‘Disappointingly hollow’: Judge criticizes LDS Church’s abuse policies but rules in its favor

A federal judge has ruled for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and two related church corporations in a sexual abuse survivor’s negligence lawsuit, concluding that her allegations did not establish a legal duty to protect her from her adoptive father’s abuse outside church activities or facilities.

The September ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane addresses the “no legal duty” defense previously covered by The Olympic Herald.

The case involves a family that attended a church ward in Ridgefield, Washington. According to the complaint, the abuse continued after the father moved with the teenager to Albany, Oregon.

Judge McShane criticized the church’s alleged inaction and wrote that its abuse policies “ring disappointingly hollow.” But he concluded that the plaintiff, identified by the pseudonym Julie Doe, had not alleged facts sufficient to establish a duty under the Oregon negligence theories she advanced.

In the same order, the judge allowed Doe to file her amended complaint and considered its expanded allegations.

His decision granted judgment on the pleadings, a procedure that tests whether allegations, taken as true, state a legally sufficient claim.

It did not follow a trial resolving whether church leaders knew about the abuse or responded as Doe alleged.

The order recounts that Craig Ford was convicted in Oregon in 2021 of incest and rape involving Doe, followed by a Washington conviction in 2022 on similar charges involving her. The civil case concerns the church defendants’ alleged failure to protect her.

According to the amended complaint summarized in the ruling, Doe was placed in foster care with Jennifer and Craig Ford in 2013, and the couple adopted her in 2014.

The family began attending an LDS ward in Ridgefield the following year. Craig Ford began sexually abusing her in December 2015, when she was 15, the complaint alleges.

Doe alleged that Jennifer Ford reported her suspicions to Stake President Wade Pickett in April 2016 and showed him a letter Craig Ford had written to the teenager.

The complaint accused Pickett of failing to report the abuse, intervene or offer Doe help. It further alleged, on information and belief, that he discouraged Jennifer Ford from contacting civil authorities, saying she lacked sufficient proof.

That same month, according to the complaint, Craig Ford moved with Doe to Albany, where the abuse continued. Doe alleged that Pickett learned she was living alone with Ford but church leaders did not act to protect her.

The allegations extended to church headquarters in Salt Lake City. According to the complaint as recounted in the order, Washington church leaders notified headquarters of the abuse report in December 2016.

Church records allegedly described the abuse as “consensual relations” while also recording an annotation on Ford’s membership record for “Child Abuse or Incest.”

Doe alleged that Albany Bishop Daniel White was informed in February 2017 of her living situation and the history of sexual abuse allegations, but neither he nor other church agents took action. She continued participating in church services and programs while living in Albany, according to the complaint.

The legal dispute centered on whether those allegations could support civil liability for the church defendants.

Doe argued that the alleged discouragement of reporting and minimization of the abuse created an additional risk by allowing Ford to isolate her in Oregon.

Judge McShane rejected that argument, characterizing the allegations as failures to act rather than conduct that created the risk of harm.

“And, as objectionable as this inaction might be, Defendants did not create the risk of harm that befell Plaintiff, and they had no duty under an ordinary negligence theory to protect her from her father’s abuse that occurred in her home,” McShane wrote.

The judge also rejected the argument that Doe’s church membership and participation established a special relationship requiring protection beyond the church’s supervision.

He acknowledged that such a relationship might exist during church activities, but said Doe had not alleged that the abuse occurred while church leaders were supervising her. Any special duty arising from that supervision ended when she returned to her father’s custody, he concluded.

Oregon’s mandatory child abuse reporting law did not supply a basis for her negligence claim either, McShane ruled. Doe alleged that church agents in Albany knew about the abuse and failed to report it.

The judge wrote that the statute does not itself authorize a private lawsuit and that Doe had not identified controlling authority establishing a common-law duty from the reporting statutes alone in this case.

That conclusion addressed the basis for Doe’s civil claims. The order did not decide criminal liability for an alleged failure to report.

Doe also argued that the church had voluntarily assumed a duty through its abuse policies. As described in the order, those policies encouraged leaders to take abuse disclosures seriously, report abuse to civil authorities, protect survivors from further harm and provide support.

Judge McShane concluded that general policies alone did not establish that the defendants had undertaken to protect Doe.

Despite his criticism of the policies as hollow, he found that the complaint did not allege meaningful steps to rescue her sufficient to support that theory.

He also reasoned that imposing liability on that basis for abuse outside an organization’s supervision could discourage organizations from adopting abuse-prevention policies.

The judge rejected Doe’s remaining argument that church leaders should have warned her of the long-term emotional and psychological effects of continued abuse.

Doe alleged that she had mistaken Ford’s sexual contact for affection and that intervention would have helped her escape sooner.

Judge McShane reasoned that Doe already knew of the harm from her father’s continued abuse by the time church leaders learned about it. He concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find that a warning would have prevented the harm.

The church had also argued that the alleged discouragement of reporting was protected by the First Amendment, a position Doe challenged, as previously reported by The Herald.

Judge McShane granted judgment on negligence grounds without deciding that constitutional argument.