AP Story about Abuse

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This came out a couple of hours or so ago. 

https://apnews.com/article/mormon-lawsuit-arizona-sex-abuse-25231a4c668e2e69ae45df484096f7b7?fbclid=IwAR1FZzH1tZhqigboMDbfL4Pf0NrH6tSfw-cbMtkyBBvttcT_csjDS-wyMHM

From the article:

Quote

An Arizona judge overseeing a high-profile lawsuit accusing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of conspiring to cover-up child sex abuse has ruled that the church may not refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under the state’s “clergy-penitent privilege.”

Clergy in Arizona, as in many other states, are required to report information about child sexual abuse or neglect to law enforcement or child welfare authorities. But an exception to that law — the privilege — allows members of the clergy who learn of the abuse through spiritual confessions to keep the information secret.

Judge Laura Cardinal ruled on Aug. 8 that the late Paul Adams waived his right to keep his confessions secret when he posted videos of himself sexually abusing his two daughters on the Internet, boasted of the abuse on social media, and confessed to federal law enforcement agents, who arrested him in 2017 with no help from the church.

“Taken together, Adams’ overt acts demonstrate a lack of repentance and a profound disregard” for the principles of the church, widely known as the Mormon church, Cardinal said in her ruling. “His acts can only be characterized as a waiver of the clergy-penitent privilege.”

Hmm.  I'm not sure this will hold up on appellate review. 

First, I'm not sure the privilege is waived if the confessor has insufficient feelings of "repentance," or else exhibits "'a profound disregard' for the principles of the church."  I suspect the judge is just making that stuff up.

Second, "waiver" is, in a civl context, usually a voluntary relinquishment of a known right.  Adams was posting the videos online, but doing so anonymously (per the AP article, he was only caught using facial recognition software after a New Zeland farmer was caught with the videos on his phone).  I think it's hard to characterize anonymous online posting, however evil and despicable, as a waiver of privilege relative to his communications with the bishop.

Third, "waiver" typically cannot be inferred.  It has to be pretty obvious that the individual intended to waive.  

I wonder, however, if Leizza's presence in the counseling sessions eliminates the privilege (apparently not, as that would be a more direct path toward disregarding the privilege, yet the judge does not seem to be taking it).

Quote

The lawsuit accuses two Arizona bishops and church leaders in Salt Lake City of negligence in not reporting the abuse and allowing Adams to continue abusing his older daughter for as many as seven years, a time in which he also abused the girl’s infant sister.

Cardinal issued her order, which the church is expected to appeal, after attorneys for three victims objected when the church refused to turn over disciplinary records for Adams, who was excommunicated in 2013. The victims’ attorneys also objected when a church official cited the privilege when refusing to answer questions during pre-trial testimony.

“The judge’s order applies to the church’s secret records and to what happened at the secret ex-communication hearing,” said Lynne Cadigan, an attorney for the three children who filed suit.

Cardinal’s order will require church official Richard Fife, a clerk who took notes during the excommunication hearing, to answer questions from the attorneys representing the Adams children. It will also require church officials to turn over records of the disciplinary council meeting.

Oi.  Some pretty serious Free Exercise considerations are going to come into play here, I think.  Retroactive negation of confidentiality predicated, in large part, on constitutional considerations is a pretty tall order.

Quote

The church has filed a legal motion asking Cardinal to delay implementing her order until it contests her findings with the Arizona Court of Appeals. Without the delay, church lawyers said, information it considers confidential under the clergy-penitent privilege would be released to attorneys for the Adams children and, potentially, the public.

“The privileged information will have been disclosed and it would be impossible to ’un-ring the bell,” the church said.

There is a decent chance this motion will be granted.

Quote

In a motion filed earlier this year asking Cardinal to dismiss the case, the church said its defense “hinges entirely” on whether bishops John Herrod and Robert “Kim” Mauzy were required to report Adams’ “confidential confessions” to civil authorities, or were excused from reporting requirements under the privilege.

That sounds about right.

My reading of the AZ statute, though, suggests that the Herrod and Mauzy likely had alternative sources of information (the mother, their personal observations of the child), and hence had a duty to report.

Quote

During an interview last month, William Maledon, an Arizona lawyer who represents the church in the lawsuit, said the fact that Adams posted videos of his abuse of both daughters on the Internet and boasted about the abuse on social media would have no bearing on the case because neither Herrod nor Mauzy knew that Adams posted the pornographic material.

“The bishops didn’t know anything about that,” Maledon said, adding that Herrod and Mauzy said as much in sworn declarations submitted in the case.

But Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre, who has opened a criminal investigation into the church, told the AP months ago that he believes Adams waived any confidentiality rights under the clergy-penitent privilege by posting his abuse and discussing it online.

Adams “disclosed his actual crime to thousands of people on the Internet,” McIntyre said, “so there’s an implied waiver there.”

He disclosed his crimes anonymously.  Kinda hard to "imply" a waiver in that situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

18 hours ago, supersc said:

The doubling-down strong statement by the Church appears to be deflective in nature.  Of course the AP story didn't get all the timelines and facts straight, and does gives a sense of a help-number cover-up.

However, the elephant in the room is the fact that the Bishop had a confession of some degree of previous abuse.  In 2011, that should have been enough of a trigger for immediate action - reporting to authorities.

Trigger the option to report, anyway.

18 hours ago, supersc said:

A valid question to consider:  Is there an institutional bias among local ward and stake leaders to "protect the good name of the church" that causes them to pause and consider the least path of resistance or minimal response under the law and help- line counsel, rather than being pro-active and assertive in cases of abuse of any kind?

Possibly.  Another bias may be the tendency to ignore bad things and hope they go away, to not want to ruffle feathers, to preserve good feelings (particularly in situations like the ward in Bisbee, where everyone knows each other).  

We regularly hear stories about people failing to report abuse, and then witness the injury to the reputation and "good name of the church" in the after-the-fact news coverage.  But this overlooks the existence of the privilege and the many policy reasons for keeping it in place.  I commented on this back in 2019:

Quote

One of the reasons the privilege exists in Judeo-Christian countries such as the U.S. is that penitents are encouraged to confess their sins to clergy.

One of the reasons the confessional exists (the primary reason, in fact) is to encourage repentance.  That usually involves the clergy encouraging the penitent to "make things right."

Without the privilege, people will stop confessing their misconduct to clergy, and hence will be deprived of a voice encouraging them to "make things right."

Without the privilege, the religious freedom we now enjoy will be substantially curtailed.  

Without the privilege, the government would eventually be able to turn the clergy into weapons of the state.  And if this privilege falls, then the others may become imperiled.  Do you really want to give the government the power to use the force of law to coerce your priest into divulging what you've said in confidence?  What about the government being able to coerce your doctor?  Your psychiatrist?  Your lawyer?  Your spouse?

There is, nevertheless, a strong and understandable impulse to disregard these considerations (as the judge in the civil suit may be doing).  See, for example, Tacenda's response to the above:

Quote

Put children first, all the stuff you said, goes away after that.

Consider the "downstream" ramifications of disposing of the privileges referenced above.  Do we really want the government being able to force your doctor to divulge what you have said to him in confidence?  Your psychiatrist?  Your lawyer?

18 hours ago, supersc said:

I understand lawyerly responses will not admit guilt or bad judgement or sins of omission, but the tone of the response appears to have missed an opportunity by only attacking the "egregious" AP article, and not addressing the moral need to immediately report abuse no matter the consequences. 

I don't think the Church agrees that such a "moral need" ("immediately report abuse no matter the consequences") exists.

Again, I think we need to take a serious look at the concept of privileges and be really sure about destroying them.

Also, this "moral need" would have lots of unintended consequences.  Lots.  For starters, I encourage you to read this: Unintended Consequences of Expanded Mandatory Reporting Laws

Some excerpts:

Quote

In particular, Pennsylvania expanded its definitions of mandatory reporters, requiring child abuse awareness training for any licensed health care professional in the state and significantly expanding mandatory lay reporters to include essentially any individual in contact with children, rather than specifically those in contact with children by virtue of their profession. In Philadelphia, these new reporting requirements have flooded the reporting hotline, contributing to excessive waiting times, unanswered calls, spurious calls, and unnecessary reports, leading to the inability to pursue many of these reports.
...
There is no indication that the increase in reporting has improved the safety of Philadelphia’s children, and there is reason to believe it may detract. 
...
Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect has a history of over 5 decades in the United States. Yet this policy, like many otherapproaches in the field of child abuse policy, is lacking in evidence.
...
Over the past decades, most states have considerably expanded their mandatory reporting laws in both domains, although none have proven the effectiveness of this approach.
...
The majority of North American child welfare experts believe that mandatory reporting laws are an important measure in identifying child maltreatment, and dissent is rare.  Indeed, the policy has broad ethical and moral appeal. Yet no clear endpoints have been recognized as useful indicators ofthe efficacy of this approach, and no data exist to demonstrate that incremental increases in reporting have contributed to child safety.
...
Rates of the substantiation of reports may indicate the successful identification of abused or at-risk children, yet increased mandatory reporting requirements have not been consistently proven to correlate with higher rates of substantiated cases.
...
Despite a dearth of data, at any juncture at which child abuse policy is debated, the result is nearly always additional expansion ofthe requirements for mandatory reporting. This expansion seems to make for good politics, because child abuse legislation garners broad bipartisan support, but is it good policy?
...
Lax legal statutes have not been proven to be a barrier to reporting, and there is no evidence to suggest that changes in mandatory reporting requirements will address the problem of physician nonreporting. In contrast, mandatory reporting by the lay public is more likely to result in spurious reports.
...
Actively increasing the number of reports from nonspecialized individuals may cause harm in a number of ways. Most saliently, mechanisms to increase reporting do not necessarily include increased funding or additional personnel dedicated to children’s services.  Accordingly, increased reporting depletes resources that are already spread thin and diverts attention away from children who need it the most. 
...
Reports of neglect disproportionately target low-income families, who may experience a Child Protective Services intervention as an additional hardship, both emotionally and sometimes financially.
...
Children subjected to questioning, physical exams, and occasionally temporary removal from their homes experience this as a traumatic event. 
...
Well-intentioned individuals may be more inclined to report suspicions of maltreatment rather than attempt to assist families, a concern that is particularly relevant in cases of low-income families suspected of neglect.  Rather than stepping in to assist needy families with resources, the new mandatory reporting laws may lead individuals to report underfed or poorly dressed children. 
...
Fear of reporting may prevent families from seeking help, whereas assurance of confidentiality has been shown to increase help-seeking behaviors.

I have previously suggested:

Quote

The priest/penitent privilege is important.  But stopping ongoing abuse is, I think, more important.  And if a bishop - and the Church - has the option to report, I think the policy of the Church should be that the bishop should report.  That is, where the bishop has clear grounds for "reasonably believing" that abuse is occurring, the circumstances for not reporting should be narrowly tailored.

I am, nevertheless, quite opposed to a wholesale dissolution of the priest/penitent privilege.  

18 hours ago, supersc said:

I'm proud of Elder Kearon's spot-on discourse from last General Conference, and pray for local leaders, where execution of great policies is meant to occur, take the moral high ground in reporting abuse immediately.

It's not that simple. 

Most of the time, people are not "reporting abuse," because they are not a percipient witness.  They are, instead, reporting suspected abuse.

Very often, people who are "mandatory reporters" lack any meaningful training or experience with detecting abuse, but then err on the side of caution (and their own self-interest) by reporting anyway.

There are loads of unintended consequences that can arise when we take a "moral panic" approach rather than a reasoned and evidence-based approach to these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, supersc said:

One past incidence is enough to report IMHO. 

Could you clarify what you mean by "once past incidence?"  How do you define that?  How do you quantify it?

The vast majority of mandatory reporters are not percipient witnesses to abuse.  Do we really want everyone everywhere reporting, for fear of severe legal repercussions, what usually amounts to guesswork and suspicion?

Per this article, 

• Expanding "mandatory reporting" laws results in "flooded" reporting hotlines, "excessive waiting times, unanswered calls, spurious calls, and unnecessary reports, leading to the inability to pursue many of these reports."
• There is no indication or competent evidence that expanding mandaory reporting improves detection of abuse, and some evidence that it detracts from such efforts.
• Expanding mandatory reporting is politically easy (what politician or child welfare expert wants to oppose it?), yet there are no "useful indicators ofthe efficacy of this approach, and no data exist to demonstrate that incremental increases in reporting have contributed to child safety."
• Expanding mandatory reporting by the lay public "is more likely to result in spurious reports."
• Expanding mandatory reporting "depletes resources that are already spread thin and diverts attention away from children who need it the most."
• Expanding mandatory reporting will almost certainly disproportionately, and adversely, affect lower-income families.
• Sometimes the cure (getting CPS involved, which can be both heavy-handed and callously indfferent at the same time) can be worse that the disease.
• Inquiries about abuse can themselved be traumatic for kids.
• "Fear of reporting may prevent families from seeking help, whereas assurance of confidentiality has been shown to increase help-seeking behaviors."

I think we need to give these things some serious consideration.  

We also need to give the constitutional implications some real consideration.

18 hours ago, supersc said:

Pedophiles themselves say there is no cure [citation needed].

Yes.  But absent some sort of sure-fire way to identify pedophiles, expanding mandatory reporting by people with no training and no percipient observations (again, most reporters merely suspect abuse) will lead to a lot of wasted, spurious reports.  Not only do these deplete already limited investigative resources, they are incredibly damaging to the lives, reputations, relationships, livelihoods, etc. of people who are falsely accused (or overcharged).

18 hours ago, supersc said:

I wish the church, rather than attack the AP article, kept their focus solely on current policies.

I think the Church can defend itself from false characterizations and focus on the welfare of kids.

That said, I think the update from the Church creates more questions than it answers.

18 hours ago, supersc said:

The timeline presented has the glaring hole that the Bishop never reported it, rather he tried to get reporting done by the perp, the perps wife, or counseling professionals. 

Yep.  The question is why he did this.  It appears that he believes he was constrained (prohibited) from reporting.

18 hours ago, supersc said:

It screams at the reader that too little was done when confession was given. 

Hence the need to accuracy in reporting.  Fomenting a moral panic/outrage is not going to help.

Lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, etc. all deal with privileged communications all the time.  Nobody seems to be calling for the wholesale elimination of those privileges.  

18 hours ago, supersc said:

Youth in our area are disturbed by this story, and this may tend to strain those feelings even further in some unintentionally.

Yep.  I'm going to be addressing it with my kids.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

I'm not sure that deposing a prior stake clerk about a disciplinary council from 9 years ago is going to help much. Their sole role is to take minutes and then give those to the stake president. Chances are he wouldn't know who it was even for immediately prior to it happening. Asking if specific things were mentioned might just end up with a lot of "I don't recall, you'd need to look at the minutes".

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'm not sure that deposing a prior stake clerk about a disciplinary council from 9 years ago is going to help much. Their sole role is to take minutes and then give those to the stake president. Chances are he wouldn't know who it was even for immediately prior to it happening. Asking if specific things were mentioned might just end up with a lot of "I don't recall, you'd need to look at the minutes".

 

I think the main purpose is to be able to prove that the excommunication occurred because of child abuse.  And I think the clerk would remember that.  If they can prove that, it shows that at least two bishops knew about it and that they were worrying about the child abuse for multiple years.  That could convince a jury that they knew more than they are admitting to.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

While I can appreciate the church's attorneys fighting against disclosure because the law could legitimately be interpreted to support that view, in this case I don't think trying to get out of disclosing all of the records was the right thing to do. 

Isn’t the problem though setting a precedent?  As argued above, some of the records may be about more than the abuse.  If they agree to release them, doesn’t that make it harder to defend right to confidentiality next time around?

added:  I see already addressed, feel free to ignore.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

reading of the AZ statute, though, suggests that the Herrod and Mauzy likely had alternative sources of information (the mother, their personal observations of the child), and hence had a duty to report.

If Herrod was not actually the child’s doctor, would he have had a chance to observe any evidence of abuse?  Am curious as to what evidence you think Maury might have known of besides the report of the confession?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I'm not sure that deposing a prior stake clerk about a disciplinary council from 9 years ago is going to help much. Their sole role is to take minutes and then give those to the stake president. Chances are he wouldn't know who it was even for immediately prior to it happening. Asking if specific things were mentioned might just end up with a lot of "I don't recall, you'd need to look at the minutes".

 

Are those minutes saved?

[JustAnAustralian]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are those minutes saved?

The minutes/notes (which are not meant to be word for word), are used to prepare a report which is sent back to church headquarters (I've never had to fill one in one of these reports, so I don't know how much detail they contain). Once the report is submitted, local copies of notes are supposed to be destroyed. So it really depends on what the contents of the report says, and whether the Stake President and clerk destroyed them as they were supposed to.

Edited August 19, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

If Herrod was not actually the child’s doctor, would he have had a chance to observe any evidence of abuse?  

Well, he was her bishop as well, so arguably yes.

Hindsight is always 20-20, but in situations where

A) there are reasonable grounds to suspect ongoing abuse, and
B) the confessor is recalcitrant, and
C) immediately intervening to stop the abuse is not feasible or not working (the perp refuses to move out of the home, or moves back in, or repeatedly confesses, etc.), and
D) the bishop has reasonable alternative grounds to suspect abuse (communications from the wife (she's not the confessor, so her information would trigger a report) and/or personal observations of the child), and/or
E) the bishop has the option of reporting (that is, the law does not prohibit him from breaching the privilege), then 
F) I think the bishop should report.  

This would both comply with the law and preserve the privilege (mostly) and comply with the the Church's overriding policy concern (Section 38.6.2: "When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse") and provide for the immediate welfare of the victim.

This is a terrible story. Straight up.  Something, some things, apparently went very, very wrong.  For years. 

The neighbor/friend, Shaunice Warr, did not report (interestingly, I don't see anyone condemning the Border Patrol because of her failure).

The mother did not report or stop the abuse.  She too was a victim of abuse, and apparently may be on the Autism spectrum.  But the court still found her criminally responsible for her failures and sent her to prison for a few years.

The first bishop, Herrod . . . well, the story is really murky and hard to follow.  The hearsay testimony from Edwards about Herrod is pretty damning, but it's also multiple hearsay, and so of questionable reliability.  However, we have yet to hear any pushback from Herrod as to this testimony, so...

Very difficult.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Am curious as to what evidence you think Maury might have known of besides the report of the confession?

The same as Herrod: Discussions with the wife, observations about the victim.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

For what little it's worth, I spoke with somebody who works for Church Social Services. She has called the hotline numerous times and in every single instance she was advised to report (sometimes she had already done so).
 

I think part of the difficulty with the Bishop Herrod story is viewing it as a totality of information and not as a temporally evolving history. I suspect that he likely called the hotline after he received a confession of a single abuse instance sometime in the past. Given the law and no apparent exigent threat (based on misleading confession) he was advised not to report. Later more information was learned. The bishop may have not followed up with a subsequent call and simply continued based on the earlier counsel.

[pogi]

Not sure if this has been reported yet.   6 buildings have been vandalized in apparent response to this story.  "Predators welcome" and "save the kids" etc. have been spray painted on the outside of buildings and interiors have been thrashed. 

https://www.ksl.com/article/50459845/several-churches-vandalized-in-sandy-and-orem

 

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Not sure if this has been reported yet.   6 buildings have been vandalized in apparent response to this story.  "Predators welcome" and "save the kids" etc. have been spray painted on the outside of buildings and interiors have been thrashed. 

https://www.ksl.com/article/50459845/several-churches-vandalized-in-sandy-and-orem

 

Upsetting and understandable at the same time.  Sexual abuse is beyond intolerable.

[bsjkki]

36 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Upsetting and understandable at the same time.  Sexual abuse is beyond intolerable.

I think it understandable people hear this story and are upset but I think trashing churches is not understandable. When, I look back at society the last few years, it is a bit scary how easily violence/vandalism is justified. 
 

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bsjkki said:

I think it understandable people hear this story and are upset but I think trashing churches is not understandable. When, I look back at society the last few years, it is a bit scary how easily violence/vandalism is justified. 
 

 

There's no excuse for violence or vandalism. 

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

There's no excuse for violence or vandalism. 

Agreed. But, I’ve heard a lot of people justify it because people are upset. From today. 

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

Agreed. But, I’ve heard a lot of people justify it because people are upset. From today. 

 

Being upset is no excuse. I'm "pro-choice," but I am not angry about recent events (dismayed, disappointed, yes, but not angry). Even if I were, it wouldn't justify vandalism or violence.

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Being upset is no excuse. I'm "pro-choice," but I am not angry about recent events (dismayed, disappointed, yes, but not angry). Even if I were, it wouldn't justify vandalism or violence.

It’s not an excuse. We agree. A whole lot of people do not agree with us. 
 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s not an excuse. We agree. A whole lot of people do not agree with us. 
 

I wouldn't say it's a lot of people, but obviously, some people are jerks/criminals.

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It’s not an excuse. We agree. A whole lot of people do not agree with us. 
 

This does nothing to change the ways of the church only makes it worse by making it us vs them scenarios. Not a united feeling of wanting change.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This does nothing to change the ways of the church only makes it worse by making it us vs them scenarios. Not a united feeling of wanting change.

I think more training is warranted to avoid these types of issues but I do not believe this was the standard. It is complicated based on 50 different state laws, limited knowledge of all the facts, and human failings. Do you believe this case is an example of standard procedure?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think more training is warranted to avoid these types of issues but I do not believe this was the standard. It is complicated based on 50 different state laws, limited knowledge of all the facts, and human failings. Do you believe this case is an example of standard procedure?

I think so? The church’s recent statement says that when it has discretion, it only reports abuse in cases only where it is “known”  that “a child is in imminent danger.” So past abuse, or suspicions of abuse that fail to meet “known” and “imminent” are not reported if I am reading correctly. 

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think more training is warranted to avoid these types of issues but I do not believe this was the standard. It is complicated based on 50 different state laws, limited knowledge of all the facts, and human failings. Do you believe this case is an example of standard procedure?

Well, I do think differently about the idea that a bishop needs to be absolutely positive that the abuse occurred when a victim comes in to get help from the bishop and tells on someone. There's a training recording with Pres Oaks awhile back that I heard on a podcast this morning with him stating that bishops need to be very careful to report it and must be absolutely certain there was abuse, it felt like he placed less emphasis on the victims. But aren't we as a society told to report if we suspect it going on and then let authorities, social workers figure out if it's 100% the case? His statement is wrong, IMO, because it allows so many cases to fall through the cracks. I know of stories with the victims being told to just let it go, the West Virginia case has a guy that before his mission he abused little girls, on his mission he abused little girls, and when he came home he abused little girls, or maybe it was boys too. The leaders knew and nothing happened. This story I heard on the same podcast.

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Being upset is no excuse. I'm "pro-choice," but I am not angry about recent events (dismayed, disappointed, yes, but not angry). Even if I were, it wouldn't justify vandalism or violence.

I can understand the level of anger that leads to this type of behavior. *I do not think that The behavior of vandalism is ever justified*.

But I think I do understand the anger that would lead to this action against churches. Sexual abuse is deeply personal and when it’s tied to a deeply personal belief such as religion is, that can really mess you up. There are a lot of people who are deeply affected by this story in my tiny corner of the world, and some of my friends who have never asked questions are suddenly shaken.

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, I do think differently about the idea that a bishop needs to be absolutely positive that the abuse occurred when a victim comes in to get help from the bishop and tells on someone. There's a training recording with Pres Oaks awhile back that I heard on a podcast this morning with him stating that bishops need to be very careful to report it and must be absolutely certain there was abuse, it felt like he placed less emphasis on the victims. But aren't we as a society told to report if we suspect it going on and then let authorities, social workers figure out if it's 100% the case? His statement is wrong, IMO, because it allows so many cases to fall through the cracks. I know of stories with the victims being told to just let it go, the West Virginia case has a guy that before his mission he abused little girls, on his mission he abused little girls, and when he came home he abused little girls, or maybe it was boys too. The leaders knew and nothing happened. This story I heard on the same podcast.

I just want to make it clear, if a bishop in Utah is told by a victim that she/he was abused, he MUST report it.  There is no priest-penitent privilege exception.  He also doesn't need to "know".  The law says "has reason to believe".  A victim telling a bishop is definitely a "reason to believe".

The issue where the bishop needs to be careful is only when the abuser confesses.  That is the only case where the bishop is not mandated to report.

I know the two situations feel similar but they are very different.