https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/oregon/articles/2020-01-08/woman-sues-mormon-church-over-husbands-abuse-disclosure

"Johnson confessed to local leaders and members of the church court that he had sexually abused a minor.

But what leaders failed to advise Johnson of is that if he confessed to the abuse, they would report his actions to local law enforcement, according to the lawsuit.

Johnson, 47, was arrested in 2017 on charges of first-degree sodomy, sexual abuse and unlawful sexual penetration for sexually abusing a girl under the age of 16. "


Well... wow.....

Follow the money. The church in this case did the right thing. The wife might be an enabler but she might have it rough because the husband won’t be able to bring income home from jail. The church has deep pockets. Sue the church. Of course the church is a multi billion dollar corporation with very good lawyers. I think the wife and her lawyer are pissing up a rope.

This lawsuit is dead in the water. The Church has been open and explicit about reporting sexual abuse after having been sued up the wazoo for hiding perpetrators. They may be guided to the Church’s lawyers first to get the details and assess the validity of the situation, and also to do a pre-emptive strike, but they have been very clear that all charges of sexual abuse will be reported now.

This frivolous lawsuit reminds me of the woman who tried to sue her husband’s victim after she shot and killed him when he broke into her home and tried to rape her.

The attorneys who brought these suits were obviously desperate for money and disreputable.

Am I missing something here...or is there a typo of some sort?
Who shot who?
Who is suing who?
Why would you sue a dead person?
Why is the husband the victim of a rapist who was trying to rape the wife?

Attorneys for unpopular causes / people often get blamed for what their clients desire, I'm suspicious about blaming attorneys ('lawyers')/
Perhaps we should revert to the British system of somewhat separate Barristers & Solicitors.. te he.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2020 01:11AM by GNPE.

In Oregon, the clergy-penitent privilege is still in place, which means that the Bishop cannot be required by law to report if the information comes in the form of a confession. The moment the abuse is corroborated by the victim, the spouse, or another 3rd party, he becomes a mandatory reporter.

All I can think in this case is that this despicable couple somehow managed to make sure that no one else corroborated the story. The counselor who ended up reporting didn't realize that the clergy-penitent privilege applied to him and thought that his role as a mandatory reporter via his employment over shadowed his role as clergy. From the churches perspective, he was probably wrong about that.

In any case, the law protects the clergy from being forced to reveal privileged confessional information. It does not hold the clergy silent or prevent action based on this type of source. The only action here is that the counselor broke the churches rule, not the law. I honestly hope that the church boots this lady out for playing a role in silencing the victim.

You probably know more about this than I do, but these are questions your post raises.

First, in most jurisdictions there is a positive duty to report confessional information that indicates crimes will likely be committed in the future. Since a history of child molestation indicates a high likelihood of future molestation clergy are often required to report the substance of some confessions. Are you sure that is not the rule in Oregon, because if it is it implies that the bishop followed the law.

Second, you state that "the moment the abuse is corroborated by the victim, the spouse, or another 3rd party, he becomes a mandatory reporter." How is the clergy to ascertain that such confirmation is available? Is he supposed to wait until someone comes to him to report the abuse? Is he to search those enumerated people out and inquire? Because otherwise the requirement seems meaningless.

What you describe as Oregon law seems highly unusual. Help me out?

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors419B.html

While it gives privilege to clergy to not be required to report abuse obtained through confession by penitent, the bigger question for this case is whether or not such reporting is prohibited.I do not see that topic directly addressed.

The second question relevant to case in question would be does LD$, Inc. have a specific policy requiring leaders to maintain confidentiality in such cases, or are they free to report abuse? Is it decided on a case-by-case basis.

Absent a specific requirement against reporting, it seems to me that the church may be on solid ground here since Oregon law provides immunity to reporters.

The penitent or the religious org.? Joint? (Too lazy to read the link. I'm sorry.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2020 11:34PM by Beth.

Penitent. Like attorney-client.

Hmmmm...

Does confession and absolution change behavior? I don't think they do.

Bogus privilege.

atty-client priv. has an exception for crime-fraud. Therapist-pt. has a exception for being an imminent danger to self or others and for self-reporting abusive behavior.

Why does religion get a pass?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 12:04AM by Beth.

> Why does religion get a pass?

I'm not sure it does, which is why I posed the questions above.

If Oregon law permits clergy to keep quiet about continuing or future crimes, though, I certainly don't want to live in that state.

> Absent a specific requirement against reporting,
> it seems to me that the church may be on solid
> ground here since Oregon law provides immunity to
> reporters.

I don't think that follows. If the privilege is the penitent's, the bishop's divulging the information without explicit permission is actionable.

But is the bishop (actually councelor) named as a defendant here? Or is it just the church? If the church does not have a specific policy forbidding divulging the information, then are they liable if the bishop does it?

I'd sue both the bishop and the church and let the court sort it out.

Confess your sins . . . But not the bad ones

Besides, doesn’t the bishop tell his wife the juicy ones?

In court cases, there's always the (slight) chance that 'new law' might be laid down. This is one of those, depending on the Facts of the matter, the experience - skills of the attorneys plus prior controlling decisions PLUS the reasoning - logic of the judge & his/her ruling(s).


I don't expect anything new, but 'ya never know'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 12:18AM by GNPE.