Thank you for the information and opinions. I had assumed that the laws and procedures in our two countries (in North America) are similar. Unfortunately, apparently not.
Note: It sounds as if child abuse is considered a civil matter in this particular jurisdiction at least? I assumed, again, that it is categorized as criminal in both our countries. I believe that here in Canada, though, the distinction doesn't matter for this or any other subject, as citizens have leave to appeal civil and criminal matters to the Supreme Court of Canada. (However, I could easily be mistaken on this point - no time right now to check it out comprehensively, sorry). However, true enough, the SCC grants appeals only under strict guidelines which does limit a person's ability to be heard there.
On the face of it, the matter described in the OP seems blatantly unjust. It's hard to imagine that this situation could be tolerated.
Following are excerpts from two articles I have recently come across that touch on this topic:
From an Ontario, Canada government site re a citizen’s duty to report child abuse (NB: Duty to report is similar across the country):
“Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect: It's Your Duty”
http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/childrensaid/reportingabuse/abuseandneglect.aspxExcerpts:
“The Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) recognizes that each of us has a responsibility for the welfare of children.
“We all share a responsibility to protect children from harm. This includes situations where children are abused or neglected in their own homes. Ontario's CYFSA provides protection for these children.
“Section 125 of the CYFSA states that the public, including professionals who work with children, must promptly report any suspicions that a child is or may be in need of protection to a children's aid society (society). … It includes physical, sexual and emotional abuse, neglect, and risk of harm.
“Anyone who has reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is or may be in need of protection must promptly report the suspicion and the information upon which it is based to a society.
“It is not necessary for you to be certain a child is or may be in need of protection to make a report to a society.
"Reasonable grounds" refers to the information that an average person, using normal and honest judgment, would need in order to decide to report.
“The duty to report applies to any child who is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 years.
“On January 1, 2018, Ontario raised the age of protection from 16 to 18. A professional, or member of the public, who is concerned that a 16-or 17- year-old is or may be in need of protection may, but is not required to, make a report to a society and the society is required to assess the reported information.
“Even if you know a report has already been made about a child who is under 16, you must make a further report to the society if there are additional reasonable grounds to suspect that the child is or may be in need of protection.
“You have to report directly to a society. You must not rely on anyone else to report on your behalf.
“Professionals and officials have the same duty as the rest of the public to report their suspicion that a child is or may be in need of protection. However, the CYFSA recognizes that people working closely with children have a special awareness of the signs of child abuse and neglect, and a particular responsibility to report their suspicions. Any professional or official who fails to report a suspicion is liable on conviction to a fine of up to $5,000, if they obtained the information in the course of their professional or official duties. Reporting is not mandatory in the case of 16- and 17- year-olds and the offence/penalty provisions do not apply.”
“Who does the CYFSA consider a person who performs professional or official duties?
*health care professionals, including physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists and psychologists
*teachers and school principals
*social workers and family counsellors
*religious officials
*operators or employees of a child care centre or home child care agency
*youth and recreation workers (not volunteers)
*peace officers and coroners
*child and youth service providers and employees of these service providers
*any other person who performs professional or official duties with respect to a child”
“In addition to the professionals and officials outlined above, directors, officers or employees of a corporation also have a legislated duty to report if they have knowledge that a child who is under 16 is or may be in need of protection.
“A professional must report that a child is or may be in need of protection, even when the information is otherwise confidential or privileged. This duty overrides any other provincial statutes, including the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, and specifically overrides any provisions that would otherwise prohibit someone from making a disclosure. Only lawyers may not divulge "privileged" information about their clients.”
-----
I haven't searched (yet) for articles directly concerning religious bodies on this issue. It is my impression though that there are no circumstances in Canada under which one may legally withhold information pertaining to the existence of child abuse. If someone knows otherwise please enlighten me.
As someone mentioned the RCC and as this topic is front and centre for them now, here is an article from the Catholic News Agency, Australia, July 29, 2018 – discussion re duty to report (or not) disclosures of abuse heard in confessional:
https://grandinmedia.ca/australian-archbishop-supports-duty-to-report-child-abuse-but-not-when-admissions-made-in-confessional/Excerpts:
“A new law in Australia will require Catholic priests in Canberra to break the seal of confession to report child abusers, drawing adamant opposition from Church officials.”
“Priests are bound by a sacred vow to maintain the seal of confession,” said Archbishop Christopher Prowse of Canberra and Goulburn, adding “without that vow, who would be willing to unburden themselves of their sins?”
“On June 7, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Legislative Assembly in Canberra passed a law requiring religious organizations to fall under the legal requirements of the mandatory Reporting Conduct Scheme. Religious groups and their “activities, facilities, programs or services” will be required to report any allegations, offences or convictions of child abuse within 30 days.This legislation extends to the seal of confession, making it illegal for priests to fail to report the confession of a child sexual abuse crime. The confession provision will take effect March 31, 2019.
“ACT Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay said the situation is “complex” and must be discussed “with community and religious leaders” over the course of the coming months. Ramsay also noted he would be meeting with Archbishop Prowse to discuss the new law.
“In a June 6th article for the Canberra Times, Prowse cautioned that “the government threatens religious freedom by appointing itself an expert on religious practices and by attempting to change the sacrament of confession while delivering no improvement in the safety of children.”
“Sadly, breaking the seal of confession won’t prevent abuse and it won’t help our ongoing efforts to improve the safety of children in Catholic institutions,” Prowse continued.
“The archbishop said the Catholic Church shares the government’s concern to protect the safety of children and wants to be a part of the solution. “The draft laws are a consequence of the profound failure of the leadership of the Church and the duty of care we owe to children,” he admitted.
“It is a failure that will haunt the church for decades, and which has haunted many survivors for even longer. For these failures, the Church is sorry. I am sorry.
“At the same time, we are doing all that we can to make sure our schools and parishes are safe places and our protocols and procedures for responding immediately to such issues are in place. We have heard the Australian community, including the very concerned Catholic community, we have learned, and responded on a practical level. I am committed to continuing this important work.”
“When the government scheme to report all child abuse allegations to the ACT Ombudsman did not include parishes and communities of faith, I called for that anomaly to be rectified and strengthened. But I cannot support the government’s plan to break the seal on religious confession.”
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him,” due to the “delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons.”
“The Code of Canon Law states that “The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.” A priest who intentionally violates the seal incurs an automatic excommunication.
“In the Archdiocese of Edmonton, policies aimed at preventing child abuse require church employees and volunteers to report allegations or admission of abuse to civil authorities.
“Whenever someone becomes aware that a child is in need of protective services, the obligation to report arises,” states the policy on Intervention – Children. “Any person who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a child is in need of intervention, must by law report it to a Child and Family Services Authority under the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act without delay.”
“The exception is when such an admission is made in the confessional, in which case the priest is to encourage the penitent to confess to outside authorities: “The seal of confession is inviolable regarding information received in the confessional (cc. 983; 984) despite the requirements of civil law, including the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The penitent is to be strongly encouraged to make disclosure outside of the confessional.” (Allegation Assessment Protocol)”
-----
It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to juggle competing interests comprehensively, accurately, fairly, justly; hence the need to continually review and revise legislation. However, one can hope, expect, demand that the vital need for protection of children be the primary concern of all parties. Obviously, there is work to do yet in this regard. "Suffer the little children ..." - indeed.