Breaking News: Berry girls lose high court appeal

by loveis 57 Replies latest jw friends

Elsewhere

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/special/7_16special.htm
7-16-2005
Court upholds dismissal of civil case against church
By Associated Press

CONCORD, N.H. - The state Supreme Court has ruled that a Wilton church cannot be sued for failing to protect two young sisters from sexual abuse.
The two sisters, now 26 and 23, sued the Jehovah's Witnesses congregation in Wilton and the national Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in 2003, charging local church elders did not notify civil authorities about the abuse Paul Berry had inflicted on them as children. But the state's highest court on Friday sided with a lower court in dismissing their suit.
Berry is serving 56 to 112 years in prison for sexually abusing his stepdaughter. Charges that he also abused his biological daughter were dropped after his conviction in the first case in 2000.
During his trial, the sisters' mother testified that she had confided numerous times to church elders that Berry was physically and emotionally abusing the girls but was told to remain quiet, pray more and try to be a better spouse.
The court ruled that though church elders had a moral obligation to intervene, they had no legal duty to do so.
"Unfortunately the church has been told it is not responsible," said attorney Marci Hamilton, who represented the sisters.
The court echoed the lower court's ruling that even if someone violates the state law requiring an individual _ regardless of profession or clerical duty_ to report suspected child abuse, the violation does not allow a civil remedy.
The sisters also claimed they had a special relationship with the Wilton congregation and the Watchtower body, and thus the church had a duty to protect them. But the court majority ruled that no such relationship existed because church attendance is not compulsory, the sisters were not under the custody of the church, and the abuse did not occur on church property.
"Although their positions in the Wilton Congregation invested them with a strong moral obligation to do all reasonably possible to stop the abuse, it would be inappropriate to transform a moral obligation into a common law duty," Chief Justice John Broderick wrote for the majority.
The majority, though, placed fault on Poisson. "She had her own independent and overarching duty to protect her children from abuse perpetrated by her husband and had a common law obligation to intervene regardless of any advice she received," Broderick wrote.
This page has been printed from the following URL:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/special/7_16special.htm
Elsewhere

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57804
High court rejects claim against Wilton church
By NANCY MEERSMAN
Union Leader Staff
CONCORD — The state Supreme Court ruled, 3-1, yesterday that two girls who were molested by their father cannot sue the Wilton Jehovah’s Witness congregation and the church’s governing body for allegedly concealing the abuse from authorities.
The high court said although the criminal statutes require the Jehovah’s Witnesses to report to police any sex abuse against children, they cannot be held liable in civil court if they do not report it.
Justice Linda S. Dalianis, in a dissenting opinion, concluded that the church did have a common law duty to the victims.
She pointed out that the children’s mother made approximately a dozen complaints to church elders and they instructed her not to report it to authorities and advised her to “be silent about the abuse and to be a better wife.”
Paul Berry was convicted in 2001 of molesting one of the two accusers and is serving a 56-year prison sentence on 24 sexual assault counts.
Holly Berry and her sister, Heather, sued the church in Hillsborough County Superior Court-Southern District in 2001, alleging it was the church’s practice to conceal abuse accusations from secular authorities. They said members of the congregation risked “disfellowship” if they did go to police.
The defendants were the Wilton congregation and the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York.
Superior Court Judge William J. Groff dismissed the case, but on the ground that church elders were protected by religious privilege. The high court did not take up that issue.
Dalianis said the elders by muzzling the mother, in effect, became facilitators of the criminal acts and therefore could be held civilly liable for not doing anything to prevent the assaults.
Brian Cullen, a lawyer for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, said if the civil case had gone to trial, the church would have put on evidence showing that church elders did not, in fact, know about the abuse.
Cullen, an attorney with Devine, Millimet and Branch, said majority opinion steered clear of holding everyone liable for protecting everyone else under all circumstances.
“Nobody disputes this was a tragedy for the kids involved and that they went through things that should happen to nobody. But the question is, who’s responsible?,” Cullen said. “The congregation disputes it had any knowledge of the crimes.”
He explained that the court assumed solely for the purpose of deciding the legal issues that the church knew about the abuse. The high court makes no determination of the facts; that is the role of the lower courts.
“Everyone has the duty to report suspected child abuse, but it doesn’t give rise to civil liability if you fail,” Cullen said.
Jared O’Connor, the Nashua attorney for the plaintiffs, said he was disappointed in the decision but he understood the court’s reluctance expand common law liability.
“It means clergy abuse victims in New Hampshire are going to have to turn to the Legislature if justice is to be done,” he said.
He said the victims, now 23 and 26, felt they were wronged by the church and were “quite brave in coming forward.”
O’Connor said although it was the “end of the road” for the lawsuit, he hopes the reasoning in the dissent will “give other courts food for thought.”
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) had been monitoring the case.
“It’s terribly disappointing; our hearts ache for these brave young women,” said SNAPS national director David Clohessy.
“I think the ball is now squarely in the legislators’ court. They have to reform the statute of limitations and other laws to protect kids and to expose predators and those who enable them, transfer them and shield them.”
loveis

bttt; anyone know of any editorials or Opinion page pieces commenting on the case? What would you say in a letter to the Opinion page of one of the above newspapers?
Sparkplug

I have been trying to finish in between work reading about this case. I must say it is a very sad day. I salute them for making a stir...at least.
My heart goes out to them
blondie

That's an idea loveis, if some who post on JWD could post their feelings about this on the opinion page of the newspapers in that area. Of course, we wouldn't want to make it an attack on the WTS since these same laws are used by other religious organizations, such as the Roman Catholic Church, to hide behind. Stress the need to strengthen the laws regarding reporting and the statute of limitations and why should a religious institution be able to hide behind the 1st amendment when it comes to reporting felonies. That not reporting should be more than a misdemeanor, etc. Here are 2 newspaper, post others that you find.
Concord Monitor
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?Url=/forms/opinion/letter_to_editor.pbs
Portsmouth Herald News Letters to the Editor
To write a letter to the editor please email [email protected]
loveis

Thought I might bttt this since it was mentioned in the Vermont news article.
Interesting how Poisson said she was now a "confirmed atheist." and how the Witness interviewed said the all the adverse publicity from the case didn't affect their "recruitment" much.
loveis

In view of the more recent cases progressing in California and other places, thought I might (bump) this for a new round of debate.
What do you think? Will the newer cases fare better?
JWdaughter

I don't know if things ARE changing yet, although there are some signs of hope. . .I do however know that I will be speaking with MY local congresspersons. I wish I would have a little earlier-as primaries are tomorrow, but I think it is a good thing to pursue. If there is a duty to report, there should be some consequences for NOT doing so. Serious ones, as the things they are NOT reporting are quite serious. I feel that in light of the place that the church, religion, faith etc has in our society that there should be a HIGHER duty by those in religious authority to protect weaker ones, whether they are in or out of the church in question. In any church where there is any amount of control--and it isn't just KH's/Jehovah's Witnesses/Watchtower, there is more likelihood that many things will never go further than the elders unless the elders take it further. Child abuse, of any kind, should be reported-or they should be treated as accomplices to the crime. If a teacher did not report abuse, they would be fired and sued. Why not a minister(or a reasonable facsimile thereof-such as an JW elder)? Shelly

Breaking News: Berry girls lose high court appeal

Share this