Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse

[Teancum]

More issues on the Adams sexual abuse case:

 

https://apnews.com/article/religion-lawsuits-arizona-utah-salt-lake-city-68f60dbcdc4d7f49bea01d01ebfbed2f

 

I am interested in @smac97take on this. Not being a legal expert I am not sure about all this but I think it seems a stretch.  Does anyone think the Church and Kirton and McConkie will settle this out of court?

[PacMan]

I hope not.  There was no duty to the plaintiffs by Kirton McConkie.  But the bishop could sue for malpractice. 

[BlueDreams]

I haven’t followed the case but had a similar reaction when reading the article. It was also a little confusing to follow. At one point they were mentioning social workers having a duty to warn. That is the case. All therapists do. But I was confused by the statements around this where there’s sworn statements that say the help line had therapists answering. But that this case had only lawyers answering. Last time I checked lawyers make crap therapists and therapists aren’t great lawyers either. So why are cases then given directly to lawyers? How is that decided? there’s not a clear connection between the two in this article, but I’m assuming there’s a mechanism that takes this to legal or the LDSFS. 

I can see why they’re pulling in individuals more into the case now. It seems to me the case to the church as an entity may be weaker…but there may be more of a case to individual attorneys giving incomplete or misleading advice. Advice that if these bishops hadn’t received they may have reported the abuse. There just seems to be pieces missing that may bolster the case or weaken it depending. 
 

but I’m no lawyer and I don’t know enough about the case to mesh this with other details that have been made public. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

More issues on the Adams sexual abuse case:

https://apnews.com/article/religion-lawsuits-arizona-utah-salt-lake-city-68f60dbcdc4d7f49bea01d01ebfbed2f

The "more issues" is a request to add parties to the suit: Merrill Nelson (apparently the attorney who took the helpline call from Bishop Herrod) and Kirton & McConkie (the law firm where Nelson was working at the time).

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am interested in @smac97take on this.  Not being a legal expert I am not sure about all this but I think it seems a stretch. 

Yeah.  I think it's going to be hard to formulate a legal theory which creates liability for an attorney giving legal advice (or liability for his law firm).  So it seems like this is mostly an exercise in stirring the publicity pot by the plaintiffs' attorneys and continued muckraking by the investigative reporters.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Does anyone think the Church and Kirton and McConkie will settle this out of court?

I started a thread on this topic back in August: (3rd) Update on Arizona Abuse Case

I was initially perplexed by the interplay between A) the language of the statute (which, candidly, could be improved and clarified) and B) the "facts" as reported by the journalist (Michael Rezendes) relative to what the bishops and the Church knew and did not know about the abuse, and also about the helpline attorney's purported advice to the bishops.

Perhaps the crux of the confusion was the hearing testimony of Robert Edwards, the ICE Special Agent who interviewed Bishop Herrod.  I think Rezendes heavily relied on this testimony to impute misconduct on the Church and the helpline attorneys.  From my summary back in August:

Quote

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. 

As it turns out, Edwards' testimony (the most damning parts of which were his characterization of Herrod's interview responses) was, it seems, very inaccurate.  See here:

Quote

Webbles is using Herrod’s own testimony, the transcript of the interview, not Edwards’ report of it.

Here is the link again:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=5923&key=b3947fe1d75278c7435135f9a1bbda61707.41 kB · 13 downloads

And here (me responding to Helix) :

Quote

Quote

Agent Edwards's testimony related to what Herrod told him is completely wrong.  Edwards contradicts what is found in his own interview with Herrod.  Herrod said no such thing, at all, in the interview.  Edwards's recollection got key basic facts wrong. 

I'm starting to see that.

Edwards as a substantively unreliable narrator.  I had not anticipated that.  

Quote

When you look at the transcript of Edwards's interview with Herrod, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Leizza's testimony, and Warr's testimony, then a constant and clear pattern emerges.  Paul confessed at one meeting, and only one, and never spoke of it again to either bishop at least through when he was arrested. 

That is not at all what Edwards testified to during the hearing.

 

Quote

Herrod thought the problem was avoided afterward by Leizza because that {Adams} was rarely at home and Leizza never let him be alone with the kids. 

Also, in that one confessional meeting, the most consistent answer with the first hand sources was the confession referred to one past incident, but more than one past incident in the confession is a possibility.

I will need to review the entirety of the transcripts.

And here (comments from Helix) :

Quote

Quote

I will need to review the entirety of the transcripts.

They're long.  But I found it helpful to go over the list I provided.  Herrods interview, Herrod's deposition, Mauzy's deposition, Warr's testimony, and Leizza's testimony, when read closely, are illuminating.  The ward clerk's testimony isn't that interesting except for when he says he didn't know there was sex abuse in the family (but it is interesting if you like to see two lawyers who don't like each other quarrel constantly). 

Note that I haven't seen Leizza's testimony publicly posted yet available yet.  Webbles grabbed for us the agent's interview with Herrod, which I think it was exhibit 9.  Leizza's testimony was exhibit 8. 

And then there's the bizarre deposition of that Reynolds lady.  

I suspect the wheels are coming off the case, evidence-wise.  A terrible thing happened, but if there were some misconduct by the bishop (in failing to report), I don't think we'd be seeing gross mischaracterizations by the ICE Agent (who, I should note, is totally immune from any sort of liability for such mischaracterizations), by Reynolds, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

On 10/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, BlueDreams said:

I haven’t followed the case but had a similar reaction when reading the article. It was also a little confusing to follow. At one point they were mentioning social workers having a duty to warn. That is the case. All therapists do. But I was confused by the statements around this where there’s sworn statements that say the help line had therapists answering. But that this case had only lawyers answering. Last time I checked lawyers make crap therapists and therapists aren’t great lawyers either.

My experience with the helpline has been that the bishop first speaks with someone other than an attorney, who goes through a sort of "screening / in-take" procedure to get the basic facts from the bishop (the name/ward of the bishop, etc.).  I don't believe these helpline people represent themselves as being "therapists" or as functioning in that capacity.  However, I suspect most of them have training or some background/experience in social work / psychology, etc.  

Once the preliminary in-take is complete, the bishop is put on hold while the intake person gets a K&M attorney on the phone, brings them up to speed (probably emailing them the intake info), and then connects the attorney to the bishop, who then converse with each other.

I used the helpline perhaps 12-15 times, and in all respects the attorneys "stayed in their lane."  They offered legal, not therapeutic (or ecclesiastical) advice.  

On 10/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, BlueDreams said:

So why are cases then given directly to lawyers? How is that decided? there’s not a clear connection between the two in this article, but I’m assuming there’s a mechanism that takes this to legal or the LDSFS.

I wonder if the intake folks work for Family Services.  One possible reason for them to be licensed therapists is so that they can be involved in the process and still be covered by privilege (therapist/patient, rather than attorney/client).  

On 10/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, BlueDreams said:

I can see why they’re pulling in individuals more into the case now. It seems to me the case to the church as an entity may be weaker…but there may be more of a case to individual attorneys giving incomplete or misleading advice.

I don't think so.  The attorney's fiduciary relationship is to the bishop, not the abuse victim.  If the attorney messes up the fiduciary duty (which would be a big stretch, I think) by supposedly "giving incomplete or misleading advice," that might create a legal claim by the bishop, but not by the abuse victim.  There is no nexus, no fiduciary duty or other "duty of care," between the attorney and the victim.

On 10/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, BlueDreams said:

Advice that if these bishops hadn’t received they may have reported the abuse.

I suspect the facts, when laid out, were that the bishops actually received legally appropriate advice.  As noted above, much of the controversy about this story arises from the testimony of the ICE Agent who, it seems, substantially mischaracterizing Herrod's statements about what he (Herrod) knew, when, and so on.

That is not to say that the Church may not need to re-visit its policies as to the privilege.  I'm open to that.  I'm also open to maintaining the status quo, as there is essentially no data establishing that endlessly expanding mandatory reporting laws has any particular effect on reducing abuse, and some evidence that it hinders efforts to reduce above.  As I noted back in August:

Quote

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

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

Some excerpts:

Quote

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

I have previously suggested:

Quote

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

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

I wish reporting abuse were a panacea.  It isn't.  The results are a very mixed bag.  

On 10/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, BlueDreams said:

There just seems to be pieces missing that may bolster the case or weaken it depending. 

I'll wager on "weaken it."

If the missing pieces bolstered the plaintiffs' case, those pieces would be trumpeted and laid out with precision.  Instead, we're seeing further pot-stirring and muckraking.  

On 10/13/2022 at 8:03 AM, BlueDreams said:

but I’m no lawyer and I don’t know enough about the case to mesh this with other details that have been made public. 

I think there is a fairly substantial disconnect between A) the narrative being advanced by the investigative reporters (who I think are not so much credulous as they are self-styled "crusader" types who want to stoke public outrage, hence the weak tea "updates"), and B) the evidence at hand (which seems to substantially undercut the ICE agent's hearsay summary of Herrod's statements, and which hearsay summary forms the bulk of the inflammatory assertions against the Church.

Moreover, the overarching narrative - that the Church "hid" the abuse - seems kinda farfetched.  I think the investigative reporters want to take a "potato, po-tah-to" approach to the Church relative to the Catholic Church.  The latter has been mired for years in scandal regarding the actual hiding of abuse, the shuffling around of priests, etc.  I think the reporters are trying to stoke the idea that a similar scandal exists relative to our church's generalized approach to handling allegations of abuse.  

My sense, though, is that this effort is akin to pounding a round peg into a square hole.  The narrative just does not transfer.  It does not fit.  The organization of the Church and its relationship with bishops, etc. is materially different from that of the Catholic Church.  I previously laid out my reasoning in May:

Quote

"Boots on the ground" local leaders are the ones interacting with the laity and hence the most likely to have opportunities to engage in misconduct.  This is where we substantially differ, in terms of circumstance, with our Catholic and Protestant neighbors.  Having a lay leadership creates some meaningful distinctions:

A) Volunteers, not Remunerated Employees: Local leaders in the Church are volunteers, not employees.  They are not housed or paid by the Church, and therefore are not reliant on the Church to sustain themselves.  And local leaders are not dependent upon the Church for their housing, income, etc., there is no "moving accused {bishops} around pulpits" as we have seen in other denominations.  

B) Asked to Volunteer, Not Self-Appointed: Local leaders, though "volunteers," are not self-appointed, and are instead "called" to leadership positions.  While certainly not foolproof, this does slow down predators from situating themselves into positions where they have better access to victims.

C) Limited Time in Service: Local leaders in the Church typically function in that role for a period of years, as opposed to such a role being an indeterminate or lifelong vocation and lifestyle as in other faiths.  Moreover, local leaders often have "day jobs" and family responsibilities, so they simply do not have the same "face time" opportunities in terms of sheer numbers of hours and years as compared to local leaders in other denominations.

D) Improved Emphasis and Attention: I think the Church has substantially improved its handling of allegations of abuse.  The bishop's hotline, for example, has likely done much to mitigate abuse, detect it earlier, provide for improved response from the Church, etc.

I think the way the local leaders in the Church are situated creates a serious impediment to bad guys who may seek to use clergy positions to find victims.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Why Predators Are Attracted to Careers in the Clergy
Some further insight into a serious phenomenon.
Posted April 20, 2014

The eye-catching headline read, “Which Professions Have The Most Psychopaths?” (The Week, October 30, 2013) What ensued was quite a dialogue on the internet, as everyone seemed to have their own favorite picks or a personal horror story. The article stimulated debate, but unfortunately did not add clarity to a worthy subject. And that subject is: Why would a so-called “psychopath” be found in greater numbers in one profession versus another?

According to the article, CEO positions attract the most psychopaths. Perhaps so, if one considers the history of Enron, Bernard Madoff, and movies such as “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013). But the one career that caught my eye, and that 30 years ago probably would have escaped me, is that of the clergy (8th in line behind law enforcement, according to the article). I say 30 years ago because prior to the revelations relating to Catholic priests abusing children, one would not think of predators going into the clergy, yet that is a reality. Which begs the question, why a so-called “psychopath” would be attracted to the clergy? As it turns out, there are good reasons for this; that predators understand all too well—but first some caveats.

...

{W}e need to be reminded that predators seek to be in organizations (any organization) for a variety of reasons that are both useful and beneficial but that may not be clear to us; including of course so that they can better conduct their predatory activities. The reasons vary, but here are just a few:...

 

I go through these in some detail at the link.  

Also, the narrative proposed by the reporters is . . . weird.  The apparent allegation is that the helpline attorneys are discouraging/prohibiting bishops from reporting allegations of abuse in order to "protect the Church."  But why on earth would that objective be pursued by violating mandatory reporting laws (which, if anything, increase exposure to liability (for failure to report))? 

And then there's the significant damage done to the Church's reputation by such a scheme.  Given such increased risks as to both legal liability and reputational harm, how does this "shielding the church from legal liability" theory work? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 15, 2022 by smac97

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My experience with the helpline has been that the bishop first speaks with someone other than an attorney, who goes through a sort of "screening / in-take" procedure to get the basic facts from the bishop (the name/ward of the bishop, the .  I don't believe these helpline people represent themselves as being "therapists" or as functioning in that capacity.  However, I suspect most of them have training or some background/experience in social work / psychology, etc.  

 

This is what I was told how the helpline was intended to be structured by someone involved in Family Services, so I assume it was personal knowledge of his.  Iirc, that was probably around 2005 or 2006….intake personnel were to be trained social workers, they would then forward the calls to the appropriate lawyer for legal advice.

Quote

One possible reason for them to be licensed therapists is so that they can be involved in the process and still be covered by privilege (therapist/patient, rather than attorney/client).  

But the Bishop is not asking advice about their own issues, so how could that be privileged?  Wouldn’t the intake workers be covered just as a receptionist at a law firm who does intake for their boss would be or isn’t the initial phone call covered? (If it isn’t, all those old Perry Mason shows should have had the cop grilling Della about who the client was instead of trying to push Perry into dropping tidbits).

Edited October 13, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is not to say that the Church may need to re-visit its policies as to the privilege.

Do you mean “that is not to say the Church does not need to…”

[MrShorty]

One of my first "armchair lawyer" thoughts on this was to wonder if making these parties an official part of the lawsuit makes it easier (or even possible) to get them into the courtroom. It would seem to me that, in order to show that this is part of a conspiracy to cover up this incidence of abuse (and maybe abuse in general), the prosecution needs more testimony about how the help-line works. So much about the help-line is privileged and confidential that I wonder if part of the legal strategy here is to force the church and/or Kirton-McConkie to reveal some of this privileged, confidential information. @smac97 or anyone else with legal expertise, what do you think?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

One of my first "armchair lawyer" thoughts on this was to wonder if making these parties an official part of the lawsuit makes it easier (or even possible) to get them into the courtroom. It would seem to me that, in order to show that this is part of a conspiracy to cover up this incidence of abuse (and maybe abuse in general), the prosecution needs more testimony about how the help-line works. So much about the help-line is privileged and confidential that I wonder if part of the legal strategy here is to force the church and/or Kirton-McConkie to reveal some of this privileged, confidential information. @smac97 or anyone else with legal expertise, what do you think?

The likelihood of a court compelling an attorney to testify as to his privileged communications with his clients is . . . pretty low.

As for "how the help-line works," I'm not sure that is much in dispute.  Rather, the question here is what information did Bishop Herrod give to the attorney, and what legal advice did the attorney give in response.  The chances of the court letting these questions be aired in a deposition is also very low.

I don't see this as much of a "legal strategy" as much as a publicity effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean “that is not to say the Church does not need to…”

Yep.  That's what I meant.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This is what I was told how the helpline was intended to be structured by someone involved in Family Services, so I assume it was personal knowledge of his.  Iirc, that was probably around 2005 or 2006….intake personnel were to be trained social workers, they would then forward the calls to the appropriate lawyer for legal advice.

That sort of makes sense.  I wonder if they are functioning as "paralegals" rather than "social workers."  I suspect the former, as they are screening calls intended for a lawyer.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

One possible reason for them to be licensed therapists is so that they can be involved in the process and still be covered by privilege (therapist/patient, rather than attorney/client).  

But the Bishop is not asking advice about their own issues, so how could that be privileged?  

Because the bishop is looking for, and receiving, legal advice.  That the "issues" are not his own is immaterial.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Wouldn’t the intake workers be covered just as a receptionist at a law firm who does intake for their boss would be or isn’t the initial phone call covered? (If it isn’t, all those old Perry Mason shows should have had the cop grilling Della about who the client was instead of trying to push Perry into dropping tidbits).

Yes, I think they would be covered.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

When did the timeline change from him confessing in 2011 to him confessing in 2010?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

wonder if they are functioning as "paralegals" rather than "social workers."  I suspect the former, as they are screening calls intended for a lawyer.

My acquaintance (met him at a faculty dinner) was also presenting it as the intake workers providing information about appropriate local support services, but that may have not been viable to keep up to date given the variety of social services provided and possible high turnover with smaller, local charities.  I haven’t heard about this happening from anyone who has used it.

This is from the OP:

Quote

 

“[The hotline] is intended and always has from the beginning been intended to to help victims get the help they need through social services, professional counseling, medical help, legal help, law enforcement,” Nelson said.

That sounds like recommendations for social services may be given as well, but perhaps the bishops I have talked to about it haven’t asked or needed the info.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because the bishop is looking for, and receiving, legal advice.  That the "issues" are not his own is immaterial.

I was thinking about them being covered as therapists, giving out therapeutic advice or references in response to this comment:

Quote

One possible reason for them to be licensed therapists is so that they can be involved in the process and still be covered by privilege (therapist/patient, rather than attorney/client).  

Maybe Bluedreams can tell us if someone asks a therapist for advice for a friend or acquaintance, such as a recommendation or advice on whether someone needs counseling or not, if this is considered privleged communication.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

When did the timeline change from him confessing in 2011 to him confessing in 2010?

 

2019 it was “around 2011”

https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2019/12/11/mormon-officials-in-bisbee-being-investigated-for-not-reporting-child-sex-abuse/

church news has it in late 2011 in Aug; I am assuming they pulled off of hotline records…whatever minimal records they keep.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2022/8/17/23310912/deseret-news-church-releases-details-timeline-about-arizona-sex-abuse-case-second-statement

TruthandTransparency had it as sometime in 2010 or 2011.

https://www.truthandtransparency.org/news/2020/01/30/court-documents-reveal-mormon-bishops-failure-to-report-led-to-continued-abuse-and-an-additional-victim/index.html

Warr testified she didn’t know the year the confession took place (the mother had informed her of it after rereading one of her own journals), but the Court pulls from the mother’s testimony that it was 2010.

Quote

All right. The presentence report
contains a lengthy statement from Leizza Adams. And I believe she attributes that act, or at least the conversation with the bishop, to 2010. Do you have any way of indicating that that's correct? Incorrect? Or anything else to help us pinpoint the date?
THE WITNESS: I moved here in 2011. And it was before I moved here. And I mean that would make sense because the bishop that was the bishop who told her was released right before I got here in 2011, so that would make sense. 2010 would make sense.
THE COURT: 2010 would make sense?

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/documents/e/eb/2018-06-07-STATE_OF_ARIZONA_vs_LEIZZA_ADAMS-REPORTERS_TRANSCRIPT_OF_PROCEEDINGS_MITIGATION_HEARING_and_SENTENCING-PART_ONE.pdf

So my guess is there may be a conflict between the hotline account and the mother’s memory.  I would depend on the hotline as the mother’s comments were not reliable, in my view (unintentionally and intentionally inaccurate).

Added:  now I am wondering because it appears the plaintiffs have the hotline records, so not solely depending on the mother’s testimony. I wonder if the Church News depended on news reports rather than records.

Quote

The records — two pages from a log of calls fielded by a law firm representing the church and the deposition of a church official — show that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson took the initial call from a bishop reporting that church member Paul Adams had sexually abused his daughters. Nelson also had multiple conversations over a two-year span with two bishops who knew of the abuse, the records show.

From the article linked in the OP.

Have those records been publicly released or still confidential?  I am assuming the reporter has them along with many other records if I recall the story correctly.

And added again…I need to finish reading before I post:

Quote

The log of calls filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals shows that Nelson spoke with Herrod and Mauzy multiple times from November of 2011 to February of 2014, a period during which Adams was excommunicated. Mauzy presided over a 2013 church disciplinary process after which Adams was expelled.

The hotline does confirm the 2011 date.  So unless the bishop waited almost a year at least before calling the hotline or they are missing records, the confession took place in 2011 and the 2010 date is likely depending on the mom’s memory like I originally thought.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was thinking about them being covered as therapists, giving out therapeutic advice or references in response to this comment:

Maybe Bluedreams can tell us if someone asks a therapist for advice for a friend or acquaintance, such as a recommendation or advice on whether someone needs counseling or not, if this is considered privleged communication.

If they are functioning under the auspices of the attorney/client privilege (rather than a therapist/patient privilege), then that makes sense.  I don't see how a bishop talking to a social worker creates a therapist/patient relationship between the two.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe Bluedreams can tell us if someone asks a therapist for advice for a friend or acquaintance, such as a recommendation or advice on whether someone needs counseling or not, if this is considered privleged communication.

If this is in a therapy setting, absolutely. If this were more casual in relationship, most would still err on the side of maintaining confidence even if it wasn’t strictly contracted…it’s still ethically more sound. I would assume the same with screening calls. Confidentiality and care for sensitive information would likely still be expected, it may just not the same legal ramifications compared to a therapist who could have licensing concerns come up. 
 

personally I’ve talked to bishops about clients, members of their congregation, and personal connections they want advice with or referrals for. I treat all of these circumstances the same in terms of keeping the information I’m given confidential and secure. 
 

 With luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I was thinking about them being covered as therapists, giving out therapeutic advice or references in response to this comment:

Quote

One possible reason for them to be licensed therapists is so that they can be involved in the process and still be covered by privilege (therapist/patient, rather than attorney/client).  

Maybe Bluedreams can tell us if someone asks a therapist for advice for a friend or acquaintance, such as a recommendation or advice on whether someone needs counseling or not, if this is considered privleged communication.

I don't think the helpline would count as establishing a therapist/client relationship (which is a necessary prerequisite to asserting the therapist/client privilege) because the "client" is a bishop who is not seeking therapy, but is instead seeking legal advice.  The screeners may nevertheless be useful in providing guidance as to resources and such for the bishop to pass on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[helix]

22 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

When did the timeline change from him confessing in 2011 to him confessing in 2010?

I had noticed this too. 

The AP journalist is lazy. He gets dates and key facts wrong in every update he makes to this story.  The confession date is late 2011.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, helix said:

I had noticed this too. 

The AP journalist is lazy. He gets dates and key facts wrong in every update he makes to this story.  The confession date is late 2011.

I would think that with his research that he would know the bishop would call the hotline right away and therefore choose to depend on those records rather than the mother’s memory…though Warr’s testimony, which just used years and not months, also gives the impression it was 2010 because she says it happened before she moved in and she moved into the ward in 2011…though her reconstruction is off as well.  She had to have had the first bishop as a bishop for awhile since all sources says he was released in 2012.  I can’t figure out why she is so certain the confession came before except apparently she doesn’t remember having the first bishop as her bishop, but just as her fellow ward member at the beginning of her attending that ward, so that would require the confession to be before she came if her memory was accurate. Unfortunately it appears not to be.

I am not surprised that the plaintiffs’ attorney pushes for the earlier the date because from their POV, the longer the time from the confession to the arrest, the worse it looks for the Church if an agent of the Church is deemed responsible for the abuse in someone’s mind. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Calm

[helix]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I would think that with his research that he would know the bishop would call the hotline right away and therefore choose to depend on those records

Even when the AP journalist's story was the hotline records, he still got dates wrong.  He stated in that artcle: "The log of calls filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals shows that Nelson spoke with Herrod and Mauzy multiple times from November of 2011 to February of 2014".  But phone calls do not end in 2014.  The phone calls stopped July 2013. 

You stated "his research".  I'm not trying to be cynical.  I really don't think he does research.  He just repeats what others tell him without double checking, and his articles are full of errors.  Rezendes is a surprisingly lazy and sloppy journalist. 

Edited October 15, 2022 by helix

[mfbukowski]

On 10/13/2022 at 3:07 PM, Calm said:

I was thinking about them being covered as therapists, giving out therapeutic advice or references in response to this comment:

Maybe Bluedreams can tell us if someone asks a therapist for advice for a friend or acquaintance, such as a recommendation or advice on whether someone needs counseling or not, if this is considered privleged communication.

When I was a bishop I often spoke with therapists even in some cases a kind of "team" approach- and yes of course it was totally confidential.  I had some personal success when I underwent counseling during some very difficult events in my life, and always found it benefical, so in a sense I already had an idea of how these things worked, but we always had hotlines and legal advice available as well.  Besides, counselors keep their discussions confidential even with what they are willing to discuss with bishops, because of course bishops are not trained professionals in this area- we are at best amateur "first aid" people with our bandaids and Neosporin and no good therapist is going to trust us with the deep deep stuff, but just give us general social advice about what the patient needs.   They know what they are doing and can in effect train us a little bit about the best way to help them- at least that was the impression I had.

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

When I was a bishop I often spoke with therapists even in some cases a kind of "team" approach- and yes of course it was totally confidential.  I had some personal success when I underwent counseling during some very difficult events in my life, and always found it benefical, so in a sense I already had an idea of how these things worked, but we always had hotlines and legal advice available as well.  Besides, counselors keep their discussions confidential even with what they are willing to discuss with bishops, because of course bishops are not trained professionals in this area- we are at best amateur "first aid" people with our bandaids and Neosporin and no good therapist is going to trust us with the deep deep stuff, but just give us general social advice about what the patient needs.   They know what they are doing and can in effect train us a little bit about the best way to help them- at least that was the impression I had.

You’re not wrong. I would say I personally see bishops as access points to something I can’t give them: forms of longer term social support. That’s a potent tool that can be deployed and I can help give ideas as to what may be helpful for them or given enough understanding (with client’s permission) of their experiences to foster greater empathy and compassion when they’re helping clients spiritually in one way or another. 
 

with luv, 

BD

Edited October 15, 2022 by BlueDreams

[Tacenda]

deleted, depressing, unnecessary, old news

Edited October 20, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Not sure if this is most recent thread on this topic, but only one that came up…

Update

https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/bisbee/mediation-possible-in-lds-sexual-abuse-civil-case/article_d9dc5e80-70d3-11ed-9695-ab1290e28148.html