The Illinois elders going on trial this month DID NOT REPORT, and the child WAS in danger, her father continued to abuse this little girl, so it’s just 💩when they say they’ll report if a kid is in danger. Liars.
Religious groups in UK failing children over sex abuse, report says - BBC News
by ballistic 25 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
slimboyfat
Hi Earnest, where is this policy stated in print? And was it issued as an instruction to all elders that all elders will be aware of?
Assuming that it is a written policy, and elders have been made aware of it, are JW elders, or the Watchtower legal department, in any position to assess whether children are at risk or not? As long as any sex offender has got away with crimes, then children in general remain at risk. Perhaps not the original person making the allegation, if many years have passed, but other children, certainly. This surely is one of the reasons for mandatory reporting in general, to protect and prevent future victims. The idea of a sex offender at large that doesn’t pose any risk is not really a thing, is it? And mandatory reporting that excludes cases where elders judge no risk is not really “mandatory reporting”. It’s optional reporting, based on their own assessment.
The recent Watchtower article on the topic made no reference to any kind of mandatory reporting, as I recall. Instead it said that victims, parents or others concerned have a “right” to go to the police. Which doesn’t suggest a policy of mandatory reporting by elders.
-
Earnest
Biahi, the policy that is referred to is Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection and was published in 2018, and is available on the website.
The Illinois elders became aware of possible child sexual abuse in July 2006 and the congregation were warned not to leave their children alone with the perpetrator. It was reported to the police in 2018 when the victim told the elders the abuse had not stopped.
So while we know this hasn't always been the policy it has been since 2018.
slimboyfat : where is this policy stated in print?
The policy which Paul Gillies refers to can be found on the website here. Item 5 in particular states :
When elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, they immediately consult with the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses to ensure compliance with child abuse reporting laws. (Romans 13:1) Even if the elders have no legal duty to report an accusation to the authorities, the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses will instruct the elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse or there is some other valid reason. Elders also ensure that the victim’s parents are informed of an accusation of child abuse. If the alleged abuser is one of the victim’s parents, the elders will inform the other parent.
The "Shepherd the Flock of God" book in chapter 14 on child abuse says two elders should immediately call the Legal Department when they learn of an accusation of child abuse. A call should be made even when both persons involved are minors. The elders must make the call themselves.
The branch office would be able to assess whether children in the congregation were at risk by questioning the elders at length. However, I completely agree with you that does not take account of those outside the congregation. I am not endorsing the policy I am simply telling you what it is.
-
BluesBrother
Thanks Earnest , and others, for clarification of the reporting policy. So they do report IF they think a child is at further risk. That is a big IF and a big responsibility to shoulder.
They could save themselves a lot of heat by 2 simple rule changes
1) report every allegation
2) have criminal background checks for elders and M/s
-
Vidiot
@ BluesBrother...
Never gonna happen.
Know why?
'Cause both would result in further investigation...
...which runs too high a risk (from the Org's POV) of revealing a history of further non-reporting of more abuse (not to mention an even greater shortage of otherwise "qualified" brothers no longer able to run the Org at the grassroots level).
In addition (and for more importantly), the information increasingly becoming part of the public record becomes more and more accessible to the rank-and-file, which, in turn, too deeply undermines the fiction of "God's Earthly Organization".
From the WTS's perspective, that simply cannot be permitted, at any cost.
-
Earnest
Vidiot, when Paul Gillies testified before the Commission, p.40, he said that if the inquiry recommends a form of mandatory reporting and parliament agrees, then Jehovah's Witnesses will comply with whatever the terms are of the mandatory reporting law, as they currently do in the country of Ireland.
Section H.2 (para. 36) of the IICSA report on "Matters to be explored further by the Inquiry" says that mandatory reporting as well as vetting and barring will be addressed in the final report.Personally, I think that the Watchtower Society and most elders would prefer it to be mandatory because then everyone knows where they stand. If it was mandatory and you tell an elder of child sexual abuse, either now or in the distant past, then you know the secular authorities would be informed. In my personal opinion I don't think that is always a good thing because it may mean that some who were sexually abused in their childhood and are now suffering mental, emotional and spiritual trauma as a result, will just keep it to themselves rather than risk the added trauma of recalling the details for a police investigation and the subsequent publicity. That will be of no help to the victim or to the wider society who will remain ignorant of the abuse.
-
jhine
Earnest, you are saying that it took from 2006 to 2018 for this abuse to be reported!!!!. When the victim said that the abuse hadn't stopped !!!!! .
That is deemed acceptable? What was happening to the victim during all that time ? Did any one care ?
You say this as if that lets the WT off the hook . You cannot seriously believe that they acted responsibly .
Sorry , l know that l am being very confrontational but maybe it needs that to highlight everything that is wrong with that statement.
Jan
-
Earnest
Hi jhine, your questions are natural given the limited information I provided and I certainly don't think you are confrontational.
I was not familiar with the details of this case but did know it concerned an allegation in 2006. My post was a response to Biahi's statement that they were liars in saying to the IICSA that their current policy is mandatory reporting "if a kid is in danger".
The case against the two elders for not reporting the abuse was scheduled for July 28 this year but the State requested it be postponed until September 23. So, we will know more then whether anyone cared and whether they acted responsibly. However, I have managed to piece together some details of the case from reports in the Chicago Tribune on 23 October 2019 and 20 December 2019.
I should note that what happened to this little girl over a period of nearly thirteen years is chilling and heart-wrenching, but in answering the question about the time it took for the elders to report the abuse we have to ask what they knew and when they knew it. According to the girl's testimony the abuse by a family member started in 2005 when she was 6. At some point she told her mother of the abuse and on 27 July 2006 the elders of the congregation were informed. They intervened and the abuse stopped for a short time. But soon the assaults started up again and escalated. The perpetrator threatened her that if she ever reported the assaults again he would kill her, her mother and her brother. I understand from the newspaper account that she didn't report the ongoing abuse to anyone again until October 2018 which was when the elders reported it to the police.
How could no-one know what was going on. There are two paragraphs in the October 2019 newspaper report which explain it :
Hernandez-Pedraza’s attorney, Assistant Public Defender Angelo Mourelatos, told jurors in opening statements that the girl at one point lived in the basement of a home with 10 people and no one reported seeing or hearing anything.
The girl later moved to an apartment with her family but said the assaults continued and intensified. She said the assaults occurred in the daytime when no one else was home and many times, as she got older, Hernandez-Pedraza made her take a pregnancy test.
In trying to understand the course the elders took I am not minimising the gravity of any form of abuse of a 6-year-old girl. But the elders claim that while the "most serious" acts occurred between 2013 and 2018, they knew nothing beyond the initial allegation they heard on 27 July 2006.
So, it isn't a case of the elders knowing of ongoing abuse for thirteen years and not reporting it to the authorities, but one where they immediately took action within the congregation when they first heard of it in 2006 and believed the abuse had ended. That doesn't let anyone off the hook but it makes it more understandable on a human level.
-
jhine
Earnest, thank you for that. I know that l let emotion take over from reason when l posted and l did wonder if l had gone a bit far .
I would hope that lessons were learnt from this.
Jan
-
Earnest
This case has now been postponed until 4th November 2021.
The papers in the case show that the elders had one meeting with the perpetrator on July 27, 2006 and also had a separate meeting with his wife about the same time. The case against the elders for not reporting the abuse is based on what they were told at this time, not on what subsequently happened in the next ten years which they did not know about.