Sex Abuse Allegations Filed Against Salem Church

[Stan]

Sex Abuse Allegations Filed Against Salem Church

Tim King Salem-News.com

Lawyers for the plaintiff say a fifteen-year old male who molested a seven-year old girl had an established history as a sex offender in another state.

Image: East Salem Seventh Day Adventist Church

(SALEM, Ore.) - Attorneys representing a 23-year old Oregon woman say she was subjected to multiple counts of sexual molestation and abuse as a 7-year old girl while attending the East Salem Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Kelly Clark of the Portland law firm O'Donnell & Clark LLP, says the offender at the time was a 15-year old boy who attended the same congregation.

Clark says the case is important, because it illustrates the need for churches to monitor and maintain people who are in a close proximity to children. Their law firm has been involved in a number of successful similar actions involving the Catholic Church that date back to 1999.

The 15-year old boy accused of committing sexual acts against the young girl over the course of approximately one year, had a history of sexual misconduct involving children in Washington state, and was under a juvenile court mandate to have no contact with children. Clark says the church should have known that.

He says the young man knew the girl through their enrollment in a youth group called Pathfinders. He was also her instructor in a sign language program at the church.

"I’m confident that we’ll be able to prove that church officials knew that this kid was not well and not safe to be around other kids."

According to Clark, the young man had a good deal of access to the girl, despite his criminal record.

"The fact that this young man was still a minor doesn’t mean in my mind, that he still couldn’t be a representative of the church. If he was, the abuse rose out of that status and the church is responsible."

Clark says that as a young woman, the plaintiff is permanently damaged by the experience at the Salem church.

The specific allegations are harsh. According to the legal complaint, the 15-year old, "sexually abused and molested Plaintiff—then 7 years old—for approximately one year between 1991 and 1992. The abuse included over one dozen instances of fondling, oral sex, and intercourse. All of the abuse occurred at ESSDAC facilities."

The attorneys for the woman say the defendants failed to investigate the background of the teen, referred to as S.H., "prior to accepting him as their agent in instructing the sign language class attended by Plaintiff, and continued to retain him in this agency even after questionable matters from S.H.’s past came to light."

They say the teen's background could have been fully discovered by a reasonable investigation, indicating that he had some history of inappropriate sexual misconduct with children.

Defendants in the case include The North Pacific Union Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, Western Oregon Conference Association of Seventh Day Adventists, and Oregon the East Salem Seventh Day Adventist Church.

Attorney Richard Whittemore in Portland is representing the East Salem Seventh Day Adventist Church in the case. He made this statement to Salem-News.com Thursday.

“The church takes very seriously any allegation of sexual abuse. The filing of this lawsuit on August 29th was our first notice of the case; therefore we will review the case more thoroughly before making any further comments.”

[Guest charis]

Quote:

They say the teen's background could have been fully discovered by a reasonable investigation, indicating that he had some history of inappropriate sexual misconduct with children.

Why would the church investigate the background of a teenager?

Quote:

He says the young man knew the girl through their enrollment in a youth group called Pathfinders.

Has the age requirements for Pathfinders changed? I thought a child had to be at least 10 years old before he/she could join Pathfinders.

okay, now I'm NOT playing the devil's advocate.... I think sexual abuse - ANY kind of abuse of children is despicable.

[Gail]

Adn those are good questions!

[Gregory Matthews]

The duty to investigate lies in the fact that this teen was instructing a class. That duty does not depend upon age. In the hospital where I work, we use volunteers, and we use teen-age volunteers. We are requried to put our volunteers through an intensive screening process to include finger-printing, background checks, and more.

Teens are listed on official sex offender registaries. Churches that use teens in any kind of a basis where they represent the chruch, need to do background checks on those teens.

Further, there are additional legal obligations that churches may have which may have been violated in this case?

[John317]

It looks like we've entered into a period where the church must investigate the past of anyone who takes any kind of role that puts them in close association with children.

Is it reasonable to suppose that the church should have known to do a background check of a 15 year old boy? How about a 10 or 12 year old?

Based on what I see so far, if I was the church's lawyer in this case, I would take the case before a jury.

[Gregory Matthews]

Pathfinders:

The SDA chruch runs an official program for children who are not old enough for Pathfinders. The name has slipped my mind in my old age. That program is clearly modeled after the Pathfinders. It has a uniform, merit badges, honors, and just about eveerything that the Pathfinder program has.

While not officially sanctioned, in smaller churches, there may be some overlap between the two programs with both groups doing some things together.

Further, I know of cases where an individual congregation has allowed children formally to young to become a Pathfinder to do so anyway.

Individual congregations do not always complly with all Pathfinder rules. Would you expect a local Pathfinder club to have a class designed to teach children to successfully care for and fire a pistol/rifle or some such other weapon?

NOTE: Do not ask me for details.

[Gregory Matthews]

John:

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the church should have known to investigate. Further, a lack of knowledge does not relieve one of obligations.

If I were prosecuting this case, I might very well want it to go before a jury.

I would need to prove that the church did not use "due deligence." Juries today, who deal with sexual assults on children are quite likely to award large damages in cases where the church did not use due deligence.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Churches that use teens in any kind of a basis where they represent the church, need to do background checks on those teens.

The state legislature needs to pass a law requiring churches to do so. I doubt such a law existed back in 1991 and it may not even exist today.

The Adventist church is more organized than many of the other Protestant denominations. I am quite sure that many Protestant churches have Sunday school teachers and youth leaders that have never passed a background check. One of our local Pentecostal churches had their youth pastor arrested and convicted for sexual abuse a few years ago.

I agree it needs to be done but do not believe it reasonable for the judicial system to hold a church responsible for not doing it when the law did not require it. That said, with the precedent the Catholic church has left, this church is likely to get hung out to dry if the conference doesn't strike up some kind of settlement. What about the perpetrator? What happened to him?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The SDA chruch runs an official program for children who are not old enough for Pathfinders.

Adventurers

Quote:

Would you expect a local Pathfinder club to have a class designed to teach children to successfully care for and fire a pistol/rifle or some such other weapon?

Sure. Why not?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If I were prosecuting this case...

Let's remember this is a civil action, not a criminal one.

Quote:

Juries today, who deal with sexual assaults on children are quite likely to award large damages in cases where the church did not use due diligence.

Not one person who has ever been sexually assaulted (like me) or has ever known anyone sexually assaulted would be allowed on the jury. In order to get a jury of 12 with 12 alternates, judges often have to call 120 citizens just to find 24 that are qualified. On top of that, Adventist lawyers will be looking to disqualify any with an anti-religious bias.

I doubt the defendant's lawyers want to take this to a jury. They are more likely looking for a healthy settlement. The church just needs to figure out how much it would cost them to fight it and offer something a little less than that for a settlement and the case will likely go away.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane, two reasons:

1) Some SDAs see it as something that Pathfinder clubs should not be doing.

2) Church lawyers decided that the liability issues could not be resolved. The financial risks to the denomination were to great, and directed that it NOT be done.

Shane, this is the fundamental issue: A local congregation must use "due deligence." In thsi case the lawyers decided that the risks were to great.

In Colorado, a 15 year-old can be given a background check to see if he has a history of sexual misconduct.

Yes, I have pulled up such people on searches that I have done in this State, and in my neighborhood.

One additional factor: While State law may differ, in a typical situation there will be a clear distinction made between a 15 YO who is involved with a 13 YO, and a 15 YO who is involved with a 7 YO.

[John317]

John:

Quote:

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the church should have known to investigate. Further, a lack of knowledge does not relieve one of obligations.

It would be interesting to see exactly what the law was in this regard back in 1991.

If the church think it's in the right and has a good chance of winning in court, the case probably will go to a jury. Of course the church may also decide to settle out of court just in order to avoid the publicity of a trial.

Quote:

I would need to prove that the church did not use "due deligence." Juries today, who deal with sexual assults on children are quite likely to award large damages in cases where the church did not use due deligence.

That's the rub-- did the church use due dilegence according to the laws then on the books?

[John317]

John:

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the church should have known to investigate. Further, a lack of knowledge does not relieve one of obligations...

Is the church legally obligated to run background checks on everyone working in the local chuch in positions such as assistent pastor, elder, deacon, sabbath school teacher, Pathfinder instructor, etc.?

If it is, do you know when this legal obligation began? And does the church now have a consistent policy of making these checks?

Does the local church have this responsibility or is it up to the local conference officials to do it?

I'm quite sure that our local church doesn't practice these checks.

I work at a place very similar to juvenile hall, and even there, the first back ground checks on the staff occurred about 1990. I worked there for several years before they ran our fingerprints.

[John317]

I agree with you, but the problem is that our legal system and our society does not consider female on male the same way as it does male on male or male on female.

It seems to be becoming more and more common for females to abuse young boys, yet in almost all the cases, the crime is not treated with the same seriousness as it is if a male is the perpetrator.

In my own situation at work, I have known of quite a few of the female staff who had sexual relations with the boys. In 20 years only one was charged and prosecuted. It is simply not looked up as a serious crime because of course the boys are often the ones who inititiate the relationship.

So is this really abuse? It's abuse in my mind, certainly, and it is called abuse on paper, but it does not appear to be serious abuse in the eyes of the society and of the legal system.

[Guest charis]

I do know from my mom (who is a church clerk at a different SDA church in Oregon) that anyone who works with children within the scope of church sponsorship (such as Pathfinders, leaders and helpers in the Children's Sabbath School, etc) ALL undergo a background check, no matter what the age of the person. It was not always that way, but she cannot remember when that became part of the Oregon Conference guidelines.

[John317]

Thanks. I certainly favor that policy. I hope they do the same in Southeastern Ca. Unfortunately it is absolutely necessary now. I'll find out if it's practiced here.

[Dottie]

A couple of years ago, our church gave all of the Sabbath School teachers a very thorough questionnaire asking all sorts of personal questions. It included experience with working with children, listing where, when, and in what capacity. Also educational background, and lots of other things. The form was several pages long. It was an NAD form, I think.

Later, they gave out __very__ abbreviated similar forms.

I don't know if they did background checks or not.

I also don't know if other conferences do the same things, but FL Conf. did.

I just supposed that it was a requirement for everyone.

[Amelia]

Quote:

He says the young man knew the girl through their enrollment in a youth group called Pathfinders. He was also her instructor in a sign language program at the church.

"I’m confident that we’ll be able to prove that church officials knew that this kid was not well and not safe to be around other kids."

According to Clark, the young man had a good deal of access to the girl, despite his criminal record.

Her sign language instructor? Only her or a group? Why did he have "a good deal of access to the girl"? And where in the world was everyone else? Didn't anyone notice the two missing? Where were the adults? And this went on for a year? Excuse me but what is keeping children from talking to their parents or other adults? Why didn't this little girl (at the time) cry, scream, run away?

And why should the church have "known" he was not safe? As a youth and member of Pathfinders he was probably a volunteer sign language teacher. Many of the older kids in our church teach the younger kids but it's not like they are "offical" instructors. Are we now going to require background checks on all our youth when they want to be part of say, VBS, to get a badge? Honestly, a kid can have alot of background stuff going on that wont come up on paper.

[Gregory Matthews]

John:

I used the term"deligence" for a reason. That term is not strictly defined by law. Therfore, to the extent that due deligence was the issue, the law would not strictly determine whether or not due deligence was exercised.

[Gregory Matthews]

The obligation to do background checks may not be defined by law. In fact, in general it is not defined by law.

One of the obligations that people and organizations face is a the obligaiton of ethics. Ethics may not be determilned by law.

Another obligation is the obligation not to place the organization for which you work at risk, to be proactive. That is clearly not defined by law.

Those who ask what the law said 16/20/30 or whatever years ago are asking a question that has some merit, but it is not a definative question.

Organizaitons have many obligations placed upon them by the social strictures of society that lie outside of the law.

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is one simplified defination of due diligence:

Quote:

Another commmon definition of due diligence (also known as due care) is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party or himself. Failure to make this effort is considered negligence.

The above comes from ASG, and can be found on their website.

You will note that the law is not a factor in the above defination. The reason is that due diligence is not defined by the law. The law is a factor, but not a definative one. The law does not set the bounds of due diligence.

Folks the law does not rule in every aspect of everything, even in litigation.

[John317]

Background checks should not give anyone a false sense of security that the children will now be safe or necessarily any safer. A great deal of the bad things are done by people whose checks wouldn't show anything at all. The real point is that the children need to be monitered very closely. Monitered by whom? By parents. If parents have doubts or if things don't seem right, it is probably because it isn't. Parents need to know where their kids are and who they are with all the time. And teach them to scream, etc., if someone tries to do something they have no business doing. (This is assuming that the parents themselves are not abusers, which happens more often than anyone wants to know.)

[John317]

Thanks, Greg, for those helpful responses. I can see that we're getting involved in some very complex, sensative issues. No simple answers to any of this.

I'm just wondering if it would be considered negligence on the part of the church in 1991 not to check the background of a 15 year old who was teaching sign language.

If I were sitting on a jury and I heard testimony that the law did not require a check, and that the church had no information about the boy that would lead them to think the boy could be a danger to other children, I just might find it impossible to find that the church was negligent in this case. One question that I would want answered is, Was it common at that time for churches to run background checks under similar circumstances?

Of course there are many other factors here that I'm not aware of. It's certainly going to be interesting to see how it's resolved. My guess is that it will be settled out of court.

[darlene]

The North American Division Children's Ministries Department has recommended a Volunteer Screening Program for all churches across the division for 8-10 Years now.

Adventist Risk Management has much about this program:

Volunteer Screening Policy:

http://www.adventistrisk.org/pdfs/volunteerscreening.pdf

A volunteer Screening form:

http://www.adventistrisk.org/pdfs/VolMinForm.pdf

http://www.adventistrisk.org/pdfs/volunteerinformationkit.pdf

This information is also on the NAD Children's Ministries website at:

http://childmin.com/Resources/Volunteer_Screening.htm

The problem is that not all conferences or churches are enforcing the program.

One of my responsibility is and has been Children's Ministries in our conference. Since we live in a province that has extremely strict privacy laws we cannot use the church's volunteer screening program as it is. Five years ago I collected the Boy Scouts, the Soccer Association and the Toronto Archdioses volunteer screening programs along with our Pathfinders and Education screening programs and drew up a program that takes into account our privacy laws. Our lawyer suggested some revisions and they were made and the program is all set ready to go and has even been looked at by our Board of Directors and that is where it has stopped. Why? Because it will require a full-time person just to do all the paper work and implementation. So it sits. Maybe the problem with this lawsuit will wake some of us up quickly! (Hopefully)

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Another commmon definition of due diligence (also known as due care) is the effort made by an ordinarily prudent or reasonable party to avoid harm to another party or himself.

"Ordinarily" is the key word in that definition. What were other churches doing? Did other church's run background checks on their teenage youth leaders? A majority of churches? Is that something which would have been considered ordinary 15 years ago?

I doubt the accuser's lawyers want to go to court. They are most likely playing their cards to see how deep into the conference's pockets they can dig for a settlement.