Mass. High Court Makes Landmark Child Abuse Ruling--JW

by blondie 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • blondie
    blondie

    http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=91413&format=text

    High court makes landmark church abuse ruling By Michael Kunzelman / Associated Press
    Wednesday, February 23, 2005

    B OSTON -- A Superior Court judge has ruled that a Jehovah's Witness church in Boston can be sued for breaking its trust and legal duty to a girl who claims she was sexually abused by one of the church's ministerial servants.

    Suffolk Superior Court Judge Herman Smith Jr.'s ruling earlier this month is believed to be the first time a Massachusetts court has ruled that church officials have a "fiduciary duty" to members of their congregation. Lawyers and doctors already owe a similar legal responsibility to their clients and patients.

    Smith's ruling also is expected to open another legal channel for attorneys to bring civil suits against churches for clergy abuse cases, according to Lisa Bruno, news editor for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.

    "It gives another piece of ammunition to plaintiffs, another grounds for finding a church liable for the actions of priests and ministers," Bruno said.

    Carmen Durso, a Boston lawyer who settled 40 lawsuits against the Catholic Boston Archdiocese in 2003, said he expects Smith's ruling to pave the way for more clergy abuse cases to proceed.

    "It affords another basis, a stronger basis, for bringing claims against churches in sex abuse cases," Durso said.

    "There have been a number of rulings that have gone the other way," he added. "We had pretty much given up on this issue."

    The girl at the center of Smith's ruling was between 9 and 11 when her alleged assailant, a ministerial servant with the Columbus Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, molested her, during Bible study classes in her home, Lawyers Weekly reported.

    The girl's parents, who learned about the alleged abuse in August 2000, sued the ministerial servant and two Boston-area Jehovah's Witness congregations for negligence as well as breach of fiduciary duty.

  • bebu
    bebu

    I knew it was coming! Thanks for telling us it's here!

    bebu

  • Tatiana
    Tatiana

    blondie, I just got this one in my email tonight and posted it on two other boards. This is awesome!! I wish I could be a fly on the wall at headquarters right now.

  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    Thank you GOD! The Silent Lambs' prayers are answered. They are making headway. I am so glad Blondie.. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.. for sharing this earth shattering precedent with the Silent Lambs! It's still early yet.. we'll see the press tomorrow.. but it's good news. The Superior Court establish a FIDUCIARY DUTY like lawyers and doctors have with their clients. This is a real gateway. The Silent Lambs will finally roar!

    CG

  • orbison11
    orbison11

    that is just fantastic news. i realize this is a great stride in our fight.

    i am curious, do any here know exactly what impact this will/could have against the wtbs? thanks

    w

  • loveis
    loveis

    Evidently, the WTS itself is off the hook, though (just like in the earlier Amarillo Texas case), so the suit can evidently proceed only against the local congregation--see this thread:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/8/85744/1.ashx

    So, let's not get too excited just yet. Remember also that there may be other grounds on which summary judgment could yet be requested.

  • blondie
    blondie

    It's still a wiin as far as I'm concerned since the elders are the "enforcers" of WTS policy. How many elders will be wlling to lose all they own materially? It removes the magic "clergy" barrier that prevents the elders from being legally responsible for their actions. I think it is a good start.

    Blondie

  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Bill sent this to me last night and I got it this morning. This by far is absolutely huge .

    Finally someone in the New England area has awaken to write a writ (or statement of claim) that actually shows a fiduciary duty exists.

    This was the way I expected the Berry case to go but for some strange reason Judge Groff said no to fiduciary duty but yes to common negligence.

    This and the California cases should really help create a rumble in the jungle and its about god damn time!

    Well done!

    As I said a long time ago ... we need a lot of patience with this stuff.

    hawk

  • Ticker
    Ticker

    What exactly will be the ramifications toword headquarters with such a precident in court? Is the legal corporation of JW's also affected or is it simply on a local level with the elders. I think its still an impressive start and the ball has to start rolling somewhere, at least someone is accountable now. The thing I fear is that the blame will all be placed on the elders and focused away from the Watchtower corporations and body's. The public wont buy that explanation but sadly I think the r&f will. Also is this strictly effect the US laws or does it set as an example internationally for dealings with such matters in other countries?

    Very interesting events anyway, thanks for posting blondie.

    Ticker

  • Bryan
    Bryan

    Right on the mark!

    I suppose the WTB&TS will just let Jehovah take care of it.

    Bryan

    Have You Seen My Mother

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit