Judge Says Church Elders Can Withhold Knowledge Of Abuse

by izobcenec 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  izobcenec

  Judge Says Church Elders Can Withhold Knowledge Of Abuse Abuse Victims Appealing Ruling

  CLAREMONT, N.H. -- A recent court ruling upheld a Jehovah's Witness church's right to withhold sex abuse allegations from police. Sarah Poisson's two daughters brought a lawsuit against church elders at a Wilton congregation of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They said the elders failed to go to police when their mother reported numerous times that their father, a church member, was sexually abusing them.

  "Church doctrine requires that all problems in the home are taken up with the body of elders," Poisson said.

  Poisson said instead of going to authorities, the elders told her to pray more and be a better wife.

  "I believed at that the time this organization stemmed directly from God," Poisson said. "I thought (God) would rectify matters."

  Poisson eventually went to authorities herself, and her ex-husband was convicted of sexual assault charges. Years later, she said the church should bear some responsibility.

  Some experts believe the church elders violated New Hampshire reporting laws.

  "New Hampshire law is clear that anyone who has reason to suspect child abuse need to report that," said Cheryl Avery Molloy, of New Hampshire Prevent Child Abuse.

  There is a legal gray area in religious environments. Some conversations with clergy are considered privileged.

  When Poisson's daughters sued, a judge denied their claim of negligence, saying the elders did not have to report accusations because they were revealed in a privileged setting.

  An appeal has been filed. Experts said if it's successful, the case would join a growing movement that's eroding churches' legal protections. SOURCE&VIDEO: http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/2291202/detail.html
• 

  shera

  The judge,is probley a child abuser himself...
• 

  Mary

  That judge should be shot and pissed on. What kind of an asshole would make a ruling like that?? Oh yes, let's protect the pedophile's "Rights" and the "Rights" of clergy/elders to protect these sick bastards even more.

  Do victims have ANY Rights themselves anymore??? I'm glad the decision is being appealed. After all, if the elders are under no obligation to go to the police when they know a crime has been committed, then why are some Catholic clergy being investigated and (presumably) prosecuted for knowingly allowing their priests to continue their molestation of children?? What's the difference?

  Judges like this should be removed from the bench, because they just add fuel to the fire.
• 

  hawkaw

  Mary,

  You should keep in mind that this Judge made numerous rulings in support of Holly and Heather and set a legal precedent in the United States when His Honour ruled that Elders have a "common law duty" to report child abuse to authorities during this case so far. Without it, this case would be dead in the water since no fiducary duty existed between the children and elders because it was the mother who went to the elders.

  His Honour made a ruling that upset a lot of folk, including me. He basically took an evidence rule (Rule 505) that should only be used to determine when and what a witness can testify too and wrongly applied that rule to reporting a crime of Child abuse - which is found in a completely different statute (RSA 169).

  That is what the appeal system is for in the United States and other free countries. It's put in place so these lower court decisions can be reviewed and if necessary over turned.

  For your information a motion to re-consider has been placed before His Honour explaining where he went wrong. Usually the Court rejects motions to re-consider but you never know.

  Yes I really feel for Holly and Heather and hopefully they were prepped for how hard these court battles are and the ups and downs that are associated with these court battles. There are ways to get things over turned. And I assure you, whether the Berry girls win or the Watchtower wins in the trial (when it gets there), this case is going to SCOTUS.

  I hope you kindly think about what you wrote and you edit your post to remove your unproven ad hominem attack on His Honour.

  hawk

  p.s. - This case is being discussed in another thread found here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/54228/1.ashx
• 

  Yerusalyim

  Working in a realm that uses this Clergy Penitent privelege I don't understand how the Judge can make this ruling. At least in the military, the privelege extends only to "Formal acts of religion when the one holding the privelege (the penitent) believes the clergy can grant absolution or forgiveness. That doesn't apply in a general counseling session, but only to things like a confession.
• 

  Cassiline

  Working in a realm that uses this Clergy Penitent privelege I don't understand how the Judge can make this ruling. At least in the military, the privelege extends only to "Formal acts of religion when the one holding the privelege (the penitent) believes the clergy can grant absolution or forgiveness. That doesn't apply in a general counseling session, but only to things like a confession. ~~ Yeru

  The very same I wondered about Yeru. I have a hard time understanding the ruling, and when I first read his opinion I was in disbelief.
• 

  Mary

  I hope you kindly think about what you wrote and you edit your post to remove your unproven ad hominem attack on His Honour.

  Okay, I've thought about it and I'd like to make the following change to my post:

  This judge should be pissed on FIRST and then shot. The courts today are too frigging worried about doing "what's legal" and "what's not legal" instead of "what's right" and "what's wrong." You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that EVERYONE is under obligation to report a crime---end of story.

  "New Hampshire law is clear that anyone who has reason to suspect child abuse need to report that,"

  This judge denied the claim of negligence, not because there wasn't any lack of evidence to prove that the elders were negligant, but instead he comes up with the moronic statement saying the elders did not have to report accusations because they were revealed in a "privileged setting". Yes, the Rights of these scumbags outweighs common sense and the sense of morality. No wonder pedophiles roam free with bonehead decisions like this being handed down...............
• 

  hawkaw

  The courts today are too frigging worried about doing "what's legal" and "what's not legal" instead of "what's right" and "what's wrong."

  A strawman that I would expect to see from someone like a J.R. Brown or Clive Thomas and not you.

  No wonder pedophiles roam free with bonehead decisions like this being handed down...............

  Another strawman that I would expect to see from someone like a J.R. Brown or Clive Thomas and not you. And oh BTW Paul Berry is not roaming to free in New Hampshire seeing he is serving 112 years behind bars.

  Yes I believe His Honour was wrong. Why he did what he did is outlined in his decision. Yes, in my mind he completely forgot about Evidence Rule 1101 in my mind. Was that his fault or was it the fault of both counsels arguing the case and missig this important point in the arguments - you sure as hell don't know - unless you know something more than me! Thus to act the way you are acting is well ... just like a JW.

  What a pitiful response.

  hawk
• 

  Mary

  Yes I believe His Honour was wrong......Yes, in my mind he completely forgot about Evidence Rule 1101 in my mind. Was that his fault or was it the fault of both counsels arguing the case and missig this important point in the arguments

  I think the judge should know enough about the law AND have some common sense when ruling on a decision like that. If someone goes to their priest or elder and says "hey, I committed fornication with my fiancee" then of course that would fall under the "confidential" or "priviledged setting" and, in today's world, it's not considered a crime so they would be under no obligation to report it to the police.

  However, something such as pedophilia is a completely different matter. Everyone knows that this is a crime and under NH law, everyone, including ministers, is required by law to report these cases to the police. Even if both lawyers failed to mention this, I would think that the judge would know that this "priviledged setting" does not exclude someone from the responsibility of reporting a crime.

  What a pitiful response.

  I stand by every word I said...........sorry if it offended you...............
• 

  SpunkyChick

  I have to agree with Mary. Piss on that child-molesting-anal-probing protector of a judge! That story disgusted me. I wish our court system would toughen up!