(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

smac97 · August 4, 2022

We previously had a discussion (also discussed here) about Paul Adams, a man in Arizona who abused his children, who was excommunicated for his abuse, and who later committed suicide. And another discussion here in 2020: Update on AZ Abuse Case. And yet another: (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case.

Today the AP published an article by Michael Rezendes: Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen

Also a second article, also by Rezendes: 4 takeaways from AP’s Mormon church sex abuse investigation

Also a YouTube video: How a Mormon church 'help line' hid child sex abuse

The first article above (published today) includes details not found in the links we had discussed previously. Very disheartening stuff. It also addresses whether the first bishop was aware of the ongoing abuse. Apparently he was:

Quote

William Maledon, an Arizona attorney representing the bishops and the church in a lawsuit filed by three of the Adams’ six children, told the AP last month that the bishops were not required to report the abuse.

“These bishops did nothing wrong. They didn’t violate the law, and therefore they can’t be held liable,” he said. Maledon referred to the suit as “a money grab.”
...
In his AP interview, Maledon also insisted Herrod did not know that Adams was continuing to sexually assault his daughter after learning of the abuse in a single counseling session.

But in the recorded interview with the agent obtained by the AP, Herrod said he asked Leizza Adams in multiple sessions if the abuse was ongoing and asked her, “What are we going to do to stop it?”

“At least for a period of time I assumed they had stopped things, but — and then I never asked if they picked up again.”

"What are we going to do to stop it." That was a good question, except that they didn't do anything to stop the ongoing abuse. For years. And they could have. That's the terrible part. The bishop and the mother could have worked together to get the children into a safe situation.

Also, it is terrible for the lawyer here to characterize the suit as a "money grab." Gadzooks.

The article also disputes the interpretation of the reporting statute relied upon by the bishop:

Quote

Herrod also told Edwards that when he called the help line, church officials told him the state’s clergy-penitent privilege required him to keep Adams’s abuse confidential.

But the law required no such thing.

Arizona’s child sex abuse reporting law, and similar laws in more than 20 states that require clergy to report child sex abuse and neglect, says that clergy, physicians, nurses, or anyone caring for a child who “reasonably believes” a child has been abused or neglected has a legal obligation to report the information to police or the state Department of Child Safety. But it also says that clergy who receive information about child neglect or sexual abuse during spiritual confessions “may withhold” that information from authorities if the clergy determine it is “reasonable and necessary” under church doctrine.

From our Amulek: "If you look at the history of the state's mandatory reporting statute (e.g., here), you will see that they added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters back in 1990 only to remove them when they revised the statute again back in 2003."

Here is the text of the statute as it presently exists (emphases added) :

Quote

13-3620. Duty to report abuse, physical injury, neglect and denial or deprivation of medical or surgical care or nourishment of minors; medical records; exception; violation; classification; definitions

A. 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 of this information to a peace officer, to the department of child safety or to a tribal law enforcement or social services agency for any Indian minor who resides on an Indian reservation, except if the report concerns a person who does not have care, custody or control of the minor, the report shall be made to a peace officer only. A member of the clergy, a Christian Science practitioner or a priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, as a Christian Science practitioner or as a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, the Christian Science practitioner or the priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. 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.

The decision to not report the abuse was . . . discretionary. The bishop and the Church had the option of reporting ("may withold").

The statute also does not exempt clergy from reporting requirements if the clergy "reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of {abuse}" based on "personal observations ... of the minor."

In other words if the bishop (there were two involved) had a basis other than the father's confession to "reasonably believe" that abuse had happened or was happening, then he had the obligation to report to law enforcement ("shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer..."). Per Amulek, the statute has been structured this way since 2003.

I am at a loss to understand why the bishops did not report, and why the helpline did not instruct them to report. In fact, per one of the bishops he was instructed by the helpline to not report. From the article:

Quote

The father, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and an admitted pornography addict, was in counseling with his bishop when he revealed the abuse. The bishop, who was also a family physician, followed church policy and called what church officials have dubbed the “help line” for guidance.

But the call offered little help for MJ. Lawyers for the church, widely known as the Mormon church, who staff the help line around the clock told Bishop John Herrod not to call police or child welfare officials. Instead he kept the abuse secret.

“They said, ‘You absolutely can do nothing,’” Herrod said in a recorded interview with law enforcement.

Herrod continued to counsel MJ’s father, Paul Douglas Adams, for another year, and brought in Adams’ wife, Leizza Adams, in hopes she would do something to protect the children. She didn’t. Herrod later told a second bishop, who also kept the matter secret after consulting with church officials who maintain that the bishops were excused from reporting the abuse to police under the state’s so-called clergy-penitent privilege.

The "church officials" referenced here is probably a reference to attorneys at the helpline. And they were partially correct in that the bishops were "excused from reporting." The bishops were not legally obligated to report the abuse, but only as to confessions from the father.

As noted above, if the bishops had a "reasonable belief" of abuse based on "personal observations ... of the minor," then the obligation to report kicked in. It is difficult to comprehend how the bishops could not, for years, have formulated a "reasonable belief" about the possibility of abuse independent of the father's confessions. A belief based on "observations" of the child.

Moreover, I am at a loss as to why the helpline did not instruct them to report the ongoing abuse based on the father's confession, as there was no legal constraint against that. I appreciate that the priest/penitent privilege is very important, as is the doctor/patient privilege (the AZ statute likewise includes an identical "may withold" provision for physicians, psychologists and behavioral health professionals). But where the law allows (as in does not prohibit) a clergy or doctor from reporting ongoing abuse, I think the welfare of the child supersedes all other considerations. This comports with the Church's CHI in place at the time. From the article:

Quote

The revelation that Mormon officials may have directed an effort to conceal years of abuse in the Adams household sparked a criminal investigation of the church by Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre, and the civil lawsuit by three of the Adams children.

“Who’s really responsible for Herrod not disclosing?” McIntyre asked in an AP interview. “Is it Herrod,” who says he followed the church lawyers’ instruction not to report the abuse to authorities? “Or is it the people who gave him that advice?”

When it comes to child sexual abuse, the Mormon church says “the first responsibility of the church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused and protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse,” according to its 2010 handbook for church leaders. The handbook also says, “Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.”

But church officials, from the bishops in the Bisbee ward to officials in Salt Lake City, tolerated abuse in the Adams family for years.

If the Church's policy is that the first responsibility of the church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused and protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse,” then why did the bishops not report? Apparently because they were told as much by the helpline lawyers. But why would the lawyers say that, since the statute allows (but does not require) clergy to report?

From the article:

Quote

The Associated Press has obtained nearly 12,000 pages of sealed records from an unrelated child sex abuse lawsuit against the Mormon church in West Virginia. The documents offer the most detailed and comprehensive look yet at the so-called help line Herrod called. Families of survivors who filed the lawsuit said they show it’s part of a system that can easily be misused by church leaders to divert abuse accusations away from law enforcement and instead to church attorneys who may bury the problem, leaving victims in harm’s way.
...
The sealed records say calls to the help line are answered by social workers or professional counselors who determine whether the information they receive is serious enough to be referred to an attorney with Kirton McConkie, a Salt Lake City firm that represents the church.

A document with the heading “Protocol for abuse help line calls,” which was among the sealed records obtained by the AP, laid out the questions social workers were to ask before determining whether the calls should be referred to the lawyers.

Mormon officials in the West Virginia case said they did not recognize the Protocol and could not authenticate it. But a ranking church official in a separate sex abuse lawsuit in Oregon confirmed that those answering the help line used a “written protocol” to guide them.

“There would be a page containing various topics to discuss and handle,” said Harold C. Brown, then director of the church’s Welfare Services Department.

The Protocol instructs those staffing the help line to tell callers they are to use first names only. “No identifying information should be given.” Under the heading “High Risk Cases,” it also instructs staffers to ask a series of questions, including whether calls concerned possible abuse by a church leader, an employee, or abuse at “a church-sponsored activity.”

The protocol advises those taking the calls to instruct a “priesthood leader,” which includes bishops and stake presidents, to encourage the perpetrator, the victim, or others who know of the abuse to report it. But it also says, in capital letters, that those taking the calls “should never advise a priesthood leader to report abuse. Counsel of this nature should come only from legal counsel.”

That counsel comes from attorneys from Kirton McConkie, which represents the church.

Joseph Osmond, one of the Kirton McConkie lawyers assigned to take help line calls, said in a sealed deposition that he’s always ready to deal with sex abuse complaints.

“Wherever I am. The call comes to my cell phone,” he said. He then acknowledged that he did not refer calls to a social worker and wouldn’t know how to do so.

Osmond declined to comment through church officials. Peter Schofield, a Kirton McConkie lawyer long associated with the help line, also declined to answer questions from the AP.

I know Peter Schofield. We went to high school together and I have crossed paths with him a few times in court. I sure would like to better understand the legal reasoning behind what happened - and did not happen - in this case.

From from the article:

Quote

Two church practices, identified in the sealed records, work together to ensure that the contents of all help lines calls remain confidential. First, all records of calls to the help line are routinely destroyed. “Those notes are destroyed by the end of every day,” said Roger Van Komen, the church’s director of Family Services, in an affidavit included in the sealed records.

Second, church officials say that all calls referred to Kirton McConkie lawyers are covered by attorney-client privilege and remain out of the reach of prosecutors and victims’ attorneys. “The church has always regarded those communications between its lawyers and local leaders as attorney-client privileged,” said Paul Rytting, the director of Risk Management, in a sealed affidavit.

I think both of these practices are reasonable. The attorney/client privilege is also very important.

Quote

Mormon leaders established the help line in 1995 and it operated not within its Department of Family Services, but instead in its Office of Risk Management, whose role is to protect the church and members from injury and liability in an array of circumstances, including fires, explosions, hazardous chemical spills and severe weather. The department ultimately reports to the First Presidency, the three officials at the very top of the church hierarchy, according to records in the sealed documents.

Risk management also tracks all sex abuse lawsuits against the church, according to a sealed affidavit by Dwayne Liddell, a past director of the department who helped establish the help line. He said members of the church’s First Presidency knew the details of the help line.

“I have been in those type of meetings where ... the training of ecclesiastical leaders (and) the establishment of a help line have been discussed,” Liddell said. When asked who attended the meetings, he answered, “Members of the First Presidency and the presiding bishopric,” or the top leaders of the church.

Before establishing the help line in 1995, the Mormon church simply instructed bishops to comply with local child sex abuse reporting laws.

At the time, child sex abuse lawsuits were on the rise and juries were awarding victims millions of dollars. The Mormon church is largely self-insured, leaving it especially vulnerable to costly lawsuits.

“There is nothing inconsistent between identifying cases that may pose litigation risks to the church and complying with reporting obligations,” church lawyers said in a sealed legal filing.

This all sounds good. Still doesn't explain why the abuse in this case was not reported.

From the article:

Quote

In 2016 police in New Zealand arrested a 47-year-old farm worker on child pornography charges and found a nine-minute video on his cell phone, downloaded from the internet, showing a man in his 30s raping a 10-year-old girl.

A global search for the rapist and his victim was on. It started with Interpol and led to the U.S. State Department, where investigators using facial recognition technology matched the rapist with a passport card photo of a U.S. Border Patrol employee living in Bisbee, Arizona, according to a Homeland Security synopsis obtained by the AP.

Agents rushed to the Naco, Arizona, Border Station and arrested Adams, then a lanky, bearded mission support specialist with the Border Patrol. After some coaxing, Adams admitted to raping MJ and to sexually assaulting her younger sister, and to posting video of the assaults on the internet. When agents raided his home, they seized phones and computers holding more than 4,000 photos and nearly 1,000 videos depicting child sex abuse, many featuring the Adams daughters.

But the nine-minute video stood out. “This video is one of the worst I’ve ever seen,” Homeland Security agent Edwards later testified, adding that haunting dialogue between Adams and his older daughter helped make the video “stand out in my mind and continue to stand out in my mind.”

That video represented nine minutes and 14 seconds in seven years of continual and unnecessary trauma for MJ — and a lifetime of abuse for her tiny sister — while Bishops Herrod and Mauzy and church representatives in Salt Lake City stood by.

After Paul Adams died by suicide, Leizza Adams pleaded no contest to child sex abuse charges and served two-and-a-half years in state prison. Three of the Adams children went to live with members of Leizza’s extended family in California. The other three were taken in by local families.

Unequivocally terrible. I don't know what else to say.

The article goes on to describe the adoptive parents of one of the abuse victims, who were members of the Church:

Quote

The Whitworths were converts to the Mormon faith and, like many new followers of a religion, they were especially enthusiastic about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In particular, they appreciated the efforts Mormons make to help fellow church members in times of need through church organizations established to give special attention to women, teens and children.

“It’s all about family,” Miranda said. “That’s one of the things we absolutely loved.”

But after learning about what Adams did to their new daughter, and the failure of the church to stop him, the scales fell from their eyes. “We decided to remove our records from the church,” said Matthew Whitworth. “I personally couldn’t continue to provide tithing money to a church that would allow young children to be abused and not do anything to prevent it.”
...
The adoptive parents of the third Adams child who has filed suit declined to speak to the AP about the case. Like MJ, Miranda and Matthew Whitworth said they joined the lawsuit against the church on behalf of their young daughter not in hopes of a payday, but to change church policy so that any instance of child sexual abuse is immediately reported to civil authorities. “We just don’t understand why they’re paying all these lawyers to fight this,” Matthew Whitworth said. “Just change the policy.”

Yes, that seems to be the thing to do.

Quote

That policy is the key to the church’s defense. In a recent filing asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case, Maledon and other lawyers for the church said the case “hinges entirely on whether Arizona’s child abuse reporting statute required two church bishops ... to report to authorities confidential confessions made to them by plaintiffs’ father.”

Whatever moral or public policy arguments one could make that the church should have told authorities that Paul Adams was raping his daughters are irrelevant, the lawyers argued. “Arizona’s reporting statute broadly exempts confidential communications with clergy, as determined by the clergyman himself,” according to the church motion to dismiss the case. “Reasonable people can debate whether this is the best public policy choice. But that is not an issue for a jury or this court.”

Bishop Herrod, in his recorded interview, said church officials told him he had to keep what Adams told him confidential or he could be sued if he went to authorities.

But McIntyre, the Cochise County attorney, said that’s false, noting the Arizona reporting law says that anyone reporting a belief that child sex abuse occurred “is immune from any civil or criminal liability.”

Aside from the legal arguments over whether Bishops Herrod and Mauzy were excused from their reporting obligations under the clergy-penitent privilege, critics of the inaction by the two bishops and the broader church have raised ethical issues.

Gerard Moretz, a seasoned child sex abuse investigator for the Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department and an expert witness for the Adams children, is one of them.

“What aspect of your religious practice are you advancing if you don’t report something like this?” he asked.

A fair question.

The YouTube video above is hard to watch. Hard, but important.

A few closing thoughts:

1. 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.

2. I don't agree with the narrative that there is some sort of inherent conflict between a bishop A) calling and receiving legal advice from the helpline, and B) complying with reporting laws and/or dicretionary reporting (reporting when doing so is not legally prohibited).

3. I also don't agree with this criticism and characterization of the helpline:

Quote

The help line has been criticized by abuse victims and their attorneys for being inadequate to quickly stop abuse and protect victims. Yet the Utah-based faith has stuck by the system despite the criticism and increasing scrutiny from attorneys and prosecutors, including those in the Adams case.
...
“The help line is certainly there to help — to help the church keep its secrets and to cover up abuse,” said Craig Vernon, an Idaho attorney who has filed several sex abuse lawsuits against the church.

Vernon, a former member, routinely demands that the church require bishops to report sex abuse to police or state authorities rather than the help line.

The sealed records say calls to the help line are answered by social workers or professional counselors who determine whether the information they receive is serious enough to be referred to an attorney with Kirton McConkie, a Salt Lake City firm that represents the church.

A document with the heading “Protocol for abuse help line calls,” which was among the sealed records obtained by the AP, laid out the questions social workers were to ask before determining whether the calls should be referred to the lawyers.
...
The lawsuit filed by the three Adams children accuses The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several members, including Bishops Herrod and Mauzy, of negligence and conspiring to cover up child sex abuse to avoid “costly lawsuits” and protect the reputation of the church, which relies on proselytizing and tithing to attract new members and raise money. In 2020, the church claimed approximately 16 million members worldwide, most of them living outside the United States.

“The failure to prevent or report abuse was part of the policy of the defendants, which was to block public disclosure to avoid scandals, to avoid the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual molestation and assault, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority, including law enforcement,” the suit alleges. “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of the defendants.”

4. Craig Vernon is hardly an impartial observer, nor is the author of the lawsuit against the Church. More to the point, they are simply wrong. The purpose of the helpline is to A) facilitate compliance with the law (nobody should be faulted for seeking legal advice - ever), and B) furthering the Church's policies and interests in stated in the CHI previously: “{T}he first responsibility of the church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused and protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse."

The Church now has this article on its website: Preventing and Responding to Abuse: Instruction Outline for Stake and Ward Council Meetings

Quote

Preventing and Responding to Abuse

This document summarizes current Church policies and guidelines on abuse. All priesthood and Church organization leaders should be familiar with and follow them to help protect God’s children.

What Is Abuse?

Abuse is the mistreatment or neglect of others (such as a child or spouse, the elderly, or the disabled) in a way that causes physical, emotional, or sexual harm.

Abuse causes confusion, doubt, mistrust, and fear in the victims and sometimes inflicts physical injury. Most, but not all, allegations of abuse are true and should be taken seriously and handled with great care. Abuse tends to become more severe over time.

The Lord condemns abusive behavior in any form—including neglect and physical, sexual, or verbal abuse. Most abuse violates the civil laws of society. (See First Presidency letter, “Responding to Abuse,” July 28, 2008.)

Teaching Doctrine

Stake presidencies and bishoprics should ensure that what they say about abuse is based on Church doctrine. In particular, they should teach the following:

The doctrine of the Church commits all leaders and members to protect each individual (see Matthew 18:6; Ephesians 5:25, 28–29; “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” ChurchofJesusChrist.org).

Abuse in any form is sinful, tragic, and in total opposition to the teachings of the Savior (see Doctrine and Covenants 121:37).

The Savior extends succor, healing, and strength to victims of abuse because of His infinite and eternal Atonement (see Alma 7:11–12; 34:10).

Those who commit abuse in any way are accountable to God (see Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). Heavenly Father and His Son offer forgiveness to those who have committed abuse when they change their behavior and fully repent (see Mosiah 14:4–12; Doctrine and Covenants 58:42–43).

The principles in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” are vital for all members to understand and will help everyone avoid the evils of abuse (see Gordon B. Hinckley, “Save the Children,” Ensign, Nov. 1994, 52–54).

The Abuse Help Line

For some years, the Church has operated a free and confidential abuse help line (1-800-453-3860, ext. 2-1911), established for bishops and stake presidents in the United States and Canada. In other areas, bishops who learn of possible abuse should contact their stake presidents, who will seek guidance from the Area Presidency. (See General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 38.6.2.1, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.)

The following information will help bishops and stake presidents use this help line:

This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.

The bishop or stake president should promptly call the help line about every situation in which he believes a person may have been abused or neglected or is at risk of being abused or neglected.

When bishops or stake presidents call the help line, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse. For more information, see General Handbook, 38.6.2.1.

Key Messages

How Can Abuse Be Prevented?

At Home

Church leaders should do the following to help prevent abuse in the home:

Encourage couples and families to live the gospel in the home. They should establish patterns of kindness, respect, and open communication so that all family members are comfortable discussing sensitive matters (see “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” ChurchofJesusChrist.org).

Encourage parents to teach children information and skills appropriate to their age and maturity so they will know what to do if faced with abuse.

Make members aware of Church resources.

At Church

Church leaders should follow these guidelines to help prevent abuse at Church:

A person must not be given a Church calling or assignment that involves working with children or youth if his or her membership record is not in the ward or if it has an annotation for abuse (see General Handbook, 38.6.2, 12.5.1).

When adults are teaching children or youth in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. The two adults could be two men, two women, or a married couple (see General Handbook, 12.5.1).

Where it may not be practical to have at least two adults in a classroom, leaders should consider combining classes.

At least two adults must be present on all Church-sponsored activities attended by youth or children.

When a brother participates in a ministering visit to an individual woman, he should go with his companion or with his wife.

When a member of a stake presidency or bishopric or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood (see General Handbook, 12.5.1).

On Church-sponsored overnight activities, a child or youth may not stay in the tent or room of an adult leader unless the adult is his or her parent or guardian or there are at least two adults in the tent or room who are the same gender as the child or youth (see General Handbook, 12.2.1.3).

If adult leaders and children or youth share other overnight facilities, such as a cabin, there must be at least two adults in the facility and they must be the same gender as the children or youth (see General Handbook, 12.2.1.3).

Responding to Abuse

(See General Handbook, 38.6.2.1.)

Church leaders and members should follow these guidelines when responding to abuse:

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. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.

Church leaders and members should be caring, compassionate, and sensitive when working with victims and perpetrators and their families.

Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel.

Church leaders and members should fulfill all legal obligations to report abuse to civil authorities.

Priesthood leaders should help those who have committed abuse to repent and cease their abusive behavior (see Isaiah 1:18; Doctrine and Covenants 64:7).

Professional counseling may be helpful for the victims and perpetrators and their families. It is almost always advised in cases of serious abuse.

Teaching Stake and Ward Councils

Stake presidencies and bishoprics should present this information in stake and ward council meetings. Members of stake and ward councils should then discuss this material in their respective presidency and leadership meetings and with others, as needed:

Members of stake and ward councils should teach the key messages in this outline and invite discussion from adult priesthood and Church organization leaders. As part of the discussion, they might begin by watching the video “Protect the Child: Responding to Child Abuse,” found under “How to Help” on the Abuse page of Gospel Library. Because this information is sensitive, they should seek the guidance of the Spirit as they teach.

Often a report of abuse will come to a trusted teacher or adviser. Members of stake and ward councils should help leaders, teachers, and members take proper steps in preventing and responding to abuse, including reporting the abuse to appropriate civil authorities.

Policy and Legal Issues Relating to Abuse

The following guidelines will help Church leaders handle policy and legal issues relating to abuse:

Immediately call the help line at 1-800-453-3860, ext. 2-1911, when addressing situations involving any type of abuse.

For guidelines on handling situations involving abuse, stake presidents and bishops should refer to General Handbook, 38.6.2.1.

For guidelines on handling confession, restitution, investigation, communication with aggrieved victims, and confidentiality in situations involving abuse, stake presidents and bishops should refer to General Handbook, 38.6.2.2.

For guidelines on handling Church discipline in situations involving abuse, stake presidents and bishops should refer to General Handbook, 38.6.2.

Church leaders should not testify in civil or criminal cases involving abuse without first conferring with the Office of General Counsel at Church headquarters (1-800-453-3860, ext. 2-6301). For specific guidelines, see General Handbook, 38.6.2.1.

Other Resources

“Abuse (Offender’s Needs),” ChurchofJesusChrist.org

Articles of Faith 1:12

Doctrine and Covenants 121; 123

Gordon B. Hinckley, “Personal Worthiness to Exercise the Priesthood,” Ensign, May 2002, 52–59

Gordon B. Hinckley, “What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, Nov. 1998, 70–72

Dallin H. Oaks, “Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2005, 24–27

Richard G. Scott, “To Heal the Shattering Consequences of Abuse,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2008, 40–43

“Abuse: Help, Healing, and Protection,” Life Help, ChurchofJesusChrist.org

Family Services courses Strengthening Marriage and Strengthening the Family

© 2022 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Version: 11/22. PD60004798 000. Printed in the United States of Americ

The foregoing policies have largely been in place for years.

5. I think the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church have created an atmosphere if suspicion and cynicism as to how religious groups generally respond in situations of suspected abuse. That is, I think there is a presumption of nefariousness, of ulterior motives, of prioritizing "the church" over the welfare of the individual. It's an unfair and inaccurate stereotype. It even has some hints at being a "moral panic."

Consider this (very brief) excerpt from the article:

Quote

Maledon, the attorney for the church in the Adams lawsuit, said church clergy or church attorneys have made “hundreds of reports” of child abuse to civil authorities in Arizona over an unspecified number of years. But he could not say how many calls to the help line were not referred to police or child welfare officials and could not provide a referral rate.

This begrudging acknowledgment is minimized in the article because it contravenes the preferred narrative of the Church as being indifferent to, or even collusive in covering up, abuse.

The thing is, bishops - aided by the helpline - regularly facilitate the discovery of, and reparative measures against, abuse. See, for example, this story:

Quote

Arizona judge investigated over sex abuse claim

Jacques Billeaud, The Associated Press

Publishing date: Mar 08, 2018

PHOENIX — An Arizona judge is being investigated on allegations of sexually abusing a girl from when she was 13 until she reached adulthood, The Associated Press has learned.

The alleged victim, now 25, told investigators last year that Pinal County Superior Court Judge Steven Fuller touched her genitals and buttocks repeatedly and also showed her pornography, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press.

The woman said she and the judge knew each other before the alleged abuse occurred but the Associated Press is not identifying her because it generally does not name alleged sexual assault victims.
...
The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop. She spoke with investigators several weeks later, saying she was coming forward after being encouraged to do by Paul Babeu, a family friend who was the Pinal County Sheriff from 2009 through 2016.
...
The lawyer for the Mormon church went to police in Mesa, thinking that was where some of the alleged abuse occurred. Mesa police initially investigated but turned over the case to Pinal County authorities after discovering the alleged abuse happened in Pinal County.

"The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop."

This is how the process is supposed to work. Bishop becomes aware of abuse (very often through interviews) --> Bishop calls helpline to ensure compliance with the law --> Helpline lawyer intervenes and makes a report to law enforcement --> Law enforcement does its thing.

And it does work. A lot. All the time, in fact. Bishops are regularly instrumental in detecting and reporting abuse, and they are aided in that by the helpline. Nevertheless, people who want to abolish the privilege and get rid of bishop interview (thanks, Sam Young). Have these folks considered the ramifications of such demands being fulfilled? Have they considered how many times abuse of a child will continue unabated because bishops were eliminated as a resource for helping stop or avert abuse or other forms of misconduct? Bishops are not perfect, but in my view they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, in helping members cope with various other problems and questions and anxieties, and generally being someone that can be there to offer support and (some) guidance and (lots of) resources.

6. Reporting abuse is not a panacea. Abuse allegations are frequently left uninvestigated and/or uncharged and/or unprosecuted.

7. Abuse allegations are generally not, in and of themselves, sufficient evidence of abuse. For example, in the story above about the Arizona judge who was accused of abuse, no charges were ever filed against him (per this article, "The Pima County Attorney’s Office said it won’t file charges against Judge Steven Fuller because they don’t have the level of evidence needed to win a conviction"), the state Commission on Judicial Conduct also declined to take action against him (see here and here). He is currently still a judge. Is he guilty? By the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, no. See also this story:

Quote

The Pima County Sheriff's Department has confirmed that deputies are investigating sexual-misconduct allegations made by a woman against Judge Steven Fuller. The case was forwarded to the agency by the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, which wanted to avoid any potential conflict of interest, officials said.
...
Fuller's lawyer said the woman making the allegations is "making stuff up." The lawyer, Dennis Wilenchik, said the woman made the allegations to derail Fuller's upcoming re-election for his court seat and his engagement.

Fuller, 53, who has been a Pinal County Superior Court judge since 2010, is a former prosecutor for Maricopa and Pinal counties.

"These allegations are completely baseless and were done for ulterior motives," Wilenchik said.
...
After Fuller learned of the allegations, he hired Wilenchik, who wrote a signed letter to the accuser in February in which he tells her that she has a history of making false allegations, including sexual-abuse claims against another man who is now dead.

Long gave The Republic a copy of the letter, which Wilenchik confirmed he wrote. Wilenchik said he sent the letter to the woman because the judge believes she is making up the allegations for nefarious reasons.

"He's not guilty of anything," Wilenchik said. "It's vicious and malicious for her to be doing this."

8. Bishops are not the only ones who fail to report allegations of abuse. From this article about the above story:

Quote

The woman told investigators that she first told her mother when she was around age 13 that Fuller had touched her inappropriately but that her mother told her making those kind of claims could ruin others’ lives.

And here:

Quote

In September, an attorney for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints informed the Mesa Police Department that a young woman had recently told a church bishop she had allegedly been abused by Fuller since she was 13.

The case was transferred to Pima County in order to avoid a conflict of interest and during the investigation, that Sheriff’s Office interviewed another church official about something the woman reportedly had told him a couple of years prior.

The other bishop told authorities that sometime around 2015 the woman told him Fuller allegedly had looked at her while she was showering a couple of times. Because one of the woman’s parents was aware of this, the bishop said he didn’t dig deeper into investigating the claim and kept the conversation confidential.
...
The church bishop told authorities he didn’t have any record documenting his conversation with the woman back in 2015. And he added she didn’t tell him about any other alleged misconduct.

9. Returning to the original story, it is a terrible thing. It is very distressing to hear that bishops knew about, but did not stop, ongoing abuse of children. It is perplexing and troubling to think that the bishops were told by the helpline attorneys to not report the abuse. I'm sure we don't have the full story, but what we do know is very difficult to bear.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2022 by smac97

Fair Dinkum · August 4, 2022

Does it sully your reputation on this board if I give you a "LIKE" on this post?

Edited August 4, 2022 by Fair Dinkum

jkwilliams · August 4, 2022

2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Does it sully your reputation on this board if I give you a "LIKE" on this post?

So do I, oddly enough.

ttribe · August 4, 2022

I think Bill Maledon will (or already does) regret his blustery advocacy in this instance. This should have been handled with much more delicacy.

smac97 · August 4, 2022

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Does it sully your reputation on this board if I give you a "LIKE" on this post?

I genuinely love and am devoted to the Church. I believe it is foundationally and broadly good and beautiful. In its roots, trunk, branches and leaves. It is not, however, perfect. It needs to constantly check itself, and improve and grow, and correct errors and defects.

And sometimes the Church really messes up, as seems to be the case here. For me, there is generally no "blood is thicker than water" or "I'm with you, right or wrong" sort of sentiment about the Church. I wrote this back in 2020 (about a pretty dumb lawsuit against the Church filed in California) :

Quote

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church. Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally. When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else. So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

That said, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits filed against the Church. Those filed by Cook and Gaddy come immediately to mind. And these are just the recent ones.

Another participant chimed in, and I responded:

Quote

Quote

I agree with this but am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps?

McKenna Denson's suit was a possible one. Respondeat superior and all that. If liability had been established, and the statute of limitations was somehow tolled or deemed inapplicable...

Also, the Church lost in the Main Street Plaza case, as it should have. The deal with SLC was clearly unconstitutional.

Also, the Church erred in its daily reporting requirements during Prop 8, and as a result paid a small fine (see here).

Late last year I said (regarding the story about the Church's financial stockpile): "I'm sure the IRS will sort out whether the Church has complied with the law. If the Church has not complied with it, it needs to be held accountable."

I'm sure there are more instances than these.
...
I am not discrediting all lawsuits against the Church.

While the news items I linked to were slanted, and while I would generally prefer news articles to be more Joe "Just-the-Facts-Ma'am" Friday than Upton "Muckraker" Sinclair, sometimes we (the Church) need an outsider's critique.

Here, the system promulgated by the Church did not work. Two bishops apparently knew about, but did not disclose, ongoing child abuse. The first one, Herrod, told law enforcement that he was specifically instructed by the attorneys on the helpline to not report the abuse ("'They said, "You absolutely can do nothing," Herrod said in a recorded interview with law enforcement'" and "church officials told him the state’s clergy-penitent privilege required him to keep Adams’s abuse confidential"). Regarding the second bishop, per the article: "Herrod later told a second bishop, who also kept the matter secret after consulting with church officials who maintain that the bishops were excused from reporting the abuse to police under the state’s so-called clergy-penitent privilege."

Some of this is hearsay, but either both bishops lied about what the helpline attorneys told them, or else the helpline attorneys materially screwed up. Both reflect poorly on the Church, and both seem difficult to take at face value, but it seems like one of them must be substantively true, and at present, I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

As for whether the Church should be held legally accountable, I'll leave that to the courts.

As for whether the Church should be held morally accountable, that's an individual decision.

As for whether the Church has some sort of pervasive and systemic problem of failing to report abuse, I think . . . not. I say this for at least four reasons:

First, the Church's published-to-the-world policies and procedures do not allow for such sweeping-under-the-rug sorts of things. To the contrary, these policies and procedures, when followed, are very helpful in detecting and stopping abuse, and in reporting past abuse.
Second, the Church has no incentive to deviate from its established policies and procedures. The narrative being peddled here is that the Church wants to "cover up" abuse so as to protect its image. And yet not only is the Church's reputation/image not harmed by reporting instances of abuse, its reputation/image is harmed, and in far greater measure, when it fails to report instances of abuse. This news item typifies that. As the old saying goes: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up."
Third, that this story is in the news media is, I think, indicative of a general lack of a pervasive/systemic problem of bishops failing to report allegations of abuse. This story is both horrific and out of the ordinary. And it indicates a substantial breakdown as to applying the Church's policies.
Fourth, I have personal experience in working with the attorneys on the helpline, and in reporting allegations of abuse. My experience was very different from the one described by Herrod. I came away happy that the Church had this resource in place to help bishops navigate these complex legal waters.

As for whether the Church can improve, the answer is obviously yes. More training for bishops (and, it seems, maybe for the attorneys on the helpline too). Yes, the priest/penitent privilege is important and should be preserved, but that can happen without allowing abuse of children to continue. If the news reports are accurate, the bishops

had independent grounds to fall within the "mandatory" reporting provisions of the law (the statute does not exempt clergy from reporting where they have "personal observations ... of the minor"), and
knew (or should have known) that the mother in the family was failing in her obligations as well, and therefore should have intervened ("Herrod later told Homeland Security agent Robert Edwards he knew from the start that Leizza Adams was unlikely to stop her husband, after he called her into the counseling sessions"), and
were given bad advice about the law because they did, in fact, seem to have the option of reporting (the statute states that "a member of the clergy ... may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy ... determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion").

As to that last point, it sort of veers out of "the law" because whether or not a bishop acting or not acting is "reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion" sounds like, well, a religious question more than a legal one (it just happens to be a religious question that can have significant legal import). I consider myself fairly well-versed in the doctrines of the Church, and at present I don't see a point of doctrine that would be contravened by a bishop reporting suspected abuse. The closest I can get to that is the Church's policies (which are, I think, derivative of "doctrine") regarding confidentiality. See Section 32.4.4 of the Handbook:

Quote

32.4.4

Confidentiality

Bishops, stake presidents, and their counselors have a sacred duty to protect all confidential information shared with them. This information may come in interviews, counseling, and confessions. The same duty of confidentiality applies to all who take part in membership councils. Confidentiality is essential because members may not confess sins or seek guidance if what they share will not be kept confidential. Breaching a confidence betrays members’ trust and causes them to lose confidence in their leaders.

However, this section goes on to enumerate instances in which a bishop "may share" confidential information:

Quote

Consistent with their duty of confidentiality, a bishop, stake president, or their counselors may share such information only as follows:

They need to confer with the member’s stake president, mission president, or bishop about holding a membership council or related matters. The stake president may also confer with his assigned Area Seventy. If needed, the Area Seventy refers the stake president to the Area Presidency. Only the stake president decides if a council should be held or its outcome.

The person moves to a new ward (or the priesthood leader is released) while membership action or other serious concerns are pending. In these cases, the leader notifies the new bishop or stake president about the concerns or pending action (see 32.14.7). He also informs the leader if the member may pose a threat to others.

A bishop or stake president learns that a Church member who lives outside the ward or stake may have been involved in a serious sin. In that instance, he confidentially contacts that member’s bishop.

It is necessary to disclose information during a membership council. All information gathered and shared as part of a membership council is confidential.

A member chooses to give permission for the leader to share information with specific persons. These may include parents, Church leaders, or others who may provide support. The leader does not share information beyond the permission the member has given.

It may be necessary to share limited information about the decision of a membership council (see 32.12.2).

In all other situations, the leader should refer to 32.4.5. These cases include when the law may require that a crime, such as child abuse, be reported to government authorities.

To assist leaders in protecting others and complying with the law, the Church provides help from trained professionals. To receive this guidance, leaders promptly call the Church’s abuse help line where it is available (see 32.4.5 and 38.6.2.1). Where it is not available, the stake president contacts the area legal counsel at the area office.

So confidentiality is not an absolute, as compared to the stance taken by our Catholic friends:

Quote

The seal of confession is so important and sacred that a priest would be automatically excommunicated under canon law for directly revealing the contents of a confession.

The sacramental seal is absolutely inviolable and “admits no exceptions” — even if the intention was to prevent an imminent evil or serious crime, said Msgr. Krzysztof Nykiel, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court dealing with matters of conscience.

Not even the death of the penitent can release the confessor from the obligation to maintain the seal, he added.

Compare the above sentiment with the next section of Section 32.4.4:

Quote

In only one situation should a bishop or stake president disclose confidential information without first seeking such guidance. That is when disclosure is necessary to prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance. In such cases, the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality. Leaders should contact civil authorities immediately.

It is my understanding that this policy, or something very much like it, was in place when the abuse was happening in that family in Bisbee. Ongoing sexual abuse of a child unequivocally constitutes "serious injury," such that the bishops should have "contact{ed} civil authorities immediately," should have taken immediate steps to have the father move out or the mother and children move out, and should have taken all other feasible steps to ensure the immediate cessation of abuse. Instead, the bishops allowed the abuse to continue for years, apparently on the instruction of the Church's attorneys. The incongruity between A) the Church's policies and my personal experiences with them, and B) what happened in Bisbee for years is very difficult for me to understand.

The Church is not a law enforcement agency, nor should it be. It cannot be all things to all people. But its agents apparently knew about ongoing abuse and did not stop it. This happened for years, and in contravention of the Church's policies. Why this happened needs to be evaluated, and changes should be made to ensure better compliance with the Church's policies. I think the policy framework is presently quite sound, but we need to figure out why it went so terribly wrong in this instance.

My affection and respect for the Church is not diminished. That a mother, two bishops, and the Church's attorneys all failed to properly address and stop years of ongoing abuse of children is a terrible wrong, but it does not retroactively negate the reality of the divinity of Jesus Christ, His Atonement, the Plan of Salvation, the theophanies and prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, the restoration of the priesthood, and so on.

Again: "Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally. When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else." I think that has happened here.

Thanks

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2022 by smac97

webbles · August 4, 2022

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

had independent grounds to fall within the "mandatory" reporting provisions of the law (the statute does not exempt clergy from reporting where they have "personal observations ... of the minor"), and

knew (or should have known) that the mother in the family was failing in her obligations as well, and therefore should have intervened ("Herrod later told Homeland Security agent Robert Edwards he knew from the start that Leizza Adams was unlikely to stop her husband, after he called her into the counseling sessions"), and

This is what confuses me about what happened. If the bishop heard from the mother that the abuse was happening, then that becomes mandatory reporting. If the excommunication later was about the abuse, then all of the people there are mandatory reporting. In both situations, there is no "maybe".

smac97 · August 4, 2022

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

This is what confuses me about what happened. If the bishop heard from the mother that the abuse was happening, then that becomes mandatory reporting.

If preserving the priest/penitent privilege was a consideration, there seem to be a number of ways to address that and stopping the abuse. Have the abuser move out. Have the mother and kids move out. Encourage the abuser to confess.

In the law, evidence that is obtained illegally can be "excluded" (not considered by the court or the jury). This is done to ensure that law enforcement does not run roughshod over civil liberties and take a "the ends justify the means"-type of approach. However, there are ways to address the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence:

Quote

The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence seized as a product of unlawful police activity, absent some exception, is not admissible in court. Evidence subject to suppression as a result of fourth (search and seizure), fifth (self-incrimination), or sixth (right to assistance of counsel) amendment violations include not only what was seized or discovered in the course of the unlawful conduct, but anything that was subsequently obtained as a product of the illegal action. One exception to the exclusionary rule involves "attenuation of the taint." If there are intervening factors, such as a significant amount of time or actions by the defendant or third parties, a court must analyze those factors to determine whether the "taint" (illegal police activity) has become so far "attenuated" from the eventual discovery of evidence subject to being suppressed that it serves no legitimate purpose to suppress it. Another exception to the exclusionary rule involves an "independent source" for the evidence illegally obtained. This doctrine allows the admission of evidence that may have been obtained illegally by police if that same evidence was also obtained legally by another means. A third exception to the exclusionary rule concerns "inevitable discovery." This doctrine provides that evidence found due to a constitutional violation is admissible if it would have been inevitably discovered lawfully. This is a valid exception only if the inevitable discovery would have occurred through means other than the proper securing of a search warrant.

The exclusionary rule is used to preserve civil liberties. But because the exclusionary rule can, if inflexibly applied, lead to profound injustice, there are exceptions to it.

Similarly, the priest/penitent privilege also exists to preserve and protect civil liberties (as the Church puts it: "Confidentiality is essential because members may not confess sins or seek guidance if what they share will not be kept confidential"). However, this privilege can, if inflexibly applied, also lead to pronound injustice, so the Church has exceptions to it as well.

And in any event, the Church is an ecclesistical body and has very finite authority over its members. As a result, I think the Church has more autonomy to deviate from its own policies where the circumstances warrant. Such is the case when a bishop learns about ongoing abuse. Let's do what we can to preserve the privilege, but not if it means that abuse continues unabated.

The tragic thing here is that this is already addressed in the Church's policies:

"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. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe."
"In only one situation should a bishop or stake president disclose confidential information without first seeking such guidance. That is when disclosure is necessary to prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance. In such cases, the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality. Leaders should contact civil authorities immediately."

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · August 5, 2022

Let me know if you already linked to it. My memory can be poor.

https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/are-reported-sexual-abuse-cases-exceptional-or-illustrative-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ/

sunstoned · August 5, 2022

9 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Does it sully your reputation on this board if I give you a "LIKE" on this post?

I'm a heathen apostate, and I gave him a like.

smac97 · August 5, 2022

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me know if you already linked to it. My memory can be poor.

https://publicsquaremag.org/editorials/are-reported-sexual-abuse-cases-exceptional-or-illustrative-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ/

I liked this part:

Quote

Outside legal concerns, isn’t reporting abuse the obvious ethical choice?

Clearly, reporting abuse in any individual case will most often be best for the child involved. But the answer may not be as clear-cut as some think. There may be some inadvertent consequences of eliminating all prohibitions on reporting. For instance, according to one clinical psychologist, “As the boundaries of confidentiality decrease, people who need help are less likely to seek it out. Instead, they will suffer along in silence and isolation.”

Confessing instances of abuse to a clergy member can often set abusers on the path to deep changes in their behavior. Whereas if they don’t go to see a clergy member because they’re worried about being reported, their abuse will continue without anyone knowing.

Clearly, the victims need to be our top priority. But there are many victims. And some of those victims will only be helped if their abuser comes forward. And those abusers might only come forward if they trust clergy confidentiality. Some recent research suggests that mandatory reporting laws don’t always work and, in fact, can make the problem worse. A reasonable argument can be made that, in the aggregate, maintaining some degree of clergy confidentiality helps reduce child abuse over the long term.

I witnessed first-hand an instance where "mandatory reporting laws" made the problem way "worse" than it actually was or needed to be. It nearly destroyed the family.

I'm not as sure about this part:

Quote

Did The Church of Jesus Christ attempt to conceal the abuse in this case?

Not by any reasonable definition of the word. The bishop encouraged both the perpetrator and his wife to report the abuse. The Church chose to maintain clergy confidentiality in this case but took no proactive steps to hide it from anyone else and, in fact, encouraged reports to be made.

While some might equate not directly reporting themselves to “burying” the abuse, there is good reason to believe, once again, that if abusers could not trust clergy to maintain confidence, many more cases of abuse would remain entirely buried—not just from the police, but from anyone who could help.

To "conceal" is to "hide from sight; hide."

Failure to disclose X is not necessarily equivalent to concealing X. See, for example, these legal definitions (in the context of a contract, but the general principles could be applied here) :

Quote

Concealment is the act of intentionally or unintentionally not revealing information that should be disclosed and would otherwise affect the terms or creation of a contract. A concealment can occur through either purposeful misrepresentation or withholding of material facts. Where the information could not have been known by the other party and it is known to be material by the concealing party, the concealment can give grounds for nullifying the contract.

There are three types of concealments which are as follows:

Active concealment: The non-disclosure by words or actions in a situation where there is a positive duty on the person to disclose something.

Fraudulent concealment: The concealment where the person conceals something with the intent to deceive or defraud the other party.

Passive concealment: The act of silence in a situation where the person had a duty to speak and disclose relevant information.

At first glance, the definitions of "active" and "passive" seem nearly synonymous. This article explains the difference:

Quote

Active concealment refers to the situation where a party conceals any information which they have a duty to disclose. The concealment may occur through actions, writings, or spoken words. This is more than simply a failure to disclose private information- active concealment involves a positive act intended to conceal the information.
...
Active concealment is different from passive concealment. Passive concealment happens when a party simply remains silent when they have a duty to disclose information. The difference here is that in active concealment, the party must take affirmative steps to conceal the information before they are held liable.

In the context of this matter, I think "passive concealment" fits best, but only if there was "a duty to speak and disclose relevant information."

The statute imposes on anyone in Arizona an affirmative duty to report, with some very limited exceptions. One such exception is for clergy, but it is narrow, applying only to a clergy "who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy." And even then the statute did not obligate maintaining the privilege, but instead merely allows a clergy to not report if the clergy "determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."

So there was no legal "duty" to disclose (and hence no technical "passive concealment"), but only as to whatever the perpetrator confessed to. As I see it, the Arizona statute is drafted in such a way that the bishops likely had an affirmative "duty" to report to the extent they "reasonably believe{d} that a minor is or has been the victim of {abuse}" based on either A) the bishops' "personal observations ... of the minor" and/or B) information or communications from someone other than the perpetrator (here, the other person being the wife). Because the statute imposes an affirmative duty in one or both of these circumstances, I think that characterizing the bishops as having "concealed the abuse" is not out of bounds. It appears that they had a legal duty to report the abuse, and they didn't.

I liked this part:

Quote

Does sexual abuse occur more among the Church of Jesus Christ than the public at large?

The evidence is to the contrary. According to documents leaked in 2018, the rate of abuse among missionaries and church leaders is considerably lower than those found among general demographics. In one month, out of 170,000 mission presidents, stake presidents, missionaries, and bishops, only seven were accused of abuse. This rate suggests that if all the accusations were accurate, church leaders and missionaries commit sexual abuse at about 1/66th the frequency of men in the same age groups.

Recently Jennifer Roach, a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, now working as a licensed clinical therapist, wrote for Public Square Magazine about ways the Church of Jesus Christ has developed policies that prevent the kind of abuse she experienced.

Interesting.

I also think this is noteworthy:

Quote

How does the Church of Jesus Christ compare with other faith communities when it comes to abuse?

While there have been isolated incidents of abuse, The Church of Jesus Christ is now the largest denomination in the United States to have not been implicated in a systemic sexual abuse scandal.

I touched on this earlier:

Quote

As for whether the Church has some sort of pervasive and systemic problem of failing to report abuse, I think . . . not. I say this for at least four reasons:

First, the Church's published-to-the-world policies and procedures do not allow for such sweeping-under-the-rug sorts of things. To the contrary, these policies and procedures, when followed, are very helpful in detecting and stopping abuse, and in reporting past abuse.

Second, the Church has no incentive to deviate from its established policies and procedures. The narrative being peddled here is that the Church wants to "cover up" abuse so as to protect its image. And yet not only is the Church's reputation/image not harmed by reporting instances of abuse, its reputation/image is harmed, and in far greater measure, when it fails to report instances of abuse. This news item typifies that. As the old saying goes: "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up."

Third, that this story is in the news media is, I think, indicative of a general lack of a pervasive/systemic problem of bishops failing to report allegations of abuse. This story is both horrific and out of the ordinary. And it indicates a substantial breakdown as to applying the Church's policies.

Fourth, I have personal experience in working with the attorneys on the helpline, and in reporting allegations of abuse. My experience was very different from the one described by Herrod. I came away happy that the Church had this resource in place to help bishops navigate these complex legal waters.

This part is uneven:

Quote

Did the AP miss anything in their article?

The AP report suggests in several places that the Church engaged in an effort to conceal the abuse. There has been no evidence of any effort to cover up. What the bishops were advised to do was maintain clergy-penitent privilege in this case according to Arizona law. The article also fails to mention that bishops are volunteer leaders, which necessitates the kind of professional advice the helpline provides.

In addition, the article regularly mentions seven years of abuse, without clarifying that the abuser was only a member of the Church for three of those years and then was kicked out of the Church likely because of the abuse. And the article also implies the Church’s current policy is to discourage bishops from disclosing abuse to local authorities.

The "maintain clergy-penitent privilege ... according to Arizona law" seems to be quite wrong. As far as I can tell, the Arizona statute does not require the privilege, it only allows it (as an exception to the otherwise nearly-universal obligation to report) in limited circumstances.

The article goes on:

Quote

Has the Church made mistakes in this or other cases?

The Church is not perfect in this area. By making decisions on a case-by-case basis, there will always likely be cases where the Church errs on one side or the other on this issue—both in supporting members and in leader behavior. A recent case of an Elder’s Quorum president with a past of sexual abuse comes to mind. And there were clearly some tragic errors made in this case as well.

There are conflicting reports—some reports say that the Church hotline said “don’t report it” and others sources say “it’s optional to report it.” Either way, the two bishops involved clearly didn’t do what the Church Handbook said, which is most importantly to stop the abuse. No doubt, both former bishops—along with senior leaders—feel deep sorrow that more was not done to ensure the children were safe.

No doubt. And I say that sincerely.

And this:

Quote

In the end, does the helpline prevent or cause more harm?

There’s no way to quantify a question like this. But it seems likely that balancing competing concerns in each individual case is likely to produce better results than a blanket policy that has to be instituted by volunteers.

Research shows that volunteers who are also mandatory reporters create many of the problems that make these laws ineffective. Professionals, like the therapists and lawyers who staff the helpline, often make better determinations of when to report.

The "research shows" link apparently takes you to a login. However, this link takes you to the same report: Unintended Consequences of Expanded Mandatory Reporting Laws. It is definitely worth a read because it makes some very good points (in bold) :

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2022 by smac97

Tacenda · August 5, 2022

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

We previously had a discussion (also discussed here) about Paul Adams, a man in Arizona who abused his children, who was excommunicated for his abuse, and who later committed suicide.  And another discussion here in 2020: Update on AZ Abuse Case. And yet another: (2nd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case.

Today the AP published an article by Michael Rezendes: Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen

Also a second article, also by Rezendes: 4 takeaways from AP’s Mormon church sex abuse investigation

Also a YouTube video: How a Mormon church 'help line' hid child sex abuse

The first article above (published today) includes details not found in the links we had discussed previously. Very disheartening stuff. It also addresses whether the first bishop was aware of the ongoing abuse. Apparently he was:

"What are we going to do to stop it." That was a good question, except that they didn't do anything to stop the ongoing abuse. For years. And they could have. That's the terrible part. The bishop and the mother could have worked together to get the children into a safe situation.

Also, it is terrible for the lawyer here to characterize the suit as a "money grab." Gadzooks.

The article also disputes the interpretation of the reporting statute relied upon by the bishop:

From our Amulek: "If you look at the history of the state's mandatory reporting statute (e.g., here), you will see that they added clergy to the list of mandatory reporters back in 1990 only to remove them when they revised the statute again back in 2003."

Here is the text of the statute as it presently exists (emphases added) :

The decision to not report the abuse was . . . discretionary. The bishop and the Church had the option of reporting ("may withold").

The statute also does not exempt clergy from reporting requirements if the clergy "reasonably believes that a minor is or has been the victim of {abuse}" based on "personal observations ... of the minor."

In other words if the bishop (there were two involved) had a basis other than the father's confession to "reasonably believe" that abuse had happened or was happening, then he had the obligation to report to law enforcement ("shall immediately report or cause reports to be made of this information to a peace officer...").  Per Amulek, the statute has been structured this way since 2003.

I am at a loss to understand why the bishops did not report, and why the helpline did not instruct them to report. In fact, per one of the bishops he was instructed by the helpline to not report. From the article:

The "church officials" referenced here is probably a reference to attorneys at the helpline. And they were partially correct in that the bishops were "excused from reporting." The bishops were not legally obligated to report the abuse, but only as to confessions from the father.

As noted above, if the bishops had a "reasonable belief" of abuse based on "personal observations ... of the minor," then the obligation to report kicked in. It is difficult to comprehend how the bishops could not, for years, have formulated a "reasonable belief" about the possibility of abuse independent of the father's confessions. A belief based on "observations" of the child.

Moreover, I am at a loss as to why the helpline did not instruct them to report the ongoing abuse based on the father's confession, as there was no legal constraint against that. I appreciate that the priest/penitent privilege is very important, as is the doctor/patient privilege (the AZ statute likewise includes an identical "may withold" provision for physicians, psychologists and behavioral health professionals). But where the law allows (as in does not prohibit) a clergy or doctor from reporting ongoing abuse, I think the welfare of the child supersedes all other considerations. This comports with the Church's CHI in place at the time. From the article:

If the Church's policy is that the first responsibility of the church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused and protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse,” then why did the bishops not report? Apparently because they were told as much by the helpline lawyers. But why would the lawyers say that, since the statute allows (but does not require) clergy to report?

From the article:

I know Peter Schofield. We went to high school together and I have crossed paths with him a few times in court. I sure would like to better understand the legal reasoning behind what happened - and did not happen - in this case.

From from the article:

I think both of these practices are reasonable. The attorney/client privilege is also very important.

This all sounds good. Still doesn't explain why the abuse in this case was not reported.

From the article:

Unequivocally terrible. I don't know what else to say.

The article goes on to describe the adoptive parents of one of the abuse victims, who were members of the Church:

Yes, that seems to be the thing to do.

A fair question.

The YouTube video above is hard to watch. Hard, but important.

A few closing thoughts:

1. 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.

2. I don't agree with the narrative that there is some sort of inherent conflict between a bishop A) calling and receiving legal advice from the helpline, and B) complying with reporting laws and/or dicretionary reporting (reporting when doing so is not legally prohibited).

3. I also don't agree with this criticism and characterization of the helpline:

4. Craig Vernon is hardly an impartial observer, nor is the author of the lawsuit against the Church. More to the point, they are simply wrong. The purpose of the helpline is to A) facilitate compliance with the law (nobody should be faulted for seeking legal advice - ever), and B) furthering the Church's policies and interests in stated in the CHI previously: “{T}he first responsibility of the church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused and protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse."

The Church now has this article on its website: Preventing and Responding to Abuse: Instruction Outline for Stake and Ward Council Meetings

The foregoing policies have largely been in place for years.

5. I think the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church have created an atmosphere if suspicion and cynicism as to how religious groups generally respond in situations of suspected abuse. That is, I think there is a presumption of nefariousness, of ulterior motives, of prioritizing "the church" over the welfare of the individual.  It's an unfair and inaccurate stereotype.  It even has some hints at being a "moral panic."

Consider this (very brief) excerpt from the article:

This begrudging acknowledgment is minimized in the article because it contravenes the preferred narrative of the Church as being indifferent to, or even collusive in covering up, abuse.

The thing is, bishops - aided by the helpline - regularly facilitate the discovery of, and reparative measures against, abuse.  See, for example, this story:

"The alleged abuse occurred years ago and was reported in late September to police in the Phoenix suburb of Mesa by a lawyer for the Mormon church who said the alleged victim revealed the alleged abuse to her bishop."

This is how the process is supposed to work. Bishop becomes aware of abuse (very often through interviews) --> Bishop calls helpline to ensure compliance with the law --> Helpline lawyer intervenes and makes a report to law enforcement --> Law enforcement does its thing.

And it does work. A lot. All the time, in fact. Bishops are regularly instrumental in detecting and reporting abuse, and they are aided in that by the helpline.  Nevertheless, people who want to abolish the privilege and get rid of bishop interview (thanks, Sam Young).  Have these folks considered the ramifications of such demands being fulfilled? Have they considered how many times abuse of a child will continue unabated because bishops were eliminated as a resource for helping stop or avert abuse or other forms of misconduct?  Bishops are not perfect, but in my view they are clearly a net benefit in terms of addressing allegations of abuse, in helping members cope with various other problems and questions and anxieties, and generally being someone that can be there to offer support and (some) guidance and (lots of) resources.

6. Reporting abuse is not a panacea. Abuse allegations are frequently left uninvestigated and/or uncharged and/or unprosecuted.

7. Abuse allegations are generally not, in and of themselves, sufficient evidence of abuse. For example, in the story above about the Arizona judge who was accused of abuse, no charges were ever filed against him (per this article, "The Pima County Attorney’s Office said it won’t file charges against Judge Steven Fuller because they don’t have the level of evidence needed to win a conviction"), the state Commission on Judicial Conduct also declined to take action against him (see here and here). He is currently still a judge. Is he guilty? By the "innocent until proven guilty" standard, no. See also this story:

8. Bishops are not the only ones who fail to report allegations of abuse. From this article about the above story:

And here:

9. Returning to the original story, it is a terrible thing. It is very distressing to hear that bishops knew about, but did not stop, ongoing abuse of children. It is perplexing and troubling to think that the bishops were told by the helpline attorneys to not report the abuse. I'm sure we don't have the full story, but what we do know is very difficult to bear.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm probably reading into it, but this one sentence seems to be a totally ambivalent response.

c/p from your post: “They said, ‘You absolutely can do nothing,’” Herrod said in a recorded interview with law enforcement.

Me: Again the lawyer at the helpline said, "You absolutely can do nothing". But they didn't say you absolutely can't do something. Too bad the bishop didn't immediately right down or permeate it in their brain those words! He/they misunderstood that to mean they were not to report. But the wording can certainly leave it an option if looking at it closely.

ETA: On second thought maybe it's just Herrod's translation of what the helpline attorney said. Not word for word exact.

Edited August 5, 2022 by Tacenda

Fair Dinkum · August 5, 2022

The church public affairs department has now responded to the AP article.

So who is telling the truth? The Bishop or the Church. Their claims contradict with each other.

ksfisher · August 5, 2022

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

ETA: On second thought maybe it's just Herrod's translation of what the helpline attorney said. Not word for word exact.

If you and I had a conversation I doubt that the next day I could quote, exactly, even one sentence you said, let alone years later.

ksfisher · August 5, 2022

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church public affairs department has now responded to the AP article.

Link?

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So who is telling the truth? The Bishop or the Church. Their claims contradict with each other.

What, in your opinion, is contradictory in the various statements?

Ferdinand55 · August 5, 2022

29 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So who is telling the truth? The Bishop or the Church. Their claims contradict with each other.

I'm not sure I see a contradiction. The main purpose of the statement by the Church seems to be to counter the articles sentiment that the helpline is solely, or at least mainly, intended to protect the Church rather than victims of abuse.

Like how the article quotes an Idaho attorney saying:

Quote

The help line is certainly there to help — to help the church keep its secrets and to cover up abuse.

The statement doesn't say that the helpline is failproof or that this particular situation was handled correctly.

Fair Dinkum · August 5, 2022

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Link?

What, in your opinion, is contradictory in the various statements?

Sorry you’ll have to google it.

smac97 · August 5, 2022

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm probably reading into it, but this one sentence seems to be a totally ambivalent response.

c/p from your post: “They said, ‘You absolutely can do nothing,’” Herrod said in a recorded interview with law enforcement.

Me: Again the lawyer at the helpline said, "You absolutely can do nothing". But they didn't say you absolutely can't do something. Too bad the bishop didn't immediately right down or permeate it in their brain those words! He/they misunderstood that to mean they were not to report. But the wording can certainly leave it an option if looking at it closely.

ETA: On second thought maybe it's just Herrod's translation of what the helpline attorney said. Not word for word exact.

As I have previously indicated, I really struggle with this part. "Some of this is hearsay, but either both bishops lied about what the helpline attorneys told them, or else the helpline attorneys materially screwed up. Both reflect poorly on the Church, and both seem difficult to take at face value, but it seems like one of them must be substantively true, and at present, I'm inclined to think it's the latter."

The statute says nothing about prohibiting reporting. I just find it difficult, implausible (but not impossibe) that a licensed and well-credentialed attorney (Kirton McConkie is a top shelf law firm) would be so utterly and incontrovertibly wrong about a statute that is, candidly, pretty easy to understand.

It may be a professional bias in me (I am a lawyer, after all), but I think you may be right about "You absolutely can do nothing" being Herrod's revisionist "translation of what the helpline attorney said."

I think it is more likely that

A) Herrod called the helpline,
B) explained the situation at the time (that Herrod had received a confession from the perp),
C) the attorney told him "you are not legally obligated to report" (this is a correct, though not comprehensive, interpretation of the statute), and
D) the attorney likely did not expressly tell Herrod that he had the option to report (again, this is a correct interpretation of the statute).

The omission in (D) may be why Herrod "interpreted." Why "you are not legally obligated to report" became recollected years later as "you absolutely can do nothing."

Herrod, a doctor, may have been expecting a definitive instruction on how to proceed. You don't call lawyers for kicks and giggles. You call for legal advice.

However, "legal advice" from a lawyer to an ecclesiastical leader will likely be narrowed to only legal advice. More specifically, what the law requires or prohibits. Here, the reporting statute (arguably) does neither of these things, and instead allows a clergy to report suspected above. So the input from the lawyer - in my preferred way of things - would have gone something like this:

"Bishop, at present the only information you have is a confession from the perpetrator. Under the Arizona statute, you are presently not legally required to report the alleged abuse if you determine that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the Church to proceed in that way (that is, to not report the abuse to law enforcement)."
"Under these circumstances, whether to report or not is a discretionary religious quesiton, not a legal one. My job here is limited to providing legal advice, to tell you what the law requires you to do, or prohibits you from doing. Here, the law allows you to decide whether to report or not report, depending on what you feel is 'reasonable and necessary.'"
"However, bishop, it is very important that you understand that the above instruction is based on a very narrow set of circumstances which presently exist. If things change, if in the future you receive information/evidence from a source other than the alleged perpetrator, and if by that information/evidence you come to reasonably believe that abuse is occurring or has occurred, then the statute requires you to immediately report the matter to law enforcement."
"There are basically two ways you may end up being obligated to report suspected abuse. The first is that if you receive information from a source other than the perpetrator (from, for example, a percipient witness, such as the victim or the victim's mother or family), then you must report. Second, if you yourself have your own "personal observations ... of the minor" and from those observations come to reasonably believe abuse is occurring or has occurred, then you must report. Have either of these circumstances happened in any appreciable way?..."
"If you eventually need help in actually reporting the matter to law enforcement, we can do so on your behalf."
"All of the foregoing is secondary to the immediate welfare and safety of the child. Putting aside the statute, per section 38.6.2.1 of the Handbook, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. However, this part of the calculus is not really a legal issue, so let's get Sister Jones, who helps with logistics and recommendations, on the line and discuss your options for intervening in the family home, and getting the victims into a safe situation..."

</SPECULATION MODE>

I hate to be an armchair quarterback by secondguessing what legal advice was given and received, if for no other reason than we just don't have all of the facts. But the foregoing is nevertheless a wishlist for how I would have liked to see this matter addressed. As I have said previously, this case appears to reflect a fundamental breakdown of and departure from the Church's policies and procedures.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2022 by smac97

smac97 · August 5, 2022

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Link?

What, in your opinion, is contradictory in the various statements?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-offers-statement-help-line-abuse

Quote

5 August 2022 - Salt Lake City | Official Statement

Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse

Church responds to recent Associated Press article about the Church's abuse help line

The abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes this, teaches this, and dedicates tremendous resources and efforts to prevent, report and address abuse. Our hearts break for these children and all victims of abuse.

The nature and the purpose of the Church’s help line was seriously mischaracterized in a recent Associated Press article. The help line is instrumental in ensuring that all legal requirements for reporting are met. It provides a place for local leaders, who serve voluntarily, to receive direction from experts to determine who should make a report and whether they (local leaders) should play a role in that reporting. When a leader calls the help line, the conversation is about how to stop the abuse, care for the victim and ensure compliance with reporting obligations, even in cases when the law provides clergy-penitent privilege or restricts what can be shared from private ecclesiastical conversations.

The help line is just one of many safeguards put in place by the Church. Any member serving in a role with children or youth is required to complete a training every few years about how to watch for, report and address abuse. Leaders and members are offered resources on how to prevent, address and report abuse of any kind. Church teachings and handbooks are clear and unequivocal about the evils of abuse. Members who violate those teachings are disciplined by the Church and may lose their privileges or membership. These are just a few examples.

The story presented in the AP article is oversimplified and incomplete and is a serious misrepresentation of the Church and its efforts. We will continue to teach and follow Jesus Christ’s admonition to care for one another, especially in our efforts related to abuse.

I think it is fair to say that the purposes, and the practical effects and benefits, of the helpline were materially misrepresented. "Oversimplified and incomplete" and "a serious misrepresentation of the Church and its efforts" generally, yes.

I think this bit was the most significant: "When a leader calls the help line, the conversation is about how to stop the abuse, care for the victim and ensure compliance with reporting obligations, even in cases when the law provides clergy-penitent privilege or restricts what can be shared from private ecclesiastical conversations."

Significant, but still sort of nonresponsive. The foregoing is a generalization of the Church's practices, policies, etc., of what usually goes on, what is supposed to happen. However, it seems pretty clear here that the Herrod did not have a "conversation {on the helpline} about how to stop the abuse," because the abuse continued for years. Either that, or Herrod is materially misrepresenting what he was told by the helpline attorney.

As for the helpline attorney working with Herrod to "ensure compliance with reporting obligations," I still have questions about that. Was there a discussion with Herrod reporting despite not being legally obligated to do so? Was there a discussion with him about the possibility of a reporting obligaiton being triggered by "reasonable belief" about abuse based on A) him getting information from another source (statement from mother or victim) and/or B) his own "personal observations ... of the minor"?

In the end, I don't think it is essential that the Church publicly present a soup-to-nuts explanation as to what happened and why policies and procedures in this matter were not followed, how the breakdown occurred, etc. Often litigation and sensationalized stories like this don't really culminate in a tied-up-with-a-bow ending or resolution. Look at the McKenna Denson case. All sorts of questions linger on about that dumpster fire of a situation, yet I doubt we'll ever definitively find out what happened.

The foregoing pubic statement does a good job of being expressly condemnatory of abuse.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · August 5, 2022

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church public affairs department has now responded to the AP article.

So who is telling the truth? The Bishop or the Church. Their claims contradict with each other.

Well, no. The published statement from the Church is speaking in abstracts, not particulars.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · August 6, 2022

The AP journalist is saying more:

Quote

An investigation by the Associated Press claims an abuse help line used by lay leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was used to cover up a case of sexual abuse.

“The Church says that it does not tolerate abuse and I quoted their official statement in my story, saying they don’t tolerate abuse. But in the Arizona case of Paul Adams and his two daughters, they clearly tolerated the abuse,” said Mike Rezendes, an investigative journalist with the Associated Press.

Rezendes reported on a family in Bisbee, Arizona, where a father confessed to his bishop that he had been sexually abusing his daughter.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they have a policy that if the church leader hears an allegation or gets any information about child sex abuse, or potential child sex abuse, their first move ought to be what they call 'the help line,'" Rezendes said. "And so this bishop abided by the church policy, he called the help line, and he says that attorneys who he talked through the help line advised him that he could not report the allegation that Paul Adams was sexually abusing his daughter."

Rezendes added that after the father spoke to the Bishop the first time, the abuse continued for 7 years and included another baby daughter.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · August 6, 2022

An interesting article in the Deseret News: Perspective: I survived abuse. I worked for the church’s help line. The AP story broke my heart

Quote

I felt a sick knot in my stomach.

A friend texted me an article from The Associated Press titled, “Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen.” As I read the disturbing details, my eyes filled with tears and my heart absolutely shattered.

No child should have to ever suffer through what the sisters described in the article suffered through. It’s devastating every time I hear the stories of sex abuse survivors.

Even as I type and edit this article, I can’t help but pause and weep.

You see, I’m not just a mother of young children and a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’m also a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, much like that described in the article.

And what’s more, I am an attorney, and I worked as part of the small group of lawyers tasked with assisting victims of abuse — on the very same church help line discussed in the AP article.

This is a worthwhile perspective, in that she A) has personal experience with abuse, B) is an attorney specializing in child abuse, and C) he

Quote

Because of my background, I read the article with a careful eye. I read from the perspective of an abuse survivor. And I also read from the perspective of this specialized group of attorneys and mental health professionals — my friends and former colleagues — who oversee the church’s help line.

I can’t speak to the specifics of the case discussed in The Associated Press article. I only know what was reported. But I can speak to my work and my experience.

I can speak to what I know.

And I know my former colleagues are diligent, competent, compassionate and deeply committed to the work of protecting kids from abuse. We were a small team so I know each attorney personally. We often reflected on how lucky we felt that we got to use our law degrees to rescue children and help victims.

To suggest that any attorney on the helpline is “hiding” abuse from law enforcement seems disingenuous or inaccurate. From my experience, it just wouldn’t happen. Not only is it illegal, it is immoral. The very fact that criminal charges have not been brought against anyone from the church is the first indication that the AP article may not have the complete story.

Relative to the helpline, the most (and only) damning evidence is . . . Herrod's recollection.

Quote

It’s critically important to stand up for survivors of sex abuse, and so I also know how important it is for each of us to strongly condemn the unspeakable horrors inflicted on too many children, especially the two sisters who were the subjects of The Associated Press’s reporting. What the girls suffered can never be justified.

Child abuse in any form is a tragedy. It is an especially depraved form of torture.

Sadly, I know this too well.

I experienced sexual abuse as a small child at the hands of trusted adult family members. Much like the sisters described in the AP article, a significant part of my childhood involved sexual contact of some sort. I was repeatedly raped, beaten, burned and forced to consume my own human waste. And I was not even in kindergarten yet.

The abuse continued for many years.

I had bones broken that were never medically treated. Burns from cigarettes and stoves that festered and became so infected that I have permanently lost feeling in those parts of my body. A wooden cutting board was broken over my head, shattering part of my skull. Eventually I was also raped by men outside of my family in order to support a family member’s drug addiction.

Though faded, my adult body still bears the physical scars of what I went through.

My heart will always carry scars.

Terrible.

Quote

I entered the foster care system at age 12. I bounced in and out of the system for the next couple of years until I was permanently removed at the age of 15. I lived with loving foster families until I graduated from high school. Because I was able to escape my violent childhood, I knew what a gift it was to escape.

I vowed that I would always do everything I could to protect vulnerable populations from exploitation and harm.

When I was 18, I read an account of Joseph Smith’s first vision. I felt what I describe as a spiritual shockwave from heaven. A confirmation that what I was reading had actually taken place. That was the beginning of my love for the church into which I was baptized, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Moreover, my testimony in Jesus Christ’s atonement helped me begin to heal. I started to understand that while the atonement covers all of my sins, it also covers all of the sins committed against me. This healing knowledge acted as a balm to my deep wounds and helped me understand that those who harmed me would be held accountable in the eternities.

My suffering was not forgotten. My pain was no longer irreconcilable. Through the atonement, I could let go.

Hope and healing.

Thanks,

-Smac

jerryp48 · August 6, 2022

What happened to these girls is truly horrible. As for the rest of the story I think I’ll hold judgement until the entire picture comes into focus. We really haven’t heard from the other side.

Fether · August 7, 2022

@smac97

you seem to be following this well. What information has been fully verified?

Do we have proof that the bishop called the helpline? Do we have recordings of what the helpline said?

The Nehor · August 7, 2022

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

@smac97

you seem to be following this well. What information has been fully verified?

Do we have proof that the bishop called the helpline? Do we have recordings of what the helpline said?

There are no recordings or records.

3 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

What happened to these girls is truly horrible. As for the rest of the story I think I’ll hold judgement until the entire picture comes into focus. We really haven’t heard from the other side.

We probably won’t either.

The Nehor · August 7, 2022

I have been hopping back and forth between this dark legal story and a much funnier one. The dissonance has been jarring. Think I will focus on the other one.

(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

Recommended Posts

Preventing and Responding to Abuse

What Is Abuse?

Teaching Doctrine

Key Messages

How Can Abuse Be Prevented?

At Home

At Church

Responding to Abuse

Teaching Stake and Ward Councils

Policy and Legal Issues Relating to Abuse

Other Resources

Confidentiality

Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse

Church responds to recent Associated Press article about the Church's abuse help line

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members