JohnW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 3:04 am
Human behavior is interesting. We just don't seem to be able to change our beliefs.
I post here that my experience with the church legal hotline is that they take great care in putting victim's safety first. Somehow that is interpreted that the church never puts victim's safety first. I then post that my experience is the police are contacted whenever a victim's safety is in question. Somehow that is interpreted that the police are never contacted.
I guess this is pizzagate 2.0? I suppose nothing I say will ever change anyone's mind. That one pizzagate guy broke into the basement of the pizza place thinking he would find a pedophile ring. When he only found crates of pizza-making supplies, he was certain that proved, without a doubt, there was a pedophile ring in the basement. I used to think those were only the crazies, but now I worry we are all crazies at heart.
Maybe I will keep to the theological threads.
John, I'm an attorney, so I also have to deal with the issue of legal privileges. I have a duty to keep confidential all information regarding my representation of a client, with certain exceptions. Here are the two relevant to the situation we are discussing here:
(1) shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent reasonably
certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to prevent the client from committing a crime;
Luckily, I've never had to deal with these two exceptions in my practice. Also, I have a hot line staffed by ethics advisors from my state bar that I can call. I can even request a written opinion from the bar.
I very much appreciate what you posted about your experience with the hot line. I also understand that, given the numbers of people who participate here, odds are that there are folks here who were abused as children, had siblings who were abused as children, or who have extended family members or close friends who were abused as children. Many of us also grew up in the church as children. So, it shouldn't be surprising that many folks here have very strong opinions about child abuse and how allegations of child abuse are handled by the church.
Personally, I have a hard time reconciling what you've told us with the church's reaction to the AP story. The church's stance seems to be that nothing wrong was done, yet at least 14-15 leaders in wards/stakes were aware enough to excommunicate the abuser but no police were called and no reports were made. Under the system you described, that should never have happened. But the church doesn't treat it as an aberration -- it defends it as the system working.
One explanation might be that you live in a state where clergy are required to report child abuse. I'm not asking you to tell me what any lawyer told you about the laws in your state, but do you have a general understanding of the reporting obligations of clergy in your state? If you're not comfortable describing those obligations, you mind telling us which state you were a bishop in? Then I could look for myself.
Part of the problem I'm having is that you use terms subject to a range of interpretation. The main one is "victim safety." Another is "comes first." I understand completely that you can't speak to specific cases, but without knowing how the general terms are applied, it's hard to understand what's going on.
For example, about how many times during your service as bishop did you have reason to believe a child in the ward was being abused sexually? About how many of those times did you call the hot line? Were the police called or authorities informed in each case? If not, what were the types of reasons that led you not to call the police or inform the authorities? Put another way, if victim safety came first, how did you determine in individual cases whether the victim's safety was at risk?
Thanks.