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.
And teachers, crock. I am not in your state however, I am bound by law to report all suspected cases of neglect and abuse or face felony charges. My reports are filed confidentially with the state. Not having experienced a particular report going forward beyond the report itself, I don't know if someone could sue me for false reporting. I can, as I stated, be charged with felony for NOT reporting.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Speaking only for myself, these are the types of posts that I wish someone in your profession would make more often on a board like this. They are informative and well reasoned.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Lucretia MacEvil wrote: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.
Yeah, well, I wish I'd known that when I was a Mormon, but I was one of those who took it all seriously.
If the mother had gotten someone from Big Brothers to fill in as a positive role model in her son's life, would that mean that she abdicated her responsibility to Big Brothers and she is responsible if the Big Brother turned out to be a deviant?
It's just too bad the church didn't call this pedophile to be ward webmaster instead of scoutmaster.
rcrocket wrote: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."
Always? Always? I find that very hard to believe.
Why are you insinuating that there is a connection between being gay and being a pedophile?
rcrocket wrote: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."
Always? Always? I find that very hard to believe.
Why are you insinuating that there is a connection between being gay and being a pedophile?
That's what I was wondering. Oh, well, at least he acknowledges that the church isn't the only entity that gets these lawsuits.
rcrocket wrote: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."
Always? Always? I find that very hard to believe.
Why are you insinuating that there is a connection between being gay and being a pedophile?
Yes, at least for the ones I handle for schools. And no, I insinuate nothing. I am not that kind of thinker; I have libertarian views.
I think we've misplaced some of the bricks in the base of this case:
1. This was a VERY dysfunctional family: Dad abusive Patriarch, Mom a depressed 600 pound incapacited woman...
2. Church Reps--Bishop, HT, VT, unqualified amatuers attempting to remedy a situation obviously beyond their know-how. Reading the scriptures, &/or prayer & fasting--doesn't always, if ever, work...
3. Scout Master (Elder?) Joe, as many, was "called" obviously by 'desperation' not "inspiration"... (Side-bar: Years ago my Ward was in need of a SM. I recommended a neighbor, who had been a SM. A healthy, outdoors fun kind-of-guy who lived within walking distance. Being a non-member, they wouldn't ask him, instead they "called" a couch-potatoe, dead-head who lived 15 miles away!!?? Then wondered why, "our Scout Troop isn't doing so well"?)
4. It was in a time & place where 'vigilance' was deemed unnecessary; trust & faith nurtured ignorance... And too often seeded tragedy...
Harmony, IF anyone is aware of LDS naiveity, "in their house-of-cards," i thought it would be You, Sis!? You must know the proclivity of Mormon Moms', in general, enthrallment with 'Divinly called Authority' to subvert their own thoughts??? Again, as i read the report of this family, such a responsible, rational approach would be beyond her ability, i think??
Anyway, recognized mistakes lead to enlightenment, correction and an improved society... Right?? Warm regards, Roger
Might it have been, their dysfunction placed them at the mercy of their 'keepers'??
Roger Morrison wrote:Harmony, IF anyone is aware of LDS naiveity, "in their house-of-cards," I thought it would be You, Sis!? You must know the proclivity of Mormon Moms', in general, enthrallment with 'Divinly called Authority' to subvert their own thoughts??? Again, as I read the report of this family, such a responsible, rational approach would be beyond her ability, I think??
Whether or not we Mormon moms are too trusting is immaterial, Roger. The buck stops with the parents, no matter how dysfunctional. Excuses abound, but when push comes to shove, I blame no one for my kids' experiences but myself. My reputation is one of Momma Bear. I earned it. That this mother abdicated her responsibility does not absolve her of it. I could whine about my medical problems too (I have one son who has never known a day of his life that his mother was not in pain), but that doesn't absolve me of my duty to and responsibility for my children's welfare. To claim otherwise is simply unthinkable.
The church's responsibility lies with the aftermath, if they attempted a coverup.
Roger Morrison wrote:Harmony, IF anyone is aware of LDS naiveity, "in their house-of-cards," I thought it would be You, Sis!? You must know the proclivity of Mormon Moms', in general, enthrallment with 'Divinly called Authority' to subvert their own thoughts??? Again, as I read the report of this family, such a responsible, rational approach would be beyond her ability, I think??
Whether or not we Mormon moms are too trusting is immaterial, Roger. The buck stops with the parents, no matter how dysfunctional. Excuses abound, but when push comes to shove, I blame no one for my kids' experiences but myself. My reputation is one of Momma Bear. I earned it. That this mother abdicated her responsibility does not absolve her of it. I could whine about my medical problems too (I have one son who has never known a day of his life that his mother was not in pain), but that doesn't absolve me of my duty to and responsibility for my children's welfare. To claim otherwise is simply unthinkable.
The church's responsibility lies with the aftermath, if they attempted a coverup.
But, Harmony, your children had a good male role model. I can't blame this mother for wanting that for her son, and she should have been able to trust a Mormon scoutleader of all people. Maybe she should have been more aware, able to pick up on clues, but as pointed out, she was herself dysfunctional. She depended on the church for assistance and leadership. It let her down.
You're not supposed to blame yourself alone for your kids' experiences. My mother always blamed me, and I blamed her. That's how it's supposed to work :) Seriously, that's taking a lot upon yourself, unless your kids have had no bad experiences to speak of.