I'm reading through the JW rebuttal, because that's what they've done, of the suggested findings. Incredible attitude from them. They're now claiming:
"Irrespective of whether a parent or guardian of an abused child takes responsible action, if a congregation elder believes that children are at risk, then the elder can inform the authorities so that children are protected." (which cites Jackson's evidence to support it)
"The safety of the victim and other children is paramount. In cases where the parent or guardian of a minor fails to take necessary measures to protect the child, a congregation elder can inform the authorities for the protection of the child or other children."
But they need mandated reporting, which allows no loopholes for them to avoid reporting, because they firmly believe in the right of the family to be free from interference in such matters? Which is it? The whole point of mandated reporting is to place child safety first. That's why we report. Because Brothers Dimwit and Footinmouth really aren't best qualified to be making those calls.
Deeply bizarre response from them. Not unexpected. But, even so, how can they be so willfully blind?