BOTR: No statutory duty to report sexual abuse existed at the time of these incidents.
Not the issue.
From the legal documents in the Conti case:
---
First, Watchtower explains how (A)
since Watchtower did not have a special relationship with the Plaintiff (the child of a
congregation member), Watchtower did not have a duty to protect Plaintiff from
sexual abuse by Kendrick, nor did Watchtower have a duty to warn Plaintiff or her
2 parents about Kendrick's alleged past sexual abuse of his stepdaughter. Second,
Watchtower sets forth how (B) the trial court improperly excluded other parties from
sharing any responsibility for the harm claimed by the Plaintiff, and as a
consequence, targeted Watchtower's religious beliefs and practices on confidentiality
in a way that violated Watchtower's First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise
clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. Third, Watchtower
describes how (C) the trial court's imposition upon Watchtower of a duty to protect
with a duty to warn impermissibly entangled the jury in an examination and
assessment of Watchtower's religious beliefs, further violating fundamental
constitutional principles. Fourth, Watchtower demonstrates how (D) the trial court's
imposition upon Watchtower of a duty to protect with a duty to warn improperly
required Watchtower to label a person as a sex offender even though that person had
not been convicted of a crime, in violation of well-established rights to privacy,
liberty, and due process protected under both the United States and California
Constitutions.
[...]
Over Watchtower's objection, the trial court further ruled that based on Juarez
v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. (2000) and Rowland v. Christian
(1968), Watchtower had a "special relationship" with Plaintiff
which gave rise to "a duty to take reasonable protective
measures to protect Candace Conti from the risk of sexual abuse by ... Kendrick."
The trial court also ruled, over Watchtower's objection, that it would instruct
the jury that in determining whether Watchtower took reasonable protective
measures, it "may consider the following: (1) The presence or absence of any
warning; (2) Whether or not any educational programs
were made available to plaintiff, her parents, or to other Jehovah's Witnesses from
the Fremont Congregation . . . for the purpose of sexual abuse education and
prevention; and (3) Such other facts and circumstances contained in the
evidentiary record here as to the presence or absence of protective measures."
Over Watchtower's objection, the trial court further instructed the jury that the
issues of privileged communications and mandatory child abuse reporting were
issues for the court to determine, not the jury. Watchtower objected to the court's privileged
communications instruction on grounds that it was not needed, it was incomplete, and
it would confuse and mislead the jury respecting the reasonableness of Watchtower's
claim of confidentiality based on church doctrine and policy regarding the reasons for
not warning congregation members about Kendrick's prior abuse of his stepdaughter.
Watchtower similarly objected to the court's mandatory child
abuse reporting instruction on the ground that it would confuse and mislead the jury
into believing that perhaps the North Fremont Congregation did have a legal duty to
report Kendrick's abuse of Andrea to the authorities in 1993, as Dr. Salter had
testified, even though California had no such reporting duty for clergy in 1993.
Verdict and Post-Verdict Proceedings.
On June 13, 2012, an Alameda County Superior Court jury returned a
compensatory damages verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against Appellants and
Kendrick for $7.0 million in general and special damages, finding Kendrick 60% at
fault, Watchtower 27% at fault, and North Fremont Congregation 13% at fault, and
further finding that Watchtower alone acted with malice.
The next day, the jury further awarded Plaintiff $21,000,001 in punitive
damages exclusively against Watchtower.
After a hearing on August 13,2012, the trial court entered its post-trial orders on August 24,
2012, denying Watchtower's JNOV motion and conditionally granting a new trial on
the punitive damages awarded against Watchtower unless the Plaintiff accepted
judgment in her favor on punitive damages claim in the amount of $8,610,000.
Subsequently, the Plaintiff accepted the reduced punitive damage
amount, and the court entered an Amended Judgment on September 17, 2012, in the
total gross sum of $11,488,000 against Watchtower and the local congregation.
------------
As the old TV spots used to state: "reading is fundamental".