Jane Doe 1 Vs. LDS Church Berkley Springs, WV

[Just This Guy]

Many of you remember me going on and on on the old boards about a lawsuit in my area where several church leaders conspired to cover up the child molestation by the son of a member of the local stake presidency.

I haven't paid too much attention to it lately, but I found that the process is STILL ongoing. The latest news is that the church and their lawyers tried to get a lot of the evidence about the conspiracy part taken out of the case. It was allowed by the local judge, but then overturned and reinstated by the state supreme court. So that has mostly cleared the way for this case to go before a jury.

https://www.journal-news.net/news/local ... e-forward/

[2bizE]

I remember reading about this a few months ago. I wonder if the church will continue to fight this or will just pay the families out of sacred tithing money to cover it up...my guess is the latter.

[Just This Guy]

From what I can tell, the lawyers are really pushing this to go to trail and so far they keep it moving in that direction.

[Give It Time]

I'm glad this is, at least, getting some publicity and coverage.

[Not Buying It]

I'm pretty sure this kind of thing has happened a lot. I know for a fact it occurred in my stake about 25 years ago. The Church is lucky there aren't more lawsuits. And make no mistake, the Church is to blame for all the decades of putting men in positions of leadership and never training them on how to handle cases like this. Sure, they do a better job now than they did, but for years you had Bishops and Stake Presidents who didn't have the first clue what to do in molestation cases (although it ought to be common sense that you call the police).

[Red Ryder]

The Church is wealthy enough that there aren't more lawsuits.

I fixed that for you.

[oliblish]

If you listen to the Mormon Stories interview of therapist Natasha Helfer Parker she states that one of the reasons she won't pay tithing is the LDS church’s tendency to silence and pay off rape victims to keep them quiet and to avoid law suits. I think she would like to say more but she would probably get sued and lose her license.

http://www.mormonstories.org/natasha-he ... therapist/

[moksha]

Law suits like this are easily quashed within the Jell-O Belt.

[Just This Guy]

It is interesting that it is still ongoing here. In Utah they tend to settle more. They keep this one going and are still ontrack for a jury trial. Partially the law firm pushing this along has a history of taking on large church, including Roman Cathloc, successfully. It is interesting that this has gone before the state supreme court twice and in both cases LDS/K&M got their butts served to them. It does make me wonder if this same case was in Utah if the courts would be as objective.

[sc89]

If I remember right from the old boards, the victims and their families refused to settle. They want it to be public.

[Rob4Hope]

Good for those families to push this.

I recall reading about how the Federal Government had problems prosecuting Brigham Young because they couldn't find an impartial jury--the whole state was afraid of the guy, and no one dared to vote against him.

It saddens me there are still such things going on with political/financial/religious power being wielded by those in places of power who close their eyes to morality or the hurt such coverups cause.

[tryingtogetitright]

I have read the original complaint and response, as well as some additional information about the case. It is pretty clear that what this mom/rs pres did put children at risk. And dad who was bishop (or branch pres, I don't recall), either actively helped or at least did not take steps to prevent. In my mind there is no doubt at all that both of them should lose their home and all their possessions to the families of the children their son hurt.

The issue is whether the LDS church should be on the hook for the damages. Clearly assigning babysitters is not an RSP function, even when people are using babysitters because they are going on a temple excursion. Should the church be liable when a member asks the RSP for a recommendation and she offers up her son, whom she had good reason to know was a pedophile and preyed on children? Dad (also Bishop) did not disclose to SP his son's issues, and therefore the SP also didn't know to protect people, when the handbook clearly requires a notation on church records (though I don't recall if Dad/Bishop was the bishop at the time the record should have been notated at first).

It comes as no surprise, that the injured parties want the church to be on the financial hook for damages. And in most of the sexual abuse claims, plaintiffs counsel also has a secondary desire to get access to church financial records to make them public.

I find the recent court order allowing testimony that the hotline is set up not to protect children but to protect the church to be interesting because doing that once prompted widespread public appreciation for the new steps to protect children. I'm not sure who would testify about the issue in any factual way. Any expert testimony on why the church did it is surely inadmissable on Daubert grounds? But apparently not.

It is hard to see with the awfulness of the facts related to the offense, how the church could even get a fair hearing on whether anythign the church did contributed to what these members did.

[Give It Time]

I have read the original complaint and response, as well as some additional information about the case. It is pretty clear that what this mom/rs pres did put children at risk. And dad who was bishop (or branch pres, I don't recall), either actively helped or at least did not take steps to prevent. In my mind there is no doubt at all that both of them should lose their home and all their possessions to the families of the children their son hurt.

The issue is whether the LDS church should be on the hook for the damages. Clearly assigning babysitters is not an RSP function, even when people are using babysitters because they are going on a temple excursion. Should the church be liable when a member asks the RSP for a recommendation and she offers up her son, whom she had good reason to know was a pedophile and preyed on children? Dad (also Bishop) did not disclose to SP his son's issues, and therefore the SP also didn't know to protect people, when the handbook clearly requires a notation on church records (though I don't recall if Dad/Bishop was the bishop at the time the record should have been notated at first).

It comes as no surprise, that the injured parties want the church to be on the financial hook for damages. And in most of the sexual abuse claims, plaintiffs counsel also has a secondary desire to get access to church financial records to make them public.

I find the recent court order allowing testimony that the hotline is set up not to protect children but to protect the church to be interesting because doing that once prompted widespread public appreciation for the new steps to protect children. I'm not sure who would testify about the issue in any factual way. Any expert testimony on why the church did it is surely inadmissable on Daubert grounds? But apparently not.

It is hard to see with the awfulness of the facts related to the offense, how the church could even get a fair hearing on whether anythign the church did contributed to what these members did.

Adding to these comments:

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... rspective/

This is precisely why I see the church keeping the clergy lay and untrained and using a handbook, rather than employees who are paid representatives of the church, as ward leadership is actually pretty insidious. Bishops, retain a lawyer.

[Rob4Hope]

this is a very good article. Two deep leadership. yep