Chap wrote:Rosebud wrote:... if this were really all that happened to his daughter (although from experience I doubt that -- I would guess that if this happened a lot more also happened, but I don't know of course), his daughter would have been so much better off if her father just dropped it. I'm sure it was a very bad experience and deservingly made her feel awful, but it's not the kind of horrific traumatic report that is so common.
If this is all that happened, she could have moved forward with so little worry or concern about it. ...
I suppose Karren's move might ultimately help, but right now I'm feeling even more disgusted with him. What a father.
I am disturbed by the suggestion that inappropriate and apparently deliberate sexualized contact with a child by a person in a position of power and influence such as a Mormon GA might best dealt with by saying nothing and 'moving on', especially where the perpetrator has admitted that something reprehensible happened by trying to put the blame on the child, as did Mickelson.
Experience suggests that when evidence of long-term and widespread misbehavior towards children finally comes to light on the part of men whose position and influence has protected them for years, many other former children come forward to reveal previously unsuspected incidents of abuse of various degrees of seriousness - all of which have been dealt with by parents and others in authority by saying nothing and 'moving on'. That is exactly what the perpetrators want, and it appears that a lot of the time, they get what they want, and are free to continue molesting other children.
The family of the victim may avoid some problems by taking no action - but the next child victim may not.
Let's go through this piece-by-piece.
1. Karren claims he was informed that his daughter had exhibited pre-sexualized behavior with an adult. Karren's choices:
A. Confront and discipline the child
B. Seek outside expert advice to get better direction about what to do next
C. Confront and seek to discipline the adult.
Karren's Decision: A
Why this is important: it is very common for predators to blame children in an effort to silence them. Let me share an extreme example for the purpose of demonstrating the contrast between what Karren is reporting and what some victims report.
Extreme example: Child reports being forcibly raped in bishop's basement. After the rape, the bishop forces child to kill a kitten. Bishop tells child that child is evil for killing the kitten and that if child ever tells anyone else about what happened, everybody will know that child is evil because not only did the child have sex, but the child murdered a small and very cute animal.
Therefore: It is critical that adults learn that the first and highest priority in any reporting situation is to assure the child that the child has not done anything wrong no matter what happened and that everything that happened was the adult's fault, not the child's fault. The adult should immediately seek professional assistance regardless of the level of the report. Once assistance happens, C should take place.
Darren did eventually get to C -- after his ex-wife filed for divorce.
2. Child is accused of being promiscuousKarren's decisions:
A. Feel very disturbed about the use of the word promiscuous and get very angry about the word.
B. Tell child that the word promiscuous is unjust and false that she is a good person.
C. Get the child treatment.
D. Tell child that the child needs to defend herself against unjust accusations.
E. Carefully investigate by asking child open-ended questions to find out what child might be worried about and if the child knows that the word promiscuous has been used to label her before taking any other action
F. Threaten to take action against the person who used the word promiscuous and use the child's testimony against that person
G. Publicly take action against the person who used the word promiscuous and use the child's testimony against that person.
What Karren did: A, B, D, F, G
Why this is important: A, D, F, and G all solidify the child's identity as promiscuous. The adult's objective should be to free the child from this identity, not further instill it.
What I would recommend for the sake of the child: Start with E. (Maybe Karren did. Maybe he didn't. We don't know.) Since it's obvious that the child can't possibly be promiscuous, it is in the child's best interest to be protected from that label. It might be too late for protection, however, so a careful and hopefully as least invasive as possible of an investigation should ensue. If it is found that the child is worried about being promiscuous then I would move on to C and then, with advice B. So far, the only one of these choices Karren seems to have taken was B, although he may not have even told her that she was a good person. He might have even reinforced the promiscuous label until the time of the divorce. We don't know. As far as I can tell, he moved right on to D which may have only serve to further instill the false identity of promiscuous in the child.
3. Child makes accusation of a crime against grandfather Karren's Choices:
A. Put everything on hold because the child's treatment is of paramount importance.
B. Ensure the child gets months of treatment before any official action that may be detrimental to the child is taken.
C. Get the child in front of a professional to record the child's statement for court
Karren's Decision: C. In fact, if I'm remembering correctly from the child's testimony, the child remembered the crime, reported to her father and then only two+ weeks later was in front of an official giving recorded testimony. My selection: A and then B. C would come later and I don't know why it is part of divorce court unless Karren is afraid that the child might be in current danger of molestation by her grandfather. All I see Karren saying is that this happened a few times in the past and there is no further current danger. The inappropriateness of the situation in a divorce court without any concern about current contact with grandfather along with the other records the court had access to may be why the court responded to the accusation in the way they did.
Why didn't Karren help his daughter get treatment and then decide if his daughter was prepared to go through a criminal trial if he wanted to help Mormon abuse victims? It looks to me like Karren cared about Karren, not his daughter.
__________
The identity of this child's grandfather is important to you and to the church, but it is not important to the child. When a crime is committed, the most important person to take initial care of is the victim. Then, once the victim is cared for, to look for a valuable way to address the problems that are not the child's issue (in this case, the identity of her grandfather is not the child's issue or problem) in a manner that is the least detrimental to the child.
It is critical to remember that children are developing their identities and that the manner in which they develop identity will have a tremendous impact on their futures. If this is indeed what happened and the only thing that happened (although that seems very unlikely to me), then this child was not deeply traumatized by her grandfather despite the fact that what her grandfather did was a crime. This child would have been better off if she had been lovingly reassured that she was a good person and then told to do her school work. Then, the parents should have sought professional assistance where they would probably have been told that there might be something else going on and that further investigation should occur. As far as I can tell, Karren may not have further investigated this yet. He might still believe that this is all the grandfather did. Well, I suppose that could be true, but it is unlikely. My guess is that this story is pretty much hokey reasoning that has everything to do with divorce, or that it's a lot uglier than Karren is saying. I just don't know and Karren doesn't seem to know either because he's all wrapped up in the fact that somebody had a call with somebody else and used the word promiscuous and now his daughter must have her honor publicly defended (or something fairly out there like that).
What in the hell does this have to do with caring for abuse victims needs?
In a nutshell: If Karren had first sought professional help and taken care of his daughter's needs, he Karren could have found a more effective strategy to uncover child abuse in the church (I suggest one a few posts above) and could have used this case to assist. His presentation would have been more convincing and professional. Instead, he uses this case as personal vendetta and continues to build his daughters identity in a manner that is not in her best interest. She'll be lucky if she recovers from her childhood before she's 50. If Karren had done a better job and if this is all her grandfather did, she might not even need to recover.
I agree that perpetrators need to be spooked out so that other victims can come forward. I am not convinced, based on Karren's actions, that helping other victims (or any victim) is his motive. I would suggest that any adult wanting to publicly accuse a perpetrator to help other victims feel safe coming forward seek professional assistance and get treatment prior to taking action to ensure the the adult isn't taking action to benefit the self rather than victims.