MANDATORY Reporting of Child Abuse

by silentlambs 129 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  joelbear

  Chezza,

  Tell her the truth.

  1. You didn't know she was in danger but are still sorry you didn't protect her better.

  2. There are sick people in this world who sometimes take advantage of people weaker than them. When they do this they should be punished, but many times for many reasons, they are not. This is because life is not fair.

  3. Because life is not fair we have to learn to live with injustice without becoming embittered or overly distraught. If this is not possible to do on your own, it is perfectly alright to go to a professional therapist to help you do this.

  4. She did absolutely nothing wrong and has nothing to feel guilty about whatsoever.

  5. Commit to her that you will do everything in your power to help her heal.

  Joel
• 

  waiting

  oh, y'all just get ready to slap me upside the head. (you're welcome, Marvin, btw)

  1. Bill is NOT a clergy member, nor even a professional such as teacher, doctor, etc., (as far as I know). Thus, Bill is not required by law to do mandatory reporting in any state. I could be wrong, however.

  The WTBTS teaches that it's elders are clery/ministers - and specifically - a different CLASS than the average publisher, who is quasi-minister in the effect that the publisher can have bible studies.

  2. Clergy are required to report in 16 states.

  FAMILIES are required to report in 50 states.

  Unnamed in the law persons with knowledge are typically encouraged to report - but under no legal law.

  3. Families don't always know what's going on.....neither do mothers or "other mate." Many times they do - or have had the crap kicked out of them for years. Makes a difference. Sometimes the other spouse just wants to keep the status quo - but it's not 100% either way.

  4. I believe the most significant point is that Bill is trying to get this point in practice - hopefully around the world (that's my opinion, btw): Families & victims should be told by elders BEFORE reporting to elders and BEFORE an elder investigation takes place....to REPORT THE SITUATION TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES. If this is done, it most likely would also cut down on the talking to the authorities.....because authorities tend to like to shut down a situation to outsiders till they have an investigation. A GREAT POINT.
  ................................................................

  My wife just called up to tell me that she was over my parents before a doctor's visit, chatting with my mother, when my crazed JW father threw my small 14 year old brother down the stairs and punched him for not wanting to study. - Ashitaka

  
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=16464&site=3

  He was given a lot of advice (5 pages), including Bill, myself, several women who said they were "professionals" in that field, etc. Interesting reading - and what Ashi actually did about it.

  The reason I brought up this thread is because I feel it's highly pertinent to this discussion. What do we do? Please take a look?

  It's not black/white in Real Life or on the forum.

  waiting
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hi, Waiting!

  I don't take exception to anything you've said.

  I think it would be a great policy to require that elders tell families and victims they must report a situation of child abuse to local law enforcement authorities before taking the report to them or before any congregational investigation takes place. The hole I see is what should the policy be if, for whatever reason, these families and victims do not want to report the situation to law enforcement authorities but are asking for help from elders nevertheless? Should those elders just turn their backs on victims that want whatever they want from those elders? I can tell you I'd have a tough time doing that.

  This is what I seek clarification as to what Bill has proposed. Would he have elders turn their backs on victims with that disposition or would he have them do whatever they can to help them, including hopefully helping them to a point where they could and would report the crime later if not sooner? Just when I thought I was beginning to sort through his voluminous presentation and understand what's in his mind in terms of recommended policy, he continues/resorts to insult instead of straightforwardly answering simple questions! This defies good sense, to me.

  As for Bill's non-clerical status, that is beside the point for my quandary. Because Bill's presentation is unclear to me I was hoping to find a parallel between his personal actions and his proposal for WTS policy in order to understand what exactly he is saying. The working theory was "a person will practice what they preach," and my main item of concern had to do with what Bill means when he speaks of mandatory reporting, not the difference between what he would have clerics do versus an average citizen. Details of a proposal are what make a proposal. If someone is unable to see the details, or refused in their attempts to understand them, then they can hardly be expected to agree with them.
• 

  waiting

  Howdy Marvin,

  they must report a situation of child abuse to local law enforcement authorities before taking the report to them or before any congregational investigation takes place. - marvin

  I didn't say "must." Btw, if this is a legal child - then I don't see how the law applies to them anyway.

  I'm not going to pretend that I know any answers, but the discussion of this massive problem - and all the far reaching consequences - is good, imho.

  The more the problem of child abuse is discussed - pros & cons & inbetweens - the better. I think it makes us all sit back and think, wonder, and possibly vote for changes. Maybe even make some changes.

  Check out the click I put above, and the responses to Ashi. Gives another side to this situation.

  waiting
• 

  silentlambs

  I have made Marvin and Path a standing offer yet it appears they only want information one way, I wonder why? IF this really was a search for clarity how hard would it be to pick up the telephone? Could their be an underlying motive in this mock sincerity? It compels me to repost the following:

  It appears twiddledee and twiddledum are back with further misinformation and twisting of what my positions are. If you little men are sooooo concerned for getting to the bottom of this matter I suggest you contact me privately and it should take about five minutes.
  I have never taken the positions you describe above regarding any similarity from what I do and how wt deals with abuse. You both have never given an inch on your reasoning, never apologized for your false assumptions, never tried to find middle ground, consistently tried to say wt policy is not all that bad, never offered an iota of help to silentlambs, you argue to infinity a position that has no point or application to the real problem, you waste my time.

  If you are so mentally challenged that you are not able to read the sl website and my previous posts to understand what we stand for and what is required of WT Policy, call me, I will be glad to take time out of my schedule to try and help you get beyond the problem you both seem to have with reasoning on this issue. Otherwise you will be ignored publicly and I will simply repost this comment to your shallow attempts to bring discord to a meaningful effort to protect children.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hi, Waiting,

  When I wrote "must" I meant to imply that the action of encouraging victims to report child abuse would be required by elders, not that elders could or should try and force victims to report. After all, elders can do no more then encourage victims to report; they can't very well make them do it.

  Of course, elders could report instances of child abuse anyway regardless of whether the victim is a child at the time or an adult recounting abuse when they were a child. But on those two circumstances I thought I understood Bill's position that he would report a child's story whether they wanted it reported or not (an action I agree generally with) but that he would let an adult victimized as a child have the prerogative of reporting (which I also agree with). But in light of Bill's response, I don't know now if I can believe what he wrote earlier on those matters or not.

  An individual that assumes a leadership position likewise assumes an onus of making themselves clear where people have questions. It is true that Bill has assumed a leadership role regarding child abuse among JWs, and to a lesser extent regarding all child abuse. It is also true that Bill has written extensively on the subject. Questions have resulted because some people do not comprehend aspects of the issue, and in some cases questions have arose simply because of the huge volume of Bill's writings on the subject, writings which are not always well composed. This is why precise questions are asked and need answering, if Bill is interested in garnering support from those people with the questions. Frankly, he should be glad that a few are asking the questions they do because where one is willing to pose precise questions (esp. in the face of needless insults like Bill dishes out!) there are probably many who have the same question!
• 

  joelbear

  Bill,

  I see nothing but honest debate coming from Marvin.

  I see you more and more as a pompous oaf who in the fading years of his life has found a way to make a name for himself. This is definitely the way you come across on this discussion board.

  Name calling and insistence on absolute agreement with everything you say.

  The issue is simply too complicated to try and handle it with one rule or one set of rules. Any mandate will fail to handle every case, people are different.
• 

  Pathofthorns

  Bill,

  Your arrogance is disgusting and your responses are childish.

  While I have no doubt you care for abused individuals, your years in the WT seem to have made your personality just like them. Unfortunately your own unreasonableness will ultimately weaken the position you are seeking to strenghten.

  I think so much starts out as a noble intention but then our pride gets in the way. The same thing happened with the WT and the same thing is waiting to happen to us if we let it.

  I have nothing to fear from discussing this matter in public, and my reasons for not discussing it privately with you are the same as me not discussing things verbally or meeting privately with WT representatives. I have no confidence in you that I will be treated any differently than you have treated me here.

  I am just beside myself that you have conducted yourself the way you have. Your refusing to discuss and explain clearly the position you take and your expecting us to just accept what Bill Bowen says goes contrary to the the whole premise of this community. Name calling and insults, even if we were your enemies (which we are not) are just plain unacceptable and reminiscent of WT behavior.

  If you are not able to field the questions that come your way in a responsible manner, you need a PR person that can.

  Path
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Bill writes:

  I have made Marvin and Path a standing offer yet it appears they only want information one way, I wonder why? IF this really was a search for clarity how hard would it be to pick up the telephone? Could their be an underlying motive in this mock sincerity?

  There is no need to wonder why I prefer written answers to my written questions and the more public setting of this forum. I already gave the reason. The reason is because I think this discussion belongs in public view, and I am not afraid to present my questions in this more public setting, and neither am I afraid to answer here.

  As I said before, "I prefer writing, and I have no problem with a public forum to express these thoughts either. As far as I'm concerned the more discussion on the subject of child molestation done in the light of day the better; if it's done in writing then all the better."

  Since I am open to hearing your answers to my simple questions, the new question becomes:

  Why don’t you get on with answering the questions instead of griping about the method of communication?

  Another one like it is:

  If you have time to write your complaints then why don't you have time to write answers?

  Another on like it is:

  Why do you insist on a private venue (i.e., telephone) rather than the more public one of this forum to answer questions of public concern?

  The sought after clarity is of concern to more than one person. Since only one person can clarify the thoughts of Bill Bowen, how hard would it be for Bill Bowen to just plop his fingers on his keyboard and type out straightforward answers to the simple questions asked? After all, we already see that you have a keyboard and know how to strike the keys!

  This discussion belongs in public view, and that's where I'll keep my part of it.
• 

  joelbear

  Bill doesn't want a PR person.

  They may get between him and the cameras.

  Joel