New BSA/Church Lawsuit Re: Abuse

[smac97]

From the Trib: New sex abuse lawsuit targets LDS Church, Utah Boy Scout council

Quote

A Washington state man is suing a Utah Boy Scout council and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging he was sexually abused as a child by Scout leaders while living in the Beehive State.

The man, referred to by the pseudonym John Doe, says he was abused in or around 2009 while under the supervision of the Boy Scouts of America. The 3rd District Court suit asserts Doe was abused due to negligence on behalf of the church, the Boy Scouts of America and the Crossroads of the West Council — a regional BSA organization that includes all of Utah.

The suit did not detail specific instances of abuse but stated that “counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and/or volunteers” of the local council “sexually assaulted, sexually abused and/or had sexual contact” with Doe while he was a minor.
...

This lawsuit is one of more than 82,200 abuse claims filed against BSA in recent years. Some of those have implicated The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which before formally ending its centurylong partnership with the organization in 2020 was the nation’s largest sponsor of Scout troops.

In 2021, the church offered to contribute $250 million to a fund created for abuse claimants as part of BSA bankruptcy proceedings. A bankruptcy judge rejected the settlement the following year, however, ruling “it went too far in attempting to protect the church from abuse claims that only were loosely connected to Scouting activities,” Reuters reported at the time.

The decision further exposed the church to claims like those in this latest Utah lawsuit.

The church declined to comment on this particular suit. However, in a previous statement relating to similar suits brought against the Salt Lake City-based faith, a spokesperson pointed out that the church has zero tolerance for abuse of any kind.

The new Utah filing says the Boy Scouts of America is “not a party to this civil action” due to the bankruptcy case.

A few preliminary thoughts/observations:

1. The allegations of abuse and negative consequences to the individual are vague, but were likely pretty terrible.  Abuse of children can have awful consequences.  

2. The allegations are fairly vague: "{I}n or around 2009, was a victim of one or more criminal sex acts of the State of Utah, by a scout leader and/or youth scout leader, when said abuser was under the supervision, control and/or authority of Defendants; and said abuse having occurred in the State of Utah."

3. This case is filed in state court in Utah, not federal.  And it only asserts state law claims, which means that state law will be applied.

4. The named defendants are "Crossroads of the West Council," "Boy Scouts of America," the Church, and "John Does 1-10."  No individual person is named.  I think the inclusion of the BSA was an error, as they are in bankruptcy and cannot be sued.  So the BSA either has been or will be dismissed, leaving only the local "Crossroads" entity and the Church as named defendants.

5. The asserted claims, based on Utah state law, are for "Negligence," "Negligent Hiring, Retention, Supervision and/or Direction," "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress," "Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress," and "Punitive Damages."  I don't think there is such a thing as a "cause of action" for "punitive damages," which is instead a remedy.  So I see that claim as DOA.

6. The statute of limitations for the negligence and emotional distress claims is four years.  In other words, these claims are theoretically barred as being outside the statute of limitations, since they were filed in late 2022, considerably more than four years after the alleged 2009 abuse.  

7. As noted above, the alleged abuse took place "in or around 2009."  There is no allegation that the abuse continued past 2009.  This may become important in terms of applying the statute of limitations.

8. Normally the statute of limitations ("SOL") would have ended within four years of the incident (in 2009), which would likely be December 2013 at the latest.  However, there is a "savings statute," Utah Code sec. 78B-2-308, which may affect the calculation of the limitations period, and which states:

Quote

(3)     -(a)    A victim may file a civil action against a perpetrator for intentional or negligent sexual abuse suffered as a child at any time. -(b)    A victim may file a civil action against a non-perpetrator for intentional or negligent sexual abuse suffered as a child: --(i)    within four years after the individual attains the age of 18 years; or --(ii)    if a victim discovers sexual abuse only after attaining the age of 18 years, that individual may bring a civil action for such sexual abuse within four years after discovery of the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later.

9. It appears the plaintiff would be suing the Church under 3(b), meaning the limitations period ends/ended either "within four years after the individual attains the age of 18 years" or else after "four years after discovery of the sexual abuse."

10. Regarding the application of part (3)(b)(i) of the above savings statute, if the plaintiff was in Scouts in 2009, he would have been at least 12 at that point, meaning he would have turned 18 by December 2015.  If part (3)(b)(i) applies, the deadline for him to file suit would have been, at the latest, December 2019 ("four years after the individual attains the age of 18 years")  This lawsuit was filed about three years after that deadline, in late December 2022.  In other words, if part (3)(b)(i) applies, the lawsuit will almost certainly be dismissed, either now or in the near future.

11. Part (3)(b)(i)(ii) is actually not that different from part (3)(b)(i), as both use "the age of 18 years" as the commencement date for the limitations period.  The only difference is that part (3)(b)(i)(ii) allows an even longer limitations period based on "discovery of the sexual abuse."  In a 2004 case, Savage v. Utah Youth Village, 2004 UT 102, 104 P.3d 1242 (Utah 2004), the Utah Supreme Court held that a nearly identical statute in effect at the time (the wording is exactly the same as in part (3)(b)(i)) "applies only to extend the time for filing child sexual abuse claims where victims have repressed memories," and that it "only applies to victims of child sexual abuse with repressed memories." 

12. The Complaint does not include any allegations regarding "repressed memories."

13. Notwithstanding point #11 above, the foregoing statute may not apply at all to the Church (or to the "Crossroads" entity) because they are not "living entities."  Part (6) of the above statute states:

Quote

(6)    A civil action may be brought only against a living individual who:
-(a)    intentionally perpetrated the sexual abuse;
-(b)    would be criminally responsible for the sexual abuse in accordance with Section 76-2-202; or
-(c)    negligently permitted the sexual abuse to occur.

Note the language about "a living individual."  It appears that the term "nonperpetrator" as used in part (3)(b) of the statute cannot be used against legal entities that are not "living individual{s}," such as the Church and the Crossroads entity.  The Tenth Circuit, in Gerson v. Logan River Acad., 11 F.4th 1195 (10th Cir. 2021), interpreted part (3)(b)(i) as applying to suits against nonperpetrators "until the later of the victims’ 22nd birthdays or four years after their discoveries of their psychological injuries," but then proceeded to apply part (6) above, stating that it means that the statute in its entirety "applies only to suits against living persons," and that "{n}onliving entities, such as Logan River {the named defendant, a residential treatment facility}, "were instead subject to Utah's default four-year limitations period and a tolling provision for claims arising before a plaintiff reaches the age of majority" (emphasis in the original).

14. If the foregoing interpretation and application by the Tenth Circuit of the statute is correct (and I think it is), then the entire lawsuit may be immediately dismissed as being barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  

15. The foregoing legal analysis has little to say about the real-world ramifications of abuse.  I am grateful that both the Church and society in general have become attentive to this issue, and I hope that we can take steps to avoid as many instances of abuse as we can.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 12, 2023 by smac97

[mrmarklin]

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

This appears to be an extortion for the $$$$.  OK.  Give him some to avoid litigation with out any admission of wrong doing.😏

[Eschaton]

4 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

 

If something like that happens to you, you don't forget it for the rest of your life. 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort. 

I think it can be a problem because you need evidence to find guilt and the more time, the less likely the evidence is still around in a lot of cases.  I can see why these kinds of crimes are often allowed to seek justice after the normal allowable timeframe though.  Crimes against children should be a special case.  

[manol]

29 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

Seriously?

24 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

If something like that happens to you, you don't forget it for the rest of your life. 

^^This^^.

I remember in all-too-vivid detail such an incident that happened to me nearly fifty years ago.  

Edited January 12, 2023 by manol

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

If something like that happens to you, you don't forget it for the rest of your life. 

I'm hoping he was referring to the other people who may be able to testify to things that happened, and not the ability of the victim to remember the abuse (though to be fair, memory can be a persnickety thing, victim or not, so memory alone might not make much of a difference in terms of who is found guilty or innocent.).

Edited January 12, 2023 by bluebell

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

2. The allegations are fairly vague: "{I}n or around 2009, was a victim of one or more criminal sex acts of the State of Utah, by a scout leader and/or youth scout leader, when said abuser was under the supervision, control and/or authority of Defendants; and said abuse having occurred in the State of Utah."

This is the bit that interested me.

Don't there need to be some details in the claims to actually defend against?

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

This is the bit that interested me.

Don't there need to be some details in the claims to actually defend against?

Generally speaking, the only requirement for the complaint is that it contain a "short and plain: (1) statement of the claim showing that the party is entitled to relief; and (2) demand for judgment for specified relief."  This is a very low standard, and the complaint almost certainly satisfies is.

There is an exception to this general rule for certain claims, such as fraud, which require a considerably more detailed and "particular" summary of the facts.  But this isn't a fraud case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Weird dup given I only hit submit once

Edited January 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

This part in the article is different…

Quote

counselors, teachers, trustees, directors, officers, employees, agents, servants and/or volunteers” of the local council “sexually assaulted, sexually abused and/or had sexual contact”

That sounds like a sex ring, not just an individual leader.  I assume that isn’t boilerplate language.  If not, does that really suggest multiple people or is it an inability to identify the individual and therefore they don’t limit what position that individual held?

Edited January 13, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

This appears to be an extortion for the $$$$.  OK.  Give him some to avoid litigation with out any admission of wrong doing.😏

What would you suggest in the case of children/youth who are too frightened to report or who aren’t listen to when they do, so give up?  (Serious question) Childhood trauma may take quite some time to process and understand.  Many victims who have been raped don’t even understand that it was rape until it is explained in therapy.  They may assume it’s not rape or a crime because by not fighting they think they consented, or that a spouse can’t rape their spouse, or because of another so called technicality.

Scouts start at age 10 or 11, so this person could be only 23 or 24 by now.  Still pretty young to face one’s abuser if deeply traumatized.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Generally speaking, the only requirement for the complaint is that it contain a "short and plain: (1) statement of the claim showing that the party is entitled to relief; and (2) demand for judgment for specified relief."  This is a very low standard, and the complaint almost certainly satisfies is.

So assuming it satisfies the requirements to get past the first hurdle, and gets to a judge

• How is the claim different to "In 2009 I was injured by people in Walmart. I'm not saying who did it, what they did, or where specifically it happened, but Walmart should pay me for it"?
• Will it need to be narrowed down at all to escape a "failure to state a claim" type dismissal?

[MustardSeed]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

This appears to be an extortion for the $$$$.  OK.  Give him some to avoid litigation with out any admission of wrong doing.😏

You’re apparently one of the fortunates who haven’t been sexually traumatized.  It’s legit- there are plenty of reasons that reporting is delayed. 

[Calm]

Just an FYI,

According to a lawyer acquaintance, there will be quite a few abuse cases coming out of California soon as a law allowing old, even really old cases to be submitted expired at the end of last year and there was a flood of filings to get in before the deadline, some with pretty vague descriptions.  There may be some involving the Church. 
 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-12-28/child-sex-abuse-lawsuits-california-deadline-ab218?

This is not one of those.  Just taking the opportunity to mention it.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Calm

[Eschaton]

4 hours ago, manol said:

Seriously?

^^This^^.

I remember in all-too-vivid detail such an incident that happened to me nearly fifty years ago.  

Yup. I was physically attacked by a family member. I can remember for sure it was when I was 11. I remember what house we lived in, and I remember that it was warm out (so late spring or summer), and I remember who did it. I remember the details of the attack and what I was thinking and saying before and during. 

I couldn't tell you the exact day of the the week or the exact month. But I'll never forget the rest. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Eschaton

[Calm]

I wasn’t even abused and I remember it clearly, just threatened.  1975, about to start senior year of high school, guy who wanted me to date him pulled the carburetor out of my car and trapped me alone with him in an otherwise empty parking lot after work in the dark with nothing going on (downtown area was completely dead after dinner time back then, plus it was the back of the buildings facing the parking lot).  I sat on the edge of the car seat while he blocked me from either getting up or closing the door and I gave him a lot of bull of how it was my dad who didn’t want me to date him, a nonmember, and how I couldn’t cross him, how Dad would be so pissed if Robert didn’t put it back and let me go home…though it was a good chance Mom and Dad were actually already in bed and asleep and wouldn’t notice I wasn’t there until morning.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Calm

[Peacefully]

16 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Yup. I was physically attacked by a family member. I can remember for sure it was when I was 11. I remember what house we lived in, and I remember that it was warm out (so late spring or summer), and I remember who did it. I remember the details of the attack and what I was thinking and saying before and during. 

I couldn't tell you the exact day of the the week or the exact month. But I'll never forget the rest. 

I remember being abused by my brother-in-law at his house when I was eight. I remember I didn’t tell my mom ( I was ashamed) but I cried so much she stopped taking me there. I am 59 now. It will never be forgotten, but now I can talk about it dispassionately because I worked through it and I don’t internalize it any more. Make no mistake, it really  messed me up when I was younger. I think the statute of limitations should be longer. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So assuming it satisfies the requirements to get past the first hurdle, and gets to a judge

Well, there are at least two "first hurdles" here.  One is the "sufficiency of the pleading," and the other is the statute of limitations (both discussed above).

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

• How is the claim different to "In 2009 I was injured by people in Walmart. I'm not saying who did it, what they did, or where specifically it happened, but Walmart should pay me for it"?

The complaint is not quite that vague.  We know who was allegedly involved (the Doe Plaintiff, who was at least 12 in 2009, and the defendants and their agents/representatives), and when the alleged abuse took place (2009), and where (in Utah), and what sort of abuse was involved ("criminal sex acts"), under what circumstances ("by a scout leader and/or youth scout leader, when said abuser was under the supervision, control and/or authority of Defendants"), and so on.  

The defendants do have the option of filing a "Motion for More Definite Statement," described here:

Quote

(e) Motion for more definite statement. If [complaint] is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame [an answer to it], the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. The motion must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. If the motion is granted and the order of the court is not obeyed within 14 days after notice of the order or within such other time as the court may fix, the court may strike the pleading to which the motion was directed or make such order as it deems just.

I'm not sure if this will happen.

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

• Will it need to be narrowed down at all to escape a "failure to state a claim" type dismissal?

I'm not sure what you mean by "narrowed down."  The complaint is, until and unless it is amended, is a static document.  The plaintiff can't change it unless he gets the court's permission.  So unless there is a "Motion for More Definite Statement" coming (and I don't think there is), the defendants can either A) file a brief response to it and move into discovery, or B) file a "failure to state a claim" Motion to Dismiss.  

If I were representing the Church, I would probably just proceed with a Motion to Dismiss.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

That is a fair concern to have.  But then, sexual abuse of children is something of a unique situation.

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

This appears to be an extortion for the $$$$.  OK.  Give him some to avoid litigation with out any admission of wrong doing.😏

I don't see it that way.  The Church has always condemned abuse, but if there is competent, probative, admissible, sufficient evidence presented to establish that one of its agents/representatives committed abuse, then it has to take its legal lumps like anyone else, and that might involve taking financial responsibility if the law requires it.  Here, however, the extension of the limitations period is probably not applicable to the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think it can be a problem because you need evidence to find guilt and the more time, the less likely the evidence is still around in a lot of cases. 

Yes, that is one of the core reasons we have statutes of limitations in the first place.  Evidence is lost or destroyed or decayed or misplaced.  Witnesses move away or die, or their recollections fade or become distorted over time.  

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can see why these kinds of crimes are often allowed to seek justice after the normal allowable timeframe though.  Crimes against children should be a special case.  

Yes.  There is a legitimate Due Process concern here (there's not a lot of "Due Process" involved in forcing someone to prove/disprove where they were, what they were doing, etc. 13 years ago), but I agree with you generally.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Eschaton said:

If something like that happens to you, you don't forget it for the rest of your life. 

Yes.  "If."  That's sort of the problem.  Courts are supposed to rely on evidence, and evidence from 13 years ago is likely long gone.  

The welfare of a person sued for something they purportedly did many, many years ago is also worth considering.

Thanks,

-Smac

[manol]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Yup. I was physically attacked by a family member. I can remember for sure it was when I was 11. I remember what house we lived in, and I remember that it was warm out (so late spring or summer), and I remember who did it. I remember the details of the attack and what I was thinking and saying before and during. 

I couldn't tell you the exact day of the the week or the exact month. But I'll never forget the rest. 

Scout master or young men's president, I don't remember which his calling was at the time, it may have been both.  He was in the military, in his early 20's, about 10 years older than me.  Everyone thought he was wonderful, including me.  He isolated me.  It started as a "game", and when I realized he had something else in mind, I resisted, and for whatever reason he did not escalate.  I consider myself extremely lucky.  He remained friendly towards me as if nothing was wrong and I wasn't mature enough to decide for myself that something was wrong.  We moved shortly afterwards (military family). 

Since what he intended didn't actually happen, it was twenty-something years before I realized it was still a crime.  I researched the statute of limitations for sexual assault in that state, and of course it had expired.  Not that I would have had a winning case anyway with no witnesses and never even having told anyone.  When it finally dawned on me I did tell my branch president in case he was still associated with the Church and still a predator, but by that time it was twenty-something years too late. 

I have searched several times over the years and have been unable to find a record of anyone with his (somewhat unusual) name who is in the right age ballpark.

The guilt I carry is this:  What if there were other boys, and I could have stopped him IF I had only said something.  Doing so literally did not occur to me. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by manol

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Scout master or young men's president, I don't remember which his calling was at the time, it may have been both.  He was in the military, in his early 20's, about 10 years older than me.  Everyone thought he was wonderful, including me.  He isolated me.  It started as a "game", and when I realized he had something else in mind, I resisted, and for whatever reason he did not escalate.  I consider myself extremely lucky.  He remained friendly towards me as if nothing was wrong and I wasn't mature enough to decide for myself that something was wrong.  We moved shortly afterwards (military family). 

Since what he intended didn't actually happen, it was twenty-something years before I realized it was still a crime.  I researched the statute of limitations for sexual assault in that state, and of course it had expired.  Not that I would have had a winning case anyway with no witnesses and never even having told anyone.  When it finally dawned on me I did tell my branch president in case he was still associated with the Church and still a predator, but by that time it was twenty-something years too late. 

I have searched several times over the years and have been unable to find a record of anyone with his (somewhat unusual) name who is in the right age ballpark.

The guilt I carry is this:  What if there were other boys, and I could have stopped him IF I had only said something.  Doing so literally did not occur to me. 

I accidentally hit the down button and it won’t go away. Hopefully, it is a refresh issue. I was too young to report him on my own and since I didn’t tell anyone, I was probably in my 20s before I really thought about it. I think by that time sexual abuse was being talked about more and children were being listened to and encouraged to tell an adult this type of thing. It was probably too late by that time, but I also didn’t want to hurt my sister. Thinking back, I should have told her. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Peacefully

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I have a problem with lawsuits filed this far out from the date of the supposed crime or tort.  Who among us can remember anything that happened 13 years ago?

My recollections of significant events in my life are very clear. It seems to me that the memory of a sexual abuse incident would be difficult to forget.

[smac97]

Just saw this news article out of Tacoma:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently agreed to a $1.1 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by a man who was sexually abused as a preschooler by a teenage volunteer in his Tacoma ward.

The entirety of this "news" article reads like a press release from the attorney who sued the Church.

Note, for example, that the above statement A) refers to a "settlement" which means that the court never reached a conclusion about whether the plaintiff had, in fact, been "sexually abused as a preschooler," and yet B) this "news" article states the allegation as fact.

Quote

When the parents of the plaintiff, who was 5 at the time of the incident in 1980s and now lives in Utah, told their bishop for the Mountain View Ward, the church leader said the same volunteer had been accused months before, according to the plaintiff’s attorney, Vincent Nappo of the law firm Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala.

"According to the plaintiff's attorney," who is then named (along with the complete name of his firm).

Quote

The bishop discouraged the parents from going to the police, Nappo said.

"Nappo said."

There has been no factual finding on what the bishop did or did not do.

Quote

That’s common to many of the sexual abuse claims against the LDS Church, where congregants are indoctrinated to bring problems, ranging from domestic to substance abuse, to their bishops and instructed to handle those issues internally, according to attorney Mike Pfau, who oversees PCVA’s cases against the LDS Church.

"According to attorney Mke Pfau."

Actually, I think these stories may have been more common in the 80s (as, unfortunately, most of society was neither paying attention to this issue, nor doing much about it).  Bishops now are trained fairly well on how to treat these issues.  If this alleged incident had happened today, the bishop would have called the helpline and received guidance on how to proceed.  As I understand it, Washington State has different rules for "Mandatory Reporters" as compared to "Permissive Reporters."  Meanwhile, the Church's guidelines are as follows:

Quote

Responding to Abuse

(See General Handbook, 38.6.2.1.)

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

• When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.

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

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

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

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

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

Note the third bullet point.

Quote

“There are clear patterns to LDS abuse, just like the Catholic Church,” said Pfau, the senior partner in the firm’s Seattle office. He added later, “What happens is the truth doesn’t come to light and people don’t get the help they need.”

"Said Pfau."

Quote

Pfau said his firm has 63 active claims against the LDS Church across the country — 31 of them lawsuits. He estimated more than three-quarters involved the Boy Scouts of America, a major part of LDS youth programs which has also faced lawsuits related to sexual abuse. Pfau said the LDS Church, one of the largest sponsors of BSA troops, chose and trained members to become scoutmasters.

Six of PCVA’s cases pending against the church are in Washington, Pfau said.

Yeesh.  This is not a news report, it is an advertisement for Pfau's law firm.  

Quote

In a statement to The News Tribune about the settlement, the LDS Church said it condemns all forms of abuse.

“In this particular case of abuse from many years ago, the Church came to a resolution with the plaintiffs in the interest of all involved,” the statement read.

Apparently the settlement agreement did not include confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions, which are fairly common.

Quote

The abuse occurred as the 5-year-old and his family were setting up for a church dance, according to Nappo. A 14-year-old volunteer followed him to the bathroom and raped him.

The parents thought their child, who was in hysterics, was having a routine tantrum, Nappo said. About a week later, they learned he’d been abused and went to their bishop.

In that meeting, the bishop said the volunteer had been reported to the police for sexually assaulting a 2-year-old church member while babysitting, according to Nappo. The father and bishop tried to dissuade the mother from getting the police involved in their case.

“She refuses,” Nappo said. “She’s just not going to take no for an answer.”

The volunteer was charged with rape of a minor in Pierce County Juvenile Court, but the outcome is unknown due to the confidentiality surrounding juvenile cases, Nappo said.

Nappo said his firm believes the man now lives in Idaho. He did not respond to their communications.

"According to Nappo."  "Nappo said."  Over and over.  All these allegations are presented as fact.

Quote

The 5-year-old survivor, now in his 40s, has struggled with financial instability and substance use, Nappo said. He remains a committed member of the LDS Church, which was part of his struggle in looking for accountability.

I can understand and respect his desire to remain anonymous.  It must have been difficult to sue the Church.

Quote

The man recently realized he could seek damages from the LDS Church due to Washington’s reforms on statutes of limitations in both civil and criminal cases, according to Nappo.   He filed his lawsuit in June.

“He is pleased with the settlement, and he views it as the starting point to a path to healing,” Pfau said. “He is also pleased that the LDS Church stepped up, addressed what happened, and made amends quickly and efficiently. And I think that shows some accountability on the church’s part.”

Well, there's that, I guess.

I suspect the settlement did not involve any admission of wrongdoing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 14, 2023 by smac97