Sad story of abuse of LDS scout ....

[_harmony]

I think the church had a degree of responsibility for protecting the child, however, after putting this man in a position of Scoutmaster ... unless being Scoutmaster means no messing with kids at Scout functions but it's okay on your own time. A calling from God as Scoutmaster should imply that it is okay for any kids, Scouts or not, to trust that man ... and the church has a degree of liability in this case. The church could avoid this responsibility by announcing its callings as being from the judgment and convenience of the bishopric and making it clear that they are not inspired or sanctioned by God and let the buyer beware.

In the end, the responsibility for protecting the child lies with the parent. She abdicated her responsibility to the church. Normally, that would not have such horrible consequences. This time, it does. That doesn't make the church responsible for something they had no control over, though. That kind of thinking would make the church responsible for every good thing I've ever done since becoming the Ward Webmaster, and just as I refuse to give them the credit for the good that I've done, I refuse to give them the discredit when I've done something really stupid.

And anyone who believes that callings are anything but men filling holes is just asking to have their house of cards pulled down around them.

[_Mr. Coffee]

harm

None of that, no matter how sad or true, makes the church responsible for this man's actions while he was not acting as Scoutmaster. That's my point. He was not acting as the Scoutmaster when he assaulted this child. None of the assaults took place at church or during Scout activities.

The article doesn't give much detail however based on the information that was given, I agree completely with what you've stated, harm.

I'd be inclined to agree as well, except for the following...

On the morning of Robert's court date, Conger, the bishop, and another church member pulled up outside of the Rinde household. In her deposition, Anne recalls Conger saying something along the lines of, "[It] didn't seem like it was going to be too—just a minute—too difficult to handle, too painful, that we would be able to manage it, take care of it." The men drove to court, but when they came back, they had little news to report, according to Anne. And when she asked her son what had happened, he "sat down and he looked a little puzzled and not quite with the program. And he said, 'I'm not sure what is going on exactly, but they told me not to talk about it, not to you, not to anybody,'" with "they" being "Gordon Conger and the other ones."

Anne waited for Robert's case to move through the legal system. She didn't bug the court clerks or the cops; but when nothing happened, she got worried. Then she says she got a letter from the county saying it hadn't found any direct evidence of an attack at the motel.

Robert later informed his mother that he never spoke with the government lawyer. "Robert told me that Gordon said that he would not allow Robert to be talked to alone, that he stood in the place of a parent. . . . And that he would stay with him while he was being questioned," said Anne in her deposition. The meeting then dissolved, according to Robert's federal suit, which claims that Conger and his companions "shielded [Joe] from the law" with the consequence that the Scoutmaster was able to "evade criminal prosecution and to move to another state." The Mormon church has since excommunicated Joe for unspecified reasons.

Relevent bits bolded.

Conger was acting as a representitive of the church and through his actions kept a child molester from facing justice. So yeah, while the church may not have know that "Joe" was a child molester, they did try to shield the man after the fact.

So yeah, the Church has some 'splainin' to do, Lucy...

[_Jersey Girl]

harm

None of that, no matter how sad or true, makes the church responsible for this man's actions while he was not acting as Scoutmaster. That's my point. He was not acting as the Scoutmaster when he assaulted this child. None of the assaults took place at church or during Scout activities.

The article doesn't give much detail however based on the information that was given, I agree completely with what you've stated, harm.

I'd be inclined to agree as well, except for the following...

On the morning of Robert's court date, Conger, the bishop, and another church member pulled up outside of the Rinde household. In her deposition, Anne recalls Conger saying something along the lines of, "[It] didn't seem like it was going to be too—just a minute—too difficult to handle, too painful, that we would be able to manage it, take care of it." The men drove to court, but when they came back, they had little news to report, according to Anne. And when she asked her son what had happened, he "sat down and he looked a little puzzled and not quite with the program. And he said, 'I'm not sure what is going on exactly, but they told me not to talk about it, not to you, not to anybody,'" with "they" being "Gordon Conger and the other ones."

Anne waited for Robert's case to move through the legal system. She didn't bug the court clerks or the cops; but when nothing happened, she got worried. Then she says she got a letter from the county saying it hadn't found any direct evidence of an attack at the motel.

Robert later informed his mother that he never spoke with the government lawyer. "Robert told me that Gordon said that he would not allow Robert to be talked to alone, that he stood in the place of a parent. . . . And that he would stay with him while he was being questioned," said Anne in her deposition. The meeting then dissolved, according to Robert's federal suit, which claims that Conger and his companions "shielded [Joe] from the law" with the consequence that the Scoutmaster was able to "evade criminal prosecution and to move to another state." The Mormon church has since excommunicated Joe for unspecified reasons.

Relevent bits bolded.

Conger was acting as a representitive of the church and through his actions kept a child molester from facing justice. So yeah, while the church may not have know that "Joe" was a child molester, they did try to shield the man after the fact.

So yeah, the Church has some 'splainin' to do, Lucy...

Yes, but we hadn't moved on to that point yet, coffee. Yup, they engaged possible obstruction of justice. You bet.

[_harmony]

Conger was acting as a representitive of the church and through his actions kept a child molester from facing justice. So yeah, while the church may not have know that "Joe" was a child molester, they did try to shield the man after the fact.

So yeah, the Church has some 'splainin' to do, Lucy...

I agree with the obstruction of justice, if that is an accurate account (not always a given, in newspaper publications). However, Obstruction of Justice is a long ways from rape of a child.

[_Mr. Coffee]

Yes, but we hadn't moved on to that point yet, coffee.

My bad, I didn't know we were supposed to debate the article paragraph by paragraph, Jersey...

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, but we hadn't moved on to that point yet, coffee.

My bad, I didn't know we were supposed to debate the article paragraph by paragraph, Jersey...

There aren't any "suppose to's" its just how the discussion was going.

[_rcrocket]

I have been biting my keyboard for a long time on this issue, because I do legal work for religious entitites and schools in this exact area. So, I have to be circumspect.

Don't trust press accounts in this area. They rarely want to hear a defensive story from a religious or educational facility. They want to tell things their way. Be critical of press accounts. For instance:

Anne waited for Robert's case to move through the legal system. She didn't bug the court clerks or the cops; but when nothing happened, she got worried. Then she says she got a letter from the county saying it hadn't found any direct evidence of an attack at the motel.

Robert later informed his mother that he never spoke with the government lawyer. "Robert told me that Gordon said that he would not allow Robert to be talked to alone, that he stood in the place of a parent. . . . And that he would stay with him while he was being questioned," said Anne in her deposition. The meeting then dissolved, according to Robert's federal suit, which claims that Conger and his companions "shielded [Joe] from the law" with the consequence that the Scoutmaster was able to "evade criminal prosecution and to move to another state." The Mormon church has since excommunicated Joe for unspecified reasons.

There's things wrong with this. When I was representing a school, the FBI wanted to interview school employees. I said, "no," not without me present. They said, "why do you want to be present, you can't say anything." My reasons were inadequate, and they told me that if I obstructed the interview I'd be tossed out on my can. The witnesses did not need legal representation and they had no right to insist that I be there. Any cop knows that, and they could have insisted upon the interview.

Second, the statute of limitations is extremely long, and doesn't begin to run while Robert was a minor. When "Robert later informed his mother that he never spoke with the government lawyer," there was nothing stopping her from picking up the phone and asking that her son be interviewed. And, doesn't this seem odd? If it was your son, wouldn't you be asking Robert what he did that day, on the day of his interview?

Third, it would have been impossible to shield "Joe" from the law. Is law enforcement powerless? Wouldn't you think that they have their ways to deal with non-family members who insist upon being present during an interview?

Fourth, the letter from law enforcement indicating that they had no evidence speaks huge volumes, but when that letter came and I as a parent had evidence, wouldn't I do something? This mother has at least a moral obligation to assert the interests of her minor son.

rcrocket

[_Blixa]

Thanks for unbiting your keyboard, crocket. I was hoping you'd weigh in and was interested what your perspective would be.

[_Jersey Girl]

crock

There's things wrong with this. When I was representing a school, the FBI wanted to interview school employees. I said, "no," not without me present. They said, "why do you want to be present, you can't say anything." My reasons were inadequate, and they told me that if I obstructed the interview I'd be tossed out on my can. The witnesses did not need legal representation and they had no right to insist that I be there. Any cop knows that, and they could have insisted upon the interview.

crock, I haven't reposted the excerpt from the article, but isn't the issue is whether or not the child should have been interviewed? Children are interviewed verbally and often video taped upon intake of their case into the system. If I recall correctly, the article stated that Robert was not interviewed. I agree though, that something was fishy there...it's hard to tell from a biased article just what that was.

crock

Second, the statute of limitations is extremely long, and doesn't begin to run while Robert was a minor. When "Robert later informed his mother that he never spoke with the government lawyer," there was nothing stopping her from picking up the phone and asking that her son be interviewed. And, doesn't this seem odd? If it was your son, wouldn't you be asking Robert what he did that day, on the day of his interview?

I know something about satute of limitations regarding sexual abuse cases involving minors, and you are exactly correct. When a case is reported (and admittedly there are variables), an interview with the victim collected, the parent may NOT be informed at all regarding statute of limitations. It could be that this particular mother relinquished authority to church officials. And you're exactly right, she had a phone and completely blew off the chance to act as advocate for her own son. If she were truly depressed though, she may not have been able to. There is so much we don't know in this case.

coffee

Third, it would have been impossible to shield "Joe" from the law. Is law enforcement powerless? Wouldn't you think that they have their ways to deal with non-family members who insist upon being present during an interview?

I have no response to that. My questions are the same as yours.

coffee

Fourth, the letter from law enforcement indicating that they had no evidence speaks huge volumes, but when that letter came and I as a parent had evidence, wouldn't I do something? This mother has at least a moral obligation to assert the interests of her minor son.

The article doesn't tell us what she did with Robert's pants.

[_rcrocket]

Keep in mind I do not defend child molesters. I defend institutions who have the misfortune of hiring them. In every single case I've handled, there was no "record" to be checked which would have alerted the institution. In several cases, the institutions come to know that the employee is gay, but that is not a basis in California to bar somebody from teaching or from serving as a youth pastor.

The fact pattern I see in schools is that the molester gets to know kids in the classroom and then invites them to his home. Parents willingly drive the kids to the teacher's home. The teachers are always single and gay. The teacher organizes overnight activities. Parents willingly cooperate. Bad things happen. The school gets sued for "not knowing" and "not checking."

The fact pattern I see in churches (I don't represent the archdiocese) is a pastor learns of an abuse in a home but doesn't report it because he doesn't believe it, or he investigates it and concludes there is nothing to it. The abuse continues.

When the fact pattern involves a father, the facts become as follows: The parents divorce, and the mother charges the father with child abuse and the church with complicity for not reporting the abuse.

When the fact pattern involves somebody other than a father, the facts are: The pastor knew enough of the abuse such that he should have reported it. (All my cases involve states without reporting statutes or before california had a reporting statute). But, the pastor has canonical or professional (if he is a counselor) rules which prohibit him from breaching confidentiality. So the church gets sued for failing to take steps.

My wife tells me to hang the canonical and professional rules and that the child should be the foremost concern. Yet, pastors and counselors are sued when they make a report which later turns out to be false.


rcrocket