The Bishop and Confessions of sexual abuse

[_aussieguy55]

www.heraldsun.com.au/news/child-abuse-r ... n-releases

The Royal Commission into child abuse has recommended that priests be forced by law to report confessions that involved child abuse.

What is the law in the US in this matter?

[Guest]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/child-abuse-royal-commission-releases

The Royal Commission into child abuse has recommended that priests be forced by law to report confessions that involved child abuse.

What is the law in the US in this matter?

Given recent history and what we currently see happening in the LDS Church, this seems to be like recommending bank robbers be forced by law to report bank robberies.

The law should end the ability for institutions like the LDS to settle child abuse cases silently, out of court. By all means keep the victims anonymous, but I don't see why the perpetrators and the institution that harbours them should be able to hide in the shadows simply because they've got money.

[_Dr. Shades]

The Royal Commission into child abuse has recommended that priests be forced by law to report confessions that involved child abuse.

What is the law in the US in this matter?

The law in the United States is that the priest, pastor, bishop, etc. must report it to law enforcement if the information comes from the victim or from a third party. If the information or confession comes from the perpetrator him- or herself, then the priest, bishop, etc. is under no legal requirement to report it.

(The justification is that it is far better for the perpetrator to begin the change process and TRY to change his or her life than not do it at all, which would certainly be the case if he or she knew that the priest, bishop, etc. would tell the cops. At least, that's the theory; your mileage may vary.)

By all means keep the victims anonymous, but I don't why the perpetrators and the institution that harbours them should be able to hide in the shadows simply because they've got money.

They aren't able to hide in the shadows simply because they've got money. If criminal charges are filed, no amount of money can make the charges go away. But without proof of wrongdoing, it's often a "he said / she said" situation, which is handled by civil court (in a nutshell). And to address your point, they can't hide in the shadows if the plaintiff refuses to settle. If they hide in the shadows, it simply means the plaintiff accepted the settlement offer.

Darth J, Everybody Wang Chung, and consiglieri know far more about this sort of thing than I do, so if any of them contradict me, then go with their explanations, not mine.

[_Yahoo Bot]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/child-abuse-royal-commission-releases

The Royal Commission into child abuse has recommended that priests be forced by law to report confessions that involved child abuse.

What is the law in the US in this matter?

A very few states require it. Maybe one or two. California, where I live, does not. I represent schools and churches on this stuff.

Almost all states require a pastor to report if he/she hears about it outside the confessional. That started in California in 1996. For instance, if a wife drags husband into the bishop's office to force him to confess in front of her, well, that's all she wrote for the protection. Similarly, wife tells bishop confidentially that she thinks her husband abused a child or a friend. And so on.

I had a case where Jonny's mother tells pastor that a camp counselor, a member of the congregation, exposed himself at summer camp to Jonny. Pastor interviews them all, they all deny it vociferously. Pastor reports but there is nothing to be done because of the denial and it is dropped by cops. Perp ends up molesting four other boys five years later.

An ordinary person has no duty to report.

[_I have a question]

By all means keep the victims anonymous, but I don't why the perpetrators and the institution that harbours them should be able to hide in the shadows simply because they've got money.

They aren't able to hide in the shadows simply because they've got money. If criminal charges are filed, no amount of money can make the charges go away. But without proof of wrongdoing, it's often a "he said / she said" situation, which is handled by civil court (in a nutshell). And to address your point, they can't hide in the shadows if the plaintiff refuses to settle. If they hide in the shadows, it simply means the plaintiff accepted the settlement offer.

That's my point.
The abuser or their institution can throw enough money at it to keep it out of court.
The abused settles because it's a life changing amount of money and they don't need to be abused all over again by being named in a court proceeding.

Money = Abusers anonymity and freedom to reoffend.

[_The CCC]

Mandated reporters in California are generally not lawyers in counsel with their clients, or ministers of any faith, Doctors with patients, or those in a recognized psychological profession unless they they can present a case of clear and present danger to others.