LDS Abuse Handling

[FormerCubmaster]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

BSA uses CWIG as a base source for YP. Not sure what you mean. 

I'm also not clear what you are trying to show with this recap or what the purpose is. Correct me if I'm wrong but this discussion started with a line on an internal church form that advised priests to contact internal legal counsel first before reporting abuse. If I understand you correctly, you are saying based on the above, it is reasonable for XYZ church institution to direct its mandatory reporting personnel to contact legal first. I look at this same information above and that seems not at all reasonable.  The intent of all these laws, despite some of the different permutations, are clear: that suspected abuse should be reported promptly to authorities who will do something about it in a timely manner in order to prevent more abuse. There is a special onus placed on anyone who is a mandatory reporter and institutions may not interfere. There are some very specific situations, such as perhaps a priest hearing an admission of abuse in a one on one confession, that could be considered a privileged communication and might be legitimate cause for a legal consult, but the initial form we were discussing went far beyond that kind of limited situation. 

 

Sure; but to obey the law, a person first needs to know what the law is.  Where a church stands liable for any failure of its functionaries to obey the law, it makes sense for the church to ensure that its functionaries have a means of learning the law—hence the hotline; which (as I think I pointed out earlier) takes pains to NOT actually receive “reports” of abuse in any meaningful way.  

[yknot]

27 minutes ago, FormerCubmaster said:

Sure; but to obey the law, a person first needs to know what the law is.  Where a church stands liable for any failure of its functionaries to obey the law, it makes sense for the church to ensure that its functionaries have a means of learning the law—hence the hotline; which (as I think I pointed out earlier) takes pains to NOT actually receive “reports” of abuse in any meaningful way.  

I'm still having trouble following this logic. When I see flashing lights behind me, I don't call my lawyer before pulling over for a traffic stop and complying. The laws in each state are pretty generally known to residents in those states. I don't understand what is being advocated for here or why.  

[FormerCubmaster]

54 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm still having trouble following this logic. When I see flashing lights behind me, I don't call my lawyer before pulling over for a traffic stop and complying. The laws in each state are pretty generally known to residents in those states. I don't understand what is being advocated for here or why.  

I’m not sure obeying a cop who is demanding you pull over right now, and a layman’s knowing the ins and outs of mandatory reporter statutes, are quite in the same category.   I routinely interact professionally with people (including lawyers) who don’t know the reporting requirements in my own jurisdiction.  

Im not really “advocating” anything, just offering explanations for why the LDS church does things the way that they do.  As I noted earlier—making a report of information received during a clerical confession when one is legally bound to keep it silent (as is the case in some jurisdictions) can in and of itself expose a religious organization to civil liability.  Actions may well be required in one state that would be illegal the next state over.  There have been dark suggestions made in this thread to the effect that the Mormon church views itself as being above the law, or that the hotline exists primarily as an attempt to keep the legal authorities in the dark about incidents of child abuse whenever possible; I don’t think those suggestions are either fair or accurate.

As you probably noted in the form, callers to the hotline are given the personal/home cell numbers of the Church’s designated legal specialists in this field—this is not a situation where Mormon bishops are waiting for days or weeks to hear back as to whether they need to make a report.  So far as I am aware, *no* American jurisdiction has held the LDS Church or its functionaries (or, off the top of my head, anyone else regardless of institutional affiliation) criminally liable for taking a couple of extra hours to get legal advice before reporting child abuse to the relevant authorities. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by FormerCubmaster

[yknot]

5 minutes ago, FormerCubmaster said:

I’m not sure obeying a cop who is demanding you pull over right now, and a layman’s knowing the ins and outs of mandatory reporter statutes, are quite in the same category.   I routinely interact professionally with people (including lawyers) who don’t know the reporting requirements in my own jurisdiction.  

Im not really “advocating” anything, just offering explanations for why the LDS church does things the way that they do.  As I noted earlier—making a report of information received during a clerical confession when one is legally bound to keep it silent (as is the case in some jurisdictions) can in and of itself expose a religious organization to civil liability.  

So far as I am aware, *no* American jurisdiction has held the LDS Church or its functionaries (or, off the top of my head, anyone else regardless of institutional affiliation) criminally liable for taking a couple of extra hours to get legal advice before reporting child abuse to the relevant authorities.

That could be true except a priest is not a layman in this situation. They are a mandatory reporter in many if not most states. They would be, or should be, at least as conversant with reporting requirements as would be a licensed driver would be with traffic law.  Especially given the abuse environment since the 1980s. This is not new or surprising information to any clergy in just about any church.

[FormerCubmaster]

13 minutes ago, yknot said:

That could be true except a priest is not a layman in this situation. They are a mandatory reporter in many if not most states. They would be, or should be, at least as conversant with reporting requirements as would be a licensed driver would be with traffic law.  Especially given the abuse environment since the 1980s. This is not new or surprising information to any clergy in just about any church.

Hmm.  That gets trickier in the case of Mormonism, since we have a lay clergy at the congregational level whose institutional training is almost nil and who are holding down day jobs while putting an additional 20-30+ hours per week into their ecclesiastical responsibilities.  And again, as I pointed out above—there are practicing lawyers who get this stuff wrong unless or until they have a chance to do additions research and/or get advice from a colleague.  I’m not sure it’s realistic or fair to hold some poor schcmuck who had the misfortune to be assigned the job of a Mormon bishop, to a higher standard than what we would expect of a practicing attorney—particularly when the worst-case-scenario net result is simply a few hours’ delay on a legally-required report.  

At some point, criticism of this nature becomes less about bona fide child safety and more about having found a convenient bludgeon to beat up on institutions we are already predisposed to dislike.

Edited June 3, 2021 by FormerCubmaster

[yknot]

1 minute ago, FormerCubmaster said:

Hmm.  That gets trickier in the case of Mormonism, since we have a lay clergy at the congregational level whose institutional training is almost nil and who are holding down day jobs while putting an additional 20-30+ hours per week into their ecclesiastical responsibilities.  And again, as I pointed out above—there are practicing lawyers who get this stuff wrong.  I’m not sure it’s realistic or fair to hold some poor schcmuck who had the misfortune to be assigned the job of a Mormon bishop, to a higher standard than what we would expect of a practicing attorney—particularly when the worst-case-scenario net result is simply a 2-3 hour delay on a legally-required report.

Once again, I am having trouble with the logic. I think a lot of religions have positions that are in some kind of gray area as do plenty of other fields. Doesn't change the fact that you are a mandatory reporter. That's a failing of the organization if it doesn't adequately inform its members of their responsibilities and train them if needed. 

[DavidLeeLambert]

19 minutes ago, FormerCubmaster said:

I’m not sure it’s realistic or fair to hold some poor schcmuck who had the misfortune to be assigned the job of a Mormon bishop, to a higher standard than what we would expect of a practicing attorney—particularly when the worst-case-scenario net result is simply a 2-3 hour delay on a legally-required report.

FWIW, my scoutmaster as a boy (in an LDS troop) was a practicing attorney; I had a Branch President once who was a law student; several members of my current ward over the years have been law students; and one former member of my Stake Presidency was an employee of the state Bar Association before he retired.

And my current Stake President is a practicing radiologist, so I'm sure he is a mandatory reporter in his day-job. His last calling before that was Stake Young Men's President, hence he dealt with Scouting; and before that, he had been Bishop.

... And my oldest son's 11-year-old scout leader was a medical resident; and my second-oldest son's cubmaster was a lawyer working for the SSA.

Edited June 3, 2021 by DavidLeeLambert
added examples

[FormerCubmaster]

 

20 minutes ago, yknot said:

Once again, I am having trouble with the logic. I think a lot of religions have positions that are in some kind of gray area as do plenty of other fields. Doesn't change the fact that you are a mandatory reporter. That's a failing of the organization if it doesn't adequately inform its members of their responsibilities and train them if needed. 

Or . . . maintain a 24-hour hotline that can connect them with jurisdiction-specific legal advice in almost-real time?   I mean—if the BSA had contemporaneously, immediately referred every staffer who heard an abuse allegation to an actual lawyer who could advise the staff member of their legal obligations to report (as opposed to just falling back on policy and years-old trainings)—would the BSA be in the pickle it’s in?

If any of the less-than-1/5 of states with “immediate” reporting requirements has an issue with the Church’s practice, they certainly have the information and resources to take corrective action.  So far, they haven’t . . . so all we have is online grousing about an internal church procedure that may result in a CPS report being made at 1:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 pm. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by FormerCubmaster

[yknot]

27 minutes ago, FormerCubmaster said:

 

Or . . . maintain a 24-hour hotline that can connect them with jurisdiction-specific legal advice in almost-real time?   I mean—if the BSA had contemporaneously, immediately referred every staffer who heard an abuse allegation to an actual lawyer who could advise the staff member of their legal obligations to report (as opposed to just falling back on policy and years-old trainings)—would the BSA be in the pickle it’s in?

If any of the less-than-1/5 of states with “immediate” reporting requirements has an issue with the Church’s practice, they certainly have the information and resources to take corrective action.  So far, they haven’t . . . so all we have is online grousing about a procedure that may result in a CPS report being made at 1:00 a.m. rather than 9:00 pm. 

In my state everyone is a mandatory reporter and the requirement is that the abuse be reported immediately to an identified state agency and possibly 911.  I think that's pretty clear. Again, I'm not clear why there is this degree of pushback on immediate reporting. Who is it protecting? Your scenario of 9 p.m. vs. 1 p.m. is fictional. You or I have no idea how the reporting process would work once it veers outside of what is legislated or inferred or seems responsible. I don't care what my position or role in an organization is, if I see child sexual abuse occurring, hear it occurring, or suspect it is occurring I am immediately calling legal authorities, not legal counsel. It is discussions like this one that make me question whether scouting should continue. If the focus isn't on protecting kids, then ... 

 

[T2Eagle]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

In my state everyone is a mandatory reporter and the requirement is that the abuse be reported immediately to an identified state agency and possibly 911.  I think that's pretty clear. Again, I'm not clear why there is this degree of pushback on immediate reporting. Who is it protecting? Your scenario of 9 p.m. vs. 1 p.m. is fictional. You or I have no idea how the reporting process would work once it veers outside of what is legislated or inferred or seems responsible. I don't care what my position or role in an organization is, if I see child sexual abuse occurring, hear it occurring, or suspect it is occurring I am immediately calling legal authorities, not legal counsel. It is discussions like this one that make me question whether scouting should continue. If the focus isn't on protecting kids, then ... 

 

I'm curious, what state that is.  It seems hard to force anyone to report a crime if that person isn't also dependent on the state for some sort of licensing, professional protection, etc.   No other crime is subject to that, up to and including murder.

In my state clergy are not mandatory reporters.

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

I'm curious, what state that is.

"In approximately 18 States and Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. Of these 18 States, 15 States and Puerto Rico specify certain professionals who must report but also require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession.13 The other three States—Indiana, New Jersey, and Wyoming—require all persons to report without specifying any professions. In all other States, territories, and the District of Columbia, any person is permitted to report. These voluntary reporters of maltreatment are often referred to as “permissive reporters.”"

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/manda.pdf

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/manda/

The 15 states mentioned above where "require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession."

1. Delaware
2. Florida
3. Idaho
4. Kentucky
5. Maryland
6. Mississippi
7. Nebraska
8. New Hampshire
9. New Mexico,
10. North Carolina
11. Oklahoma
12. Rhode Island
13. Tennessee
14. Texas
15. Utah

Edited June 4, 2021 by CynicalScouter

[qwazse]

Here's PA's list of categories of mandatory reporters https://www.compass.state.pa.us/CWIS/Public/ReferralsLearnMore . I think WV's is similar.

[T2Eagle]

13 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Here's PA's list of categories of mandatory reporters https://www.compass.state.pa.us/CWIS/Public/ReferralsLearnMore . I think WV's is similar.

Does #7 "An individual paid or unpaid, who, on the basis of the individual’s role as an integral part of a regularly scheduled program, activity or service, is a person responsible for the child’s welfare or has direct contact with children" mean scout leaders?

.

[elitts]

On 6/3/2021 at 4:32 PM, yknot said:

I'm still having trouble following this logic. When I see flashing lights behind me, I don't call my lawyer before pulling over for a traffic stop and complying. The laws in each state are pretty generally known to residents in those states. I don't understand what is being advocated for here or why.  

I think you are overestimating how widespread the knowledge is.  I think everyone is aware that Nurses, Doctors, LE officers and the like are mandatory reporters, but those designations get updated sometimes without a lot of fanfare and it would be easy for some of the less common reporters to not realize they'd been so designated.  Kinda like the state that designated all "Independent Contractors" as mandatory reporters.

On 6/3/2021 at 2:57 PM, yknot said:

BSA uses CWIG as a base source for YP. Not sure what you mean. 

I'm also not clear what you are trying to show with this recap or what the purpose is. Correct me if I'm wrong but this discussion started with a line on an internal church form that advised priests to contact internal legal counsel first before reporting abuse. If I understand you correctly, you are saying based on the above, it is reasonable for XYZ church institution to direct its mandatory reporting personnel to contact legal first. I look at this same information above and that seems not at all reasonable.  The intent of all these laws, despite some of the different permutations, are clear: that suspected abuse should be reported promptly to authorities who will do something about it in a timely manner in order to prevent more abuse. There is a special onus placed on anyone who is a mandatory reporter and institutions may not interfere. There are some very specific situations, such as perhaps a priest hearing an admission of abuse in a one on one confession, that could be considered a privileged communication and might be legitimate cause for a legal consult, but the initial form we were discussing went far beyond that kind of limited situation. 

 

This line of discussion started because you were implying that XYZ church was doing something either illegal or immoral or just wrong by instructing the priests to contact the legal department if they have knowledge of abuse.  And you are exactly right that I'm arguing that it's reasonable for an employer to say "You are a mandatory reporter.  If you witness abuse or have suspicion of it occurring, contact the legal department so that we can immediately put you in contact with the appropriate entity for making that report in this state."  Requiring notification of a legal department is NOT interfering with someone making a report.  My point in diving into the 9 states that mention the word "immediately" was to show that even though they use the word "immediately" they don't generally mean it literally, they generally mean "within the next 12-48 hours".  And again, there is only 1 state that actually specifies that notification of the authorities must happen before notification of an employer.

On 6/3/2021 at 5:30 PM, yknot said:

That could be true except a priest is not a layman in this situation. They are a mandatory reporter in many if not most states. They would be, or should be, at least as conversant with reporting requirements as would be a licensed driver would be with traffic law. 

Just how conversant do you think the average licensed driver is with traffic law?  I assure you the correct answer is "marginally".

On 6/3/2021 at 6:55 PM, yknot said:

 Again, I'm not clear why there is this degree of pushback on immediate reporting. Who is it protecting? if I see child sexual abuse occurring, hear it occurring, or suspect it is occurring I am immediately calling legal authorities, not legal counsel.

I'm not actually against people immediately calling the authorities, but I understand why a company who can be held liable for an employee's failure to act might want to oversee and monitor their employees as they go through the reporting process and I don't agree with people attempting to imply nefarious or uncaring or irresponsible behavior because they've established a monitoring policy that doesn't functionally impede a person's compliance with the law.

Without such policies, one scenario I can easily see happening is an employee suspecting abuse and calling 911 to report it.  Then, thinking they've complied with the law they consider it "handled".  Except the law in their state specifically requires notifying the Dept. of Social Services (not 911), and that's how reports are tracked as well.  So then the abuse proceeds through the investigation process, someone is arrested and convicted and then a reporter goes back and says "So why didn't your employee comply with the law?  If this employee didn't comply with this aspect of the reporting requirement, how many other employees are neglecting the law as well?".  And the company and the employee can protest all they want that it was reported, but it wasn't done right, so all kinds of ugliness ensues.

Whereas with a "report to legal first" policy, they could have logged the report, informed the employee of the correct number to call to make the report and then followed up with the DSS to make sure action was taken.

And I guess I'll flip the question on you.  Who is it harming if a report takes 3-4 minutes longer to get made when it's not going to be acted upon immediately anyway? (since it takes time to receive a report, assign it and get an investigation started)  Obviously this doesn't include situations where abuse is happening "right now", in which case 911 is definitely where you'd call.

[yknot]

3 hours ago, elitts said:

I think you are overestimating how widespread the knowledge is.  I think everyone is aware that Nurses, Doctors, LE officers and the like are mandatory reporters, but those designations get updated sometimes without a lot of fanfare and it would be easy for some of the less common reporters to not realize they'd been so designated.  Kinda like the state that designated all "Independent Contractors" as mandatory reporters.

This line of discussion started because you were implying that XYZ church was doing something either illegal or immoral or just wrong by instructing the priests to contact the legal department if they have knowledge of abuse.  And you are exactly right that I'm arguing that it's reasonable for an employer to say "You are a mandatory reporter.  If you witness abuse or have suspicion of it occurring, contact the legal department so that we can immediately put you in contact with the appropriate entity for making that report in this state."  Requiring notification of a legal department is NOT interfering with someone making a report.  My point in diving into the 9 states that mention the word "immediately" was to show that even though they use the word "immediately" they don't generally mean it literally, they generally mean "within the next 12-48 hours".  And again, there is only 1 state that actually specifies that notification of the authorities must happen before notification of an employer.

Just how conversant do you think the average licensed driver is with traffic law?  I assure you the correct answer is "marginally".

I'm not actually against people immediately calling the authorities, but I understand why a company who can be held liable for an employee's failure to act might want to oversee and monitor their employees as they go through the reporting process and I don't agree with people attempting to imply nefarious or uncaring or irresponsible behavior because they've established a monitoring policy that doesn't functionally impede a person's compliance with the law.

Without such policies, one scenario I can easily see happening is an employee suspecting abuse and calling 911 to report it.  Then, thinking they've complied with the law they consider it "handled".  Except the law in their state specifically requires notifying the Dept. of Social Services (not 911), and that's how reports are tracked as well.  So then the abuse proceeds through the investigation process, someone is arrested and convicted and then a reporter goes back and says "So why didn't your employee comply with the law?  If this employee didn't comply with this aspect of the reporting requirement, how many other employees are neglecting the law as well?".  And the company and the employee can protest all they want that it was reported, but it wasn't done right, so all kinds of ugliness ensues.

Whereas with a "report to legal first" policy, they could have logged the report, informed the employee of the correct number to call to make the report and then followed up with the DSS to make sure action was taken.

And I guess I'll flip the question on you.  Who is it harming if a report takes 3-4 minutes longer to get made when it's not going to be acted upon immediately anyway? (since it takes time to receive a report, assign it and get an investigation started)  Obviously this doesn't include situations where abuse is happening "right now", in which case 911 is definitely where you'd call.

Again, I'm sorry, but this seems like an awful lot of backflip rationalization to support protecting an institution and not a kid. Please, just re-read all that you have written. You have put an awful lot of thought into defending deferred reporting.