Not reporting child abuse

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#21 Sep 3, 2012
I'm with Sophie and Hoodwinked.

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#22 Sep 3, 2012
JesusMyKing wrote:
<quoted text>
We're not speaking about 2 teenagers experimenting,. We're speaking about full grown MEN who take INNOCENT children and use them for their perverted sexual gratification. Hell YES, report the perverts EVERYTIME.
I wonder if the Judge who reduced Wilsons sentence would have done the same for a middle aged man who did the same to a 9 - 10 year old girl.
As much as I dont agree with teens experimenting sexually, you are disgusting if you think a man taking a child and sexually molesting her is no worse than teens experimenting.
Again, you show irrationality and heavy emotional bias. I pity any man that ever gets you as a juror in his trial. You'd be yelling out "HANG HIM!" before the judge even entered the court room.

Teary did not say anything about a grown man abusing a young girl being 'morally right' or 'morally wrong.' Teary said, and you admitted in your post, that when it comes to allegations of sexual abuse, there are different circumstances that warrant different responses in protecting the best interests and rights of both the accuser and the accused. Sometimes it is the best course to report, sometimes it isn't, and sometimes there is a zero tolerance, legal requirement to report and it doesn't matter either way. Teary brought up one extreme and you brought up another, but there are innumerable cases between those two extremes as well, where the moral line is much fuzzier.

The Kendrick case is a good example of such fuzziness. Kendrick was a situational regressed type, married, who carried on normal sexual relationships with adults and who minorly offended once against a post pubescent, TEENAGER (i.e., it wasn't even a case of pedophilia). Both CPS and law enforcement were informed (at the urging of the local elders) but still did not deem him enough of a threat to restrict his movements or associations, or even to charge him with anything more than a misdemeanor. There was no evidence of criminal activity before that and there was no evidence of criminal activity after.

Removing him from any position of authority and keeping an eye on him from a distance was, in light of circumstances and evidence, a justifiable course of action. If the initial incident had been more serious, and Kendrick had proved himself to be an actual threat, then more serious action on the part of the congregation might have been warranted (and it would have also warranted more action on the part of CPS and law enforcement).

Again, apologies for speaking calmly, logically and unemotionally. I know that it is not a normal thing around here.
Sophie

Ocoee, FL

#23 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
offended once against a post pubescent, TEENAGER
Isn't one offense more than enough??? If it would've me in a congregation KNOWING that fact, I would've taken my children far from there!! One offense against even a teenager is cause for concern...

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#24 Sep 3, 2012
Sophie wrote:
One offense against even a teenager is cause for concern...
Cause for concern maybe, which is what the elder's showed in stripping him of any authority and keeping an eye on him (which arguably worked quite well). Cause for publicly announcing past history to a group of a 100+ people, not necessarily. It is often not even legal due to slander laws. It depends on if he was actually considered an active threat or not, which he apparently wasn't by CPS or law enforcement.

I mean honestly, you could grab a group of 100 random people off the street, run background checks on all of them and find all sorts of 'causes for concern.' But that doesn't necessarily justify posting their past histories on an information board at their places of work. One it could be illegal and two it might be unjustified if they aren't an active threat to anyone or if they have already paid for their crimes.

As a more specific example, Teary once knew a young man who was quite depressed and suicidal. He had made threats against his own life, and even mentioned having a gun. His school was contacted, he met with counselors, they deemed him a non-threat to others and allowed him to return to school, although still insisting that he get personal psychiatric help. Nobody but the counselors, Teary and the parents knew anything about it.

Now then, MORALLY, was Teary obligated make a leap in logic, and warn all of the student body and the young's man's associations that they were in grave danger of a potential killer? Was Teary morally obligated to stand up on the lunch room table and publicly declare "This young man a threat that should be avoided at all costs! Avoid him! Avoid him!" Or was Teary justified in letting the authorities handle it while protecting the young man's privacy, judging the young man to not be an active threat based on Teary's knowledge and experience with the incident?
Hoodwinked

Murrieta, CA

#25 Sep 3, 2012
Sophie wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't one offense more than enough??? If it would've me in a congregation KNOWING that fact, I would've taken my children far from there!! One offense against even a teenager is cause for concern...
Especially when everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows a molester will continue to molest until they get caught! We know for a fact in the Kindrick case he went on to molest 2 other children under the age of 10 (not that age matters)....We have no idea how many victims he actually had because the great majority of children speak up.
Sadly, in my opinion JW's will continue to dig there head in the sand and their children will be the ones to pay:(

I recently attended a public talk at the KH at the request of a loved one. In that short time I watched 3 separate young girls walk back to the restroom alone!! They are way to trusting of eachother...I know, I made the same mistake and have to live the rest of my life knowing my child was molested by someone I shouldn't have trusted.
dr of religion

United States

#26 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
Cause for concern maybe, which is what the elder's showed in stripping him of any authority and keeping an eye on him (which arguably worked quite well). Cause for publicly announcing past history to a group of a 100+ people, not necessarily. It is often not even legal due to slander laws. It depends on if he was actually considered an active threat or not, which he apparently wasn't by CPS or law enforcement.
I mean honestly, you could grab a group of 100 random people off the street, run background checks on all of them and find all sorts of 'causes for concern.' But that doesn't necessarily justify posting their past histories on an information board at their places of work. One it could be illegal and two it might be unjustified if they aren't an active threat to anyone or if they have already paid for their crimes.
As a more specific example, Teary once knew a young man who was quite depressed and suicidal. He had made threats against his own life, and even mentioned having a gun. His school was contacted, he met with counselors, they deemed him a non-threat to others and allowed him to return to school, although still insisting that he get personal psychiatric help. Nobody but the counselors, Teary and the parents knew anything about it.
Now then, MORALLY, was Teary obligated make a leap in logic, and warn all of the student body and the young's man's associations that they were in grave danger of a potential killer? Was Teary morally obligated to stand up on the lunch room table and publicly declare "This young man a threat that should be avoided at all costs! Avoid him! Avoid him!" Or was Teary justified in letting the authorities handle it while protecting the young man's privacy, judging the young man to not be an active threat based on Teary's knowledge and experience with the incident?
Ya know warewolfboy,Molesters usualy protect one another.Some members of the GB must be molesters cause they protect their own.

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#27 Sep 3, 2012
Hoodwinked wrote:
<quoted text> Especially when everyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows a molester will continue to molest until they get caught! We know for a fact in the Kindrick case he went on to molest 2 other children under the age of 10 (not that age matters)....
And exactly what is the evidence supporting those 'facts'? No witnesses, no physical evidence, parents of the accuser contradicting the accuser herself, time lines that don't make sense. Yeah that is a hell of a 'factual' basis you got there.

[/sarcasm]
Sophie

Ocoee, FL

#28 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>

As a more specific example, Teary once knew a young man who was quite depressed and suicidal. He had made threats against his own life, and even mentioned having a gun. His school was contacted, he met with counselors, they deemed him a non-threat to others and allowed him to return to school, although still insisting that he get personal psychiatric help. Nobody but the counselors, Teary and the parents knew anything about it.
Now then, MORALLY, was Teary obligated make a leap in logic, and warn all of the student body and the young's man's associations that they were in grave danger of a potential killer? Was Teary morally obligated to stand up on the lunch room table and publicly declare "This young man a threat that should be avoided at all costs! Avoid him! Avoid him!" Or was Teary justified in letting the authorities handle it while protecting the young man's privacy, judging the young man to not be an active threat based on Teary's knowledge and experience with the incident?


They now tell kids if they know of a situation similar to the one you are describing to go to speak up. I hope that after Columbine and other similar situations schools, parents and teacher are encouraged to be more vigilant, and diligent, to prevent a worse situation. And no, making a public announcement would have helped the situation. But when it comes to child abuse, or even suspected child abuse, taking away certain duties in the congregation and keeping an eye out just doesn't cut it...
Sophie

Ocoee, FL

#29 Sep 3, 2012
dr of religion wrote:
<quoted text> Ya know warewolfboy,Molesters usualy protect one another.Some members of the GB must be molesters cause they protect their own.
I'm not gonna lie...this has crossed my mind time and time again as I read all the justifications...
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#30 Sep 3, 2012
i find it interesting that those who claim here to be real baptized jws. are saying oh no you should never be on a jury.. well i thought jws do not care about the laws and juries and courts. why now?/

because it is simple someone had the guts to turn this org out.. good for her.. and i cannot stand to think those of you in support of condemning her are men in the org

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#31 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>1. It IS primarily the duty of the victim or victim's family to report abuse. There is no universal obligation to protect others unless there is a legally established fiduciary duty between victim and potential reporter. But this primarily applies to medical personnel such as doctors and psychiatrists. Whether it applies to clergy is a very grey legal area up for debate.

JJJ wrote, "Well think again.
<link>"

2. I fail to see how this has any relevance to the JW cases. To my knowledge no elder has been convicted in court of hiding sex crimes, let along the Witness HQ. In fact, according to an Ontario Superior Court Judge:

"What is clear from the document is that the official policy of the church [Jehovah's Witnesses] was to report child abuse cases to child welfare officials. Further, the policy advises that elders as ministers have a positive duty to ensure that child abuse is reported. Although the policy suggests it is permissible to require the offender or family members to report the matter to their own physician who would then have a duty to report, the policy also emphasizes the need for the elder to follow up to ensure that the reporting in fact occurred."

JJJ wrote, "And Elders cannot avoid their duty of care claiming that they are not of the clergy class becuase the WTBTS in print many times have stated that EVERY baptised JW is an ordained minister of god."

Excuse me, but there is much more involved in establishing fiduciary duty than simply claiming 'clergy class' or 'not clergy class.' It is a complicated legal matter that is still not fully resolved even today. Your argument also makes little sense because the elders to my knowledge have never argued against a duty of care BECAUSE they were not clergy. In fact it has been just the opposite.

You need to get an idea of the subject you are talking about before you come here and spout off inaccuracies.
Shouldn't it be a human obligation to protect children?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#32 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>NO. Not in all cases. The world isn't as black and white as you wish it to be. Every case and situation is different, and has its own unique twists. In some instances it may be best to get the parent or victim to report for themselves, while in others it may not be beneficial to any party to report.

What you are advocating is more an abandonment of morality than an application of it. You are advocating a single, one size fits all kneejerk reaction for all cases without need for thought or reason. And morality cannot exist apart from rational thought and reason.

In your black and white, perfectly moral world, how would you treat a case such as this, if you happened to be the only one with knowledge of the incident?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_...

Knowing the mandatory punishments of the time, would you really be morally obligated, or even justified, in reporting the boy to the police?

Your answer please.
It is beneficial to a child to report it and stop it!!!

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#33 Sep 3, 2012
Sophie wrote:
<quoted text>
They now tell kids if they know of a situation similar to the one you are describing to go to speak up. I hope that after Columbine and other similar situations schools, parents and teacher are encouraged to be more vigilant, and diligent, to prevent a worse situation. And no, making a public announcement would have helped the situation.
I think you missed the point. You also have the same trouble with the Kendrick case.

The incident with the young man **WAS** reported to proper authorities, and they decided based on experience and interview with the kid that he was not an active threat. And so they protected his privacy while still keeping an eye on him after. As you said, Teary proclaiming doom and gloom from the top of the lunch tables would not have been justified.
Sophie wrote:
But when it comes to child abuse, or even suspected child abuse, taking away certain duties in the congregation and keeping an eye out just doesn't cut it...
In some cases it does and in some cases it doesn't. The world isn't black and white. Genarlow Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation of a 15 year old in Georgia in 2005, but his church pastor announcing from the platform that said man was evil, dangerous and to be avoided at all costs, would have accomplished nothing, even if the parents in the church had not know of his crime. It would not have been in any way justified.

Kendrick was reported to the authorities at the urging of the elders, CPS was notified but did not deem Kendrick a threat, and the DA gave him a misdemeanor as a result. The punishment fit the seriousness of the crime.

All abuse is bad and is to be avoided and prevented if possible, but not all abuse is equal in seriousness, nor does all abuse merit the same action in order to prevent future abuse. The actions of the elders in the Fremont congregation were JUSTIFIABLE (meaning not necessarily the only options) based on the seriousness of the incident known to them at the time, the circumstances surrounding it, and the fact that CPS and law enforcement had already taken care of their part and chose to take no further action. There really isn't even any evidence that Kendrick acted against anyone else after his stepdaughter, nor is there evidence that he acted against anyone before her.
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#34 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
Removing him from any position of authority and keeping an eye on him from a distance
lol

What is up with this Official Watchtower Society Child Rapist/Pedophile Watch Program??

dude do you hear how you sound?

What community do you think will find the WT Watch Program comforting??

So what does the WT Watch Program consist of?

Well we removed him from Handing out magazines after the meetings and handling the mike or Our New Sound system. In fact we no longer even allow him to work Parking lot duty

the jury is like - What the "H&^$ this got to do with protecting the kids here in Smallville USA?

But the Program gets better-

Uder the careful Eye of trained walmart greeters and window washers Larry Mo and Curly we are "keeping an eye on him from a distance"

folks we can't make this stuff up, THIS IS THE OFFICIAL WT WATCH PROGRAM FEATURES

i ain't making this stuff either

now for Crown jewel part of the WT Watch Program

After he "promises, yes he must promise never to do it again, he will now be Encourage to go to the homes of all the citizens of Smallville, USA and hawk wt books - all of course under the WATCHFUL EYE OF MO LARRY AND CURLY

YES MR JUROR FOREMAN - that mean he will be coming to your home as well

This WT Child rapist/pedophile Watch Program sound like a script for Saturday Night Live or MAD magazine
dr of religion

United States

#35 Sep 3, 2012
unlisted wrote:
i find it interesting that those who claim here to be real baptized jws. are saying oh no you should never be on a jury.. well i thought jws do not care about the laws and juries and courts. why now?/
because it is simple someone had the guts to turn this org out.. good for her.. and i cannot stand to think those of you in support of condemning her are men in the org
You're correct, now if jw's wont go to war and fight for our country why would they get invovled with our goverment in a court case? why dont they just turn the other cheek and let "Jehovah" decide the case?
jace

Woodbridge, VA

#36 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you missed the point. You also have the same trouble with the Kendrick case.
The incident with the young man **WAS** reported to proper authorities, and they decided based on experience and interview with the kid that he was not an active threat. And so they protected his privacy while still keeping an eye on him after. As you said, Teary proclaiming doom and gloom from the top of the lunch tables would not have been justified.
<quoted text>
In some cases it does and in some cases it doesn't. The world isn't black and white. Genarlow Wilson was convicted of aggravated child molestation of a 15 year old in Georgia in 2005, but his church pastor announcing from the platform that said man was evil, dangerous and to be avoided at all costs, would have accomplished nothing, even if the parents in the church had not know of his crime. It would not have been in any way justified.
Kendrick was reported to the authorities at the urging of the elders, CPS was notified but did not deem Kendrick a threat, and the DA gave him a misdemeanor as a result. The punishment fit the seriousness of the crime.
All abuse is bad and is to be avoided and prevented if possible, but not all abuse is equal in seriousness, nor does all abuse merit the same action in order to prevent future abuse. The actions of the elders in the Fremont congregation were JUSTIFIABLE (meaning not necessarily the only options) based on the seriousness of the incident known to them at the time, the circumstances surrounding it, and the fact that CPS and law enforcement had already taken care of their part and chose to take no further action. There really isn't even any evidence that Kendrick acted against anyone else after his stepdaughter, nor is there evidence that he acted against anyone before her.
Here is your problem-

when a corporation, yes a 501 c corporation has knowledge of a child abuser in their file cabinets - when this person offends again in todays climate of child abuse THE PICTURE IS not going to be pretty

the question that will always need to be addressed

who knew and when and what did they do with the info
the issue is much larger than just this one case, we are living ina country in the USA where the --benifit of the doubt--

that Organizations would do the right thing as viewed by the public are not longer being given-

the public is shifting and more and more laws and lawsuits are reflecting this fact, good or bad, this is a fact

the bottomline appears to me- just my 2- that the moment an organizations makes a record of a child abuser and that information stops there, if any incident reoccurs and this knowledge comes to light that such organizations knew about the person--They are geting roasted and toasted in court- rightly or wrongly

the public is not allowing it to go unpunished!!!!

just my 2

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#37 Sep 3, 2012
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your problem-
when a corporation, yes a 501 c corporation has knowledge of a child abuser in their file cabinets - when this person offends again in todays climate of child abuse THE PICTURE IS not going to be pretty
the question that will always need to be addressed
who knew and when and what did they do with the info
the issue is much larger than just this one case, we are living ina country in the USA where the --benifit of the doubt--
that Organizations would do the right thing as viewed by the public are not longer being given-
the public is shifting and more and more laws and lawsuits are reflecting this fact, good or bad, this is a fact
the bottomline appears to me- just my 2- that the moment an organizations makes a record of a child abuser and that information stops there, if any incident reoccurs and this knowledge comes to light that such organizations knew about the person--They are geting roasted and toasted in court- rightly or wrongly
the public is not allowing it to go unpunished!!!!
just my 2
You are detached from reality. All of that is well and good, but it has little to do with the Witnesses! Their policy since the 80's has been the exact opposite of what you describe:

COURT FILE NO: 9K-CV-154117
DATE: 20030626
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Factual Findings

"The 1988 Watchtower document was an exhibit at trial. I do not need to decide whether the directions set out therein are completely in accordance with the requirements of the relevant child protection statute in 1988 or in 1989/1990. Nothing in this case turns on that legal issue. What is clear from the document is that the official policy of the church was to report child abuse cases to child welfare officials. Further, the policy advises that elders as ministers have a positive duty to ensure that child abuse is reported. Although the policy suggests it is permissible to require the offender or family members to report the matter to their own physician who would then have a duty to report, the policy also emphasizes the need for the elder to follow up to ensure that the reporting in fact occurred...Mr. Cairns tesified, and I accept, that when the Palmers returned from Florida, Mr. Cairns told Mr. Palmer he had to report himself to a medical doctor and Mr. Palmer agreed to do so. Later Mr. Cairns was advised that both Mary and Gower Palmer had gone to the doctor on January 29, 1990. Mr. Cairns reported to the Watch Tower head office that Mr. Palmer had talked to a docor that day but that the doctor had indicated she was unsure whether there was an obligation to report to C.A.S. in this situation (presumably because the complainant was no longer a child)...A few days later Mr. Cairns and Mr. Didur spoke again by phone. Mr Cairns testified that Mr. Didur instructed him to ensure a report was made to the Childrens Aid Society since it was unclear whether the Palmers’ doctor would be reporting. Mr. Cairns therefore called Mr. Palmer and told him that he should personally report himself to the C.A.S. Mr. Palmer reported back to the elders that he had taken his wife and two youngest children with him to the Children’s Aid Society and reported the matter to them. Mr. Brown testified, and I accept, that he personally called the C.A.S. office immediately thereafter to confirm the report had been made. The plaintiff acknowledges Mr. Palmer did in fact report himself to the Children’s Aid Society."

It is one thing to make up a terrible sounding, morally hazardous situation (which anyone can do) but it is quite another to actually TIE that imaginary situation to the REAL WORLD with facts and evidence other than mere hearsay. The conversion from the imaginary world to the real world is when your narrative breaks down.

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#38 Sep 3, 2012
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your problem-
when a corporation, yes a 501 c corporation has knowledge of a child abuser in their file cabinets - when this person offends again in todays climate of child abuse THE PICTURE IS not going to be pretty
the question that will always need to be addressed
who knew and when and what did they do with the info
the issue is much larger than just this one case, we are living ina country in the USA where the --benifit of the doubt--
that Organizations would do the right thing as viewed by the public are not longer being given-
the public is shifting and more and more laws and lawsuits are reflecting this fact, good or bad, this is a fact
the bottomline appears to me- just my 2- that the moment an organizations makes a record of a child abuser and that information stops there, if any incident reoccurs and this knowledge comes to light that such organizations knew about the person--They are geting roasted and toasted in court- rightly or wrongly
the public is not allowing it to go unpunished!!!!
just my 2
You are detached from reality. All of that is well and good, but it has little to do with the Witnesses! Their policy since the 80's has been the exact opposite of what you describe:

COURT FILE NO: 9K-CV-154117
DATE: 20030626
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Factual Findings

"The 1988 Watchtower document was an exhibit at trial. I do not need to decide whether the directions set out therein are completely in accordance with the requirements of the relevant child protection statute in 1988 or in 1989/1990. Nothing in this case turns on that legal issue. What is clear from the document is that the official policy of the church was to report child abuse cases to child welfare officials. Further, the policy advises that elders as ministers have a positive duty to ensure that child abuse is reported. Although the policy suggests it is permissible to require the offender or family members to report the matter to their own physician who would then have a duty to report, the policy also emphasizes the need for the elder to follow up to ensure that the reporting in fact occurred...Mr. Cairns tesified, and I accept, that when the Palmers returned from Florida, Mr. Cairns told Mr. Palmer he had to report himself to a medical doctor and Mr. Palmer agreed to do so. Later Mr. Cairns was advised that both Mary and Gower Palmer had gone to the doctor on January 29, 1990. Mr. Cairns reported to the Watch Tower head office that Mr. Palmer had talked to a docor that day but that the doctor had indicated she was unsure whether there was an obligation to report to C.A.S. in this situation (presumably because the complainant was no longer a child)...A few days later Mr. Cairns and Mr. Didur spoke again by phone. Mr Cairns testified that Mr. Didur instructed him to ensure a report was made to the Childrens Aid Society since it was unclear whether the Palmers’ doctor would be reporting. Mr. Cairns therefore called Mr. Palmer and told him that he should personally report himself to the C.A.S. Mr. Palmer reported back to the elders that he had taken his wife and two youngest children with him to the Children’s Aid Society and reported the matter to them. Mr. Brown testified, and I accept, that he personally called the C.A.S. office immediately thereafter to confirm the report had been made. The plaintiff acknowledges Mr. Palmer did in fact report himself to the Children’s Aid Society."

It is one thing to make up a terrible sounding, morally hazardous situation (which anyone can do) but it is quite another to actually TIE that imaginary situation to the REAL WORLD with facts and evidence other than mere hearsay. The conversion from the imaginary world to the real world is when your narrative breaks down.

Just my 2.

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#39 Sep 3, 2012
jace wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is your problem-
when a corporation, yes a 501 c corporation has knowledge of a child abuser in their file cabinets - when this person offends again in todays climate of child abuse THE PICTURE IS not going to be pretty
the question that will always need to be addressed
who knew and when and what did they do with the info
the issue is much larger than just this one case, we are living ina country in the USA where the --benifit of the doubt--
that Organizations would do the right thing as viewed by the public are not longer being given-
the public is shifting and more and more laws and lawsuits are reflecting this fact, good or bad, this is a fact
the bottomline appears to me- just my 2- that the moment an organizations makes a record of a child abuser and that information stops there, if any incident reoccurs and this knowledge comes to light that such organizations knew about the person--They are geting roasted and toasted in court- rightly or wrongly
the public is not allowing it to go unpunished!!!!
just my 2
You are detached from reality. All of that is well and good, but it has little to do with the Witnesses! Their policy since the 80's has been the exact opposite of what you describe:

COURT FILE NO: 9K-CV-154117
DATE: 20030626
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Factual Findings

"The 1988 Watchtower document was an exhibit at trial. I do not need to decide whether the directions set out therein are completely in accordance with the requirements of the relevant child protection statute in 1988 or in 1989/1990. Nothing in this case turns on that legal issue. What is clear from the document is that the official policy of the church was to report child abuse cases to child welfare officials. Further, the policy advises that elders as ministers have a positive duty to ensure that child abuse is reported. Although the policy suggests it is permissible to require the offender or family members to report the matter to their own physician who would then have a duty to report, the policy also emphasizes the need for the elder to follow up to ensure that the reporting in fact occurred...Mr. Cairns tesified, and I accept, that when the Palmers returned from Florida, Mr. Cairns told Mr. Palmer he had to report himself to a medical doctor and Mr. Palmer agreed to do so. Later Mr. Cairns was advised that both Mary and Gower Palmer had gone to the doctor on January 29, 1990. Mr. Cairns reported to the Watch Tower head office that Mr. Palmer had talked to a docor that day but that the doctor had indicated she was unsure whether there was an obligation to report to C.A.S. in this situation (presumably because the complainant was no longer a child)...A few days later Mr. Cairns and Mr. Didur spoke again by phone. Mr Cairns testified that Mr. Didur instructed him to ensure a report was made to the Childrens Aid Society since it was unclear whether the Palmers’ doctor would be reporting. Mr. Cairns therefore called Mr. Palmer and told him that he should personally report himself to the C.A.S. Mr. Palmer reported back to the elders that he had taken his wife and two youngest children with him to the Children’s Aid Society and reported the matter to them. Mr. Brown testified, and I accept, that he personally called the C.A.S. office immediately thereafter to confirm the report had been made. The plaintiff acknowledges Mr. Palmer did in fact report himself to the Children’s Aid Society."

It is one thing to make up a terrible sounding, morally hazardous situation (which anyone can do) but it is quite another to actually TIE that imaginary situation to the REAL WORLD with facts and evidence other than mere hearsay. The conversion from the imaginary world to the real world is when your narrative breaks down.

Just my 2.

!!
Sophie

Ocoee, FL

#40 Sep 3, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
<quoted text>
All abuse is bad and is to be avoided and prevented if possible, but not all abuse is equal in seriousness, nor does all abuse merit the same action in order to prevent future abuse.
As adults will all know this. I doubt anybody is trying to make it seem like black or white. You on the other hand are. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that because there is no hard evidence of the crime then it would be wrong to put him through any uncomfortable situation. Let him just live his life unchanged, to a point...you are also implying that because the evidence isn't strong, that the victim is lying... You are say that it either happened or it didn't.

What I'm saying is that whether there was hard evidence of a crime or not, I have the right to know if my child could be exposed to somebody who could possibly cause some harm to him/her in the future. It is up to me to decided whether I can protect them withing that environment or not. And if I had that information, I wish the other parents like me had the same rights as me. I don't believe it's the right of others to take away my right to protect my child or any other child for that matter...the protection of children and to prevent any future abuse should always come first...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 4 min wow 9,970
Did you really buy in the 1914 doctrine? 6 min Passerby 1
News 'Remain Loyal!' theme of Jehovah's Witnesses co... (May '16) 6 min Jake999 1,515
News Witnesses sell four-story Dumbo building for $6... 8 min rsss1 27
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 10 min imagoodboy 26,426
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Worship Their Organization? 15 min DocBob 325
Praise Jehovah (Jul '13) 46 min DR SOS 5,705
Do Jehovah's Witnesses Even Understand? 1 hr Erran 478
wt lies about the cross 1 hr JESUS IS 602
Today...., (Feb '10) 2 hr Cyndi 3,890
Are you watching Leah Remini's show on Scientol... 2 hr pcloadletter 673
More from around the web