Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

(5th) Update on Arizona Abuse Case


Recommended Posts

Posted

We have had numerous discussions about the horrible story of Paul Adams, a man in Arizona - and nominal member of the Church - who abused his children, who was excommunicated for his abuse, and who later committed suicide:

From yesterday (April 11, 2023) : Arizona court upholds clergy privilege in child abuse case

Quote

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can refuse to answer questions or turn over documents under a state law that exempts religious officials from having to report child sex abuse if they learn of the crime during a confessional setting.

The ruling was issued April 7 but not released to the public until Tuesday. A lawsuit filed by child sex abuse victims accuses the church, widely known as the Mormon church, two of its bishops, and other church members of conspiracy and negligence in not reporting church member Paul Adams for abusing his older daughter as early as 2010. This negligence, the lawsuit argues, allowed Adams to continuing abusing the girl for as many as seven years, a time in which he also abused the girl’s infant sister.

This article is written by Michael Rezendez, the same fellow who wrote the "AP Story" referenced in the above links.

And this lawsuit is, I believe, the same one as was discussed on the October 2022 item above ("Lawsuit: Utah firm and lawmaker helped Mormons hide abuse").  The April 7 decision by the Arizona Supreme Court is apparently not yet publicly available, but when it is it will be posted here.

Quote

Lynne Cadigan, an attorney for the Adams children who filed the lawsuit, criticized the court’s ruling.

“Unfortunately, this ruling expands the clergy privilege beyond what the legislature intended by allowing churches to conceal crimes against children,” she said.

Cadigan is essentially required to claim this, because if she were to acknowledge that the Church's actions were within the "legislative intent" of the statute defining the parameters of the privilege, then her lawsuit would have been facially improper.

Quote

In a statement, the church concurred with the court’s action.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees with the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision,” the statement said. “We are deeply saddened by the abuse these children suffered. The Church has no tolerance of abuse of any kind.”

I don't see this statement at newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org.

Quote

Adams had also posted videos of himself sexually abusing his daughters on the internet, boasted of the abuse on social media, and confessed to federal law enforcement agents, who arrested him in 2017 with no help from the church.

Those actions prompted Cochise County Superior Court Judge Laura Cardinal to rule on Aug. 8, 2022, that Adams had waived his right to keep his 2010 confession to Bishop John Herrod secret.

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

I think this was an incorrect statement of the law.  And though I think I understand why Judge Cardinal made it, I think she should be embarrassed for getting the law as massively wrong as she did.  As our Webbles noted here (regarding the December 2022 decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals) :

Quote

It was a unanimous decision for both questions.

For the first question, the appeals court ruled that Adams did not forfeit the priest-penitent privilege.  They said that even though Adams talked about the abuse to the public (through the internet) and directly to the police, he did not talk about what he confessed to the bishop.

For the second question, the appears court ruled that there is a lack of evidence that Brother Fife was not a clergy member.

That the Court of Appeals reached a "unanimous decision for both questions" is, IMO, significant.

Back to the update:

Quote

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

The church has based its defense in the lawsuit on the privilege, asserting that Herrod and a second bishop who learned of Adams’ confession, Robert “Kim” Mauzy, had no legal obligation to report him for abusing his older daughter and appealed Cardinal’s ruling.

It sure would be nice if the journalist, Mr. Rezendez, would update his narrative to fit the testimony that came out in the trial proceedings.  I commented on this back in December 2022:

Quote
Quote

 

Lynne Cadigan, one of several attorneys representing three of the Adams children, said MJ will seek compensation from the child pornographers.

But she and Salminen, the girl’s adoptive mother, lay most of the blame for the sexual abuse on officials of the Mormon church, who knew Adams molested MJ as early as 2010 and did nothing to stop it.

“She went to church with people who didn’t help her and as a result thousands of people are looking at the video and there’s nothing she can do about it,” Cadigan said.

 

This appears to be a pretty substantial mischaracterization of what happened.  See, e.g., here:

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.  Herrod thought the problem was avoided afterward by Leizza because that Paul 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.

 

Back to the update:

Quote

On Dec. 15, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the church, saying it did not have to turn over disciplinary records for Adams, who was excommunicated in 2013. The Appeals Court also ruled that a church official who attended a church disciplinary hearing could refuse to answer questions from the plaintiff’s attorneys during pretrial testimony, based on the clergy-penitent privilege.

Lawyers representing the Adams girls and one of their brothers took the case to the Arizona Supreme Court, where they did not prevail, according to the April ruling.

In an unusual move, Cadigan said attorneys for the three Adams children intend to file a motion asking the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling.

I think Cadigan is just showboating and pandering with this move.

Overall this is a terrible story.  I hope the victims get the counseling and other help they need.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted

I'm not sure the AZ Supreme Court actually ruled on anything.  I think they just denied the review.

I think where the AP reporter is getting the details is from the case details on the Appeals Court website.  https://www.appeals2.az.gov/ODSPlus/caseInfolast.cfm?caseID=132292 is the case at the Appeals Court and the last two lines of the proceeding say:

Quote
All Other  01/19/2023  Notification Petition for Review filed in ASC on 01/17/2023. [CV-23-0010] 
All Other  04/11/2023  ASC minute entry re action taken 4/7/2023. ORDERED: Petition for Review of Plaintiffs/Real Parties in Interest = DENIED. [CV-23-0010-PR] 

That looks more like the Supreme Court has denied the petition for review.  I tried to find anything related to that CV number on the Supreme Court website and couldn't find anything.

Posted (edited)

I just can not. Just can not understand how you can abuse your own child. Paul Adams. Only that name give me the chills. How sick must you be in your head if you feel pleasure to abusing your own children. I don't understand that. And he whas even a member of our church ! That's even more... sad. If you are a Mormon you should know better.

But unfortunatly this show again and again that humans are just humans. Doesn't matter or you had your endowmend. Doesn't matter or you wear your garments every day. It doesn't matter if you reading your scriptures every morning and evening. You are still a human. And a human is a human. And if you as a human being have a really dark side in your mind, about something that nobody knows about because you hide it so well behind all your facades. It will come out anyway sooner or later. Unfortunatly there exist humans, who are just evil. And stay that way. It's sad. But that's how the world works sadly. And to me it looks like it's only getting worse by time. 

So sad. ✝️

Edited by Dario_M
Posted
12 hours ago, webbles said:

I'm not sure the AZ Supreme Court actually ruled on anything.  I think they just denied the review.

I think where the AP reporter is getting the details is from the case details on the Appeals Court website.  https://www.appeals2.az.gov/ODSPlus/caseInfolast.cfm?caseID=132292 is the case at the Appeals Court and the last two lines of the proceeding say:

That looks more like the Supreme Court has denied the petition for review.  I tried to find anything related to that CV number on the Supreme Court website and couldn't find anything.

I think you are correct. The Deseret News is also getting it (kinda) wrong by relying on the AP (while improving on the reporting of the facts of the case) : 

Quote

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s priest-penitent privilege law exempts The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from revealing information from a confidential spiritual confession.

The decision upheld a Dec. 15 ruling by the Arizona Court of Appeals, which also had ruled in favor of the church in a lawsuit filed by three children of Paul Adams, a former church member who died by suicide in 2017 while in jail after he was arrested for child pornography for filming and distributing his sexual abuse of the girls.

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees with the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision,” the church said in a statement. “We are deeply saddened by the abuse these children suffered from their father. The church has no tolerance for abuse.”

The children sued last year, naming the church, two bishops and other church members and alleging they had been negligent not to report Adams after he made a private spiritual confession to his bishop in 2010 and was excommunicated in 2013.

Arizona law requires clergy to report child sexual abuse, but the law contains an exemption for clergy who learn of abuse through confessions.

The church said it was following Arizona law’s clergy-penitent privilege, which shields spiritual confessions from government, police investigations and courts to preserve what some faiths call the “confessional seal.”
...

In the Arizona case, the local Latter-day Saint bishop who heard the confession from Adams asked him to report the abuse to police, but Adams refused. Adams also declined to give the bishop permission to make the report himself based on Adams confidential confession, according to the church.

The bishop asked Adams’ wife, Leizza, to report. She refused and later served a prison sentence for failure to report sexual abuse.

Both before and after his confession, Adams rarely attended church or spoke to his local church leaders. He continued the abuse and began to abuse her sister as an infant, but he did not confess that to his bishop.

The church did not learn until after Adams’ arrest in 2017 that Adams had continued to abuse his oldest daughter and begun to abuse an infant daughter born after his excommunication, the church said.

Last year, the church said in a statement, “What happened to the Adams children in Arizona at the hands of their parents is sickening, heartbreaking and inexcusable.”

A county judge had ruled in August that Adams waived his privilege to keep his confession confidential when he shared videos of him abusing his daughter in private online forums.

The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the county judge’s decision in December. The children appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court made its ruling on April 7 but did not publicly release it, according to the Associated Press. The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court’s finding that church disciplinary records regarding Adams are confidential under Arizona law and that attorneys cannot compel church leaders to answer questions about Adams’ 2010 confession or 2013 excommunication.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
On 4/13/2023 at 6:48 AM, Dario_M said:

 And he was even a member of our church ! That's even more... sad. If you are a Mormon you should know better.

But unfortunately this show again and again that humans are just humans. Doesn't matter if you had your endowment. Doesn't matter if you wear your garments every day. 

You're not wrong.  But in this particular case, the perp was barely a member of the Church, never endowed, never a Melchizedek priesthood holder, and excommunicated at some point during this whole sorry story.  I'm not saying that active members of the Church aren't capable of this level of depravity, just that this particular story is not evidence of such.    

Posted
1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

You're not wrong.  But in this particular case, the perp was barely a member of the Church, never endowed, never a Melchizedek priesthood holder, and excommunicated at some point during this whole sorry story.  I'm not saying that active members of the Church aren't capable of this level of depravity, just that this particular story is not evidence of such.    

I guess there are a lot of "barely" church members out there.

That phrase and reasoning strikes me as overly dismissive of members who haven't been endowed and/or M Priesthood holders. Makes it sound like anyone who hasn't achieved those levels aren't very important or valued. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess there are a lot of "barely" church members out there.

That phrase and reasoning strikes me as overly dismissive of members who haven't been endowed and/or M Priesthood holders. Makes it sound like anyone who hasn't achieved those levels aren't very important or valued. 

That short list of what earns a person (and particularly THIS person) a designation as "barely a member" is hardly exhaustive.  There were MANY more (and much more unsavory) things in Mr. Adams' behavior and lifestyle that lead me to that conclusion about him.  

Otherwise, I completely agree that there are many members of the Church who haven't been endowed nor have received the Melchizedek priesthood but who are nonetheless fully active, fully engaged, fully members.

I did not intend to be a gatekeeper nor posit a universal definition of what constitutes "barely a member."  My comment was limited to Mr. Adams' relationship with the Church, which was by all accounts nominal, dubious, and tenuous. 

 

 

 

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Posted
5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess there are a lot of "barely" church members out there.

That phrase and reasoning strikes me as overly dismissive of members who haven't been endowed and/or M Priesthood holders. Makes it sound like anyone who hasn't achieved those levels aren't very important or valued. 

I've wondered how a man who was a life-long member of the church can somehow not receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.  I always felt it was kind of forced on you.  You turn 19 and you get ordained whether you want it or not.  Especially if you are attending church frequently.

Do you not see that as weird for him to never have received the Melchizedek Priesthood?

For me, the fact that he never received the Melchizedek Priesthood is potentially a sign that many of his priesthood leaders knew something wasn't right about him.

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

You're not wrong.  But in this particular case, the perp was barely a member of the Church, never endowed, never a Melchizedek priesthood holder, and excommunicated at some point during this whole sorry story.  I'm not saying that active members of the Church aren't capable of this level of depravity, just that this particular story is not evidence of such.    

Okay but what is your point now? He could also be endowed and wear his garment every day. And also could read his scriptures every day every morning and every evening and he would still be the same person. It's not super relevant or this spacific individual had his endowmend or not. He is still from our church. People are just people. Everyone. Also the biggist saint (on the first side offcourse) can be the darkest one. You can't look inside his head. So you don't know. 

Your post proves not a THING let me tell you that. So don't even think that you did. 

Edited by Dario_M
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Okay but what is your point now? He could also be endowed and wear his garment every day. And also could read his scriptures every day every morning and every evening and he would still be the same person. It's not super relevant or this spacific individual had his endowmend or not. He is still from our church. People are just people. Everyone. Also the biggist saint (on the first side offcourse) can be the darkest one. You can't look inside his head. So you don't know. 

Your post proves not a THING let me tell you that. So don't even think that you did. 

I agree with your conclusion but find your evidence lacking. 

You simply can't use Paul Adams as evidence for the proposition that even a garment-wearing, temple-attending, priesthood-bearing member of the Church could turn out to be a decroded piece of crud.   That's like saying, "Some swans can be black, here's a white swan as evidence."  

Edited to add: I am not trying to PROVE anything.  I am trying to point out that YOU can't prove your thesis using Paul Adams as Exhibit A.  

 

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Posted
On 4/13/2023 at 8:48 AM, Dario_M said:

And if you as a human being have a really dark side in your mind, about something that nobody knows about because you hide it so well behind all your facades. It will come out anyway sooner or later. Unfortunatly there exist humans, who are just evil. And stay that way.

Who have you been talking to? What have they been saying about me? Because it was lies! ALL OF IT!!!!

Posted
20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I agree with your conclusion but find your evidence lacking.

 

Well i find not. 

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

You simply can't use Paul Adams as evidence for the proposition that even a garment-wearing, temple-attending, priesthood-bearing member of the Church could turn out to be a decroded piece of crud. 

Yeah even an garment wearing temple attending member of the church could end up like paul. From wich planet are you?  

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 That's like saying, "Some swans can be black, here's a white swan as evidence."  

This makes no sense at all for my feeling. Really sorry. Has nothing to do with this case.

20 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Edited to add: I am not trying to PROVE anything.  I am trying to point out that YOU can't prove your thesis using Paul Adams as Exhibit A.  

 

Well..read the news a bit better then Stormin i would say. And you would find plenty of prove. 

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Who have you been talking to? What have they been saying about me? Because it was lies! ALL OF IT!!!!

I whas not talking about you offcourse. 

Edited by Dario_M
Posted
3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yeah even an garment wearing temple attending member of the church could end up like paul. From wich planet are you?  

Again.  I AGREE with your conclusion.  A garment-wearing, temple-attending member of the church could definitely end up like Paul.  But since Paul was NEVER a garment-wearing, temple-attending member, his story is not a story about a garment-wearing, temple-attending member becoming a piece of crap human being.  Tying this concept to Paul's story is completely irrelevant and unrelated.

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Well..read the news a bit better then Stormin i would say. And you would find plenty of prove. 

Yes, there are plenty of stories out there about garment-wearing, temple-attending members doing bad things.  And while this is a story about a member doing bad things, it is NOT a story about a garment-wearing, temple-attending member doing bad things.  Paul Adams was NEVER a garment-wearing, temple-attending member.  His actions PROVE NOTHING about what a garment-wearing, temple-attending member is capable of because I repeat (AGAIN!) that he was NEVER a garment-wearing, temple-attending member.

If you want to discuss the potential for garment-wearing, temple-attending members to do bad things, you'll have to use a different example (of which there are plenty).  

Posted
21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Again.  I AGREE with your conclusion.  A garment-wearing, temple-attending member of the church could definitely end up like Paul.  But since Paul was NEVER a garment-wearing, temple-attending member, his story is not a story about a garment-wearing, temple-attending member becoming a piece of crap human being.  Tying this concept to Paul's story is completely irrelevant and unrelated.

A garment wearing temple attending member???? I have count how manny times you have mention this in 1 post. You have said it 9 times. Is it so difficult for you to act normal in a dialoque perhaps?? 

And! Or it is irrelervant or not to ty this example to paul's story is something i can determine for myself if you don't mind. 

 

21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Yes, there are plenty of stories out there about garment-wearing, temple-attending members doing bad things.

You maked it sound as if Mormons who are not having their endowmend and not wearing garments have a higher risk to fal in the wrong path. So offcourse i wanted to mention to you that that isn't true. You begon this disscusion with your nonsens. Because of the nonsens that comes out of your keyboard i needed to react. Besides of that it is offensive for me to read this as well. 

21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

  And while this is a story about a member doing bad things, it is NOT a story about a garment-wearing.

It doesn't matter though. He is still a member. You guys with your garments are not better then we Mormons without our garments. But somehow you @Stormin really seem to believe that.

21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

 

temple-attending member doing bad things.  Paul Adams was NEVER a garment-wearing, temple-attending member. 

It DOESN'T matter.

21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

His actions PROVE NOTHING about what a garment-wearing, temple-attending member is capable of because I repeat (AGAIN!)

 

How many times can a human being repeat his self?? 🎭

21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

that he was NEVER a garment-wearing, temple-attending member.

#GWTAM 👋

I think i don't really wanna have a dialoque anymore with you if it goes this way. 😖

21 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

If you want to discuss the potential for garment-wearing, temple-attending members to do bad things, you'll have to use a different example (of which there are plenty).  

Find them yourself. You also have google. 

God bless. ✝️

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

You maked it sound as if Mormons who are not having their endowmend and not wearing garments have a higher risk to fal in the wrong path. So offcourse i wanted to mention to you that that isn't true. You begon this disscusion with your nonsens. Because of the nonsens that comes out of your keyboard i needed to react. Besides of that it is offensive for me to read this as well. 

 You guys with your garments are not better then we Mormons without our garments. But somehow you @Stormin really seem to believe that.

 

I am not saying what you think I'm saying.  I have explicitly stated the EXACT OPPOSITE.  I have EXPLICITY said I AGREE with your conclusions in NUMEROUS posts. I have EXPLICITY agreed with you that Mormons who wear garments are just as capable of doing bad things as Mormons who don't wear garments. But I have also consistently stated that the story of Paul Adams is not evidence for that very true conclusion.  

Look, this is very basic logic.  Almost mathematical in its precision and its lack of wiggle room.  Your argument can be diagrammed thus:

  1. If A then B
  2. Not A
  3. Therefore B  

Your premises are both true, and your conclusion is true.  The truthfulness of what your are saying and concluding are not at issue.  It's the STRUCTURE of your argument that I am pushing against.  It is structurally invalid.  You can't get to "Therefore B" given the two premises you are working with.  You simply can't.  No if's, and's, or but's.    

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

 Is it so difficult for you to act normal in a dialoque perhaps?? 

 You begon this disscusion with your nonsens. Because of the nonsens that comes out of your keyboard i needed to react. Besides of that it is offensive for me to read this as well. 

It doesn't matter though. He is still a member. You guys with your garments are not better then we Mormons without our garments. But somehow you @Stormin really seem to believe that.

I think i don't really wanna have a dialoque anymore with you if it goes this way. 😖

 

If you're gonna get personally insulting, then I'm done.  If you're gonna continually misstate what I have said (when I am AGREEING with you) then I'm done.  This is my last word on the subject.  

Edited by Stormin' Mormon
Posted
On 4/14/2023 at 7:19 PM, webbles said:

I've wondered how a man who was a life-long member of the church can somehow not receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.  I always felt it was kind of forced on you.  You turn 19 and you get ordained whether you want it or not.  Especially if you are attending church frequently.

Do you not see that as weird for him to never have received the Melchizedek Priesthood?

For me, the fact that he never received the Melchizedek Priesthood is potentially a sign that many of his priesthood leaders knew something wasn't right about him.

Doesn't change the fact that in the church some people tend to be valued while others are "marginal" based on their level of achievement. The church has many milestone events/ordinances and people are often viewed as a "good member" or a "bad member" based on their level of achievement.

I've known some real POS who are endowed MP who attend the temple regularly. In fact I just had a great interaction with a "strong endowed couple" in the ward where they screamed in my face and yelled all kinds of curse words at me. BUT it's ok because they are "good members".

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Doesn't change the fact that in the church some people tend to be valued while others are "marginal" based on their level of achievement. The church has many milestone events/ordinances and people are often viewed as a "good member" or a "bad member" based on their level of achievement.

I've known some real POS who are endowed MP who attend the temple regularly. In fact I just had a great interaction with a "strong endowed couple" in the ward where they screamed in my face and yelled all kinds of curse words at me. BUT it's ok because they are "good members".

It's not okay. Sorry that happened. It's a difficult thing to realize how awful members of the church can be. We are a flawed group of humans, for sure. 

C981A77A-BB32-4BBA-9EE6-AD396CEE979A.jpeg

Edited by bsjkki
Posted
8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

BUT it's ok because they are "good members".

Who is saying it’s okay?

Posted
9 hours ago, Calm said:

Who is saying it’s okay?

I don't live in an LDS dominated population area. In my small little rural community we have had a tremendous amount of church member centered turmoil over the past few months. Everything from a member being arrested on multiple counts of sxual misconduct with a minor, to a former bishop facing tax evasion charges, to a youth who has been hit on multiple occasions by her father, to the tantrum I mentioned earlier by a "good, upstanding couple". That one was by far the most minor of offenses (but there's significantly more to the story).

Members behaving badly isn't new but the reactions from other members in the ward and stake have has been disheartening. While I can understand wanting to give someone the benefit of the doubt the level of wagon-circling I've been witnessing in these situations is disgusting. In a couple of cases the accuser is the one being excoriated. 

I think there is a tendency for "good members" to trust other "good members" despite heaping piles of evidence.

Posted
4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't live in an LDS dominated population area. In my small little rural community we have had a tremendous amount of church member centered turmoil over the past few months. Everything from a member being arrested on multiple counts of sxual misconduct with a minor, to a former bishop facing tax evasion charges, to a youth who has been hit on multiple occasions by her father, to the tantrum I mentioned earlier by a "good, upstanding couple". That one was by far the most minor of offenses (but there's significantly more to the story).

Members behaving badly isn't new but the reactions from other members in the ward and stake have has been disheartening. While I can understand wanting to give someone the benefit of the doubt the level of wagon-circling I've been witnessing in these situations is disgusting. In a couple of cases the accuser is the one being excoriated. 

I think there is a tendency for "good members" to trust other "good members" despite heaping piles of evidence.

This is a problem. No doubt. Sometimes, it’s easier for people to believe the abuser over a victim because they would have to acknowledge they can’t trust their own judgement about someone or don’t want to acknowledge how evil ‘a friend’ can be. It’s very unfortunate. Victimizes the victims all over again and makes it difficult for the people sounding the alarm. Overcoming these internal biases is very challenging for people. They don’t want to believe this stuff happens.

😪

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...