Oregon Supreme Court orders perversion files released

[Engineer61]

"Every rumor needs to be a police case?"

 

When is comes to possible child abuse...the answer is yes. Most states have rewritten their laws over the past dozen years or so, such that it puts nearly everyone at a legal requirement to report any and all suspected cases of child abuse to the Police or Child Protection Services.

 

Even with such reporting, there is no guarantee that anything will be done. Just look at the Sandusky case. A kid reported his abuse to a school official, and was dismissed out of hand.

 

I really kinda sickens me that BSA had the audacity to be the investigators, judges and jury on this. How many real case of abuse are in the files that justice was never served on, because BSA buried it for their own corporate good. Time will tell.

[BadenP]

Beav

 

The question becomes not should they act, but how should they act. The SE should suspend a volunteer temporarily from having any contact with the unit's youth and adults while they substantiate the claims. I have personally seen SE's permanently blackball volunteers without ever bothering to substantiate the allegations which were all based on heresay. Every volunteer is entitled to due process before their reputation is permanently marred and they become headline news, potentially losing their job and standing in the community.

 

There needs to be a well thought out procedure that is followed by EVERY SE nationwide. The BSA must also realize their own severe limitations and boundaries when playing investigator in these kind of cases since they are not in any way a law enforcement agency nor do they posess any law enforcement powers. Secondarily the BSA contracts solely with the Chartering Organization, who owns the unit and who becomes an interested third party since their organizations own reputation and liability is also on the line.

[Eagle92]

Eng,

 

Grant you my expereince in Youth Protection (YP) cases is very limited, and I've only seen direct police involvement one time (and this was in the UK with an off duty police officer serving on staff dealing with the situation as soon as we knew what was going on), but I have been told police were involved in the YP issues I have reported or knew about.

 

In one case, the adult punching the scout, it was determined to be self defense as there was a bunch of witnesses seeing the youth attack the ASM. No arrests and leader still around as far as I know as it has been a few years

 

In another case, there was not enough evidence to convict the person accused as it was a he said-she said situation. But the leader was removed from scouting none-the-less. Protection of youth was paramount and the accusation was enough for the SE to remove the volunteer. Sad thing is, the youth was a known liar, pulling a similar stunt a year earlier, and the volunteer was one of those outstanding volunteers you hate to lose. But despite the reputation of the youth as a liar to protect his own skin, the leader was dismissed.

 

I do not know what happened in regards to the third case as I left BSA employ before it was finalized. I do know leader left camp no longer a member of the BSA, reports were filed, and police were involved.

 

I think with the opening of the records things will get worse in regards to YP. Yes volunteers are suppose to report every single accusation. But I'll be honest, it IS hard decision to make, a very hard one. Makes it harder when the accused leader is a friend in your own unit. But with the privacy of the files, it does make it easier for someone to report because you do not worry about false accusations and the possibility of defamation of character charges against you. I now see folks worrying about the possibility of defamation lawsuits if the accusations are wrong and the records are public.

 

With the files now open I see lawsuits not only from victims, but also from folks who were removed from scouting because of accusations. No matter how quiet BSA is about removing leaders because of accusations only, word does get around. And I bet some enterprising lawyers can see it as a gold mine for defamation lawsuits as well.

 

 

[shortridge]

Are defamation lawsuits routinely filed when people report suspicions of abuse to teachers, social workers, religious leaders, coaches or other non-law enforcement representatives? Of course not. And where in BSA literature is the statement that reports to the SE are considered private? I couldn't find any mention of an expectation of confidentiality.

 

If the vague threat of a potential future hypothetical lawsuit stops someone from reporting what they in good faith believe is child abuse, or stops a senior Scouting employee from making a decision to suspend someone's membership while an investigation is under way, then they lack the fundamental courage to be in Scouting. This should not stop anyone from doing the right thing.

 

If the BSA did everything right and kept proper documentation of its decisions, it should have nothing to hide. If, on the other hand, records were shoddy or shredded at some point in the past, or if poor judgment was used, it should take responsibility for that, as well. And if its officials were indeed culpable in allowing abusers to continue terrorizing children, as was apparently the case in the Catholic Church, they should be held accountable in a court of law. If the files reveal that this was an institutional practice or policy, the institution should be held accountable as well.

[Eagle92]

One of the challenges as I see it, is that standards of record keeping, action etc. have changed over time since these records were started in the 1920s. And folks will apply 2012 rules and regs to 1980 situations.

[CalicoPenn]

These lists have been ordered released in two other states - and the fears were the same, to wit "lawsuit city, here we come" - and yet there hasn't been any reporting of large numbers of lawsuits as a result of those releases - so why the Chicken Little act now?

[SeattlePioneer]

Because the fears are reasonable.

[skeptic]

Caleco; I think the difference may be that in the other instances, they were ordered released to the defense, but not publicly. Not sure, but seems to me this is the first "public" release order.

[nldscout]

Skeptic is correct, the files have been ordered released to other attorney's but never to the public.

 

I understand that they are going to Federal court for a Writ of Prohibition as very few of the actual files were entered as evidence.

[Beavah]

yet there hasn't been any reporting of large numbers of lawsuits as a result of those releases

 

There haven't been any previous public releases. If yeh have been following things, though, the plaintiff's attorney in the Oregon case has initiated a number of other suits against the BSA across multiple states after having access to the files. Interestingly, all of 'em involve allegations of abuse durin' the time period covered by the files.

 

I'll leave yeh to develop your own inferences.

 

Beavah