Child abuse reporting then and today

[shortridge]

 

So in the discussion of the perversion files, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a point made by several people. One of the arguments against releasing the files, or concerns about releasing them, is that cases from the past will be judged improperly against contemporary standards and practices, and thus the BSA will come up lacking.

 

Can folks here with longer memories than mine explain how a 1960, 1970 or 1980 case of child abuse would have been investigated or handled differently from an identical case in 2010? Is it like race relations - there has been such a sea change in attitudes that what looked like enlightenment in the 1960s appears almost racist today?

[Scoutfish]

WEll, not in an official capacity, but back in the day, if a child acuused anybody of molestation, abuse, sexual assault, etc...the family would tell the child to keep it to themselves lest they bring shame on the family name.

And heavin forbid you say something about the guy/gal if they were a public figure!

 

I mean, you do not want to embarass your parents in public while the neighbor piddles with your diddle!

 

Come early 80's I think along with the "it's about me and how much money I have" attitude, it was probably worse as the child was somehow guilty and had the full burdon of proving the case, while testifying in front of teh abuser.

 

Come the 90's people started realizing this stuff was happening, wasn't the fault of teh child and that something had to be done.

 

Unfortunatly during the late 90's Every other psychologist/psychiatrist would let you know about you hidden past for $$$. Suddenly , everybody found out they had suppressed memories of abuse..even if the were orphaned on a deserted island and raised by tap dancing penguins. This socially hurt the credibility and seriousness of all the real cases out there.

 

Come the turn of the cnetry: All you have to do is mention that somebodies third cousin's best friend' dagwalker's next door neighbor had a picture they found of a younger sister taking a bath...and then CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, Fox * "The Ocho" , and Nancy Grace would be broadcasting 24/7 about the outrage of the abuse that has happened and then poll listeners about how guilty the accused should be.

 

Then even if you are proven not guilty, you are still guilty in the court of public opinion.

 

It didn't help anywhere along the line that social services would take your child away for having grape jelly in their hair, but ignore a apartment full of starving kids who's mother was a crack head and who's father was not only not around, but who's identity was unknown.

 

 

Today, we take it seriously. SOmetimes it might even be a bit too much at times and prosecutors will try so hard to convict somebody, they now routinely ignore evidence that can prove innocence.

 

Just convict somebody/ anybody as long as it get written down and the DA gets credit for it!

 

 

But we are making progress...even though it is slow coming about. Maybe in another 60 years, we will get it right.

[T2Eagle]

I don't have time for the length of post I'd like to make. But the idea that "times were different" justified the terrible actions of some of our institutions back then seems disingenuous to me.

 

Even absent all we know now about the terrible effects of abuse on people's future lives, the basics were always understood: these things were terrible, they shouldn't be allowed to happen, and we should protect children from them happening.

 

So even back then if you had a creepy uncle in the family, or grandma's new husband was a little over friendly with the granddaughters, although you probably wouldn't confront them directly even less call the cops, you also wouldn't leave your kids alone with them and you would discreetly make sure that your sister or sister-in-law also knew not to leave the kids alone with them.

 

But this basic act of protection was, for a lot of reasons none of which were very good, largely ignored when these things were handled within institutions rather than in families.

 

 

[Kudu]

"Can folks here with longer memories than mine explain ... Is it like race relations - there has been such a sea change in attitudes that what looked like enlightenment in the 1960s appears almost racist today? "

 

The normalization of child abuse is easy to understand, Shortridge.

 

1) Read the case histories at:

 

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

 

2) From a Boy Scout's point of view, read the disclaimer for Personal Fitness Merit Badge: "If meeting any of the requirements for this merit badge is against the Scout's religious convictions, the requirement does not have to be done if the Scout's parents and the proper religious advisers state in writing that to do so would be against religious convictions. The Scout's parents must also accept full responsibility for anything that might happen because of this exemption."

 

3) Try to name even one person who gives a crap.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, shortridge, being an older fellow I do remember some of this stuff.

 

Some of the things which have changed which have had a big impact:

 

The attitude of parents. In the olden days, there was a sense that the best thing for the child was not to expose him/her to the public nature of a court proceeding. Anything sexual wasn't talked about in polity company. So most parents declined to pursue complaints / press charges. It wasn't until fairly recently that people realized that the long term psychological harm to the child was so great, and that the risk to other children from not following through was so high.

 

The approach of courts. Child witnesses were treated like any other witness, and are very easy to intimidate or confuse. More recently, courts have become much better at protecting youthful witnesses.

 

The attitude toward authority figures. Both children and adults tended to defer to and obey authority figures more than they do now. They were less likely to talk back or speak up.

 

The approach of psychologists. Until relatively recently, there was a belief that pedophiles could be treated, eh? Counseled to change their ways. That's what got da Catholic Church in the most trouble, eh? They would send these men for a year or two of treatment, and then believe they were "cured" or had it under control. To be fair, there are examples of men (and women) who did change. But by the '90s we were realizing that sexual predilections are pretty powerful and not readily changed. More like alcoholism than other crimes like stealing.

 

National media reporting. Despite what yeh would think these days, child molesters are pretty rare. These things were very rarely reported on or researched, and tended to be treated as the isolated incidents that they really are. Now, every case nationwide is beamed into our living room during prime time, and that makes the cultural norm both more fearful and aggressive.

 

Mobility. People move around a lot more, eh? So yeh have greater risk of predators moving in, and yeh have many more families who aren't long-timers in a neighborhood and who don't know their neighbors. Again, it makes people more fearful, and changes the attitude in terms of how things are approached.

 

Lots of others I'm sure.

 

Beavah

[Basementdweller]

Today the difference is communication. Face book CNN fox new......The media eye is constantly scanning for news stories......When I was a kid none of this existed..... No cable TV no Internet, No cellphones.........

 

 

20 years ago when a kid got molested in podunk Iowa no body heard about it.......Now with all of the BSA haters out there it is front page news if it involves the BSA.

 

Sexual abuse during the 40's and 50's was completely covered up......Family shame......Yep they victims were told to shut up....

 

Heck when I was in high school one of the young ladies disappeared turns out she was pregnant and from the pre-eminent catholic family in the area.......Mom and dad shipped her off to a place to carry to term and deliver...... she returned Senior year much worse for wear.......I remember wondering what happened too her....

 

 

My cousins best friend was molested by his crew adviser while treking at Philmont in the early 70's. The boy was super homesick cried all the time and his crew mates made fun of him, well he wasnt homesick after all...He stayed in the leaders tent so the Leader could help him thru his homesickness......I didn't know it at the time....this came out at Thanksgiving after I signed my son up as a tiger scout.....Cousin tells me the story.

 

Well years later turned out this guy had done this to about 15 boys.......

 

 

The fellow was removed as a leader....It never made the news, It simply never happened..........this was in small town Ohio. Prior to all of the councils merging....I searched and could not find a news article or link.......

 

There was no personal safety training.....You were taught to trust all adults, you were told to keep secrets.....

 

 

I barely evaded a pedophile priest as a young man, I don't know if my mother knew something, but when I asked her about being an alter boy I was told no.....The Priest was transfer out quickly after I graduated high school and there were whispers from the parishioners.....

 

 

I believe that the incidents are lower now than in the past because of the news coverage........In these parts child molesters don't last that long in jail, most of those inmates have kids......The last one they caught showed up at his arraignment beat up.......really beat up......It happened in a jail house scuffle is what the news said...

[acco40]

There's abuse and then there's abuse.

 

When I was in junior high school, heck even in sixth grade, the boys took showers in gym class. Two points were deducted from your grade if you did not. The gym teacher was there with his clip board checking off your name as he watched you go in (or was it out?) of the shower. It was considered a "teaching moment" about proper hygiene.

 

Now, did I feel that was abuse? No. Did my parents? No. Did anyone? Not to my knowledge. As such, we as young teens learned to develop a little bit thicker skin than the youth of today.

 

If someone read a report of a teacher "watching boys enter and exit the showers on a daily basis" he may believe some sort of abuse was taking place.

 

I'm not trying in any way to trivialize the trauma that can occur when sexual or physical child abuse occurs such as in the Jerry Sandusky case. But psychologically, the more "shame" and attention heap on the incident doesn't do much good for the victim.

 

I think that now, with the availability of the internet, access to all sorts of pornography may make some feel that certain behaviors are more acceptable.

 

Unfortunately, I feel that as a society (in the USA) we've tried to "child proof" our kids - stranger danger, etc. which is totally unfair. I did not want my children to grow up casting a wary eye toward adults. It was my job to keep them safe and monitor their activities. Could I be there every step of the way? No, but they were raised in a two adult household, were not left with day care providers, or join activities without my attempt to get to know the coaches, teachers, youth leaders, etc. Was it 100% fool proof? No, but the responsibility lies with me and my wife - not my children.

[fred8033]

shortridge wrote:: "past will be judged improperly against contemporary standards and practices"

 

Yeah... Fully believe it. Things have changed alot.

 

...

 

Swimming. The one that shocked me was from my dad. His gym classes did not use swim suits. This surprised me. So I looked it up and I was amazed. It was true. Schools, YMCAs, mens clubs, etc. often required no swim suits. Single gender classes and facilities. Pre-nylon and wet clothes were an issue. And it was fairly recently too. so I could easily imagine scout leaders on hiking trips doing as they were taught. ... BUT ... put that in the newspapers now and people would imagine the worst immediately.

 

...

 

One on one contact. Around ten years ago, the local music conservatory put glass windows in the private lesson rooms. Guess why? Before then for decades teachers taught students alone. Then about ten years ago, an issue. IMHO, I was surprised only ten years ago they realized they needed windows. BUT ... if it was 1980, no one would have batted an eye at no windows in the doors. Heck my high school had solid wood doors on their practice rooms. No thought at all about teachers and students being alone in there together. ... BUT ... put that in a newspaper now ... regular private one-on-one sessons ... and people would imagine the worst.

 

...

 

My elementary school had a boys show room. Now it's a storage room. Guess what. No police report.

 

I remember people teaching that abusers could be treated. It was a taught attitude.

 

I remember people needing to be careful accusing authority figures.

 

I'm sure if I dig there would be other easy to rememberr famous example.

[shortridge]

OK, so we have a baseline of how things were done back in the day.

 

The next logical question is, why should those officials and leaders and institutions of yesteryear NOT be held accountable for how they mistreated victims, assuming the cases fall within the statute of limitations? Child abuse was no less horrible then than it is now. The old-time SEs had the same obligation to protect then as now. So why shouldn't the same standards be applied?(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

[Kudu]

 

shortridge writes:

 

"OK, so we have a baseline of how things were done back in the day."

 

No.

 

We have a baseline that shows human nature is exactly the same now, here in this very thread, as it was "back in the day."

 

The most violent form of child abuse is still not considered fit for this polite discussion, even though we profess to "care deeply" about child victims.

 

The baseline is Cognitive Dissonance: Like a deer cannot recognize a big red flag, nobody here can recognize graphic child abuse unless it fits a pattern they can recognize from a pamphlet or "Time to Tell" video.

 

shortridge writes:

 

"Child abuse was no less horrible then than it is now. The old-time SEs had the same obligation to protect then as now."

 

Scout Executives have no such obligation.

 

As we all understand from our Congressional Charter discussions, the BSA has no obligation to obey any law until they have been successfully sued in court.

 

In every SE's secret files are tens of millions of dollars worth of sworn statements by Boy Scouts' parents and religious leaders affirming their intent to commit the most heinous abuse imaginable: Prolonged mental and physical torture ending in wrongful death.

 

Someday some lawyer will figure that out, and the BSA will be obligated to print in the Boy Scout Handbook descriptions like the following court cases, to teach Boy Scouts to Recognize, Resist, and Report what their 21st century parents, Scout Leaders, and Scout Executives would not:

 

Ian Lundman, age 11, died of diabetes in 1989 in suburban Minneapolis. His father had left Christian Science, but did not have custody. The boy lost weight and became lethargic. A school official noticed a fruity odor on Ians breath, a classic diabetes symptom, but did not recognize it as such nor did she know his mother and stepfather had religious beliefs against medical care.

 

They retained a Christian Science practitioner for spiritual treatment of Ians illness. The practitioner billed them $446 for his prayers.

 

An unlicensed Christian Science nurse sat by Ians bedside for the last five hours of his life as he lay in a diabetic coma. She knew that he did not respond to anyone. She observed his vomiting, labored breathing, excessive urination, facial spasms, and clenched teeth. Nevertheless, her concept of care was to give him drops of water through a straw and to tie a sandwich bag and washcloth around his scrotum. She did not call for medical help or ask his mother to obtain it.

 

A jury awarded Ian's father $5 million in compensatory damages and $9 million in punitive damages.

 

In 1986, Robyn Twitchell, who lived near Boston, died of peritonitis and a twisted bowel after a five-day illness. It began with his screaming and vomiting. By the second day, his parents Ginger and David Twitchell were calling the Christian Science churchs worldwide public relations manager for advice. He assured them that the law granted them the right to use Christian Science treatment instead of medical treatment.

 

On the fourth day, a church nurse recorded: Child listless at times, rejecting all food, moaning in pain, three wounds on thigh. The nurse force-fed him and directed his mother to feed him every half hour. On the fifth day, he was vomiting a brown, foul-smelling substance. Autopsy photos showed bright red lips and chin, probably because the acid in the vomit had eaten the skin off. His scrotum and about 15 inches of his ruptured intestine were jet black because their blood supply had been cut off. He was so dehydrated that his skin stayed up when pinched. Neighbors closed their bedroom window so they would not hear the boys screams.

 

Ginger and David Twitchell were convicted of manslaughter in 1990.

 

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

 

[acco40]

Kudu - What is linking Christian Scientists to the BSA? I don't get the connection. Near where I grew up was Principia College. I was a very respected Christian Science college with a beautiful campus over looking the confluence of the Illinois, Mississippi and Missouri rivers. About every 15 years or so measles, mumps, meningitis, or some other "common" child disease would sweep through the school (most Christian Scientist don't get vaccinated against these diseases). Is that abuse? No in the classical sense in my book. Heck in 50 years, society may look at the fact that we fed our children Pop Tarts, high fructose corn syrup, happy meals, cola, and other "abusive" items and pass judgment on us!

 

It used to be certain religions didn't allow organ transplants, transfusions, etc. We feel that is somewhat antiquated now. Right now, some folks and religions are fighting contraceptive devices - that may be judged as antiquated in the future.

 

My elementary school had a boys show room. Fred8033, please enlighten me. I have no idea what a boys show room (typo for shower??) may be.

 

 

[fred8033]

acco40: - Sorry. I was tired. I meant elementary school shower room. It was turned into storage before I went to the school. There were rumors of something happening back around 1970, but no one was ever charged. A year or two before I went there it was turned into a storage room and the requirement to take showers was eliminated.

 

...

 

Kudu: I'm not really sure what your trying to say.....

 

...

 

shortridge wrote: "why should those officials and leaders and institutions of yesteryear NOT be held accountable for how they mistreated victims, assuming the cases fall within the statute of limitations?"

 

- I agree that I'm disgusted how EVERYONE handled the incidents and the victims.

 

- But accountable is another issue. If they commited a crime, obviously yes. But I doubt they did. Reporting laws were different. It's only in the last years that mandatory reporting laws have been extended. I give BSA credit for having the perversion files so that they could do some tracking. I bet most school districts and youth sports programs didn't do that much back then.

 

- If parents weren't willing to go to the police and/or the police didn't want to pursue things, I really can't hold a beaurocrat to a higher standard.

 

- How do you pursue it? Many of the cases are very old. Convictions doubtful. Maybe lawyers will exchange money.

 

- I doubt that releasing the files would result in higher awareness or a program change. Instead, it's just damaging a program and damaging people. BSA has been pretty active in changing their ways. Perfect, no. But pretty darn good still. I'd bet better than many.

 

- My big issue is how many are you willing to sacrifice as long as you can accuse someone? Lots of people will be smeared. Some innocent. Some just really flaky people but not criminals. And yes some criminals. But who's who and how are you going to prove it. It will just result in a smear campaign.

 

...

 

IMHO, I don't care for non-profits being sued for money. It's not like suing a really rich family or rich corporation that benefitted personnally. New operating funds come from current programs and fund the good that nonprofits do. Assets come from donations meant to serve the non-profit purpose. IMHO suing non-profits penalize the goodwill of many and only punish those being served.

 

 

[Beavah]

The next logical question is, why should those officials and leaders and institutions of yesteryear NOT be held accountable for how they mistreated victims, assuming the cases fall within the statute of limitations?

 

Well, because it wouldn't be fair.

 

Yeh are talkin' about making a tort claim against them for negligence, eh? Yeh are alleging that they failed in their duty of care.

 

The important point is that the duty of care was different than it is now.

 

It would be a bit like claiming a camp 30 years ago was negligent for not having automated external defibrillators available at the waterfront, when AEDs didn't exist 30 years ago. Yeh can't apply a modern standard of care to the past.

 

Yep, child abuse was every bit as horrific back then, just as cardiac arrest from drowning was every bit as horrific back then. It's just that what yeh were expected to have in place to prevent it, and what yeh were expected to do when yeh encountered it was different.

 

Beavah

 

[BartHumphries]

I think Penn State and Jerry Sandusky shows us that people who abused in the past can and should still be held accountable for it today.

[eisely]

I see much more potential for harm than for good coming out of releasing these files. I like the suggestion made elsewhere in this forum that, when BSA determines that a particular individual should be denied membership, that person's name goes onto a list and the supporting documentation is destroyed.