Mormon church sued over not reporting father's abuse

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like the ward members believed they couldn't report because of what church lawyers advised and that they should just do what they could through church channels to help

CFR the ward members (anyone besides the bishops) even knew about the hotline info.

From what I read most of the ward members only had suspicions as the kids never talked about and wore long sleeves and the mother denied anything was happening when asked and iirc the sister minister said she was one of the few, if not the only one who was invited into the home at all. And she hadn’t been over very often as that husband didn’t allow it. 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR the ward members (anyone besides the bishops) even knew about the hotline info.

From what I read most of the ward members only had suspicions as the kids never talked about and wore long sleeves and the mother denied anything was happening when asked and iirc the sister minister said she was one of the few, if not the only one who was invited into the home at all. And she hadn’t been over very often as that husband didn’t allow it. 

I am going from the article and attorney statement which I already posted. 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

"Inkling" is unclear. I would instead say any reasonable belief that neglect or non accidental injury has occurred.

 

I agree, thank you!

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

In the audible I mentioned, he did say the foster care system wasn't always the most ideal, but it beat having the monster of a mom and his lack of a good father who allowed the abuse in his life, so he could get some food, and avoid death. His mother stabbed him with a knife, makes him stay in the bathroom, while inhaling ammonia/bleach, makes him eat inhumane things and his bed was the basement concrete floor and he starved every day he was out of school and only ate when he would try to steal food out of his peers' lunches or find it in the garbage at home which was rare because his mom would make sure there was no food in the trash unless it was something really disgusting. 

Weirdly, no matter how bad his abuse he still managed to want the approval and love of his mother and father thinking it was all his fault. Such a difficult subject. I sure wish I had the skills/stamina/mental ability to help and be a CASA volunteer, because after listening to the audible, the boy had someone that was a CASA volunteer who was his savior. Maybe they called it something different back then. But it was a woman who interceded for him thankfully. 

The irony is that in many (but not all) recollections of living in foster care the day CPS came in and broke up their family is remembered the worst. That does not mean it should not have happened but those realistic consequences need to be accepted. And yes, all the kids I worked with loved their parents. With teenagers it was often resentment and hostility mixed with love but there was love. It is very strange seeing love being given to someone who has done little or nothing to merit it. Especially odd are cases where you see kids as young as six or seven who are basically parents for their younger siblings and trying to protect them from the parents while taking care of them. This can be where foster care fails if the kids cannot be placed together.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

This case is one where the guidance given by church lawyers to the bishops could very well be morally wrong and not legally correct.

It is not pearl-clutching to identify such a problem.

I agree that there are systemic problems that reach far beyond churches, but it is still important to identify the cracks and harm when we are in the position to see them.

“Could”, in other words we have no idea.

[Meadowchik]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“Could”, in other words we have no idea.

On the contrary. The argument is very strong that the guidance was not legally correct. I've provided the Arizona statute. Likewise for being morally wrong. Regardless of whether reporting would have helped, they didn't try, and years of horrific abuse followed that inaction.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, webbles said:

The lawsuit is speculating a lot.  They currently have no proof that the bishops knew of the horrific abuse.  They allege that lots of people knew of the abuse and not a single person acted on it.  I have a really hard time believing that out of all the people that supposedly knew, not a single person reported it.  The lawsuit is focusing on the priest-penitent privilege because it is an easy scapegoat.  Since the bishop can't tell what was actually said there and the perpetrator has died, the lawsuit can allege a lot of things about the conversations and never have to prove it.

Personally, I'm horrified that the kids were abused.  But I'm also saddened by this lawsuit.  I think that the "proof" they have is actually contra-indicative of what they are alleging.  I don't think the bishop knew as much as they are alleging.  And I think the facts that one of the bishops was their doctor and that an excommunication trial happened really hurts their case.

The trial will establish what evidence does in fact exist -- on the record.  Church attorneys will have to decide how risky it is to go forward with the trial.  The Church often settles such trials out of court (amounts undisclosed).  As with the Roman Catholic Church, the LDS Church has paid millions to settle such civil suits.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt it will end up in the US Supreme Court and get a definitive ruling. Clergy-penitent laws are state laws so it is more likely to fall under the state courts. I don't see a constitutional issue that would gain any traction in the federal court system.

Under the 14th Amend "equal protection" clause, a suit may be brought by victims claiming that clergy-penitent state law denies that equal protection.  Additionally, if there is a mandated reporting statute in a state which conflicts with a clergy-penitent privilege statute, the conflict of laws problem will require a decision by a state supreme court at least.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They might not be able to prove it, the investigators might screw up or their might be nothing to find, CPS may not have enough for a removal, etc.

The justice system can be harsh when it is cut and dried in terms of evidence and especially if there is a lot of publicity. My experience though (working as a CASA volunteer) is that it often accomplishes little to nothing. Even in cases of abuse or neglect it is often a civil case to get custody of the kids. There is often not enough for criminal prosecution of the abuser.

Well, as a Court Appointed Special Advocate, you could at least do a stand-up comedy routine to get their mind off their troubles. 

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary. The argument is very strong that the guidance was not legally correct. I've provided the Arizona statute. Likewise for being morally wrong. Regardless of whether reporting would have helped, they didn't try, and years of horrific abuse followed that inaction.

Read the whole bill. There is a lot more in there than in that snippet and it modifies the requirement.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Under the 14th Amend "equal protection" clause, a suit may be brought by victims claiming that clergy-penitent state law denies that equal protection.  Additionally, if there is a mandated reporting statute in a state which conflicts with a clergy-penitent privilege statute, the conflict of laws problem will require a decision by a state supreme court at least.

I agree that a state Supreme Court could hear such a case. I think it would be a hard road to claim that clergy-penitent law involves equal protection at all. Anything is possible. I just doubt it.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Read the whole bill. There is a lot more in there than in that snippet and it modifies the requirement.

Go ahead and post what you think modifies it.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Go ahead and post what you think modifies it.

The first section but i am not going to do a point by point on Arizona law. I am not a lawyer and I am really not qualified to opine on this. I do feel confident in saying it is not as simple as the portion you quoted makes it seem.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I agree that a state Supreme Court could hear such a case. I think it would be a hard road to claim that clergy-penitent law involves equal protection at all. Anything is possible. I just doubt it.

By itself, of course not, but you will note that I was speaking specifically about conflict of laws (clergy-penitent versus mandatory reportage).  The U.S. Supreme Court can intervene any time that a state statute or practice is unconstitutional.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The first section but i am not going to do a point by point on Arizona law. I am not a lawyer and I am really not qualified to opine on this. I do feel confident in saying it is not as simple as the portion you quoted makes it seem.

I am not a lawyer either, but I am confident that my overall point--that the church guidance was not legally correct--is solid.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/49474NCJRS.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_3O2elfDtAhWCz4UKHfX1BuY4ChAWMAJ6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw2l2ZUi5ycVxsGg5Wi1C2qu

Immunity for reporters has been encouraged from the federal level since at least 1978 (as a condition of state grants) and Arizona agreed:

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Meadowchik

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

By itself, of course not, but you will note that I was speaking specifically about conflict of laws (clergy-penitent versus mandatory reportage).  The U.S. Supreme Court can intervene any time that a state statute or practice is unconstitutional.

I said it was unlikely to come before a federal court unless there was a constitutional issue. You say the federal courts can intervene if there is a constitutional issue. I am not sure where you are going with this.

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I am not a lawyer either, but I am confident that my overall point--that the church guidance was not legally correct--is solid.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/49474NCJRS.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi_3O2elfDtAhWCz4UKHfX1BuY4ChAWMAJ6BAgJEAE&usg=AOvVaw2l2ZUi5ycVxsGg5Wi1C2qu

Immunity for reporters has been encouraged from the federal level since at least 1978 (as a condition of state grants) and Arizona agreed:

 

I am not convinced you are right. In Arizona the clergy-penitent privilege belongs to the penitent which means the clergy cannot disclose what is said unless the penitent allows it. So the penitent could sue for damages (assuming there are damages a court would recognize, etc.) if the clergy disclosed the information. It is also inadmissible. So if the bishop called in the report they could be shoving themselves into a legal morass and they might not be able to use that confession as evidence of anything which may mean even if the investigation following does prove abuse it may not be usable. Note that reports of child abuse are only granted this immunity if made in "good faith". While generally that would mean not calling CPS to report your stupid brother because he humiliated you at the family BBQ I imagine that a clergy report based on a privileged confession would also qualify as bad faith.

I am not sure of this. I am not a lawyer and I am not very familiar with Arizona's laws. It is also possible nobody really knows if this hasn't been tested in a court. I am not going to assume the church's lawyers were wrong in their counsel to the bishop with anything near this kind of ambiguity. I also suspect that if anyone is familiar with the intricacies of penitent privilege law it is lawyers who work specifically for a church that has privileged confessions.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I also suspect that if anyone is familiar with the intricacies of penitent privilege law it is lawyers who work specifically for a church that has privileged confessions.

Also victims' lawyers with experience working abuse cases in states with high concentrations of LDS, like Arizona.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Also victims' lawyers with experience working abuse cases in states with high concentrations of LDS, like Arizona.

Not analogous. The church lawyer was giving legal advice directly to a client. When you are suing you can try to contest established law or prey on a jury's sympathy. When you are giving advice you don't make those jumps.

I can see though that you have already decided on this so I will bow out. Holding a mock trial with you over the merits of the case is dull due to our mutual ignorance and my only goal was to contest the default assumption of the bishop's guilt and I have done that.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Not analogous. The church lawyer was giving legal advice directly to a client. When you are suing you can try to contest established law or prey on a jury's sympathy. When you are giving advice you don't make those jumps.

I can see though that you have already decided on this so I will bow out. Holding a mock trial with you over the merits of the case is dull due to our mutual ignorance and my only goal was to contest the default assumption of the bishop's guilt and I have done that.

Doesn't have to be analogous to be legitimate. 

My goal was to discuss the important issues of this case and I am happy to have provided an article to update it, also the relevant Arizona statute on immunity and a longstanding federal summary on states' respective immunity.

There's no need to make personal assumptions about me to discuss this. Have a good day.

[Meadowchik]

An update on this case, from a few days ago:

Quote

 

Since our report first aired in December, an individual who attended church with Leizza and Paul Adams came forward and gave a sworn statement saying it was well-known within the church that Paul Adams
" ... was abusing his children and referred to this abuse as " Paul Adams misbehaving."

The individual went on to say, "I feel terrible that no one reported this abuse for all those years.  We believed bishop  would take care of it, as he knew about it."

The statement further reads, "I was told to trust in the bishop and the church, and that the bishop and the church would take care of family and abuse issues, not the government or police."

News 4 Tucson Investigators spoke to this individual over the phone.

They asked us not to reveal their identity for fear of retribution. We asked them if they knew this abuse was going on, why didn't they go to authorities and report it?

The answer - "We all truly believed the bishop would take care of it." https://kvoa.com/news/n4t-investigators/2021/01/19/n4t-investigators-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-respond-to-civil-complaint/?fbclid=IwAR3LOi3FScq3ApKnc67a7EQCh0IoCH7KFZEZsJY2FuKNLA7Tk5Ypk7KDxTg

 

So this person is saying that they and others deferred to the advice of the bishops, and the bishop says he deferred to the advice of the church lawyers. 

[JustAnAustralian]

Well that must be pretty much the only ward without a mandatory reporter in the general membership if none of them reported.