Nelsons daughter and son-in-law accused of sex abuse

[_Res Ipsa]

See Res..... two groups. Who's evil in the eyes of the public: the therapists or the alleged perpetrators?

And who controls what the public thinks? The media.

See what? One therapist, not "therapists." One.

[_Res Ipsa]

What the hell are you talking about, Rosebud? When presented with evidence that a child had been abused, therapists are required to report that to law enforcement. They don’t get to advise the victim not to go to court. You keep making these broad pronouncements based on absolutely no evidence.

And if attorneys asked you the same questions over and over at a deposition, you had pretty lousy legal representation.

Therapists are required to follow mandatory reporting. They do, when children are involved.

And then DCFS gets the cases. DCFS does most the investigating, as far as I understand. What happens from there? DCFS isn't that great of an agency. It employs newly graduated social workers, no?

Therapists can also say to parents, "Court is hard on children. Think about your child." Or, to adults, "Court isn't likely to get you far. I recommend you focus on healing."

Therapiists can also talk to each other about their opinions about court.

Therapists aren't much like attorneys, Res.

I am not making assumptions, nor am I required to provide written evidence for every assertion I make on this board. When have I ever done that? I provide written evidence when I choose. In the past, it was offered -after- I allowed the issue to play itself out publicly.

Let's let this play out. A lot has changed in the last couple decades.

Play what out? if you're talking about the case, I've already said it will be interesting if it gets past the SOL issue.

Yes, you get to choose when to support your claims. But I have no interest in what a therapist "can" say to a patient. I'm interested in what they "do" say to a patient. And if you choose not to support your broad pronouncements, then I'm perfectly free to dismiss them.

[_Rosebud]

Play what out? if you're talking about the case, I've already said it will be interesting if it gets past the SOL issue.

Yes, you get to choose when to support your claims. But I have no interest in what a therapist "can" say to a patient. I'm interested in what they "do" say to a patient. And if you choose not to support your broad pronouncements, then I'm perfectly free to dismiss them.

When the therapist did her work, she did it for the sake of the child. That was her objective. She chose not to be an attorney for a reason.

And since the defense needed something to grab onto -- seeing as how there was physical evidence of the abuse -- they attacked the therapist.

How is snow "evil" as Doc says when a doctor found physical evidence of sexual abuse? Who is really "evil"?

And my points: 1) Who cares about Snow personally? It's not all about her (in UTAH). 2) The professionalS who work tirelessly on some of the most difficult things deserve a little credit and respect, not all the negative publicity, 3) The media controls the publicity, 4) Solution: Chronological documentation including media.


Sorry if that's to broad for you. I was thinking you might want to post some of the other opinions.

And by "play out," I mean all the actors: attorneys, press, the church, other people who believe they are victims, other activists. There are a lot of moving people and parts to something like this. Hell... let's watch President Nelson.

[_Rosebud]

And Res..... Mary could use source documents if you'll supply them.

[_Res Ipsa]

And Res..... Mary could use source documents if you'll supply them.

I can't access Utah court files without paying a subscription fee. I think Supreme Court briefs are kept by the historical society, but I couldn't find a good online index to them. Someone who lives in Utah could probably get more detail on the actual testimony in the Bullock and Hadfield cases, but i'm not interested enough to travel to Utah to do the research myself.

[_Res Ipsa]

When the therapist did her work, she did it for the sake of the child. That was her objective. She chose not to be an attorney for a reason.

Actually, you're defending Snow for acting like an attorney. It's an attorney's job to be an advocate for the client. It was never the job of a therapist to do what Snow did: lead and pressure children until they said what she wanted to hear.

[And since the defense needed something to grab onto -- seeing as how there was physical evidence of the abuse -- they attacked the therapist.

I'm not sure which case you are talking about. In Bullock, I don't believe there was any physical evidence. I'd have to review the record in Hadfield. And, yes, the attorney advocated for his client. That's an attorney's job. And if there is evidence that the therapist led and pressured the children to identify the client as the abuser, then it's the attorney's job to use that evidence to defend the client. In the case of Snow, the "attack" was completely justified.

How is snow "evil" as Doc says when a doctor found physical evidence of sexual abuse? Who is really "evil"?

Ask Doc. There was no physical evidence in Bullock. Was there physical evidence that the accused was the perp in other cases?

[And my points: 1) Who cares about Snow personally? It's not all about her (in UTAH). 2) The professionalS who work tirelessly on some of the most difficult things deserve a little credit and respect, not all the negative publicity, 3) The media controls the publicity, 4) Solution: Chronological documentation including media.

1. No one. Folks care about what she did professionally. 2. Professionals who violate professional standards or who harm the people they are charged with caring for should be held accountable. No one is attacking the vast majority of professionals who do their jobs. 3. So? 4) This exercise illustrates how subjective views and biases affect even the construction of a chronology.

Sorry if that's to broad for you. I was thinking you might want to post some of the other opinions.

What other opinions are you talking about? Other cases involving Snow? Other cases involving allegations of SRA?

[And by "play out," I mean all the actors: attorneys, press, the church, other people who believe they are victims, other activists. There are a lot of moving people and parts to something like this. Hell... let's watch President Nelson.

Those things will play out on their own -- we don't have to let them.

[_Rosebud]

You don't know that Snow really put pressure on a child. You know that was claimed. I see it claimed in secondary sources. I cite secondary sources and children (whos are highly influenceable) making that claim.

It IS a therapist's job to advocate for a child. What else are they doing? They are not impartial nor do they intend to be.

And they can also learn new skills as time goes on. My guess is that Snow learned some new skills about how Courts work as time progressed. What else would you expect.

I am defending all the therapists, not just Snow. She's not alone. It's not as if it were ever this one rogue professional the media made it out to be.

[_Rosebud]

Please post all the opinions (not just the dissenting) for both cases currently in the chronology linked below so we can look at other summaries of evidence.

[_Rosebud]

And why get after me for the use of the word "let" before "play out"? That means nothing and makes you look like you're just trying to take low jabs. No need. (You are capable of making real arguments, don't stoop.)

[_Res Ipsa]

Please post all the opinions (not just the dissenting) for both cases currently in the chronology linked below so we can look at other summaries of evidence.

The links to the Utah Supreme Court Opinions are to all the opinions. The majority opinion is followed by any concurrences and dissents. The fact that you think I posted links to only the dissent leads me to believe you never read the opinions themselves.