Failure to report child abuse.

[Gregory Matthews]

Wednesday two pastors and two elders of the Vinelife church (not SDA.) in Boulder were sentenced to either jail time or work crew time or community service for a failure to comply with Colorado law and report the sexual abuse of a child by one of their staff.  One or more had been previously sentenced.

None of the people made any attempt to pled the 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution.  All pled "no contest."

NOTE:  The staff member was earlier sentenced to two years  in prison.

The lesson:  Even clergy may be required to report such.  One cannot depend upon the 1st amendment to protect them is some cases.

 

 

 

 

[Naomi]

I may be wrong but I believe that it is a Federal law that you must report suspected child abuse, sexual  or otherwise.

I am wondering how one could expect the first amendment to protect a pastor/member from reporting the abuse of a child.  This is not a part of their religious beliefs/practices: 

at lease I hope is not!!! 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Naomi

[B/W Photodude]

All states and the DC have reporting rules for professionals. The federal government wants federal employees to be aware of state and local laws for reporting and to comply with them. Federal laws for reporting only involve federal facilities.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2012/05/31/aag-reporting-abuse.pdf

Under 42 U.S.C. § 13031—a provision of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990—all covered professionals who learn of suspected child abuse while engaged in enumerated activities and professions on federal land or in federal facilities must report that abuse, regardless of where the suspected victim is cared for or resides. 

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/victim_assistance/brochures-handouts/when-you-suspect-child-abuse-or-neglect

All states and the District of Columbia have laws about reporting child abuse and neglect to state or local officials. Reports are generally made to the local or state child protective services agency by calling a child abuse reporting hotline. It is important that FBI employees know the reporting requirements in their state and local jurisdiction. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Naomi:  As I understand the 1st Amendment, A person who confesses a crime to a clergyperson in an attempt to get right with God can refuse to allow the clergyperson to  testify to the confession.

This is a very narrow exception which is grounded in the 1st Amendment.   I once worked with a Lutheran clergyperson to whom a person confessed to attempting to murder another person.  AT trial the defendents attorney pled the 1st Amendment.  The judge ruled that any statements made to the clergyperson were NOT in an attempt to get right with God and therefore NOT covered by the 1st Amendment.   The Judge ordered the clergyperson to testify, which he did.  The defendant was convicted.

As Photodude has suggested above, local law generally applies and not Federal law.  The local laws differ considerably in their reporting requirements.  Oregon, I believe, is interesting in that it does not allow any exception for clergy.  However, due to the 1st Amendment, as I understand it, Oregon has a policy (not law) that clergy persons may be exempted form reporting    in the manner that I have suggested, and without, as I understand it, proving that there was an attempt to get right with God.

 

 

 

[Outta Here]

There seems to be a lot to this story: Boulder DA cites VineLife Church's 'disturbing culture of secrecy' in sex-abuse cover-up

"The former employee, now 24, first reported the possibility of sexual misconduct to the church in March of this year, 2013. ... It was the understanding of the church leadership that the former employee did not want this matter to be made public. As such, the church sought and obtained legal counsel, who indicated that the Church leadership would not violate Colorado law by not reporting the incident given the current age of the victim."

The church said it could not comment further due to the pending lawsuit.

Failing to report child abuse is a Class 3 misdemeanor. According to state law, those in professions such as teachers or pastors who are in a position of trust with vulnerable people have obligations to report suspected abuse.

"These are important statutes because often, with people who are taking advantage of or abusing a child, that kind of behavior can go on for a while because it tends to happen in secretive or a closed environment," said Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett. "Mandatory reporting statutes are important to prevent certain types of crimes involving vulnerable victims."

Source: Boulder police ticket VineLife Church officials for failing to report alleged sex assault

Edited July 24, 2015 by Aubrey

[Naomi]

Thank you Gregory; in rethinking my statement I realized my error. Which is why I returned to the forum. However, may I suggest that the person who confesses to the pastor, to Get Right with God, would also wish to consider facing the laws of the land and the person harmed.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Naomi

[Gregory Matthews]

Aubrey:  Exactly right.  I simply did nto have the time when I posted to get into those issues.

Naomi:  Yes, the person, as a part of "Getting right with God" might want to confess.  The clergy person might want to lead the person to confess.   But, it would be the right of the person to decide.

Under the laws, this is called the right of "privilege."  The right of privilege belongs to the defendant, not the clergyperson, in a case like this.  But, a judge can say that conditions do not confer privilege.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

The article that Aubrey cited is one published earlier this week.  The latest one, also published in the CAMERA, was published today and contains more information that in the article that Aubrey cited.

 

[Outta Here]

Here is the latest I could find: 'This cannot happen': Boulder judge sentences VineLife Church leaders for not reporting sex assault 

The four sentenced for failure-to-report maintained that their silence on the matter was motivated largely by poor advice from a lawyer who said that the victim's status as an adult at the time she came to them, plus the fact that Jason Roberson had been placed on administrative leave, exempted them from further responsibility.

They also believe the statute around who must report what, and when reports must be made, is murky at best. Archuleta himself acknowledged as much at sentencing.

"They don't get it," Deputy DA Lorenz said in court Thursday. "It's clear that the defendants do not have respect for the law, after multiple opportunities to take responsibility, and two years of reflection."Prosecutors never bought the excuses, though, and in a pre-sentencing memorandum earlier this weekdescribed a "disturbing culture of secrecy" at the church.

Three of the victim's supporters, including her husband, a pastor and a family friend whose child was also the victim of sexual abuse, echoed that sentiment in emotional remarks to Archuleta.

"These men were supposed to be leaders, and instead of leading and doing what's right, they dumped the responsibility on the shoulders of the victim," Pastor Matt Patrick said. "That's sickening."

Edited July 24, 2015 by Aubrey

[Gregory Matthews]

That is a comment from the judge.  The article in today's paper ran some 66 column inches.

The leadership of the church was slammed.

 

 

 

Edited July 24, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Outta Here]

Well, I sure would like to read that article. Can you share a link to it, so we can read the same thing you're reading??

[Outta Here]

I cited a portion of the newest one I could find on the Daily Camera, but if you're reading something else, I want to read it too.

(For the record, I never quote an entire article in a forum like this. For one, it's illegal. And two, unnecessary as the viewer can simply click on the link as is cited.)

[Gregory Matthews]

Did you read this one.

 

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_28530301/this-cannot-happen-boulder-judge-sentences-vinelife-church?source=mostpopular

[Outta Here]

Yes. That's exactly the same one I referenced above (in post #686719)--the one where you said it was a comment the judge made. I did have the most current article after all. 

At least I'm not going crazy--yet. (My Dad's early-onset Alzheimer's started when he was 49. I have 3 years to go.)

[B/W Photodude]

At least I'm not going crazy--yet. (My Dad's early-onset Alzheimer's started when he was 49. I have 3 years to go.)

Thread drift warning! :

As with anything you read on the internet or on paper, thoroughly investigate it:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/11/07/peanut-butter-coconut-oil-alzheimers-detection.aspx

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

take Mercola's website with a grain of salt...he's been under the "quack watch" for years..

[Gregory Matthews]

Clergy might want to report it.  However, under the legal definition of "privilege,"  in situations where privilege applied the accused could prevent the clergyperson from giving testimony.  The right of privilege belongs to the accused, under the law as commonly written.

The 1st Amendment protects the right of a U.S. citizen to practice their religion.   This is commonly understood to include the right of that person to communicate with a clergyperson regarding matters of getting right with God that would not be subject to disclosure to others, to include government officials.

The result of all of this is that regardless of the desire of the clergyperson to report, there  may be situations in which the clergy person not only should not report but could be prevented from reporting and the government would be prevented from using such if the clergy person did report.

However, the above is not an absolute right the covers all cases of clergy knowledge.  The staff of Vinelife clearly fell into a situation where the accused was not attempting to get right with God and therefore the staff was not protected from reporting and they should have reported.

This is actually a common problem for clergy who often falsely believe that privilege covers any knowledge that they might have.  it does not.  According to the news article, the staff claimed to  have been give false advice from an attorney whom they consulted.   The judge did not buy that and convicted them anyway.  I noted that there was no evidence that those people attempted to put the attorney on the stand to testify that such advice had been given to them and for very good reason.  To have done so would have done away with their right of privilege and the attorney could have been required to testify about anything.

 

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

Most frequently the legal privilege in question is limited to what is sometimes referred to as the priest penitent privilege.  That is basically limited to disclose made to a priest in a confessional context, where it is essentially a religious requirement of the religion of the person making the confession.  Conversations of any other sort with a clergy person, such as for spiritual counseling do not count.

[Gregory Matthews]

Tom and I have a basic agreement as to the issue of privilege, in the context that it has been discussed here in CA.  In actuality, the legal concept of privilege may apply to some situations that do not involve either clergy or religion.  But, I see no need to open that up.

Tom is correct as to the term "priest-penitent."  My preference is to state it in a slightly different way,  which is why I use the phrase "getting right with God."

My position, always has been that there are many other conversations that one might have with a clergy person that would not qualify for privilege.

As to spiritual counseling, I can not make an absolute statement the it never qualifies for privilege.

It should be noted that secular counselors may fall under the doctrine of privilege. When I was taking my graduate work in Counseling Psychology   (which was at a secular school and not a Seminary) our students would often be served with a formal demand to testify.  It was very easy for us to get that demand vacated under the doctrine of privilege.

However, generally the issue of privilege is decided under State rules and not Federal.  Therefore, as State law differs, the actual application of Privilege differs from State to State.

It also should be noted that the "clergy-penitent" privilege has been opened up by the courts to extend, where it applies, to clergy that do not come from the so-called confessional churches.  IOW, it does not apply just to Catholic churches and those who have Confession as a sacrament.  It can apply to SDA clergy, Baptist clergy and others.    This is another reason why I like my wording.

.

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Gregory Matthews

[Gregory Matthews]

One might challenge me as to what I said about privilege and counselors and then cite the current trial of Holmes. 

That is an easy one to answer.

The legal team defending Holmes decide that they wanted  to explore at trial issues of mental illness.  In order to do that, acting on behalf of Holmes, they  gave up their right to privilege as it related to counseling that had been given to him.  

Once those counselors testified, they became available for both direct and cross examination.  Privilege simply did not then exist.