(3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

[smac97]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

More information from the Church:

Here are the parts I found most salient:

Quote

In late 2011, Paul Adams made a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child.

Contrast this with the AP article's opening line: "MJ was a tiny, black-haired girl, just 5 years old, when her father admitted to his bishop that he was sexually abusing her."  And later in the article: "The Adams family was deeply involved in the Mormon community, and on Sundays they attended services in Bisbee. So Adams turned to his church, and to Bishop Herrod, when he sought help and revealed his abuse of MJ."

• "{Adams} admitted to his bishop that he was sexually abusing {his daughter}"

versus

• "a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child."

That's a pretty significant discrepancy in the facts.  What did Adams confess to Herrod?  Ongoing abuse ("he was sexually abusing {his daughter}") or "a single past incident?"

Per this January 2020 article (from the "Truth and Transparency Project," not exactly the most objective news source relative to the Church) :

Quote

ICE Special Agent, Robert Edwards, who described this as one of the worst cases of abuse he has ever seen in his career, testified that he learned about the potential disclosure of the abuse to the bishop from Warr and went, unannounced, to speak with the bishop. John Herrod, a local doctor, was the bishop of the congregation the Adams’ attended from approximately 2004 to 2012 and agreed to talk to Agent Edwards when asked.

Herrod told Edwards that he believed the initial confession from Paul occurred in 2011. During this confession, it was disclosed to the bishop that the Adams daughter, who was six years old at the time, was being sexually abused and that the assaults were being video recorded. Herrod said that over the next 2 years, Paul continued to come and see him on a regular basis and often told him that the abuse was ongoing. Leizza was present during many of these confessions and, according to Herrod, would usually have no reaction to the disclosures.

• "During this confession, it was disclosed to the bishop that the Adams daughter, who was six years old at the time, was being sexually abused and that the assaults were being video recorded" and
• "Herrod said that over the next 2 years, Paul continued to come and see him on a regular basis and often told him that the abuse was ongoing"

versus 

• "a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child."

Either Agent Edwards materially mispresented Herrod's statements, or else Herrod materially represented the facts to the Church.

I am presuming here that the Church's press release is based on information from Herrod himself.  Herrod, of course, would have an incentive to characterize Adams' confession in a very limited way ("limited confession" and "a single past incident").  But then, embellishments could also be attributed to Ryan McKnight (the proprietor of the "Truth and Transparency Project," who doesn't have the most ethical worldview when it comes to denigrating the church), and to the AP journalist as well.

See also this news article from November 2020 (emphasis added) :

Quote

Special Agent Robert Edwards of Homeland Security Investigations later interviewed two former Bisbee area bishops, Dr. John Herrod and R. Kim Mauzy, about Adams. Both admitted counseling Adams and his wife Leizza Adams about the ongoing abuse although neither reported the abuse to authorities, Edwards later testified in court.
...

During a 2018 court hearing in the criminal case against the mother testified he interviewed Herrod and Mauzy. Herrod, according to Edwards’ testimony, recalled learning of the ongoing abuse from Adams around 2011 but did not notify police nor a child welfare agency.

Edwards also testified Herrod, who the lawsuit states was also the family’s physician, frequently addressed the situation with Leizza Adams until his service as bishop ended in 2012. The mother was later sentenced to prison for her role in taking no steps to stop the abuse.

Mauzy, who succeeded Herrod as the local bishop, purportedly told Edwards he contacted higher-ranking church officials about Paul Adams’ conduct but was told he had no duty to report the abuse. The lawsuit states that even after Paul Adams was excommunicated, church officials took no steps to report the abuse.

MormonLeaks has uploaded what I think is a transcript of the above-referenced 2018 hearing.  The relevant stuff starts on page 41 of the pdf.  Some notes:

• Agent Edwards got Herrod's contact information from Shaunice Warr, who was A) a member of the ward and B) also a Border Patrol Agent and C) a friend of the family and D) who had suspected abuse for years but not reported it (see here).
• Warr had given Herrod a heads-up that Edwards would be talking with him.  This was probably unwise of her.
• Edwards states that Herrod characterized the Adams as "described by many in the congregation as being off and weird," that "{t}here was no indication of any sexual abuse from any of the church members," but that "they all had a feeling something was off."  This is . . . weak stuff.  We have A) Edwards testifying about B) statements from Herrod about C) generalized perceptions of "the congregation."  This is way deep into hearsay territory and, given the circumstances, way problematic in terms of probative weight versus prejudicial effect.
• Edwards goes on to state: "{Herrod said that during} one of these sessions, Paul Adams admitted to Mr. Herrod that he had been sexually assaulting his oldest daughter."  Again, massive hearsay problems.  We have A) Edwards testifying about B) statements from Herrod about C) statements from Paul Adams.
• More from Edwards: "Once Mr. Herrod heard this, he {} brought Leizza Adams into the same counseling session, so there were three of them in the counseling session at this point, and then Mr. Herrod had Paul turn and explain to Leizza exactly what he had just told him, to which Paul did, he explained his sexual molestation of {his oldest daughter} to Leizza Adams in that counseling session."  Ongoing hearsay problems.  Also, I'm not sure if Leizza's presence in the session eliminated the privilege.
• Per Edwards, Herrod said that the foregoing disclosure as taking place "beteween 2011, 2012 ... on the tail end of his tenure in Bisbee as a Bishop."
• Per Edwards, Herrod also stated that during this session "Paul Adams explained ... {that he} was visually -- he was taking video of {the abuse, and had} done it numerous times."
• Per Edwards, Herrod also said that "{h}e brought Leizza Adams into the room because he wanted ... the children to be safe, and he thought if ... Paul Adams told Leizza Adams while Bishop Herrod was observing, that Leizza would either remove the children from the situation or at least, very least, keep the kids away from Paul."  
• Per Edwards, Herrod also said that he "did not consider {calling the police}" about the abuse, that he gave Leizza Adams "the option of having Paul Adams turn himself in," and that she "responded that she will just do her best to keep the children away from Paul," but that she did not succeed at doing this, and that "{t}he counseling sessions continued with Paul Adams, to which Paul continued to explain that he was sexually assaulting his oldest daughter," and that these sessions took place "over years."
• Per Edwards, Herrod also said that during these continuing sessions, during which Paul Adams continued to admit to abusing his daughter, that he (Herrod) "{brought} Leizza Adams in again" numerous times," so that she "heard" Paul Adams' confessions of ongoing abuse.  He said he did this "hoping that Leizza Adams would fix the situation, that Leizza Adams  would leave the house with the children, thus not letting them being the victim of sexual assault, continued sexual assault."
• Per Edwards Herrod also said that he "called Mormon headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, and asked for legal advice as to what to do," that he was told to "continue counseling sessions, and that there's no duty to report to authorities due to the clergy-penitent privilege."   

Lots of hearsay problems, but that aside, the foregoing testimony is difficult to square with the "limited confession ... about a single past incident of abuse" characterization in the Church's news release.  We face substantial hearsay problems either way (the Church's hearsay about what Herrod said versus Edwards' hearsay about what Herrod and Adams said).

Quote

The bishop then called the help line, where he was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws. In compliance with that counsel, from that time forward, the bishop repeatedly tried to intervene and encourage reporting, including by:

• Counseling Paul Adams to repent and seek professional help;

1. Asking Paul Adams to report (he refused and also refused to give permission to the bishop to make the report);
2. Encouraging Paul Adams's wife, Leizza, to report (she refused and later served time in prison for her role);
3. Encouraging Paul Adams to move out of the home (which he did temporarily);
4. Urging Leizza to seek professional counseling for Paul and their children, which would trigger a mandatory report (they refused).

Contrast the above with this part of the AP article: "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."

Also contrast it with Edwards other testimony excerpted above.  Per Edwards, Herrod knew the abuse was ongoing.  Per the Church's article, Herrod received a "limited confession ... about a single past incident of abuse."

"{Herrod told an investigator he knew} knew from the start that Leizza Adams was unlikely to stop her husband" versus "{Herrod encouraged} Paul Adams's wife, Leizza, to report {the single past incident of absue of one child} (she refused and later served time in prison for her role)."

Again, this is a pretty big discrepancy.  Did Herrod know that the abuse was ongoing, or not?  His comments to the investigator seems to indicate that he did ("{he knew Leizza} was unlikely to stop her husband...").  Edwards testimony, attributing various statements to Herrod, indicates that he (Herrod) knew about the ongoing abuse because Paul Adams confessed to it more than just once.  Hearsay is inhereintly problematic because the possibility for inaccuracy and distortion here is . . . real.  This is why our legal system imposes so many constraints on hearsay evidence.  

Quote

• In 2013, Adams was excommunicated for his behavior and lost his membership in the Church.
• Prior to and after his limited confession, Paul rarely attended Church or talked to leaders.

Hard to square this with Edwards' (hearsay) testimony that Herrod met with Adams "numerous times" over "years."

Quote

• It wasn't until 2017, nearly four years later, that Church leaders learned from media reports the extent of the abuse, that the abuse had continued and that it involved a second victim born after Paul’s excommunication.

The AP story ignores this timeline and sequence of events and implies that all these facts were known by a bishop as early as 2011, a clearly erroneous conclusion. 

I assume the AP story's timeline was based, to some extent, on Edwards hearsay testimony of his interview with Herrod.  Problems with hearsay are inherently a legal consideration, but I would think that general journalistic standards allow writers leeway in lending weight to hearsay.  If so, it's hard to square the Church's disputation about what Herrod knew with the testimony from Edwards that Herrod was counseling Adams for years, during which he (Adams) confessed to ongoing abuse.

Quote

The suggestion that the help line is used to “cover up” abuse is completely false.

• The Church's abuse help line has everything to do with protecting children and has nothing to do with cover-up. It has been in existence for more than a quarter of a century. Its purpose is to:

1. Comply with the various laws of child abuse reporting in all 50 states and the provinces of Canada, ministering to the needs of victims and their families where we can, while reporting abuse consistent with the law.
2. To encourage victims, family members and perpetrators to seek professional counseling and to report abuse to the authorities themselves.
3. To directly report the abuse to authorities, regardless of legal exemptions from reporting requirements, when it is known that a child is in imminent danger. The help line routinely reports cases of child abuse to authorities. Outside experts who are aware of the Helpline have regularly praised it.

• Even when a report is not required or is even prohibited by law (because the confession is “owned” by the confessor), the help line encourages leaders to pursue ways to ensure these three goals are met.
• Those who serve on the help line are parents and grandparents themselves and include former government child abuse investigators and child abuse prosecutors. Some are even themselves survivors of abuse. The notion that there would be any incentive on their part to cover up child abuse is absurd.

I'm not sure the "the conession is 'owned' by the confessor" in Arizona, or that reporting is "prohibited by law" in Arizona.

This story continues to be very troubling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 18, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

Another update:

Quote

An Arizona judge has ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may not use the state's “clergy-penitent privilege” to refuse to answer questions or turn over documents in a child sex-abuse case.

Clergy in Arizona and many other states are required to report information about child sexual abuse or neglect to authorities. But there's an exception if they learn of the abuse through spiritual confessions.

The judge’s ruling stems from a case involving Paul Adams, a Mormon and U.S. Border Patrol agent who posted videos of himself on the dark web molesting two of his six children.

Adams waived his right to keep his church confessions secret when he posted the videos.

He committed suicide while in custody before he could stand trial for the crimes.

I feel like I'm missing some important considerations pertaining to the state statute governing the priest/penitent privilege.

Thanks,

-Smac

[2BizE]

Does anyone know if Herrod, the bishop and a physician, has had his medical license revoked?

[smac97]

And another: 

Quote

Sandy police are asking for help in finding those who recently vandalized several buildings belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Sandy.

Police received the first report of vandalism on Tuesday morning. Reports from five other chapels came in later, including similar damage at a church in Draper.

The vandalism contained messages referencing a recent report regarding the church's handling of sexual abuse cases. with what they'd written, and although it's not considered a hate crime, it's still against the law.

“When you get six all taking place in one night, I mean, it’s not out of the ordinary to have one or two here and there, but six all in one night is a little unusual,” said Sgt. Greg Moffitt with the Sandy Police Department.

Detectives are asking residents leaving near the churches to check their home security cameras to see if they may have captured any evidence of the crimes.

“It’s a totally different thing when you start defacing someone’s place of worship. Whether it be a Jewish synagogue or an LDS chapel, the fact of the matter is those are places of worship places that are sacred to their congregations," said Moffitt. "It’s disconcerting, it’s disheartening to see something like that happen to a church building.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, 2BizE said:

Does anyone know if Herrod, the bishop and a physician, has had his medical license revoked?

For what reason?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Does anyone know if Herrod, the bishop and a physician, has had his medical license revoked?

Court records state that he never had this family as a patient.  Why do you think he might have had his medical license revoked?

[webbles]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Does anyone know if Herrod, the bishop and a physician, has had his medical license revoked?

He sold his medical practice and retired.  So he isn't practicing anymore.  I don't think the license has been revoked as the lawsuits are still ongoing.  No one has yet proven that he failed in his duties as a doctor.

[smac97]

Op-Ed: Perspective:

The vandals who desecrated Latter-day Saint chapels are wrong — abuse is not welcome here
The faith’s doctrine, policies and culture work together to provide layers of protection for children in ways that often go unseen
By Jennifer Roach and Lynn Chapman, Contributor
Aug 21, 2022, 9:00pm MDT

Quote

A vandalized chapel belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Orem is pictured in this Aug. 2022 photo. | Priscilla Beckstead

Last week, Latter-day Saint church buildings in the greater Salt Lake City area were vandalized. A meeting house in Orem was ransacked. In Sandy, multiple buildings were defaced, and graffiti was scrawled across the façade of one house of worship, reading: “Predators welcome.”  

 We respond: no, they aren’t. 

One of us served as a bishop and stake president, and the other is a survivor of abuse who now works as a clinical therapist helping abuse victims. From our years of experience, we’ve seen firsthand the structural safeguards that make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints effective at protecting children.

This work includes systems that help detect and deter predators and encourage reporting of child sexual abuse and ministering to abuse victims and their families.

This has been my experience as well.  

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ requires a two-deep leadership model, mandating that at least two adults be present in all activities that involve youth or children. This provides a layer of protection for children and is a strong deterrent to would-be abusers. The system also increases the probability of timely and truthful reporting of abuse disclosures.  

The church has also demonstrated its receptiveness to other emerging best practices, adopting changes to its interview policies and even the architecture of its buildings to enable visibility in locations where youth interact with each other and with adults. And in 2019, the church launched a mandatory online training course for all adults who interact with children and youth in their church assignments.  The training orients leaders to church policy, reviews best practices for supervising children and youth, and helps leaders prevent, recognize and respond to abuse.

I hadn't heard about changes to architecture.  Good stu.

Quote

It’s also relevant that, with rare exceptions, church bishops — who are all volunteers — are required to be married. They almost always have children themselves and are almost always members of their congregations prior to being asked to serve in their ecclesiastical capacity. And since clergy are all volunteers, there is no financial incentive to protect their ecclesiastical job or to guard the bottom line of their congregations. They also know that their role is temporary, and their actions are subject to review by their successor.

These details are important since commentators and journalists sometimes conflate Latter-day Saints with news about clergy abuse in other denominations, without knowing about the church’s protective systems that may differ from other faith traditions.

Yep.  Bishops are situated very differently.  Because the calling is A) part-time, B) unpaid C) unsolicited and D) temporary, and because bishops E) do not live in the church building, F) are constantly accompanied when interacting with youth, the risks of grooming and abuse are substantially mitigated.

Quote

There are other systems that largely go unnoticed by church members, but are still helpful in deterring abuse. One such protection is the member-number system.

In many denominations, members and clergy move between one congregation to another with little notice. Formal systems are often not in place for records to follow them to new locations or congregations. But the Latter-day Saint member-number system allows leadership to make a confidential annotation on a person’s file that will follow the person from congregation to congregation if they are not safe to be around children and should not be given a position in which they are placed near children or other vulnerable people.

While it’s impossible to say how many potential abusers this policy has thwarted, the system is strongly protective of children. Advocates for safer practices in churches have asked other denominations to implement a member-number system. Some have decided against it since they can be costly and difficult to manage. But we’re grateful for the church’s commitment to such a system.  

Good points, all.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Op-Ed: Perspective:

The vandals who desecrated Latter-day Saint chapels are wrong — abuse is not welcome here
The faith’s doctrine, policies and culture work together to provide layers of protection for children in ways that often go unseen
By Jennifer Roach and Lynn Chapman, Contributor
Aug 21, 2022, 9:00pm MDT

This has been my experience as well.  

I hadn't heard about changes to architecture.  Good stu.

Yep.  Bishops are situated very differently.  Because the calling is A) part-time, B) unpaid C) unsolicited and D) temporary, and because bishops E) do not live in the church building, F) are constantly accompanied when interacting with youth, the risks of grooming and abuse are substantially mitigated.

Good points, all.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Does the two-deep policy include worthiness interviews? I thought that it was still one-on-one unless the person being interviewed requests someone else be present. Can you point me to where this is defined? Thanks.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does the two-deep policy include worthiness interviews?

Yes.

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I thought that it was still one-on-one unless the person being interviewed requests someone else be present. Can you point me to where this is defined? Thanks.

The bishop always has a "chaperone" immediately outside his office.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

The bishop always has a "chaperone" immediately outside his office.

Thanks,

-Smac

OK, so outside, not in the interview. That was my job when I was executive secretary. Thanks for the clarification. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by jkwilliams

[Nofear]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Does the two-deep policy include worthiness interviews? I thought that it was still one-on-one unless the person being interviewed requests someone else be present. Can you point me to where this is defined? Thanks.

Even though a bishop may interview a sister alone in his office, another male should be just outside. She is also welcome to request another person be with her in the room. Could that situation be exploited? Sure. I'd dare say that isn't common.

Instead of giving the Church a hard time for possible lapses in policy designed to protect victims the Church should be applauded about the progress it has made in curtailing this societal evil. Can further progress be made. Certainly. One of the easiest and biggest "bang for your buck" approaches would be for other organizations to emulate the Church and its policies, because, while not fool-proof, they do work.
 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Nofear said:

Even though a bishop may interview a sister alone in his office, another male should be just outside. She is also welcome to request another person be with her in the room. Could that situation be exploited? Sure. I'd dare say that isn't common.

Instead of giving the Church a hard time for possible lapses in policy designed to protect victims the Church should be applauded about the progress it has made in curtailing this societal evil. Can further progress be made. Certainly. One of the easiest and biggest "bang for your buck" approaches would be for other organizations to emulate the Church and its policies, because, while not fool-proof, they do work.
 

Asking for clarification is not giving the church a hard time. 

[smac97]

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/editorial/2022/08/21/lds-church-should-give-members/

Quote

Whether one accepts the Associated Press version of a horrific case of prolonged sexual abuse known to officials of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or believes the church’s own version of events, this is fact:

Two LDS bishops in Arizona had a chance to call the police or social services to respond to a clear pattern of abuse committed by a father against his two young daughters. And they didn’t.

I'm not sure that the bishops knew about the abuse of the second daughter, and the second bishop apparently only "knew" in a second-hand way.

Otherwise, yes.

Quote

The counselors and attorneys working for the church’s “help line” had a chance to urge the local leaders to pick up a phone. Or to make the call themselves. And they didn’t.

This is less clear.  I continue to be flummoxed about what advice Bishop Herrod was given.  If it is as he represented to the federal investigator (hearsay evidence is an iffy sort of thing), then the advice seemed questionable.

Quote

The fine legal point on which the church has hung its public defense is that the relevant law in Arizona — the one that requires anyone with knowledge of child abuse or neglect to report it to appropriate legal authorities — has a loophole that makes it legal for religious leaders to keep to themselves any knowledge they gain in private confessionals or counseling sessions with members of their faith.

Those laws must change. In Arizona. In Utah. Wherever they exist.

I'll leave you to read the remainder of the Op-Ed.  I don't think much of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/21/theres-just-no-transparency/

Quote

Lack of LDS Church transparency in child sex abuse cases stuns AP reporter

“The entire operation of the help line,” says Pulitzer-winning journalist Michael Rezendes, “...is enveloped in secrecy.”

(Steven Senne | AP) In this Wednesday, Oct. 28, 2015, file photo, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Michael Rezendes, left, stands for a photograph with actor Mark Ruffalo, who plays Rezendes in the film "Spotlight." Rezendes, now with The Associated Press, recently reported on how sex abuse allegations were handled in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Phew!  I was originally worried about whether Michael Rezendes has credibility and competency as a journalist.  Fortunately, the Tribune has a photograph of him with a celebrity.  Credbility and competency established!

Quote

Earlier this month, an Associated Press investigation of several child sex abuse cases, including a particularly horrific one in Arizona, revealed that the much-debated “help line” supplied by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for its lay leaders failed to protect the victims.

The expose brought responses of dismay, disgust and anger from insiders and outsiders alike — and the reverberations are still being felt.

On The Salt Lake Tribune’s latest “Mormon Land” podcast, AP journalist Michael Rezendes — who previously earned a Pulitzer Prize with The Boston Globe for uncovering the Catholic Church’s pattern of covering up clergy sex abuse as part of the team dramatized in the Oscar-winning film “Spotlight” — talked about the story, how he came upon it, how he reported it and how it compares to his previous reporting on this sensitive subject.

Here are excerpts:

How did you land on this story?

I generally read stories about the Mormon church whenever I came across them in the newspapers, primarily because of my interest in the Catholic Church. I got interested in the story when I read a small piece about the [abuse] case in West Virginia [against the LDS Church], and it referred to these sealed records. And there were people quoted as kind of summarizing or trying to describe what was in the sealed records. And my thought was, why don’t we get the records, you know, see what they really say? … I was making a lot of calls, just as I normally would. And in the course of making those calls, I ran into someone who gave me the records.

Sealed records.  Sealed by the court.  Sealed and thereore illegal to distribute to people like Mr. Rezendes.

Oh, the irony.  Mr. Rezendes, as a journalist, does not tell us who this "someone who gave {him} the records" is, and if approached by law enforcement for that information, I strongly suspect he would refuse to share it by citing "Reporter's Privilege."

"Transparency," you see, is only important when self-selected arbiters like Mr. Rezendes say it's important.  Otherwise, shut up and don't ask about confidential communications.

Quote

Do you think that this is a pattern for the LDS Church?

I don’t think I ever said it was a pattern. But, you know, because of the Arizona case and the West Virginia case and some others that had been filed, I thought it was interesting and important to describe what I learned because the entire operation of the help line and the reporting of child sex abuse cases to the church is enveloped in secrecy.

I appreciate that he is trying to be kinda sorta even-handed here.

But the characterization of the hotline being "enveloped in secrecy" is a bit of hyperbole.  All communications with an attorney are "enveloped in secrecy."  That's the point of having an attorney-client privilege.  Likewise, the process by which journalists gather information can also be "enveloped in secrecy."

The question in both cases is this: Is the "secrecy" appropriate?  

Quote

It struck me that we have no idea how many reports are being made and how many of those reports are referred to law enforcement. I would assume that quite a few are. And how many are not? There’s just no transparency whatsoever.

As soon as Mr. Rezendes practices "transparency" by exposing his confidential sources, I'll start to take him seriously on this point.  Until then...

Quote

So, I thought that the thing to do is just to describe the process. And the process is that all the records of calls that are made to the help line are destroyed at the end of each day. When there’s a serious case, someone answering the help line refers it to an attorney with the law firm Kirton McConkie. Those conversations, the church insists, are all covered by the attorney-client privilege. When you have a disciplinary proceeding, those records are also confidential. It just seems like it’s kind of a lockbox when it comes to allegations of child sex abuse in the Mormon church. And I thought, you know, this is a box that in the interest of the safety of children really needs to be pried open. And that was really the purpose of the story.

Oh, goody.  I can't wait to see the Reporter's Privilege decimated with this sort of reasoning.  And doctor/patient privilege too, and attorney/client privilege.

Surely Mr. Rezendes is calling for "transparency" as to communications about abuse to doctors and lawyers and journalists, right?  Right?

Quote

Isn’t destroying records a problem if lawsuits are filed?

It’s troubling, to say the least. I didn’t really get into this in the story, but I found many instances where people associated with the church or members of the church were shredding documents or destroying documents relating to child sex abuse. For instance, Leizza Adams, who was Paul Adams’ wife, after federal agents raided their home and seized electronic devices with thousands of pornographic photographs and nearly a thousand videos, many of them featuring the Adams children, after all that, according to her own testimony, she began shredding documents — anything with her husband’s name on it. And she had the assistance of a visiting teacher from the Mormon church. I interviewed the older daughter MJ multiple times and she told me that she participated in the shredding of the documents. The kids just thought it was like a party. They were just having fun, you know, shredding documents.

I really doubt the "visiting teacher from the Mormon Church" was tasked by the Church to assist in shredding documents.  But Mr. Rezendes sure seems to imply that.

Quote

How did this case involving the LDS Church compare to what the Spotlight team exposed about the priest abuse scandal in and around Boston?

Well, I mean, the Catholic Church does not destroy its records. And so, we were able to get thousands and thousands of pages of internal records ... which showed that there was a systemic problem, at that point, at least within the Boston Archdiocese. We were not able to show that this was a systemic problem churchwide, although it’s clear now that this is a global phenomenon within the Catholic Church.

I get the records did not include attorney-client communications.

Quote

Did you come upon any instances in which the church’s help line actually helped the victims?

I’m sure there are many such instances. I don’t have any specifics, but when I interviewed Bill Maledon, the Arizona attorney who’s representing the Mormon church in the Adams case, he told me that there were hundreds of cases where the calls to the help line had been referred to law enforcement. I found that interesting. And I tried to get him to put that information on the record, but the church considers all that confidential.

Again, an effort by Mr. Rezendes to be even-handed.  It is appreciated. 

What on earth is he expecting the Church to do relative to "put{ting} that information on the record?"  

Quote

What surprised you the most in your reporting?

Well, I guess what surprised me the most and continues to surprise me to this day is that two bishops and attorneys for the church in Salt Lake City could allow abuse of this nature to go unreported for so long. I don’t know, as a human being, I find that difficult to understand. Now, what the church says is that [the bishop] only learned it on one occasion and didn’t know the abuse was ongoing. However, the bishop was seeing Paul Adams for counseling, so he was coming in on a regular basis for counseling. At one point the bishop called in Paul Adams and his wife and made him tell her about the abuse so she would know what was going on if she didn’t already, so that she could make some attempt to help protect their children. And at one point, he said, one of the purposes was to see whether the abuse had stopped.

Do you think that this bishop knew the extent of it?

Well, yes, of course. And, you know, there are two indications [of that]. [The bishop] was also Leizza Adams’ personal physician. And he told the federal agents that in his view, she met the definition of, as he put it, “battered woman syndrome.” And when they discussed the older daughter, the victim of Adams’ abuse, [the bishop] said, without any prompting from the federal agents, something to the effect of, “I don’t think she’ll ever be the same again.” So, it’s pretty clear he had some idea that Leizza Adams was not capable of protecting her children and that the older daughter had been severely damaged by it, and yet he did nothing, really.

This information all comes through mutliple layers of hearsay: A) the Tribune reporting B) what Rezendes said that C) the federal investigator (Edwards) said that D) Bishop Herrod said that E) Paul Adams said.

Nevertheless, I am likewise troubled at the narrative here.  I just don't understand what Bishop Herrod was told to do or not to do.  I am not sure if he knew the abuse was ongoing.  I am not sure why he could not have reported the abuse based on alternative sources of information (such as the wife or his personal observations of the child).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/08/21/theres-just-no-transparency/

Phew!  I was originally worried about whether Michael Rezendes has credibility and competency as a journalist.  Fortunately, the Tribune has a photograph of him with a celebrity.  Credbility and competency established!

Sealed records.  Sealed by the court.  Sealed and thereore illegal to distribute to people like Mr. Rezendes.

Oh, the irony.  Mr. Rezendes, as a journalist, does not tell us who this "someone who gave {him} the records" is, and if approached by law enforcement for that information, I strongly suspect he would refuse to share it by citing "Reporter's Privilege."

"Transparency," you see, is only important when self-selected arbiters like Mr. Rezendes say it's important.  Otherwise, shut up and don't ask about confidential communications.

I appreciate that he is trying to be kinda sorta even-handed here.

But the characterization of the hotline being "enveloped in secrecy" is a bit of hyperbole.  All communications with an attorney are "enveloped in secrecy."  That's the point of having an attorney-client privilege.  Likewise, the process by which journalists gather information can also be "enveloped in secrecy."

The question in both cases is this: Is the "secrecy" appropriate?  

As soon as Mr. Rezendes practices "transparency" by exposing his confidential sources, I'll start to take him seriously on this point.  Until then...

Oh, goody.  I can't wait to see the Reporter's Privilege decimated with this sort of reasoning.  And doctor/patient privilege too, and attorney/client privilege.

Surely Mr. Rezendes is calling for "transparency" as to communications about abuse to doctors and lawyers and journalists, right?  Right?

I really doubt the "visiting teacher from the Mormon Church" was tasked by the Church to assist in shredding documents.  But Mr. Rezendes sure seems to imply that.

I get the records did not include attorney-client communications.

Again, an effort by Mr. Rezendes to be even-handed.  It is appreciated. 

What on earth is he expecting the Church to do relative to "put{ting} that information on the record?"  

This information all comes through mutliple layers of hearsay: A) the Tribune reporting B) what Rezendes said that C) the federal investigator (Edwards) said that D) Bishop Herrod said that E) Paul Adams said.

Nevertheless, I am likewise troubled at the narrative here.  I just don't understand what Bishop Herrod was told to do or not to do.  I am not sure if he knew the abuse was ongoing.  I am not sure why he could not have reported the abuse based on alternative sources of information (such as the wife or his personal observations of the child).

Thanks,

-Smac

Listened to a podcast, don't remember which, where someone on there mentioned someone they knew had to fill out forms before becoming a Scout Master. One of the multiple choice questions was who would you contact if you're aware of abuse? Two of the choices was the bishop and law enforcement. He put law enforcement. And then the church leader said that would be the wrong choice and he needed to change it to "the bishop". 

Have you heard of this? Because IMO, it might be why we have thousands and thousands of scouts that were abused fell through the cracks. 

 

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listened to a podcast, don't remember which, where someone on there mentioned someone they knew had to fill out forms before becoming a Scout Master. One of the multiple choice questions was who would you contact if you're aware of abuse? Two of the choices was the bishop and law enforcement. He put law enforcement. And then the church leader said that would be the wrong choice and he needed to change it to "the bishop". 

Have you heard of this? Because IMO, it might be why we have thousands and thousands of scouts that were abused fell through the cracks. 

 

The correct answer of course would have been “both”. 

[ksfisher]

Interesting articles

Should a member of the clergy report sex abuse of the penitent? A look inside the priest-penitent privilege

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/8/19/23297074/should-clergy-be-required-to-report-sex-abuse-cases

Interesting snippets:

 

"a study published last year about sexual assault on college campuses said there is little evidence of the efficacy of mandatory reporting policies. It raised questions about whether those policies violate the consent of survivors and threaten some of their support systems.

“... Emerging evidence suggests that broad mandatory reporting policies that compel disclosures can discourage survivors from seeking help and disclosing to employees they trust,” the study said."

 

"A 2014 study specifically about mandatory clergy reporting of child maltreatment found that the number of reports from clergy in states mandating them was low. In fact, states that mandated reporting by religious leaders had 10% fewer confirmed reports of child maltreatment."

 

"A 2017 survey study in the American Journal of Public Health again found that the percentage of confirmed physical abuse reports was lower in universal mandatory reporting states (11.9%) than those without such reporting (13.9%)."

 

"Casey Family Programs, a national foster care organization, reviewed the study and advised its network that, “Given the lower rates of confirmed physical abuse victimization among reports made in (universal mandatory reporting) states, the researchers conclude UMR is not achieving their intended goal of improving the identification of physical abuse in children, and in fact may be diverting resources from children and families and causing them unnecessary additional trauma.”

 

"He [Father Zubacz] said legislation abrogating the priest-penitent privilege risks making priests into police informants.

“Fundamentally, becoming a mandated reporter of communications in the confessional theoretically makes me an agent of the state,” he said. “The penitent comes to confession to sort out his or her spiritual shortcomings, but the reporting legislation essentially creates a legal trap for a penitent, with salvation as the bait. The sacrament then potentially becomes the lure, the confessor the fisherman and the reporting legislation the hook. It also makes me the instrument by which the state may work around the penitent’s constitutional right to silence.”

 

"Priests in Australia argued that very few perpetrators and victims confess sexual abuse incidents to priests and pastors. Those who do try to be vague.

In fact, the Justice and Community Safety Directorate of the Australian Capital Territory advised against eliminating the confession privilege in 2019. It argued that if perpetrators knew a priest might report them, they “will probably avoid confession altogether..."

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Asking for clarification is not giving the church a hard time. 

True as that statement may be, that is not only what is happening, of course. There are specific accusations (e.g. Church protects abusers, hides abuse, etc. etc.) as pointed out by smac97's posts and others.

I don't mind a call for us to do better or fixing leaks in the system. Yet, nonetheless, I hold my position that the Church's model should be held up as an exemplary system that should be implemented by other institutions with adaptations appropriate to that organization. Way more good would be done in the world with that approach than what this AP writer is doing.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Nofear said:

True as that statement may be, that is not only what is happening, of course. There are specific accusations (e.g. Church protects abusers, hides abuse, etc. etc.) as pointed out by smac97's posts and others.

I don't mind a call for us to do better or fixing leaks in the system. Yet, nonetheless, I hold my position that the Church's model should be held up as an exemplary system that should be implemented by other institutions with adaptations appropriate to that organization. Way more good would be done in the world with that approach than what this AP writer is doing.

Honestly, I can't tell if the church's system is exemplary or not. Even if it were, no system is perfect.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Listened to a podcast, don't remember which, where someone on there mentioned someone they knew had to fill out forms before becoming a Scout Master. One of the multiple choice questions was who would you contact if you're aware of abuse? Two of the choices was the bishop and law enforcement. He put law enforcement. And then the church leader said that would be the wrong choice and he needed to change it to "the bishop". 

Have you heard of this? Because IMO, it might be why we have thousands and thousands of scouts that were abused fell through the cracks. 

I have not heard of this.  A member of the ward who became aware of abuse would not fall within the parameters of the clergy/penitent privilege.  Whether to report suspected abuse or not would be a decision for the individual based on A) the applicable laws of the jurisdiction, B) the reasonableness of the belief about abuse, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Nofear said:

True as that statement may be, that is not only what is happening, of course. There are specific accusations (e.g. Church protects abusers, hides abuse, etc. etc.) as pointed out by smac97's posts and others.

Yep.

As it happens, teachers, attorneys, physicians and psychiatrists also run into this sort of issue all the time, including substantial errors in judgment where reporting is not done despite being either mandatory or optional.  Yet nobody is condemning the entirety of those professions.  Nobody is accusing them of being part of a conspiracy if they seek legal counsel.  Nobody is demanding the abolition of the communication privileges arising in those circumstances.

It's almost as if there is an element of religious prejudice involved.

16 minutes ago, Nofear said:

I don't mind a call for us to do better or fixing leaks in the system. Yet, nonetheless, I hold my position that the Church's model should be held up as an exemplary system that should be implemented by other institutions with adaptations appropriate to that organization. Way more good would be done in the world with that approach than what this AP writer is doing.

Take a look at this article: The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Dealing with Suspected Child Abuse and Suspected Sexual Abuse

Quote

Mistake 1      Failing to Know the Law

Reporting requirements in each state differ slightly, namely concerning when a doctor is required to report suspected abuse.[3] Generally, however, state child welfare laws impose an obligation on those who deal frequently with children to recognize and report instances of suspected abuse. In many states, these persons are referred to as “mandated reporters.” Other examples of mandated reporters include counselors, therapists, social workers, teachers, and school administrators. Many states, similar to Connecticut, have done an inadequate job of educating mandated reporters about the requirements of law and the mechanism by which reports are to be made. A time-worn cliché in the law nevertheless rings true in this instance: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

Action Step     Physicians who treat children should investigate whether their state has mandatory reporting laws. In a hospital or clinical setting, physicians should seek out training from the administration. Those in private practice should turn to their local or state medical societies to request training. In most states, prosecutors have separate units specifically to train lawyers to investigate and prosecute child physical and sexual abuse. These individuals, if requested, often participate in in-service training or seminars to educate medical professionals on requirements of the law.

Yep.  So if physicians can be justified in seeking out legal advice, why can't bishops?

Quote

Mistake 2      Failing to Report Abuse

Child welfare laws obligate physicians, as mandated reporters, to report suspected physical or sexual abuse of a child. Failure to report that abuse, as in the instance of the Connecticut physicians, can lead to criminal prosecution and serious disciplinary action. More important, a child who is suspected to be the victim of abuse is at risk of further serious harm, physical and emotional, without appropriate intervention by a child welfare agency. Physicians, who suspect abuse and fail to follow state guidelines, also expose themselves to the risk of a future lawsuit. Take for example, the emergency room physician who treats a very young child for a fracture of an extremity and finds x-ray evidence of prior healed fractures and a history of recent admissions for serious or suspicious traumatic injuries. The physician suspects abuse, but makes no report and releases the child to the caretaker. Shortly thereafter, the child dies as a result of a battering by the caretaker. Attorneys for that child’s estate can and will sue that doctor for failing to take appropriate steps to protect that child by reporting the suspected abuse.

Action Step     A physician who has a reasonable suspicion that a child has been subjected to physical or sexual abuse should immediately report to the appropriate child welfare agency.

Mistake 3      Failing to Recognize Abuse

The signs and residual effects of physical abuse are often more apparent than those associated with sexual abuse. Most mandatory reporting laws do not require physicians to prove abuse with certainty before the obligation to report is imposed. Rather, a good-faith basis to suspect abuse generally triggers the reporting obligation. When the protection of children is at stake, the child welfare agency would rather that the physician err on the side of reporting. Typically, physicians who have a good-faith basis to suspect abuse are insulated from repercussions by the patient or the caretaker. Child welfare agencies in each state exist solely for the benefit of children. Most have protocols that allow confidential investigations to be conducted and proactive intervention to avoid harm to a child at risk.

Action Step     Physicians should know how their state’s child welfare laws define abuse. Also, they should know the difference between “suspected abuse” and abuse that can be categorically proven, as well as whether their state requires them to report suspected abuse.

Good counsel, this.  But "reasonable suspicion" still leaves room for seeking legal advice.  Allegations of child abuse are very serious.  Nevertheless, where a physician has been trained to identify signs of abuse, "err{ing} on the side of reporting."

This sort of decisiveness can be difficult to achieve in other contexts where abuse is only "suspected."  Again, this is why getting legal advice is so important.

Quote

Mistake 4      Engaging in Overzealous Reporting

Physicians are subject to possible prosecution, suit, and disciplinary action for failure to report. But what of the physician who wrongly reports the claim of suspected abuse? Many states provide administrative and sometimes criminal penalties for those who falsely report claims of abuse, which sometime creates a delicate, fine line for doctors who are uncertain whether abuse has occurred. Again, a reasonable, good-faith basis for suspecting abuse will generally insulate the physician. Those subject to prosecution or administrative sanction for falsely reporting are generally doctors who have either intentionally or recklessly overreacted to a situation.

Action Step     Physicians should act diligently and have a good-faith, reasonable basis to suspect abuse. They should never falsely report an incident, but in a situation in which there is some basis to suspect abuse, the physician is better off reporting and allowing the child welfare agency to make the appropriate determination.

This is a consideration that I think gets short shrift.

I personally witnessed an incident where a therapist reported an allegation of abuse in what was pretty obviously an example of "overzealousness."  As a result, DCFS intervened in a very heavy-handed way, the father had to move out of the house for 18 months, a tremendous strain was placed on the entire family, the child was traumatized, and so on.  

The article goes on to articulate several ways which physicians can screw up in this context, most of which call for legal input and great caution.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Take a look at this article: The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Dealing with Suspected Child Abuse and Suspected Sexual Abuse

Thank you. Very nice article.

Saw this this morning. Dad takes photo of his son's swollen penis for his doctor. Gets prescribed medicine that helps but then things turned horribly bad for the father.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/21/technology/google-surveillance-toddler-photo.html

[webbles]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure that the bishops knew about the abuse of the second daughter, and the second bishop apparently only "knew" in a second-hand way.

None of the bishops knew of the second daughter.  She was born years after the abuser was excommunicated.  Also, per the interview between Herrod and the agent (I included it in my comment in the other thread), Herrod only knew of a single instance.  After that, he worked with them to stop and his understanding was that the mother had put an end to it and that she had taken precautions to prevent further abuse.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

None of the bishops knew of the second daughter.  She was born years after the abuser was excommunicated. 

I think you are correct here.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Also, per the interview between Herrod and the agent (I included it in my comment in the other thread), Herrod only knew of a single instance.  After that, he worked with them to stop and his understanding was that the mother had put an end to it and that she had taken precautions to prevent further abuse.

I'm not sure this part is right.  Per the transcripts of the 2018 hearing at which the investigator testified (about what Herrod told him) (my summary) :

Quote

• Per Edwards, Herrod also said that he "did not consider {calling the police}" about the abuse, that he gave Leizza Adams "the option of having Paul Adams turn himself in," and that she "responded that she will just do her best to keep the children away from Paul," but that she did not succeed at doing this, and that "{t}he counseling sessions continued with Paul Adams, to which Paul continued to explain that he was sexually assaulting his oldest daughter," and that these sessions took place "over years."
• Per Edwards, Herrod also said that during these continuing sessions, during which Paul Adams continued to admit to abusing his daughter, that he (Herrod) "{brought} Leizza Adams in again" numerous times," so that she "heard" Paul Adams' confessions of ongoing abuse.  He said he did this "hoping that Leizza Adams would fix the situation, that Leizza Adams  would leave the house with the children, thus not letting them being the victim of sexual assault, continued sexual assault."

Read the testimony of the federal investigator (Edwards) at this link (it's a 247-page PDF, so it takes a while), starting at page 41.

From page 44:

Quote

He {Herrod} explained to me that Paul Adams was taking a sort of counseling session, and Mr. Herrod explained. The counseling session described by him being that the bishop speaks with a member of the church about topics to see if they need help.  During one {of} these sessions,  Paul Adams admitted to Mr. Herrod that he had been sexually assaulting his oldest daughter M-1.

This is hearsay, so a grain of salt is appropriate.  But "Adams admitted ... that he had been sexually assaulting his oldest daughter" doesn't seem compatible with the Church's characterization (likely from Herrod) that Herrod received from Adams "a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child."

From page 46:

Quote

Q. Did Bishop Herrod understand that Leizza Adams was successful thereafter in keeping her kids away from him {Paul Adams}?

A. He believes that he was not.  The counseling sessions continued with Paul Adams, to which Paul continued to explain that he was sexually assaulting his oldest daughter, M-1.

On pp. 46-67, Edwards says that these counseling sessions, wherein Herrod would bring Leizza in to hear about the abuse, took place "over years."  From p. 48:

Quote

Q. So Bishop Herrod, bringing Leizza Adams back into the room each time, did he explain to you what he was hoping to accomplish?

A. He was hoping that Leizza Adams would fix the situation, that Leizza Adams would leave the house with the children, thus not letting them being the victim{s} of sexual assault, continued sexual assault."

Again, "Paul {Adams} continued to explain {to Herrod in additional sessions over a course of years} that he was sexually assaulting his oldest daughter" doesn't seem compatible with the Church's characterization (likely from Herrod) that Herrod received from Adams "a limited confession to his bishop about a single past incident of abuse of one child."

Thanks,

-Smac