Chapter 11 announced - Part 2 (after the big slow)

[MYCVAStory]

13 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

What constitutes abuse?

From the Claim Form:

For the purposes of this Sexual Abuse Survivor Proof of Claim, sexual abuse means, with respect to a child under the age of eighteen (18) at the time of the sexual abuse, sexual conduct or misconduct, sexual abuse or molestation, sexual exploitation, sexual touching, sexualized interaction, sexual comments about a person’s body, or other verbal or non-verbal behaviors that facilitated, contributed to, or led up to abuse, regardless of whether or not such behavior was itself sexual or against the law, and regardless of whether the child thought the behavior was sexual abuse at the time. Sexual abuse includes behavior between a child and an adult and between a child and another child, in each instance without regard to whether such activity involved explicit force, whether such activity involved genital or other physical contact, and whether the child associated the abuse with any physical, psychological, or emotional harm. It involves behaviors including penetration or fondling of the child’s body, other body-on- body contact, or non- contact, behaviors such as observing or making images of a child’s naked body, showing or making pornography, or having children behave in sexual behavior as a group.

As well, the following categories were included as "check boxes" to allow for preliminary groupings (NOT solely for final award determination):

What did the sexual abuse involve?

The sexual abuse involved touching outside of my clothing.

The sexual abuse involved touching my bare skin.

The sexual abuse involved fondling or groping.

The sexual abuse involved masturbation.

The sexual abuse involved oral copulation / oral sex.

The sexual abuse involved the penetration of some part of my body.

I hope this helps people understand that the abuse victims are claiming is sexual in nature and not more minor incidents like being hit with a plastic coffee cup.

 

[Eagledad]

10 minutes ago, MYCVAStory said:

 

I hope this helps people understand that the abuse victims are claiming is sexual in nature and not more minor incidents like being hit with a plastic coffee cup.

 

Thanks, that does help a lot. Still, I heard discussions of sex from scout filled tents late in the night that could be construed in that list. I'm not sure I'm completely over my dads talk of the birds and the bees. 

I wonder how many of these claims are acts from other scouts. 

Barry

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, fred8033 said:

Can you provide reference to CDC recommendation?

The CDC has setup NCANDS: About NCANDS | The Administration for Children and Families (hhs.gov) This is a voluntary database that the BSA has been lobbying to make mandatory for youth serving organizations.  It would provide cross organizational tracking and would obviate the need for the BSA to maintain a separate system as they would report incidents to this database.  The BSA and its consultants have supported the establishment of NCANDS as well as supporting mandatory reporting.

[vol_scouter]

1 hour ago, 5thGenTexan said:

Doesnt make it any less stupid. And regardless of the decade, putting a kid on the floor and not even in a seat was irresponsible.  

What seems 'stupid' with our 2021 eyes seemed commonplace in the 1960's and 1970's.  One should not judge people's actions in the distant past unless they consider the norms of the day. 

In the mid 1960's, my parents bought a Ford Falcon.  It did not come with seat belts but my father had after market ones added (that in no manner matched the car) because he sold insurance and felt that seatbelts were important.  Should all the people who went to the showrooms and saw no cars equipped with seatbelts and knew of no one who had a car equipped with seatbelts as all stupid?  Or should we understand the norms of the day?

 

[skeptic]

14 hours ago, yknot said:

Since when do men and women of character offload responsibility to some government entity? What is scouting about if it isn't about seeing, knowing, and doing the right thing? I am growing impatient with this idea that it is never our fault because it was someone else's responsibility to tell us what to do. We ran the organization. We oversaw the kids. We knew what was happening. It was our job to keep them safe. We failed.  

I continue to have an issue with the use of the "broad brush" that puts ALL of us in the same basket, even though most of us would have had no idea about what was happening, especially in some other state or location.  YES, there were huge judgement errors made and maybe even a few purposefully.  But that should not brand the majority, in this case the very large majority of adults and, yes, some scouts, as responsible for it all.  I suspect if you were to delve into many councils and units going back decades, and found those "in the know" you might find how many of the "bad actors" actually were removed or barred.  That includes in units and within the youth ranks.  Not only do these things actually seldom get wide public exposure due to their very nature, and the privacy of those involved, but other than assuring the report to the proper authority is made, it is none of our responsibility to make it public, especially if it would stigmatize anyone in error; and yes it could be unverified or even made up.  Catch 22 of course.  

 

[ThenNow]

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I wonder how many of these claims are acts from other scouts. 

I was involved in making sure “abuse involving other children” was part of the definition and categories on the claim form. It means there is and adult abuser creating the context for children to engage in sexual activity with each other, as defined. 

[5thGenTexan]

1 hour ago, vol_scouter said:

What seems 'stupid' with our 2021 eyes seemed commonplace in the 1960's and 1970's.  One should not judge people's actions in the distant past unless they consider the norms of the day. 

In the mid 1960's, my parents bought a Ford Falcon.  It did not come with seat belts but my father had after market ones added (that in no manner matched the car) because he sold insurance and felt that seatbelts were important.  Should all the people who went to the showrooms and saw no cars equipped with seatbelts and knew of no one who had a car equipped with seatbelts as all stupid?  Or should we understand the norms of the day?

 

Seatbelt?   I didnt have a seat at all.  They sat me in the floor.  In once instance in that tiny space between the last bench seat and the rear doors in a van.  And I am talking 1985.  

[Eagledad]

48 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I was involved in making sure “abuse involving other children” was part of the definition and categories on the claim form. It means there is and adult abuser creating the context for children to engage in sexual activity with each other, as defined. 

Really! Now that seems sticky. How, in a patrol method program where scouts tent with each other away from the adult camp, can an adult not create context for a youth predator?

Barry 

[David CO]

29 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Really! Now that seems sticky.

It does.  These definitions often sound too all-inclusive.  Like everything we do can be construed as sexual abuse.  It's a little unnerving.  Makes a person want to stop volunteering for anything.

Fortunately, common sense prevails when actually applying these definitions.  They are not going to come after you for giving a kid a high-five, just because the definitions include physical contact with bare skin.

Edited April 7, 2021 by David CO

[David CO]

3 hours ago, Eagledad said:

My high school teacher son has a lot of stories where students claimed unproven acts of abuse. It is a big deal because teachers are put on leave until the investigation is completed. But, students know the actions and use them to their advantage.

True.  This happens all the time.  It is really annoying.  

 

[DuctTape]

I do not accept  "we cannot judge the past norms of the day based on current norms"  arguments. Just because many people accepted a behavior at a certain point in history did not make that behavior ok. Yes it is acceptable to judge folks for past behavior "under current norms". It was wrong back in the day even if many accepted it as a "norm". Heck, many (most? all?) who accepted it at the time knew it was wrong at the time. 

[ThenNow]

42 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

How, in a patrol method program where scouts tent with each other away from the adult camp, can an adult not create context for a youth predator?

Would you explain this further for me? I think I have an answer for you, but want to be certain I understand. I'm thinking I may not have been entirely clear in my post. 

Oh. I think I know where the misunderstanding lies. I was trying not to be too graphic. These are claims where a man is engaged in some act(s) of "abuse," as defined, which may include physical sexual behavior between two or more boys. Examples being filming boys, three or more people "engaged"...at least two being boys, and, etc. It is not about child to child absent an adult abuser. I was adamant this be an element of the definition and categories of claims for what are likely obvious reasons.

Edited April 7, 2021 by ThenNow
Clarification

[Eagledad]

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks.

Barry

[David CO]

41 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

I do not accept  "we cannot judge the past norms of the day based on current norms"  arguments. Just because many people accepted a behavior at a certain point in history did not make that behavior ok. 

And, just because many people accept a behavior today does not make that behavior OK.  We can also judge our  current norms.

[DavidLeeLambert]

2 hours ago, ThenNow said:

I was involved in making sure “abuse involving other children” was part of the definition and categories on the claim form. It means there is [an] adult abuser creating the context for children to engage in sexual activity with each other, as defined. 

 

44 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Oh. I think I know where the misunderstanding lies. I was trying not to be too graphic. These are claims where a man is engaged in some act(s) of "abuse," as defined, which may include physical sexual behavior between two or more boys. Examples being filming boys, three or more people "engaged"...at least two being boys, and, etc. It is not about child to child absent an adult abuser. I was adamant this be an element of the definition and categories of claims for what are likely obvious reasons.

Thank you for having advocated to make sure that kind of abuse would be included. However, as it's actually written, the plain language on the claim form includes all youth-on-youth abuse, no matter what the level of adult involvement.

Consider the following incident I remember from when I was a Scout. At the campfire before bedtime, some of the Scouts talked about some time at least one of them had played "strip poker" before, and made plans to play it that night. A leader overheard them, and told them that "strip poker" was against the rules of BSA as well as the teachings of their church, which was also the CO.

If he hadn't luckily overheard them, would one (or all) of them now have a claim? I think "yes", by what the claim-form actually says.

But I don't know how many of the claims are for such youth-on-youth incidents. It seems like the insurers are focusing on the credibility of the claimants and the process used by certain claimant lawyers, so maybe it's not a significant number of the claims.