Is it official policy that elders MUST advise the parent to report abuse?

by Must obey! 24 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Hey Dinah, you want me to elaborate on:

  1) how little I know about the state laws [only paid attention to the states I've lived in]

  2) how much I detest the bOrg's policy [yeah, I detest it]

  3) what the CO said [the 2 witnesses rule, wait on Jehovah, children fabricating stories, Satanic media, and at the mention of the WTBTS cash payout, he said it's often cheaper to pay to settle than the time and expense for the Society to litigate. BULLSH1T ! All of it.]

  4) what I'd do with the crowbar and his cranium [there are video games and movies portraying such things (which the Society warns against viewing)]
• 

  flipper

  BILLY the EX_BETHELITE- Yes. I'd like you to give us a few more details about what the circuit overseer said in regards to the child abuse cases. Thanks , it will help people's perception of what really happens.
  
  
  MUST OBEY- I had an experience at my front door this summer when the presiding overseer of the congregation I live near and his wife came witnessing at my door. I had the AP news release handout on the witness child abuse settlements and gave it to him. He had not heard of the child abuse settlements ( no surprise ) and said about the cover ups and not handling it, " That doesn't sound like the direction we get from the society in handling child abuse. " So, I point blank asked him, " What is the official direction you receive in how to handle abuse victims ? " He stated, " The society tells us not to discourage the victim or family from going to the authorities about the abuse. " He said, " Sometimes it can cause more problems going to the authorities if the victim is living in an abusive situation. " I said, " There are laws to take that person out of that situation. " Then I asked the elder, " Would you go to the authorities if you knew someone was being abused in your congregation ?" He said, " Probably if I knew it would help. " I said, " Of course it would help. It might save that child from more abuse." I continued, " You have a responsibility to protect members in your congregation , and allow the law and authorities to do the work of bringing the pedophile to justice and gain justice for the victim ! There is no probably about it, you should feel a moral obligation to the children to report it !" I was so annoyed I could have pissed bricks !
  
  
  But although the elder was reserved in his comments after that- his wife totally agreed with me, and stated, " You just want justice for the victims, and you don't want to see this swept under the rug, correct? " I said, Yes, exactly !" So, they left my door, and I got the feeling like these ex-elders and lurking elder are telling you Must Obey , that the societies directive on this is mainly to protect their own legal a$$ ! They are concerned about outward appearances only , I've talked with about 3 elders about the abuse cases and every one of them downplays the seriousness of it. All they are concerned about is the Watchtower Societies reputation, not the victims. Really poor excuses for human beings I'd say
• 

  Must obey!

  Thanks for the comments so far. Was not aware that the elders are only told not to discourage victims reporting it to the authorities, rather than actually encouraging the alleged crime to be reported. That is rather disturbing. It seems that this complete lack of proactiveness and "do the bare minimum (& less if possible)" policy is all about protecting the name of the organisation rather than protecting children.
• 

  MissingLink

  Yep, gee, what I REALLY want to deal with MY abused child would be a group of uneducated janitors poorly interpreting the 4000 year old ramblings of illiterate shepherds.

  Avishai - I admire your ability to put these things into perspective.
• 

  fokyc

  In the British Isles, Elders must take the complainant/child TO the Police and make sure the complaint is listened to,

  the elders will then give a statement to the police WITHOUT talking to the Brother/Sister who is alleged to have abused the child.

  This is despite the instructions given at http://www.jw-media.org/region/global/english/backgrounders/e_molestation.htm

  which says:

  "When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there."

  This is not the present recommended procedure according to our local cong.

  Why the WTBTS can't correct the website is beyond me, they are effectivly lying to the whole world.

  fokyc
• 

  Elsewhere

  Here is the current policy:

  If the elders are in a "reporting" state the elder is to go to a phone booth and make an anonymous phone call to the authorities and tell them that so-and-so child is suspected of being molested by so-and-so. The elder is not to provide any other information. Not even his name, the name of the congregation, the fact that he is an elder or how he came into the information. It is to be a 100% anonymous phone call that, in the end, is useless to the authorities.

  Regarding advising the parents or victim to tell the authorities... the elders will tell them that they are free to do so if they want, however they elders will not actually encourage them to tell the authorities. The elders will just mention it, in passing, as an option.
• 

  outnfree

  In all of this, MUSTOBEY, there is still the problem of when the parent/caretaker is the alleged ABUSER of the Witness child in question. When the accusation of abuse involves a family member or parent, the elders clearly should report the abuse to the secular authorities who can conduct a professional investigation.
  
  out
• 

  Must obey!

  Thanks Elsewhere. Where is that official policy formally contained? It is good that at least the elders are under instruction to make an anonymous phone call to the police (but only in reporting states); but why do you say this is totally useless to the authorities though? If the police have been provided with the names of the complainant and alleged perpetrator, the police can easily follow it up from there. It's pleasing also that apparently in the UK they seem to have a fairly proactive approach towards advising the police.

  It is also good that the elders appear to now be telling the parent/victim they are free to go to the authorities but clearly this still seems too discretionary, too hit and miss. Instructions need to be issued worldwide to all elders that they must encourage the parent/victim to inform the police, and the elders should follow up on whether or not this happens. This must be made mandatory for elders to do.

  Good point too that the elders must themselves take the initiative in informing the authorities if it is the actual parent/caregiver is the alleged abuser. The child is in even greater danger in such a situation so the elders obviously have a greater moral duty to act themselves.

  The procedures lack clarity and consistency and in practice different bodies of elders seem to be doing different things, according to anecdoctal reports. Sadly there is still an attitude to try and do the very minimum at best.

  It is bizarre, frankly, that the Society do not seem to be making this top of the agenda in changes needed in the organisation. Perhaps it is (in light of the recent large pay-outs), we can only hope. This policy glaringly needs to be stronger & universally more consistent, even if they refuse to reconsider their 'two witnesses' gnat-squeezing interpretation. There is still more they can do to help the victim, bring the alleged to justice, and prevent the alleged from committing further abuses, even with the 'two witness' rule.

  And as I mentioned earlier, it is repugnant that someone with privileges can continue with those privileges even when under accusation of child abuse, given the clear scriptural principle that they are no longer fit for such privileges by merely by being under suspicion. They should not have their privileges removed only once proven guilty; that is not what the relevant scriptures indicate. Because this crime is so horrible the mere suspicion of it, on reasonable grounds, should be enough for the brother to have all privileges stripped. If the brother moves congregation, the policy must surely also be that the new congregation must be informed of his record, even that he has been merely accused. This must be the policy given that paedophiles nearly always commit their crimes without witnesses. Children need extra protection but the organisation's policy is weighted the opposite way. Repugnant is an understatement.

  It really is quite a mess isn't it. Infuriating & disturbing. Let's pray something concrete happens soon to improve the situation, although it appears that is unlikely under the current leadership. Let's hope that the Society's lawyers are having another look at this in light of the recent out of court settlements, shocking media attention and pressure being exerted by Barbara Anderson et al. They really are skating on thin ice over this.
• 

  searcher

  What many miss seeing is that in non - reporting states, it is Priest/Minister - Penitent information that need not be reported.

  Which means that, if someone approaches an Elder and says "I have abused a child" then the Elder need not report because he has been approached in his capacity as a Priest/Minister.(I have abused... is a confession)

  HOWEVER

  If someone approaches an Elder and says "I have been abused" then the Elder has been approached in his capacity as a COUNCELOR, and councilors HAVE to report, (I have been abused is NOT A CONFESSION, it is a plea for help).
• 

  besty

  Not sure what the current UK 'policy' is but from a letter sent by the UK Branch to a BoE dated around 2003 (certainly after the Panorama program):

  On the matter of reporting child abuse we need to be guided by the principles of Galatians 6:5 and 2 Corinthians 1:24. Thus responsibility to decide whether to report a matter to the secular authorities rests with the victim and/or his family. We cannot override a family's decision not to report if reporting it is not required by law. Victims of child abuse and their parents might be hindered from seeking help if they knew that when they came forward the elders would make the matter public by involving the authorities. In many cases both the victim and his or her parents may prefer to keep the matter private between themselves and the elders.

  Gal 6:5 (KJV) For every man shall bear his own burden.

  2 Cor 1:24 (KJV) Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

  As of this letter (unless someone can tell me it have been superceded) we can note the following:

  1 - Contact the Legal Department before you do anything - in the full letter I have seen this important point cannot wait beyond the 2nd sentence to be highlighted by the WTS

  2 - It's up to the family to pursue a secular report unless required by law - this is not a crime after all but a sin

  3 - Its not the elders place to override the family desire for privacy - like involving the authorities is effectively making the matter 'public' - might as well take a full page in a the national press and maybe a few 30 second spots on primetime. 'Involving' - busybodies, we don't need or want anybody 'involved'

  4 - Note the loaded language throughout -

  'secular authorities' this carries a negative connotation of somehow being worldly, part of satan's wicked sysyem of things, contacting them would make the matter public - disloyally betraying the approved arrangement fro such matters.

  'Not to report if reporting is not required by law' - all the negative phrasing is embedding a message to the reader - not not not not not report

  'Might be hindered from seeking help..' - how can a member know in advance that the elders are definitely going to report this crime on their behalf when their is no published policy the R&F have access to?

  'In many cases' - how can the WTS speak for their membership in this way? Really they are telling the elders the correct answer all the way through this paragraph - DON'T REPORT UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW

  'Both the victim and his/her family may prefer to keep the matter private' - again they presume to speak on behalf of the victims of a crime - telling the elders to send a message to these victims that they may prefer to keep the matter private.

  You can see just see the distraught family being counselled by the loving elders:

  "See we have here a letter from the FDS (Jehovah himself has deigned to write you a letter telling you what to do now your child has been raped by a JW). The letter tells us that you may wish not to report to the <wicked evil Satanic> secular authorities and that many in your position have preferred to keep the matter private - 1 Cor. 5:12.' So while we are not telling you not to report many have chosen not to report... etc etc

  Shameful at best - corporate crime perhaps - as has been shown in the Californian case they don't know how low to stoop to protect their reputation.