LDS Church Claims “No Legal Duty” in Interstate Child Sex Abuse Cover-Up Lawsuit

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a sweeping legal defense against an amended lawsuit that alleges a coordinated interstate cover-up of child sex abuse in Ridgefield, Washington and Albany, Oregon.

In a 26-page opposition brief filed earlier this month, attorneys representing the LDS Church argue not that the institution was unaware of the abuse, but rather that the LDS Church simply had no legal obligation to stop it.

The legal arguments presented by the LDS Church’s legal team provide a chilling glimpse into the institution’s views on its moral and legal responsibilities toward children in its congregations.

The Abuse Defense

At the core of the LDS Church’s defense is a stark assertion: because the perpetrator was the victim’s own father, the LDS Church is entirely absolved of responsibility.

The LDS Church acknowledges the plaintiff’s claims that local clergy and Salt Lake City headquarters were informed that the victim, identified as “Julie Doe,” was being sexually abused by her adoptive father.

Yet, the LDS Church’s attorneys explicitly argue that “churches have no legal duty to intervene to prevent a father from abusing his own child.”

They insist that because the abuse occurred in the victim’s home—and not directly during a Sunday School class or youth group activity—the LDS Church “would have neither the ability nor responsibility to take reasonable steps... to prevent the [perpetrator] from assaulting his or her own child, even if the [organization] had knowledge of prior assaults.”

The brief states plainly: the “absence of a duty to prevent intrafamily abuse” is a “deficiency [that] could not possibly be cured” by the plaintiff’s lawsuit.

In other words, according to the Church’s own legal framing, local bishops and stake presidents can be explicitly informed that a teenager in their congregation is being repeatedly raped by her parent, and they are legally free to do absolutely nothing.

The First Amendment and “Bad Advice”

The amended lawsuit alleges that Washington Stake President Wade Pickett not only failed to report the abuse, but actively “discouraged” the victim’s mother from going to civil authorities.

How does the LDS Church justify a religious leader allegedly advising a mother to keep quiet about child sex abuse?

The LDS Church’s brief characterizes Pickett’s alleged actions as mere “bad advice,” arguing that “bad advice is not actionable and does not create ‘a new risk of harm’”

The attorneys go a step further, arguing that evaluating a clergyman’s advice would violate the First Amendment. Because other courts have rejected “clergy malpractice” claims, the LDS Church essentially argues that its clergy have a constitutionally protected right to tell a parent not to report the rape of their child.

Mandatory Reporting: A Criminal Loophole

The legal filing also addresses the highly problematic reality that the LDS Church transferred the abuser and the victim to a congregation in Albany, Oregon—a state with strict mandatory reporting laws.

The victim’s attorneys allege that Oregon LDS agents were fully informed of the ongoing abuse but failed to contact police, directly violating Oregon statutes.

The LDS Church’s response relies on a cold legal technicality. They do not claim their clergy followed the law. Instead, they argue that Oregon’s abuse-reporting statute is a criminal statute that “does not create civil liability.”

The institution’s stance boils down to this: Yes, our clergy might have broken a criminal law designed to save children from abuse, but the victim doesn’t have the right to sue us for the resulting trauma.

The Policy Paradox

Perhaps the most logically twisted argument in the brief concerns the LDS Church’s own internal abuse policies.

The plaintiff points out that the LDS Church has explicit, written policies directing leaders to “report the abuse to civil authorities” and stating that “[a]buse cannot be tolerated in any form.”

The LDS Church’s attorneys dismiss these internal rules entirely. They argue that having a policy against abuse does not mean the LDS Church has “undertaken” a legal duty to actually enforce it.

In a dizzying display of legal acrobatics, the LDS Church warns the court that holding them accountable for failing to follow their own anti-abuse policies would “punish those organizations for trying to stop abuse they have no legal duty to stop.”

The message appears to be clear: the LDS Church’s policies exist as public relations ideals, not actionable commitments to the safety of its most vulnerable members.

The court will soon decide whether to grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint, or if the LDS Church’s defense—that it owes no duty to children abused by their own parents—will shield it from accountability once again.