Idaho Lawsuit Re: Abuse Claims

[smac97]

Woman sues Napa church alleging sexual abuse in the ‘80s and ‘90s

Quote

A woman claims in a lawsuit that she was sexually molested by members of the Napa ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1988 and 1992, that leaders knew about the abuse, allowed the perpetrators to remain members in good standing and hid it from authorities.

I wonder if there is a statute of limitations issue here.

Quote

The 24-page suit, filed Wednesday in Napa Superior Court, does not identify the accuser by name, only saying she is under 40 and now lives in Contra Costa County. However, the suit does name two men she says molested and raped her — starting when she was 4-years-old — at the church building on Trower Avenue, her grandmother’s home as well as in a vehicle.

The suit does not name those two men – Joe Freeman and Jim Gratton – as defendants, but names the church organization itself, headquartered in Utah; the Temple Corporation, which manages the church’s properties; and the Santa Rosa stake, which oversees the Napa congregation. The suit does not specifically state what Freeman and Gratton did at the church, outside of saying they had real or apparent positions of authority.

Hmm.  I wonder what these "real or apparent positions of authority" were, and what nexus those positions had with these men's interactions with the plaintiff.

Quote

“Intent on manipulated Plaintiff’s emotions and taking advantage of her innocence, in order to sexually abuse her, Perpetrators exploited Plaintiff’s fragile mental state to cause her extreme fear, anxiety, and confusion; coercing and manipulating Plaintiff in order to gain further power and control over here,” the suit states.

It is unclear whether Freeman or Gratton continue to live in Napa, or even if they are still alive. Michael Carney, one of the attorneys for the woman, said in an email that his firm would be trying to find that out as part of the litigation process and might add them to the suit depending on what they discover.

Carney, of the Beverly Hills firm of Slater Slater Schulman, said they have filed more than 100 similar lawsuits across the state and expect to file “several dozen more in the coming weeks.” Searches of court filings indicate this is the first suit of its kind locally, though Carney said he could not say this was definitively true.

"Several dozen more."

Quote

Church officials, while not addressing the specific allegations in the suit, said in a statement that the “abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes this, teaches this, and dedicates tremendous resources and efforts to prevent, report and address abuse.”

“We have deep concern for all victims of abuse,” the statement continued. “Church leaders and members are instructed that their responsibilities related to abuse are as follows: Assure that child sexual abuse is stopped; help victims receive care, including from professional counselors; and comply with whatever reporting is required by law.”

After displaying sexual conduct as a preteen, the woman states in the lawsuit she disclosed the abuse to her foster mother and police in 1995. Despite this, she claims no one at the church investigated the claims “or even asked how she was doing.” In addition, she says the men were allowed to retain their positions of authority within the church.

She disclosed the abuse to her foster mother and to police, but not to a representative of the Church?  What theory does she have that imputes knowledge of the abuse onto the Church?  And even assuming such an imputation, I'm not sure that creates liability, since duty-to-disclose laws at the time (1988-1992) were likely quite different from how they stand today.

Quote

The suit also claims the Mormon church, as a whole, has “a pattern and practice of concealing abuse from the authorities, and signals that its members should conceal and/or fail to report abuse…” It claims that a 1-800 helpline, ostensibly set up to allow clergy to report abuse, is, in reality, a way to conceal it.

This is a poor legal argument.

Quote

“[T]he Church primarily staffs the Helpline with attorneys of Kirton McConkie, one of the largest law firms in the State of Utah,” the suit states. “Rather than notifying law enforcement or other government authorities when Bishops and other Church clergy members call the Helpline regarding sexual abuse in the Church, Helpline operators transfer these calls to the Kirton McConkie attorneys, who advise the bishop not to report the abuse incident to law enforcement, misrepresenting the clergy-penitent privilege laws as their reasoning.”

IIRC correctly, the helpline wasn't even created until 1995, years after the purported abuse concluded.

And the helpline is intended to give bishops legal advice and helps bishops sort out questions re: care, treatment, reporting abuse, navigating the priest-penitent privilege, and so on.

Quote

The Associated Press and The Center for Investigative Reporting published a piece in December 2023 detailing how the helpline has functioned to shield the Morman church from lawsuits.

"The Morman church."

Quote

Church officials, in a statement, disputed this, saying its helpline exists to make sure its policies on receiving care, treatment and reporting abuse to authorities is followed.

“The Church has no tolerance for abuse of any kind,” the statement said.

But the plaintiff claims the leaders of the Napa church ignored “clear and obvious signs” that Freeman and Gratton engaged in inappropriate conduct around children, allowed them to spend unsupervised one-on-one time with her, and turned “a blind-eye to Plaintiff’s whereabouts and wellbeing.”

The abuse, she says, caused her severe emotional distress, psychological harm, physical injuries, diminished earning capacity and saddled her with past and future costs for medical treatment and care. Though it does not specify a number, the suit seeks damages for those costs as well as an award of punitive damages.

I wonder how this one will play out.

Abuse is a terrible thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rpn]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

she claims no one at the church investigated the claims “or even asked how she was doing.” In addition, she says the men were allowed to retain their positions of authority within the church.

It can be very hard to hold non-cooperative members accountable for sexual behavior.   You have to have two witnesses.   And given the nature of these sins/crimes, that means only the repentant can be held accountable in many cases.  (Which wouldn't explain how they kept their leadership callings, of course.) 

[blackstrap]

So the police were notified in 1995 when she was about 11 and no charges were made? 

[Dario_M]

Yeah...i think that sexual abuse can happen everywhere. And that's just horible. 

Edited September 7, 2024 by Dario_M

[Tacenda]

I've heard, second hand, of similar stories in my former home town in Utah.

[MustardSeed]

On 9/6/2024 at 1:21 PM, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I wonder what these "real or apparent positions of authority" were, and what nexus those positions had with these men's interactions with the plaintiff.

If she was under 18, it doesn’t matter so much what callings they had. Presumably they would’ve had the priesthood and that’s enough of a position of authority over any woman regardless of age. Unfortunately.

Your questions come across as questioning validity of the claims, or at least to poke holes in the claim. 
 

I work with many survivors of sexual abuse who never bother to speak up because this is our culture- disbelief that such terrible things happen. in my opinion, more traumatic than the event itself is the negative reaction and disbelief about the event. 
 

FWIW. 

Edited September 8, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

in my opinion, more traumatic than the event itself is the negative reaction and disbelief about the event. 

Being told by others you see as believable what you know happened to you didn’t happen or dismissals of what vulnerabilities you expose as not real, even if seen as a compliment (“oh, you can’t be ….., you are always so happy, competent, smart, whatever!”) can be very traumatic to a person, especially a child and lead to being less likely to open up, denying pain even to oneself and ending up all messed up inside. 

Putting that in the context of abuse has to ramp up the consequences massively, especially sexual abuse.

The bravery that it takes for an abused child to speak up and then to be treated as dramatic or over sensitive or even lying, why should they trust anyone, feel safe with anyone then?  Including God?  (I say this as closely knowing two abused children in a family, one of who embraced God and the gospel and one who did not, so both paths seem very understandable to me, though the latter one has turned out to be much harder because of the things they chose to replace the stability they once found in the Church and family).

Add to that the distaste that gets communicated in the negative reactions…shaming that leads to feelings of worthlessness, etc. 

Leads to a very complicated self view that is hard to untwist from what I have seen. 

Edited September 8, 2024 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I work with many survivors of sexual abuse who never bother to speak up because this is our culture- disbelief that such terrible things happen. in my opinion, more traumatic than the event itself is the negative reaction and disbelief about the event. 

I have a few personal stories and hundreds of 2ndhand account stories, and I know what you're talking about.  It's absolutely not just an LDS thing, but yes indeed, it's an LDS thing. 

Have you noticed any change to the culture in the last 20 years or so?  The church went through a period where you couldn't watch a general conference without hearing the concept of zero tolerance taught.  The mandatory training for anyone working with children is pretty dang clear that things must be reported with zero exceptions.  I'm just wondering if you've seen any change or improvement as a result of the church's increased efforts.

 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I have a few personal stories and hundreds of 2ndhand account stories, and I know what you're talking about.  It's absolutely not just an LDS thing, but yes indeed, it's an LDS thing. 

Have you noticed any change to the culture in the last 20 years or so?  The church went through a period where you couldn't watch a general conference without hearing the concept of zero tolerance taught.  The mandatory training for anyone working with children is pretty dang clear that things must be reported with zero exceptions.  I'm just wondering if you've seen any change or improvement as a result of the church's increased efforts.

 

Sorry I was unclear.  I was speaking of our larger societal but I do think there have been significant shifts.  In real life though, at least at work, I experience a persistent resistance to report. 
I also continue to observe Victim, blaming, denial, defensiveness, all the normal human blah blah. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

In real life though, at least at work, I experience a persistent resistance to report. 

Much of my information comes from folks talking about their experiences going through recovery in Utah in the 1990's, and stories from rape crisis centers.  From what I was told, part of the recovery process for a victim was taking back you life by learning about your options and the legal landscape, and likely outcomes.  Here's what they were told:

- Most rapes go unreported.
- Most reported instances don't result in an arrest. 
- Most arrests don't ever make it to trial. 
- Most trials don't result in any jail/prison time.
- Chose your support people carefully.  The more people you tell, the more likely you will encounter negative reactions like disbelief and victim blaming and lost relationships.  If you go public, you will receive reactions like this from friends of friends and random strangers.
- Most of the time, when you report and fight for justice, you won't get it.  You might be making it slightly easier for the perp's next victim to have a better outcome than you.

The numerous stories I gathered from the crisis centers provided ample anecdotes that substantiated these claims.  A successful journey through the experience included healthy choosing about how far to push things, and how to deal with the negative blowback in ways that didn't bring more trauma.  They found things to cheer, and things to mourn.  They celebrated when someone made choices they could live with about whether to report or not.  They were often able to celebrate when people important to them believed them.  They mourned when a boyfriend dumped them or they lost a job or grandma called them a slur.   A small handful of times they could celebrate when a perp lost his job or a friend over what they had done.  They mourned when the best choice was to switch jobs or move to another city, so they wouldn't have to watch dude smile his way through life with zero consequences.  There was that one time where they could celebrate putting a guy behind bars for 5-life.  A lot of mourning about police inaction, cases that got dropped or pled out.

My info is 25 years old.  What does your current info say?  Is all of that still pretty much true?  If it is, one can understand resistance to report if someone has access to that info.

 

Keep in mind - I'm 100% supportive of mandatory reporters doing their mandatory reporting.  If you see something, say something.  But I'm also 100% supportive of the victim making their own decision on such matters as part of their healing.

 

Quote

I also continue to observe Victim, blaming, denial, defensiveness, all the normal human blah blah. 

I remember how hard these (mostly) women fought to take back their lives and stop blaming themselves.  

If it helps you with your work:  25 years later, I am in contact with a small handful of folks who went through this experience.  All of 'em are healthy and have found ways to be happy and productive in life.  All of them went a short period of time defined by their trauma, but they all grew out of it.  Now it's just something that happened to them, and not something that defines their value.  There's no shortage of coping mechanisms, some of them not the healthiest, but they're doing good.  The ones in relationships are about as happy in them, as the general population - and that's a win.

Edited September 9, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

If anyone wants an up close look at the issues surrounding rape, people's reactions to allegations/accusations of rape, and what women go through when they report a rape, Missoula: Rape and the Justice System in a College Town by Jon Krakauer is an excellent read/listen.  It was written in 2015 about some cases that happened around 2014 in Missoula Montana (so it's getting a little dated) but it has a lot of data and pulls no punches.

It was eye opening to know just how broken the justice system is, and how tenaciously people will refuse to believe something they don't want to believe, when it comes to this kind of violence.

[Tacenda]

Hopefully this isn't a derail, but this baffles me as to how this case got dropped, terrible crime IMO. 

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2021/05/case-dismissed-against-retired-idaho-falls-doctor-who-used-his-own-sperm-to-inseminate-patient/

[smac97]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Keep in mind - I'm 100% supportive of mandatory reporters doing their mandatory reporting.  If you see something, say something.  But I'm also 100% supportive of the victim making their own decision on such matters as part of their healing.

Do you see any conflict between these two positions?  I have first-hand experienced in this, with a victim adamantly not wanting the matter reported to law enforcement, but the law required a "mandatory reporter" to report it.  If the two principles conflict, which one should prevail?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Hopefully this isn't a derail, but this baffles me as to how this case got dropped, terrible crime IMO. 

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2021/05/case-dismissed-against-retired-idaho-falls-doctor-who-used-his-own-sperm-to-inseminate-patient/

that was a friend of mine's MP in the Phillipines

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you see any conflict between these two positions?  I have first-hand experienced in this, with a victim adamantly not wanting the matter reported to law enforcement, but the law required a "mandatory reporter" to report it.  If the two principles conflict, which one should prevail?

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, on principal I think that the mandated reporter should prevail, only because reporting the abuse could save someone else and the reporter has a duty to keep others safe from predators. But, on a case by case basis, I would probably disagree with myself.  In some instances, if the victim doesn't want it reported then maybe it shouldn't be. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Well, on principal I think that the mandated reporter should prevail, only because reporting the abuse could save someone else and the reporter has a duty to keep others safe from predators. But, on a case by case basis, I would probably disagree with myself.  In some instances, if the victim doesn't want it reported then maybe it shouldn't be. 

Mandatory reporting laws do not allow for the preference of the victim to override the obligation to report.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Keep in mind - I'm 100% supportive of mandatory reporters doing their mandatory reporting.  If you see something, say something.  But I'm also 100% supportive of the victim making their own decision on such matters as part of their healing.

Do you see any conflict between these two positions?  I have first-hand experienced in this, with a victim adamantly not wanting the matter reported to law enforcement, but the law required a "mandatory reporter" to report it.  If the two principles conflict, which one should prevail?

The two positions dance with each other like drunken apes.  The central issue (from what I'm told by abuse victims) is one of control.  You lose it when you are victimized, and it can be a devastating, traumatizing, life-destroying thing.  Moving through the raw parts of healing from such a thing, is an exercise in figuring out what you can and cannot control.  PTSD can rob you of control over your own body.  Other people running their mouths or filing reports or divulging information or filing charges can rob you of the information about what happened to you, and control over what's done with that information.  Figuring out what's still under your control and what isn't, can be painful and re-traumatizing.   Trying to establish a new basis of reality from which to exist?  Surprised by cops knocking on your door to follow up on a report your mom/teacher/bishop called in?  Phrases like "ripping the bandaid off before the scab even formed" are common.  

It's often a painful lesson to learn that once the cat is out of the bag, once the report is made, once the social media post spreads, once the gossip starts, the thing takes on a life of it's own, and you have zero control over it.  Cops can arrest and file charges, and the court process can happen, sometimes whether the victim wills it or not.  Once there's a news article to link, total strangers on the mormondialogue message board will form opinions about you and the situation, and argue back and forth about the best way to judge you.

That said, abuse lives in darkness and secrecy.  It thrives off of shame and misplaced guilt that demands silence.  It spreads because the fear of being judged, not being believed, even being hated, scares people into silence.   Nobody knows you're a predator if none of your victims every say anything.  One of the milestones in healing, is being able to put your experience into words, that you can say with your own voice.  Sometimes it takes years.  Some people never are able.  So a moral society must have a path to deal with the bad guys when the victims can't act for themselves. 

Yeah, these two positions are often in conflict.  From the position of a guy like me, watching parts of it go by, it all depends on context.  A million unique circumstances force a million decisions, often with no clear right answer. 

The humans have to draw a line somewhere, and I'm happier with the "mandatory reporters must report" line than I was with the "yeah, let's move this guy around and not tell anyone" line.  That said, if I'm a confidant or a support person and I'm not a mandatory reporter, my duty and stewardship belongs to the victim, and I won't be spreading what I know around without her consent.  Unless she's in a coma or something. 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mandatory reporting laws do not allow for the preference of the victim to override the obligation to report.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was answering your question-"If the two principles conflict, which one should prevail?"

Your reply to my answer has me confused, wondering why you asked the question in the first place.  Did I miss something?

[Pyreaux]

I've heard conflicting views of victims of assault who simply don't hate their assaulter, they didn't tell the police because they don't actually want them gone. They love and care about them, and / or they are their only source of income or are an important or stable aspect of their lives. I wasn't assaulted, but my father went to prison, the police's idea of fixing social ills doesn't come just at their expense, it comes at a great personal cost to all who care about them. I had to take his place, taking care of my father's dependents, house, yard, spending his savings I stood to inherit on bills and a mortgage, running his small business but making minimum wage there. If there were any other way to deal, or not deal, with it rather than turning him in and face the collateral damage, I would have rather done it.

Edited September 10, 2024 by Pyreaux

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I've heard conflicting views of victims of assault who simply don't hate their assaulter, they didn't tell the police because they don't actually want them gone. They love and care about them, and / or they are only source of income or are an important or stable aspect of their lives. I wasn't assaulted, but my father went to prison, the police's idea of fixing social ills doesn't come just at their expense, it comes at a great personal cost to all who care about them. I had to take his place, taking care of my father's dependents, house, yard, spending his savings I stood to inherit on bills and a mortgage, running his small business but making minimum wage there. If there were any other way to deal, or not deal, with it rather than turning him in and face the collateral damage, I would have rather done it.

It's a thin line between justice and mercy sometimes.  People do need to face the consequences of their choices or actions, but  I think that a lot of the time there is more room for mercy in dealing with perpetrators than our legal system allows.  There is a way for justice to be done and still focus on rehabilitating those who commit crimes or harm others.  But most of society seems to want a pound of flesh, even though it probably harms more than it helps in the long run.

[Dario_M]

Well good for her. Allthough... in my opinion it's a bit late to seek to this for kind of actions. 

Edited September 10, 2024 by Dario_M

[LoudmouthMormon]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I've heard conflicting views of victims of assault who simply don't hate their assaulter, they didn't tell the police because they don't actually want them gone.

Almost every single cop in the US who has served in patrol, can give you a story about responding to a domestic disturbance call where they find a beat up woman and a drunk guy, and the woman moves heaven and earth to get the cops to leave without taking any action.  Sometimes the obviously-abused women gets violent and attacks the cops who come to arrest her guy.   

There are a lot of reasons for this, and zero easy answers.  Delve into the matter if you want to be informed, but get ready to bear the heavy burdens of uncomfortable knowledge for the rest of your life.  

 

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's a thin line between justice and mercy sometimes.

I would characterize it differently.  Mortal humans like their civilizations.  Every civilization puts these two principles into play in one form or another.  No matter how good or noble or righteous the civilization, justice and mercy always, without exception, end up colliding with each other in ways that force one to win, and one to lose.  For every imprisoned offender, there is a crying mother or a girl left with no support or a prison killing that exceeds any just penalty.   For every mercy granted in the form of charges dropped or a job kept, there is a victim that goes without justice and must endure watching the person who harmed them walk around smiling.  When folks try to be like Christ and intercede to pay the price for another, there's an awful lot of repeat offenders and people feeling like suckers.  I yearn to learn the secrets and mysteries of that heavenly, perfect blend of justice and mercy.  Because even at our best, we humans suck at it when we try our best here on earth.

I push the difference between forgiveness and mercy hard.  They are not the same.  We are commanded to forgive everyone.  That does not mean we must give up our right, and sometimes our duty, to seek justice.  Again, the odds of gaining good justice are not great.  However, doing the paperwork, jumping through the hoops, and putting up with the grief that comes, can make it easier on the next victim.   So many instances of sexual violence come down to he said-she said.   There's a big difference when the complaint falls on someone with a prior history of complaints against them - even if no charges managed to stick.  The new victim often finds support and people to believe them, they would otherwise not have found.

Be good to each other, people.

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Almost every single cop in the US who has served in patrol, can give you a story about responding to a domestic disturbance call where they find a beat up woman and a drunk guy, and the woman moves heaven and earth to get the cops to leave without taking any action.  Sometimes the obviously-abused women gets violent and attacks the cops who come to arrest her guy.   

There are a lot of reasons for this, and zero easy answers.  Delve into the matter if you want to be informed, but get ready to bear the heavy burdens of uncomfortable knowledge for the rest of your life.  

 

I would characterize it differently.  Mortal humans like their civilizations.  Every civilization puts these two principles into play in one form or another.  No matter how good or noble or righteous the civilization, justice and mercy always, without exception, end up colliding with each other in ways that force one to win, and one to lose.  For every imprisoned offender, there is a crying mother or a girl left with no support or a prison killing that exceeds any just penalty.   For every mercy granted in the form of charges dropped or a job kept, there is a victim that goes without justice and must endure watching the person who harmed them walk around smiling.  When folks try to be like Christ and intercede to pay the price for another, there's an awful lot of repeat offenders and people feeling like suckers.  I yearn to learn the secrets and mysteries of that heavenly, perfect blend of justice and mercy.  Because even at our best, we humans suck at it when we try our best here on earth.

I push the difference between forgiveness and mercy hard.  They are not the same.  We are commanded to forgive everyone.  That does not mean we must give up our right, and sometimes our duty, to seek justice.  Again, the odds of gaining good justice are not great.  However, doing the paperwork, jumping through the hoops, and putting up with the grief that comes, can make it easier on the next victim.   So many instances of sexual violence come down to he said-she said.   There's a big difference when the complaint falls on someone with a prior history of complaints against them - even if no charges managed to stick.  The new victim often finds support and people to believe them, they would otherwise not have found.

Be good to each other, people.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on their being stark differences between justice and mercy, but I do agree that justice requires consequences and that mercy is not about robbing justice of that.  And unfortunately extendining mercy doesn't mean that no innocent person will suffer because of the actions of another.