Plaintiff Rebukes LDS Church's “No Legal Duty” Defense in Interstate Abuse Lawsuit

The legal battle over an alleged interstate child sex abuse cover-up escalated Friday, as attorneys for the plaintiff responded to the LDS Church’s assertion that it possessed “no legal duty” to intervene and protect a teenage girl from her abusive father.

In a 14-page reply filed earlier today, the plaintiff—identified as “Julie Doe”—urges the federal court to reject the Church’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The filing accuses the institution of misconstruing case law and minimizing the alleged active role its clergy played in isolating her with a known abuser.

While the perpetrator, Craig Ford, was convicted of incest and rape in 2021 and 2022, the civil lawsuit centers on the alleged negligence of LDS Church leaders.

The LDS Church’s April 3 defense argued that because the abuse occurred in the victim’s home and was perpetrated by her adoptive father, the institution is legally absolved of responsibility. The plaintiff’s latest filing vigorously challenges that premise.

A Dispute Over Statutory Duty

A central pillar of the LDS Church’s defense was its interpretation of the recent Oregon Supreme Court case, E.J.T. v. Jefferson County.

The LDS Church argued this ruling definitively established that Oregon’s mandatory abuse-reporting statute—by which Oregon clergy are bound—is strictly criminal and “does not create civil liability” for failure to report.

The plaintiff’s attorneys contend the Church is misrepresenting the ruling.

According to the reply brief, the E.J.T. decision only shielded law enforcement agencies from civil suits regarding their own investigations, and it explicitly left open the possibility of common-law negligence claims against mandatory reporters—like clergy—who fail to act.

Protected Speech or Created Risk?

A major point of contention involves a Washington State LDS bishop’s alleged instruction to the victim’s mother not to report her suspicions to the police.

The Church previously characterized this as mere “bad advice,” arguing it did not create a new risk of harm and is protected by the First Amendment.

The plaintiff’s legal team forcefully disputes this characterization. The lawsuit alleges the bishop actively “discouraged” the mother from contacting civil authorities and minimized the severity of the sexual contact.

The plaintiff argues this was not passive “bad advice,” but an affirmative action that “created an additional risk of harm” by allowing the teenager to be moved across state lines to Oregon, completely isolated with her abuser.

Furthermore, the attorneys argue that advising a parent not to report child rape directly violates the Church’s own written anti-abuse policies, stripping the alleged action of First Amendment protection as a religious practice.

The Policy Paradox

The filing also highlights a stark contrast between the Church’s public anti-abuse policies and its legal defense.

While the Church argued that its internal rules directing leaders to report abuse do not legally obligate them to do so, the plaintiff reveals that Church headquarters did take specific administrative actions regarding her case.

After receiving a subsequent report of abuse in December 2016, Church headquarters allegedly placed a restrictive “annotation” on the father’s membership record and specifically notified a local bishop in Albany, Oregon, that the teenager was living alone with him.

The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that by taking these targeted administrative steps, the Church voluntarily assumed a duty to protect her—but then allegedly abandoned that duty by delaying discipline, failing to notify Oregon authorities, and offering no support or warning to the victim.

“These facts taken together are sufficient special circumstances to give rise to a duty for Defendant toward Plaintiff,” the filing states.

The federal court in Eugene will now weigh the competing briefs to determine whether the lawsuit will proceed, or if the LDS Church’s “no duty” defense will secure a dismissal.