Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen

Michael Rezendes

The Associated Press

Originally posted 4 AUG 22

Here is an excerpt:

When it comes to child sexual abuse, the Mormon church says “the first responsibility of the church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused and protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse,” according to its 2010 handbook for church leaders. The handbook also says, “Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.”

But church officials, from the bishops in the Bisbee ward to officials in Salt Lake City, tolerated abuse in the Adams family for years.

“They just let it keep happening,” said MJ, in her AP interview. “They just said, ‘Hey, let’s excommunicate her father.’ It didn’t stop. ‘Let’s have them do therapy.’ It didn’t stop. ‘Hey, let’s forgive and forget and all this will go away.’ It didn’t go away.”

A similar dynamic played out in West Virginia, where church leaders were accused of covering up the crimes committed by a young abuser from a prominent Mormon family even after he’d been convicted on child sex abuse charges in Utah. The abuser, Michael Jensen, today is serving a 35- to 75-year prison sentence for abusing two children in West Virginia. Their family, along with others, sued the church and settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

“Child abuse festers and grows in secrecy,” said Lynne Cadigan, a lawyer for the Adams children who filed suit. “That is why the mandatory reporting came into effect. It’s the most important thing in the world to immediately report to the police.”

The lawsuit filed by the three Adams children accuses The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and several members, including Bishops Herrod and Mauzy, of negligence and conspiring to cover up child sex abuse to avoid “costly lawsuits” and protect the reputation of the church, which relies on proselytizing and tithing to attract new members and raise money. In 2020, the church claimed approximately 16 million members worldwide, most of them living outside the United States.

“The failure to prevent or report abuse was part of the policy of the defendants, which was to block public disclosure to avoid scandals, to avoid the disclosure of their tolerance of child sexual molestation and assault, to preserve a false appearance of propriety, and to avoid investigation and action by public authority, including law enforcement,” the suit alleges. “Plaintiffs are informed and believe that such actions were motivated by a desire to protect the reputation of the defendants.”

Very few of the scores of lawsuits against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints mention the help line, in part because details of its operations have been a closely guarded secret. The documents in the sealed court records show how it works.

“The help line is certainly there to help — to help the church keep its secrets and to cover up abuse,” said Craig Vernon, an Idaho attorney who has filed several sex abuse lawsuits against the church.

Vernon, a former member, routinely demands that the church require bishops to report sex abuse to police or state authorities rather than the help line.

The sealed records say calls to the help line are answered by social workers or professional counselors who determine whether the information they receive is serious enough to be referred to an attorney with Kirton McConkie, a Salt Lake City firm that represents the church.

The info is here.

Exemptions for child abuse reporting weighed

Jessica Masulli Reyes
The (Wilmington, Del.) New Journal
Originally published November 9, 2015

A Delaware judge is considering the constitutionality of a state law that exempts priests from being required to report suspected child abuse disclosed during confessions — and, if the law is constitutional, whether it should protect elders in a Jehovah's Witnesses congregation.

The Attorney General's Office filed a lawsuit against the Laurel Delaware Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses last year alleging two elders failed to report to state authorities a sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the congregation.

State law says individuals and organizations must report suspected child abuse and neglect immediately via a 24-hour state hotline, unless they learn of the abuse in an attorney-client setting or "that between priest and penitent in a sacramental confession."

The entire article is here.

Act 31 Mandated Child Abuse Reporting Training (Parts 1 & 2) as Podcast

In this two-part continuing education program, John and Sam Knapp discuss the critical elements of the new Child Protective Service law.  Act 31 of 2014 requires all mandated reporters who hold licenses to receive at least two hours of approved continuing education in the signs of child abuse and the reporting requirements for child abuse in Pennsylvania.

Episode 19 is the first hour of that training.  In hour one, Drs. Gavazzi and Knapp discuss the definitions of a child and perpetrator as these pertain to the new mandated reporting law.  John and Sam highlight the legal definitions of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and begin to discuss the definition of sexual abuse in the new Pennsylvania law.

In Episode 20, Drs. Gavazzi and Knapp review sexual abuse as sex crimes, abuse of newborn children, who mandated reporters are, and why supervises and employees of licensed professionals need to know the mandated reporter requirements.  Sam gives John a pop quiz to help listeners with the Child Protective Services law.  Psychology students, interns, and other mental health workers are subject to the new Child Protective Services Law.  Finally, they review the requirements of reporting, how to report, and mandated reporter rights and protections.

At the end of Episodes 19 and 20, the listener should be able to:

1. Describe the child welfare system in Pennsylvania;
2. Define child, child abuse, perpetrators, and other relevant terms;
3. Paraphrase the responsibilities of mandated reporters;
4. Recognize the signs of child abuse and situations where child abuse must be reported; and,
5. Understand how to fulfill their responsibilities as mandated reporters of child abuse.

Episode 19 - Part 1 of the Act 31 Mandated Child Abuse Reporting Training

Episode 20 - Part 2 of the Act 31 Mandated Child Abuse Reporting Training

Click here to find the PowerPoint presentation associated with this podcast.

Click here to obtain post-test questions

Click here to purchase CE credit

This podcast is designed for health professionals and has been approved by the Department of Human Services and the Pennsylvania Department of State to meet the Act 31 requirements. 

Additionally, these credits will also count towards the 30 hours required for licensing renewal for psychologists. 

Child Abuse Reporting: Rethinking Child Protection

By Susan C. Kim, JD, MPH; Lawrence O. Gostin, JD; & Thomas B. Cole, MD, MPH.
Journal of the American Medical Association
JAMA. 2012;308(1):37-38. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.6414
Originally published July 4, 2012

The general public has been bewildered by the magnitude of sex abuse cases and the widespread failure by pillars of the community to notify appropriate authorities. The crime of sexually abusing children is punishable in all jurisdictions. However, what is the duty to report suspected cases by individuals in positions of trust over young people, such as in the church or university sports?

Since the mid-1980s, law enforcement has been investigating allegations of sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests against young boys and girls. These sexual abuse scandals and lawsuits have cost the Church an estimated $2 billion in settlements. A 2004 US Conference of Catholic Bishops report found that law enforcement was contacted in only 24% of cases of suspected abuse. In other cases, the church hierarchy responded internally or not at all: priests may have been counseled, evaluated, provided treatment, suspended, or limited in their priestly duties.

The entire article is here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this lead.

Sandusky Verdict: Will Reporting Rates For Sex Abuse Improve?

A strong set of beliefs prevents reporting, but seeing the system visibly work will encourage others to come forward

by Christopher J. Ferguson
Time Magazine - Ideas

Originally published June 25, 2012

Jerry Sandusky

With the verdict in the Jerry Sandusky trial behind us, it’s worth reconsidering one of the most troubling aspects of this case: Why do many people, including professionals such as psychologists and pediatricians, fail to report child sexual abuse? It is well-known that authorities at Penn State, including head football coach Joe Paterno, did not report what they had learned to legal authorities. The incident witnessed by Mike McQueary was passed up the chain at Penn State, but no one took that crucial step of informing law enforcement officials. This failure allowed Sandusky to remain free to continue to abuse children.

It is easy to convince ourselves that we would act more decisively if we were in the same situation, and many people indeed do. But even medical and mental health professionals with a legal duty to report abuse fail to do so.

The entire story is here.

Thanks to Gary Schoener for this story.

------------------------------------

On a national ethics educators listserv, the following exchange took place about this article.

Sam Knapp:

This article reflects popular attitudes about mandated reporting.

However, reporting rates are highly influenced by rates of substantiation after reports of abuse are made. Pennsylvania has the lowest rate of substantiated child abuse in the country (one-seventh the national average) and a rate of substantiating child abuse, which is 14% (compared to 23% nationwide). And if you look across the country you find that the states that have low rates of child abuse reports tend to have low rates of substantiating those reports and states that have high rates of child abuse reports tend to have high rates of substantiating those reports. What happens is an informal process of education where mandated reporters learn, over time, that certain reports are not going to be founded (or even investigated), so they discontinue making those reports.

Some states have proposed legislation that would make the failure to file a mandated a report a felony (in most states it is a misdemeanor). My concern is that the fear of a felony will cause mandated reporters to adopt a very low threshold for making reports resulting in an investigation of a large number of cases where the likelihood of child abuse being founded is extremely low.

I know that we as a profession can do better at educating our own on child abuse and child abuse reporting laws. My point is that reporting rates are very much influenced by the response of the child protective system to those reports.

Gary Schoener responded:

I agree Sam that reporting is not the issue in terms of mandated reporters -- at least not the lone issue.

What was troubling about the Sandusky case was not the non-reporting as much as the inaction by the adults -- especially officials.  I have seen cases where at least there is internal disciplinary action, referral for therapy, etc.  In fact, some of the high visibility Catholic cases actually did involve taking action -- it's just that the action was ineffective.

One common problem was the failure of professionals who were sent pedophiles for treatment to know what they were doing, or to propose a return to work without any surveillance.  You may not remember, but in Boston there was a big pissing match between the Archdiocese and the Institute for Living.  The Archdiocese did not ask if the guy should be put back, and the Inst. for Living allegedly made no such warning or recommendation about safety.

Likewise, that Minnesota statute I mentioned was directed at people like us, asking that we be accountable in cases where someone has been caught and is being fired or resigning.  We have not eliminated silence agreements completely, I am sure, but they are very rare indeed here.

I certainly agree that reporting to child protection can be very ineffective, and the same can be true for reporting to the police. 

Sandusky arrested, AG charges against 2 top Penn St. officials

By Myles Snyder and Megan Healey

WHTM News

Jerry Sandusky

Penn State's legendary assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky, was arrested Saturday on child sex abuse charges, as state prosecutors announced charges against two top university officials who apparently knew of at least one incident on the campus and did nothing about it.

Attorney General Linda Kelly said Timothy Curley, Penn State's director of athletics, and Gary Schultz, the university's senior vice president for finance and business, are charged with perjury and failure to report suspected child abuse. Schultz's position includes oversight of the university's police department.

"This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys," Kelly said in a news release Saturday. "It is also a case about high-ranking university officials who allegedly failed to report the sexual assault of a young boy after the information was brought to their attention, and later made false statements to a grand jury that was investigating a series of assaults on young boys."

Kelly said the attorney general's office and state police began the investigation when a young boy reported that Sandusky had sexually abused him while the boy was a house guest at Sandusky's home near State College.

According to evidence presented to an investigating grand jury, the boy was 11 or 12 years old when he first met Sandusky at a camp for The Second Mile program, a charity for at-risk children founded by Sandusky.

Sandusky used expensive gifts to keep in touch with the boy - including trips to professional and college sporting events, golf clubs, a computer, clothing and money - and used the overnight visits at his home to perform sex acts on the boy, according to the grand jury.

(cut)

"The failure of top university officials to act on reports of Sandusky's alleged sexual misconduct, even after it was reported to them in graphic detail by an eyewitness, allowed a predator to walk free for years - continuing to target new victims," Kelly said.

"Equally disturbing is the lack of action and apparent lack of concern among those same officials, and others who received information about this case, who either avoided asking difficult questions or chose to look the other way."

Kelly said that despite the false testimony and "uncooperative atmosphere" by some Penn State University and Second Mile officials, the grand jury eventually identified a total of eight young men who were targets of sexual advances or assaults by Sandusky, starting in 1994 and continuing through 2009, after meeting him through Second Mile activities.

The grand jury findings can be found here.

The entire story can be read here.

The two Penn State Administrators are now stepping down, after an emergency meeting by Penn State's Board of Trustees.  The story can be found here.