Child Protection Policy "Victim" - Legalism Gone Mad

by Stephanus 9 Replies latest jw friends

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Since a second person in our church faced criminal charges of paedophilia, the church decided to get serious about taking steps to ensure the safety of children in the congregation (N.B. There is no-one currently in the church that are victims of these two - both the "gentlemen" in question did what they did decades ago)

    Our boys go to the church youth group on a Friday night and can walk there (20-25mins) but usually need a lift back (it's dark) and especially if the group is going somewhere, like to ten pin bowling (we don't drive). One Friday, the youngest (12) went on his own - he was told to ring us when he got there and make sure that he asked around among the group leaders to ensure he got a lift home. he rang us when he got there, and we assumed everything would be fine from then on.

    Our first whiff of the new "child protection policy" was when we received a phone call from the youngest - he was calling from an older (15 year old) friend's place. Apparently at the end of the night when he was supposed to get a lift home, the leaders said they couldn't take him because of the new child protection policy, which required at least two adults to be in a car transporting children/youth anywhere. So basically, in the name of child protection, they were going to shut up the church hall and let a child find his own way home through the dark, on a twenty five minute walk at 9:30pm on a Friday night. Had we been called, one of us could have walked up to the church and met our son to escort him safely home on foot, but no such call came.

    Fortunately, our son's 15 year old friend was gifted with more brains and compassion than these 20-something youth leaders, so he gave our son a lift on the handle-bars of his bicycle to his own place, a further 5-10 mins walk away, where he called us and told us he'd be waiting for the friend's mum (a friend of my wife's) to come home and give him a lift back. She was back soon after and did give him the lift back.

    The following Sunday at night church, the pastor made reference to the incident, making fun of it and suggesting that it was a triumph of the new policy - sort of "See how dilligent we are in enforcing the new policy. My wife went ballistic, and at the first oppportunity, she bailed the pastor up and gave him both barrels, asking "What kind of a 'child protection' policy leaves a child stranded in the dark, late on a Friday night, 25 mins walk from home??"

    To me it's a classic case of legalism in the church - where a principle spawns rules, and the enforcement of the rules becomes more important than the principle and (by extension) the people that the rules are supposed to protect. In this case it was the "two adults in the car" rule that was enforced at the sacrifice of the actual safety of a child in their protection.

    Those of us on this board are well familiar with a similar sacrifice of principle for rules - the infamous "two witnesses" rule that, instead of being used as an evidence gathering tool as was intended in Biblical times, has been applied to the letter so as to absolve those in power from needing to get involved in a very sticky and problematic area.

  • DanTheMan
    DanTheMan

    Actually the policy doesn't sound like a bad idea, and what's the point of having it if people don't do their best to abide by it, not shelving it at a moment's notice (not to minimize your situation). Thumbs-down though to the youth leaders who didn't seem to want to lift a finger to try to make transportation arrangements for your son.

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus
    Actually the policy doesn't sound like a bad idea

    You're totally right - it's technically a good idea, and correctly included in the new policy.

    Thumbs-down though to the youth leaders who didn't seem to want to lift a finger to try to make transportation arrangements for your son.

    That's the bit that drove us both crazy - instead of all the youth leaders driving home singly in empty cars, how hard would it have been for leader 1 to ask leader 2: "Hey - got a minute? Can you come with me while I drop this guy off at home? It's all of 5 minute's drive."

    We're not the only carless ones in the church, with kids who go to youth group, either.

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    PS, DantheMan, love the Fred Hall avatar - makes me crack up whenever I see it!

  • adelmaal
    adelmaal

    Were they not wise enough to have thought of two men getting into a car and taking your son home prior to taking themselves home. Personally, it sounds to me like they didn't want to be inconvenienced by the new policy or they would have erred on the side of safety by carpooling your son home then going back so they could then proceed home separately themselves. A bit out of the way, yes... In compliance of the policy, yes. I'm glad your wife let them have it! A phone call was the least they could have done...

  • avishai
    avishai
    What kind of a 'child protection' policy leaves a child stranded in the dark, late on a Friday night, 25 mins walk from home??"

    This is'nt really a policy to protect kids, it seems to me. It's to cover the church's ass from financial liability.

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus
    This is'nt really a policy to protect kids, it seems to me. It's to cover the church's ass from financial liability.

    Avishai, the term "arse-covering" did come up several times in conversations. As for financial liability, the church has none as the two previous incidents were not on its watch. If the church has a fault, I think that it's naivety - people are used to calling a spade a spade, and if someone says that they're sorry about something and that it's all in the past, they are happy with that. I've been trying for years, ever since the Silent Lambs scandals came out in the open, to get my pastor to take an interest in the problem of paedophiles in churches and to get serious about formulating formal game-plans. (They're doing it, finally, although extremely clumsily - the point of this whole thread) We've also been asking him what kind of message we're sending to the victims and the community when the pastor is seen publically standing by the "repentent" perps in court, to give them moral support.

    The trouble is, the responses are being made by people who don't really understand the problem and its repercussions. I'd love to get involed in the discussions on the subject, but I'm seen as tilting too far the other way - I was practically getting ready to organise a lynch mob for the first convicted paedophile in our midst - I became aware that his "repentance" was all a polite front, and that he saw himself a victim of the whole thing, and may well have been biding his time, gaining trust until he had a chance to strike again - just as my own boys were approaching the age of his former victims at the time of his (known) crimes!

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus
    I'm glad your wife let them have it!

    Must have scared the crap out of him - they're used to her being all sweet and meek! She can be quite a firebrand when she gets going...

    It seems to have increased their respect for her, though - she was asked to lead the womens' bible study this week when the pastor's wife was sick this week.

    A phone call was the least they could have done...

    That's the bit that really riled us - we would have been glad to do the 25 minute walk, had we been told the situation and had we been asked - it's not like these youth leaders don't have mobile (cell) phones, is it!

    Actually, it just occurred to me that someone could have driven down to our place (it's like a 2 minute drive) and taken one of us back to the church, then picked up our son and driven everyone home - heck, I'd even offer to compensate for petrol if that was a problem!

  • talesin
    talesin
    may well have been biding his time, gaining trust until he had a chance to strike again - just as my own boys were approaching the age of his former victims at the time of his (known) crimes!

    I'm glad to read that you are being watchful --- paedophiles are re-offenders!

    The fact that charges stem from years ago only means that they have not been caught. These men are still dangerous ...

    I would say these "youth leaders" need to learn some serious skills. The policy, in and of itself, is not bad, but who would let anyone babysit their child who is that irresponsible, let alone have them in charge of a whole group of younger kids?

    Were there not 2 youth leaders? Then, they should have driven your child home together, then gone back to retrieve the other's car or whatever. How can they be so stunned at 20 years of age?

    t

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus
    I'm glad to read that you are being watchful --- paedophiles are re-offenders!

    It was when I was told that that I began listening to that bloke's throwaway comments more carefully - some of them made the hairs on my neck stand up, as I began to realise that the "repentance" was only for show, and that deep down he was only sorry that he'd been convicted.

    I would say these "youth leaders" need to learn some serious skills. The policy, in and of itself, is not bad, but who would let anyone babysit their child who is that irresponsible, let alone have them in charge of a whole group of younger kids?

    The interesting thing about the 15yo who came to the rescue is that he's supposed to be becoming increasingly rebellious and irresponsible in his teen years - wrong crowd, rebelling against parents, etc. However, he showed way more common sense and responsibility than the official youth group leaders! Next time I see him, I intend to compliment and encourage him for his foresight and good work.

    Were there not 2 youth leaders? Then, they should have driven your child home together, then gone back to retrieve the other's car or whatever. How can they be so stunned at 20 years of age?
    The young couple who were the youth leaders last year have, unfortunately for us, been headhunted by another church that can afford to pay them a living wage. The current lot seem to be doing it more out of a sense of obligation than anything, and haven't been doing much towards getting it up and running.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit