  Maybe because no one actually knew that abuse was happening, except for the man, his wife and the poor victims.

From the church statement, the bishop knew there was child abuse, thought he could not report per church lawyers, but did not know how bad it was until after police were involved.

The victims suffered the unthinkable for years after the initial disclosure to the bishop.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay madam counsellor. I wouldn't bet on it though.

Does that civil immunity cover only government suits or do they include those whose privilege you may have breached? Could someone argue that breaching confidentiality constitutes malice?

I don't know. Do you?

It is literally Arizona statute. Any person who makes such a report is "is immune from any civil or criminal liability by reason of that action..." 

[webbles]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

From the church statement, the bishop knew there was child abuse, thought he could not report per church lawyers, but did not know how bad it was until after police were involved.

The victims suffered the unthinkable for years after the initial disclosure to the bishop.

The church statement only says "abuse".  I don't see the term "child abuse" in there.  And even if you assume that "abuse" == "child abuse", it doesn't indicate if it is the abuse that these specific victims were suffering.

And I'll go back to my main point.  According to the lawsuit, the bishop was also their doctor.  If he knew of the abuse as the doctor, then he should absolutely have reported it.  If he didn't, he should be sued since that is an open/shut case for breaking the law.  But since they aren't suing him for not reporting what he knew as a doctor, then it almost likely means that he actually didn't know of the abuse that this lawsuit is about.  Most likely the abuse that he knew about was old and he couldn't report on that because of the priest-penitent privilege.  Any current abuse wasn't visible to him or to anyone else, even though it looks like they were looking for it.  So they had nothing to report.

Another interesting line from the law is:

Quote

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.

So, the priest-penitent privilege only covers communication or confession between the man and the bishop.  It doesn't include any personal observation by the bishop of the children.  I don't see how the bishop, knowing that abuse was actually happening to the children and was their doctor, could have not seen something outside of the confessional that would allow him to report.  Also, the lawsuit doesn't even try to cover this case, even though it is also an easy open/shut case.  This just continues to convince me that the bishop did not have any knowledge of the current abuse that was happening.