- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy’s recent thread about the policy of male primary teachers got me thinking about a different, but related topic. It’s a question that perhaps some of you that have served in leadership positions can shed some light on. What does the Church do to address abuse at home, within the family? I suspect that most forms of abuse happen at home, not out in the community. There is physical, sexual and emotional abuse. It can happen from a parent to a child, a sibling to a child, a spouse to another spouse.
I’m curious to know if the Church does any kind of evaluation to look for it, or any counselling for at-risk situations, or talking to people who could be potential victims about reporting it, etc. I know that there is a question in the TR interview that talks about “conduct relating to members of your family”, but that seems so vague. I haven’t been to SS or PM for a while, so I don’t know if it is brought up there now, but for my whole life, it’s been something that has never been really openly discussed at Church. In my state, teachers are required, by law, to report anything suspicious along those lines. Does the Church have any intentional and decisive actions that it takes to protect against abuse from family members?
Part of why I am asking is that I know a person who has been a teacher for a number of years and it’s been surprising and saddening for me to learn how commonly abuse situations arise, right here in my own community. I used to have the misguided concept that this kind of thing was declining, but I’m not so sure about that anymore.
Of course, I hope this thread stays out of things that are too personal, sensational, or sensitive. Just asking in general terms.
When I was put in as PP, I know we were instructed to notify the Bishop immediately if we saw signs of abuse or a child had confided in us. If you pay attention to the kids, you can tell when all is not right in their world without even asking but I never had any huge suspicion or signs that made me worry. We once had a situation where a child was showing some strange symptoms that were not “normal”. He wasn’t necessarily showing signs of abuse but it was a strange thing for any kid, even this one. I mentioned it to the Bishop privately and he asked about it often. I don’t know what his “orders” were. The child never showed any other signs and the poor kid came from a rough place to begin with.
I did find it interesting that in the four years I served, it was brought up much more in leadership meetings as time progressed. It didn’t seem to be such a “hush hush” topic but one that needed addressing.
On Own Now wrote:In my state, teachers are required, by law, to report anything suspicious along those lines. Does the Church have any intentional and decisive actions that it takes to protect against abuse from family members?
I believe this is for any Bishop as well?
It has been discussed multiple times in leadership meetings I’ve attended over the years, and my leaders have asked people in positions of authority (including teachers) to report issues they observe. As with most things, unfortunately, whether or not (and to what extent) that counsel is followed varies radically at the local level. Bishops are told not to try to solve issues of abuse on their own. There is a hotline available to call for legal advice, which is important in some cases to avoid getting in the middle of difficult situations. There is no one legal answer, since, for example, there are states that require reporting of all reasonable suspicions, but there are also can be penalties for false accusations. In some ways, it’s a nightmare landmine for religious leaders – totally apart from the worse nightmare it is for those involved directly.
I think the answer to your title question, broadly, is three-fold:
1) Preach against it – strongly. Generally, that is directed at men (due to cultural assumptions and general statistics) and toward sexual and physical abuse. I have heard emotional abuse addressed, but, frankly, that can be applied so broadly that it loses all practical meaning and could indict almost anyone, so it’s much harder to have any kind of unambiguous policy regarding it.
2) Counsel Bishops and local leaders to turn suspicions and accusations over to the legal authorities. I agree with that directive completely, since most leaders (and not just Mormon leaders) aren’t equipped to handle instances of serious abuse properly. (I don’t mean to overlook or minimize abuse of any kind, but I do believe there are definite degrees of seriousness within the term.)
3) Take whatever measures are reasonable to limit opportunities for abuse at church functions and activities of any kind.
I believe this is a change in policy from the past, when people generally thought these issues could be handled “in-house” – and although I believe the LDS Church has had nowhere close to the issue that faced and still faces the Catholic Church in this regard, I believe that situation and the unfolding of how widespread and serious it was and is has shocked many denominations into addressing more openly what used to be much harder to address.
Curtis, is abuse when parents choose not to give their kids medication that they need? I’m just curious because I have a friend that comes from a dysfunctional family where when she was growing up her parents were supposed to give her medication to help her deal with ADD but they didn’t because they didn’t want her on the medication for the rest of her life. As a young adult, she’s a bit screwed up because of that. She has acted in some pretty destructive ways. As a disclaimer – I have no first hand knowledge of any such cases but I have been able to pull up some cases on the trusty internet. 
Quote:“Congregational leaders are instructed to obey the law and have access to a 24-hour helpline to assist them,” according to the statement. “We contacted local authorities as soon as we learned of the situation and will continue to work with them until it is resolved.”
Quote:Utah law requires anyone who “has reason to believe that a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, or who observes a child being subjected to conditions or circumstances which would reasonably result in abuse or neglect” to report that information immediately to police or to the state Division of Child and Family Services.
Members of the clergy are exempt from the reporting requirement only if they learn about abuse through a confession from the abuser, unless that person grants them consent to disclose the information.The LDS Church provides training for its lay clergy on how to handle disclosures of abuse, said church spokesman Scott Trotter. It also maintains a hotline that clergy members can call for legal advice.
I also found it interesting that it would seem that the church might pay for the lawyer for Bishops that get into trouble on this issue. I don’t have any objection to that nessessarily. The Bishop was acting as a Bishop when he broke law – he wouldn’t have been in that situation if he hadn’t been a bishop – AND convictions might embolden civil litigation against the church itself.
Ilovechrist77 wrote:Curtis, is abuse when parents choose not to give their kids medication that they need? I’m just curious because I have a friend that comes from a dysfunctional family where when she was growing up her parents were supposed to give her medication to help her deal with ADD but they didn’t because they didn’t want her on the medication for the rest of her life. As a young adult, she’s a bit screwed up because of that. She has acted in some pretty destructive ways.
I’m not sure this qualifies as abuse in the legal sense unless the medication was necessary to stay alive.
I try to be charitable in other people’s parenting decisions. Knowing that we are all works in progress and “a bit screwed up” and largely doing the best that we can/know how to raise our kids.
I also would be wary of the state being able to take away my kids over decisions to medicate or not.
Roy wrote:Ilovechrist77 wrote:Curtis, is abuse when parents choose not to give their kids medication that they need? I’m just curious because I have a friend that comes from a dysfunctional family where when she was growing up her parents were supposed to give her medication to help her deal with ADD but they didn’t because they didn’t want her on the medication for the rest of her life. As a young adult, she’s a bit screwed up because of that. She has acted in some pretty destructive ways.
I’m not sure this qualifies as abuse in the legal sense unless the medication was necessary to stay alive.
I try to be charitable in other people’s parenting decisions. Knowing that we are all works in progress and “a bit screwed up” and largely doing the best that we can/know how to raise our kids.
I also would be wary of the state being able to take away my kids over decisions to medicate or not.
I agree with Roy. I have a son with a medical condition, and it is very hard on the parents. Taken with personality issues between parents and children, it would be a severe blow to then be charged with abuse when you feel you are doing as much as you can, even if everything is not perfect.
At worst, ILC, that situation legally would be neglect – but, as others have said, I am very hesitant to accept legal punishment for something like the situation you described or to label it abuse. There are so many theories out there, even among professionals, about how best to handle ADHD (and other things like depression) that I hesitate to punish someone for not wanting to medicate their child with ADHD (as much as I personally believe there are lots of situations where medication is the best option, at the very least temporarily, and, in some cases, long-term). I served my mission in Japan and arrived in time to see a case where Jehovah’s Witness parents refused to allow their critically ill son to receive a blood transfusion that would have saved his life. It was a very simple decision: blood transfusion and life or no blood transfusion and death. Complicating the situation was the fact that the son was about 13-14, meaning he was old enough to understand the decisions and go on TV and beg his parents to allow the transfusion. They refused, due to their religious beliefs, and he died – very publicly. (As an aside, LDS missionaries throughout the country were required to give blood immediately, so we could wear the Red Cross pin on our suits in order to distinguish us from the Jehovah’s Witnesses.) The parents were not charged with any crime.
I understand, intellectually, both their decision and the legal decision that followed, but . . . This is an area where I am torn, deeply. When two strongly held beliefs clash . . . I could never agree with their decision, but I can’t say they are guilty of child abuse.
Curtis wrote:I served my mission in Japan and arrived in time to see a case where Jehovah’s Witness parents refused to allow their critically ill son to receive a blood transfusion that would have saved his life. It was a very simple decision: blood transfusion and life or no blood transfusion and death. Complicating the situation was the fact that the son was about 13-14, meaning he was old enough to understand the decisions and go on TV and beg his parents to allow the transfusion. They refused, due to their religious beliefs, and he died – very publicly. (As an aside, LDS missionaries throughout the country were required to give blood immediately, so we could wear the Red Cross pin on our suits in order to distinguish us from the Jehovah’s Witnesses.) The parents were not charged with any crime.
I understand that when these types of situations happen in the U.S. there is some type of advocate appointed for the child. I remember a mother and son that were on the run from the law for refusing a life saving medical procedure about 4 years ago. Of course, those are very extreme cases.
For every church member who believes it’s abuse not to give a child ADD his or her prescribed medication, there’s at least one member who feels it is abuse tomedicate in those cases. (Exhibit One, my Utahn mother-in-law, who believes that a gluten-free diet cures bipolar disorder.) The Church would be very, very wise to stay clear of that kind of debate, which very quickly devolves into a battle of pointing fingers. OK. That makes sense. I figured I had to ask. I guess it’s one of those issues where it isn’t that simple. If I had a child that needed to go on medication for anything and I didn’t medication was right I would talk to the doctor first about it. I think how the church handles abuse is highly dependent on who the local leader is (like too many other things). Our ward has had a couple issues with this, neither of which I agree were handled appropriately. I’m sure different bishops/SPs would have handled them differently. Commenting on the side discussion here, my bishop (not the bishop in question in the above situations) when I was a counselor actually called the church hotline once with the question on what he was legally required to report – in other words was he a mandated reporter. He was referred to the church legal department where he was told that in NY pastors are not mandated reporters but they were certainly free to report if they wished, just like anyone else. This apparently varies state to state.
Even my son’s pediatrician is iffy on medication for ADHD. My son takes it, but a very low dosage, and he doesn’t take it on days he doesn’t have school. Every ADHD med has side effects, often worse than the ADHD (which is why you usually have to try several). None of them is a panacea. DarkJedi wrote:Commenting on the side discussion here, my bishop (not the bishop in question in the above situations) when I was a counselor actually called the church hotline once with the question on what he was legally required to report – in other words was he a mandated reporter. He was referred to the church legal department where he was told that in NY pastors are not mandated reporters but they were certainly free to report if they wished, just like anyone else. This apparently varies state to state.
Not to beat a dead horse here – but this would seem to bolster my argument that the church policies are pimarily motivated by church organizational/litigation priorities. I still believe that abuse is abhorred, just not necessarily more abhorred in the LDS organization than in the Catholic or BSA. I believe it is in the nature of almost all organizations to look after their own interests first and foremost.
If reporting is in place to protect the abused – so much so that many states have laws requiring reporting – and if the church were also primarily motivated to protect the abused, why would the church not require all of its representatives/church leaders to report suspicions regardless of the state laws in the area? Or require that bishops report confessions of abuse by the abuser?
As a business man, I likewise operate with organizational/litigation priorities – so perhaps that colors my bias. Nevertheless that is my view.
Quote:Why would the church not require all of its representatives/church leaders to report suspicions regardless of the state laws in the area?
Because, in some jurisdictions, people can be sued if their reports lead to prosecution in cases that turn out to be invalid – and there are false claims made, even though most are valid. In quite a few places, avoiding lawsuits requires more than “suspicions”. In those places, there must be some kind of reasonable evidence, as well. Otherwise, people with grudges, most notably parents engaged in bitter divorce disputes, could report “suspicions” with no worry about consequences for false allegations.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.