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.
A DEFENSE THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF...THE DISGUSTING OMG STATEMENTS!
...”because the perpetrator was the victim’s own father, the LDS Church is entirely absolved of RESPONSIBILITY”
...“churches have NO LEGAL DUTY to intervene to prevent a father from abusing his own child”
...“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.”
...”explicitly informed that a teenager in their congregation is being repeatedly raped by her parent, and they are LEGALLY FREE to do absolutely nothing”
...“BAD ADVICE is not actionable and does not create ‘a new risk of harm’”
...”its clergy have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to tell a parent not to report the rape of their child”
...”criminal law designed to save children from abuse, but the victim DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to sue us for the resulting trauma”
...“punish those organizations for trying to stop abuse they have NO LEGAL DUTY to stop.”
80-2-602. Child abuse and neglect reporting requirements -- Exceptions.
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (3), if a person, including an individual licensed under Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child is, or has been, the subject of abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, the person shall immediately report the suspected abuse or neglect to the division or to the nearest peace officer or law enforcement agency.
(2)
(a)
(i) If a peace officer or law enforcement agency receives a report under Subsection (1), the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division.
(ii) If the division receives a report under Subsection (1), the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency.
(b)
(i) The division shall, in addition to the division's own investigation in accordance with Section 80-2-701, coordinate with the law enforcement agency on an investigation undertaken by the law enforcement agency to investigate the report of abuse or neglect under Subsection (1).
(ii) If a law enforcement agency undertakes an investigation of a report under Subsection (1), the law enforcement agency shall provide a final investigatory report to the division upon request.
(3) Subject to Subsection (4), the reporting requirement described in Subsection (1) does not apply to:
(a) a member of the clergy, with regard to any confession made to the member of the clergy while functioning in the ministerial capacity of the member of the clergy and without the consent of the individual making the confession, if:
(i) the perpetrator made the confession directly to the member of the clergy; and
(ii) the member of the clergy is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of the confession; or
(b) an attorney, or an individual employed by the attorney, if the knowledge or belief of the suspected abuse or neglect of a child arises from the representation of a client, unless the attorney is permitted to reveal the suspected abuse or neglect of the child to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm in accordance with Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6.
(4)
(a) When a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report the information even if the member of the clergy also received information about the abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.
(b) When a member of the clergy reasonably believes that a child is the subject of ongoing abuse or neglect, the member of the clergy may report the information even if the perpetrator made a confession to the member of the clergy regarding the abuse or neglect.
(c) Exemption of the reporting requirement for an individual described in Subsection (3) does not exempt the individual from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.
(d) A report by a member of the clergy under Subsection (4) is not intended to have any effect on the application of a privilege outlined in the Utah Rules of Evidence.
(5) The physician-patient privilege does not:
(a) excuse an individual who is licensed under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 68, Utah Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, from reporting under this section; or
(b) constitute grounds for excluding evidence regarding the child's injuries, or the cause of the child's injuries, in a judicial or administrative proceeding resulting from a report under this section.
**So, a clergy member CAN report, in most cases, abuse. Any of the clergy who receive a confession but ALSO know of abuse otherwise (witness it, have it reported to them, etc.) CAN report it to the authorities. They shouldn't be covering it up.
Everyone should see the laws in their states regarding this and, if they know something, say something. "If you see something, say something. "
Thank you, Anthony, for covering this LDS CSA coverup case in the way you did. The article highlights the legal playbook that the LDS Church has used for decades! 1) They claim they have "zero tolerance" for abuse. 2) They lobby and fight for clergy exemptions to SA reporting. 3) They hide known SA, protect predators, and leave kids in danger. 4) When a child is harmed again as a result of their non-action, they claim they had "no duty" to help the victim(s) or protect other children. 5) In court, they claim the First Amendment protects them from having to provide church records about the abuse/abuser, or being questioned about their actions, or being held accountable for their decisions within the religion. Unfortunately, this strategy works for them most of the time, and LDS coverup victims are left with ZERO help from the church. If you look up LDS CSA court cases for decades, you will see this same pattern. When they claim their first priority is to protect children, their actions speak louder than words. (You could make this a much larger story by looking at this pattern across all their CSA cases.) Thank you!
If anyone is wondering just how pervasive the CSA is within the LDS/Mormon church, take a look at this site who has been involved in keeping track of accusations, arrests, penalties, etc.
Julia & her team at Floodlit are diligent in producing accurate information on the rampant CSA that is perpetrated by members of the LDS community. The facts are nothing short of staggering and Anthony’s article certainly paints a factual, albeit dismal picture of the sickness that has plagued the LDS church from its inception.
It's amazing that a corporation claiming to be Jesus Christ's own church would ignore teachings such as the Good Samaritan parable and where they'd be better off if they offend his little ones.
No, I read this as if the report of the abuse comes from anyone other than the perpetrator (including the victim, the clergy member is REQUIRED to report it to authorities.
Per this section:
(a) When a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report the information even if the member of the clergy also received information about the abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.
ABSOLUTELY UTTERLY VILE & DISGUSTING..
Burn the entire cult to the ground. It’s neither a religion nor a club; it’s a cult.
Thank you for your work on this. You’re helping expose the church for what is: corrupt to its core.
A DEFENSE THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF...THE DISGUSTING OMG STATEMENTS!
...”because the perpetrator was the victim’s own father, the LDS Church is entirely absolved of RESPONSIBILITY”
...“churches have NO LEGAL DUTY to intervene to prevent a father from abusing his own child”
...“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.”
...”explicitly informed that a teenager in their congregation is being repeatedly raped by her parent, and they are LEGALLY FREE to do absolutely nothing”
...“BAD ADVICE is not actionable and does not create ‘a new risk of harm’”
...”its clergy have a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to tell a parent not to report the rape of their child”
...”criminal law designed to save children from abuse, but the victim DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to sue us for the resulting trauma”
...“punish those organizations for trying to stop abuse they have NO LEGAL DUTY to stop.”
As for the Utah case:
Effective 5/1/2024
80-2-602. Child abuse and neglect reporting requirements -- Exceptions.
(1) Except as provided in Subsection (3), if a person, including an individual licensed under Title 58, Chapter 31b, Nurse Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, has reason to believe that a child is, or has been, the subject of abuse or neglect, or observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances that would reasonably result in abuse or neglect, the person shall immediately report the suspected abuse or neglect to the division or to the nearest peace officer or law enforcement agency.
(2)
(a)
(i) If a peace officer or law enforcement agency receives a report under Subsection (1), the peace officer or law enforcement agency shall immediately notify the nearest office of the division.
(ii) If the division receives a report under Subsection (1), the division shall immediately notify the appropriate local law enforcement agency.
(b)
(i) The division shall, in addition to the division's own investigation in accordance with Section 80-2-701, coordinate with the law enforcement agency on an investigation undertaken by the law enforcement agency to investigate the report of abuse or neglect under Subsection (1).
(ii) If a law enforcement agency undertakes an investigation of a report under Subsection (1), the law enforcement agency shall provide a final investigatory report to the division upon request.
(3) Subject to Subsection (4), the reporting requirement described in Subsection (1) does not apply to:
(a) a member of the clergy, with regard to any confession made to the member of the clergy while functioning in the ministerial capacity of the member of the clergy and without the consent of the individual making the confession, if:
(i) the perpetrator made the confession directly to the member of the clergy; and
(ii) the member of the clergy is, under canon law or church doctrine or practice, bound to maintain the confidentiality of the confession; or
(b) an attorney, or an individual employed by the attorney, if the knowledge or belief of the suspected abuse or neglect of a child arises from the representation of a client, unless the attorney is permitted to reveal the suspected abuse or neglect of the child to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm in accordance with Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6.
(4)
(a) When a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report the information even if the member of the clergy also received information about the abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.
(b) When a member of the clergy reasonably believes that a child is the subject of ongoing abuse or neglect, the member of the clergy may report the information even if the perpetrator made a confession to the member of the clergy regarding the abuse or neglect.
(c) Exemption of the reporting requirement for an individual described in Subsection (3) does not exempt the individual from any other efforts required by law to prevent further abuse or neglect by the perpetrator.
(d) A report by a member of the clergy under Subsection (4) is not intended to have any effect on the application of a privilege outlined in the Utah Rules of Evidence.
(5) The physician-patient privilege does not:
(a) excuse an individual who is licensed under Title 58, Chapter 67, Utah Medical Practice Act, or Title 58, Chapter 68, Utah Osteopathic Medical Practice Act, from reporting under this section; or
(b) constitute grounds for excluding evidence regarding the child's injuries, or the cause of the child's injuries, in a judicial or administrative proceeding resulting from a report under this section.
**So, a clergy member CAN report, in most cases, abuse. Any of the clergy who receive a confession but ALSO know of abuse otherwise (witness it, have it reported to them, etc.) CAN report it to the authorities. They shouldn't be covering it up.
Everyone should see the laws in their states regarding this and, if they know something, say something. "If you see something, say something. "
Thank you, Anthony, for covering this LDS CSA coverup case in the way you did. The article highlights the legal playbook that the LDS Church has used for decades! 1) They claim they have "zero tolerance" for abuse. 2) They lobby and fight for clergy exemptions to SA reporting. 3) They hide known SA, protect predators, and leave kids in danger. 4) When a child is harmed again as a result of their non-action, they claim they had "no duty" to help the victim(s) or protect other children. 5) In court, they claim the First Amendment protects them from having to provide church records about the abuse/abuser, or being questioned about their actions, or being held accountable for their decisions within the religion. Unfortunately, this strategy works for them most of the time, and LDS coverup victims are left with ZERO help from the church. If you look up LDS CSA court cases for decades, you will see this same pattern. When they claim their first priority is to protect children, their actions speak louder than words. (You could make this a much larger story by looking at this pattern across all their CSA cases.) Thank you!
These people won’t stop until they rape every child. My dad was a preacher too. https://jmeleepharmd.substack.com/p/she-was-thirteen?r=76912d&utm_medium=ios
If anyone is wondering just how pervasive the CSA is within the LDS/Mormon church, take a look at this site who has been involved in keeping track of accusations, arrests, penalties, etc.
www.Floodlit.com
Julia & her team at Floodlit are diligent in producing accurate information on the rampant CSA that is perpetrated by members of the LDS community. The facts are nothing short of staggering and Anthony’s article certainly paints a factual, albeit dismal picture of the sickness that has plagued the LDS church from its inception.
It's amazing that a corporation claiming to be Jesus Christ's own church would ignore teachings such as the Good Samaritan parable and where they'd be better off if they offend his little ones.
No, I read this as if the report of the abuse comes from anyone other than the perpetrator (including the victim, the clergy member is REQUIRED to report it to authorities.
Per this section:
(a) When a member of the clergy receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than confession of the perpetrator, the member of the clergy is required to report the information even if the member of the clergy also received information about the abuse or neglect from the confession of the perpetrator.