And there?????s more.

[_Res Ipsa]

FYI, I started a new thread in Celestial to address the Denson v. Bishop lawsuit and developments. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=48924

[_Res Ipsa]

Not sure if a Utah jury or set of judges can render an impartial decision in cases involving the LDS Church. Does anyone know if civil cases can be appealed to say, for instance, a federal court in Denver?

I am thinking about the case of Madi Barney who was abused by the BYU Honors and Penitence Committee, only to have a Provo jury find her rapist not guilty because the case involved the Church.

Moksha,

I finally read the complaint. It was filed in Federal Court, so any appeal would be to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The 10th Circuit includes Utah, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Generally, an appeal would be heard and ruled on by a three-judge panel. The panel would not be announced until a week before the oral argument. Although the argument would likely be heard in Salt Lake, that doesn't mean the judges would necessarily be from Utah. They could come from any of the states in the Circuit.

[_Goldenbrass]

From the little I know (public information only) of this case, I think it would be extremely difficult to make that argument.

The statute requires that the "vulnerable adult" have a mental or physical impairment. A history of abuse in itself is insufficient. And it's not enough to merely have a mental or physical impairment. The impairment must substantially affect the persons ability to do at least one of the following:

-- provide personal protection
-- provide necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, or mental or other health care
-- obtain services necessary for health, safety, or welfare
-- carry out the activities of daily living
-- manage the adult's own financial resources
-- comprehend the nature and consequences of remaining in a situation of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

Not to diminish the experiences of abuse victims, but the vast majority would not fall into one of those categories or have those problems. Remember, the standard is not just any impairment, but it has to be substantial. The need for professional counseling doesn't seem to turn some one into a "vulnerable adult" as defined.

I don't think anyone could take what you said to diminish abuse victims. We're all discussing ideas and that means giving different views, I don't claim to know that such a claim would be successful or not but I can see the argument for it, if the facts lined up. The long lasting effects of abuse as a child are wide ranging I think this passage from the "The impact of child sexual abuse on mental health" spells it out for me.

Negative mental health effects that have been consistently associated in the research with child sexual abuse include post-traumatic symptoms (Canton-Cortes & Canton, 2010; O'Leary & Gould, 2009; Ullman,Filipas, Townsend, & Starzynski, 2007); depression (Fergusson et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2002); substance abuse (Lynskey & Fergusson, 1997; O'Leary & Gould, 2009); helplessness, negative attributions, aggressive behaviours and conduct problems; eating disorders (Jonas et al., 2011); and anxiety (Banyard, Williams, & Siegel, 2001; Nelson et al., 2002). More recently child sexual abuse has also been linked to psychotic disorders including schizophrenia and delusional disorder (Bendall, Jackson, Hulbert, & McGorry 2011; Lataster et al., 2006; Wurr & Partridge, 1996) as well as personality disorders (Cutajar, 2010b). Child sexual abuse involving penetration has, in particular, been identified as a risk factor for developing psychotic and schizophrenic syndromes (Cutajar et al., 2010a).

At the most serious extreme of mental health problems, the findings related to suicide ideation, suicide attempts and actual suicides are of particular concern, especially since the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations was instituted at least partly on the basis that 40 Victorian people allegedly abused by Catholic clergy had committed suicide in recent years..

With the case of McKenna from what I've seen she has said that she was sexually abused by her stepfather as a child. I don't know the extent of that sexual abuse but I think that kind of child abuse could definitely cause issues in terms of protecting herself and comprehending "the nature and consequences of remaining in a situation of abuse, neglect, or exploitation". Especially with Joseph Bishop holding group sessions for abused girls at the MTC. Bishop even commented on how one of the abused girls threatened to kill herself during the interview that McKenna held with him.

Further, to create a reporting obligation, the mandatory reporter would have to understand that all of those requirements were there. The standard could be actual knowledge or perhaps a lower standard of reasonableness, where the person either know or should have know had he or she exercised reasonable care. But that's still a high hurdle.

True it is a high hurdle. The bishop former BYU professor Ron. W Leavitt describes her as being "neurotic" at the time to news media, he was aware of her past of being abused and he didn't believe her. The same language that he's using to discredit her could easily be used to argue that he had reason to believe she was a vulnerable adult. I thought it would be interesting to consider if their attempts to discredit her publicly could backfire if it meant they should have reported it.

So an argument that there was a mandatory reporting obligation, you would have to show:

1. The statute was in effect at the time. (I'll have to look this up, but I doubt this statute was around in the 80's, so most likely, this would apply only to when she reported the abuse in 2010 or thereafter.)

If the law requiring mandatory reporting was enacted in 1988 which seems to be the case then it wouldn't apply because she told her Bishop a year before that date.

2. No priest/penitent privilege (which I think can be overcome),

I agree.

3. The victim had a mental or physical disability that substantially impaired one of those life activities.

This would obviously depend on the case, but an adult who survived sexual child abuse by their stepfather could be argued to, but that would obviously depend on the facts of whether she did or didn't and is going to depend on the person.

4. The substantial impairment existed at the time it was reported.

The fact that Joseph Bishop was holding group counselling sessions for these girls could be an argument for it being substantial enough to warrant that at the MTC. As do the descriptions of her made to media by her Bishop.

5. The person who became aware of the abuse allegations was aware (or should have been aware) that she had such a mental or physical disability to substantially impair on of those life activities.

Bishop Ron Leavitt uses the fact that she came across as mentally unstable as the reason he didn't report it, could it be argued then that he could have had reasonable suspicion if he actually believed that?

6. The person who became aware was a mandatory reporter.

When it comes to the vulnerable persons legislation everyone is a mandatory reporter as soon as they have reason to suspect it, but if that legislation wasn't in place at the time then it obviously wouldn't.

Finally, to raise this issue, there would have to be a private cause of action that was not time-barred.

I think there would need to be a private cause of action in tort and most states do not allow for that in abuse cases that require mandatory reporting usually. My main focus in speculating on it was to question whether the Bishop she reported it to actually broke the law or not in failing to report. If he did talk to his Stake President, and his Stake President spoke with Elder Asay and they instructed him to keep quiet there could also be a conspiracy. It wasn't because I thought that the statute of limitations hadn't expired or that criminal or civil action was likely on that basis, I was just speculating about it.

Most mandatory report laws do not seem to be strictly enforced, so the difficulty in a historic case would make it less likely, even if there were no statute of limitations. It's interesting to speculate about it though. It's also interesting to think what the situation would be if a Bishop acted in the same way today with a woman with a similar background who came to him with a similar allegation that was within the statute of limitations.Thanks for your input toon.