Reveal article: Jehovah’s Witnesses settle suit alleging cover-up of child sex abuse

by AndersonsInfo 52 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  AndersonsInfo

  https://www.revealnews.org/blog/jehovahs-witnesses-settle-lawsuit-alleging-coverup-of-child-sex-abuse/

  By Trey Bundy / February 17, 2017
  

  The Jehovah’s Witnesses settled a lawsuit this week brought by a Pennsylvania woman who says the religion’s leaders covered up sexual abuse she suffered as a teenager.

  The settlement came five days into a trial in which Stephanie Fessler, a former Jehovah’s Witness, claimed the religion’s parent corporation violated Pennsylvania’s child abuse reporting laws by instructing local leaders – known as elders – not to report her allegations to police.

  According to Fessler, a middle-aged Jehovah’s Witness woman, Terry Monheim, began sexually abusing her when she was 14. At 15, Fessler disclosed the abuse to her parents. Her father was an elder in their congregation.

  Fessler’s parents informed other congregation elders, who interrogated Fessler and Monheim but failed to report the abuse to police. As a result, Monheim continued to abuse Fessler for another year, according to court documents.

  READ MORE: https://www.revealnews.org/blog/jehovahs-witnesses-settle-lawsuit-alleging-coverup-of-child-sex-abuse/
  
• 

  Landy

  Sorry, you lose at the internetz

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/6326461285793792/day-5-fessler-vs-watchtower-ends-plaintiff-settles-jehovahs-witness-child-abuse-trial
• 

  Fisherman

  the religion’s leaders covered up sexual abuse she suffered as a teenager.

  Since it is axiomatic that it is US law that protects child abuse communications in a c/p setting, that allegation is a blatant lie and a miscategorization. Coverup implies wrongful conduct. WT compliance with US law under wt version of c/p is not cover-up.

  Are active child abusers that confess under the secrecy of a Catholic confession a cover up? Not under US law it is not. However, even under such a setting and relationship does not make it automatically qualify, it can be challenged, and it has.

  And therefore the contention against the WT is not the congregant's protection under the First Amendment, but qualifications under a JC setting under the circumstances of a given case.
  
• 

  Fisherman

  Fessler’s parents informed other congregation elders, who interrogated Fessler and Monheim but failed to report the abuse to police. As a result, Monheim continued to abuse Fessler for another year, according to court documents.

  As a result of the parent's failure to protect their child.
  
• 

  never a jw

  Since it is axiomatic that it is US law that protects child abuse communications in a c/p setting, that allegation is a blatant lie

  clergy penitent privilege, really? JW's don't earn or deserve that privilege because they create their own courts where the confession is known to multiple persons.
  
• 

  never a jw

  Fisherman: "As a result of the parent's failure to protect their child."

  The parents??, really. Are we supposed to assume that if the same parents were atheists, they would keep their mouth shut. C'mon. You know better than that. Cult's leaders control every aspect of the members' lives. The parents in a cult are not free to use common sense, even self preserving actions. They do as leaders want them to do. The WT wants to protect money over children, which means they have an institutional policy of child sexual abuse cover-up veiled as clergy penitent privilege.
  
• 

  Richard Oliver

  Richard Oliver5 hours ago

  Jane Doe v Corporation of Presidents of Church of Jesus Christ and of Latter Day Saints:

  Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Schindler, J., held that:

  1 participants in disciplinary proceeding were ordained clergy, and thus clergy-penitent privilege protected report from disclosure, and2 neither father's agreement to allow previous confession to be used in church disciplinary proceeding, nor confidential recording and transmission of report to church authorities effected waiver of father's right to assert privilege.Facts of the case in part:John Roe's disciplinary council was held on Sunday January 10, 1999. Roe attended and apparently confessed in the course of the proceeding. The disciplinary council decided the appropriate discipline for Roe was disfellowshipment. LDS Church procedures require that an RCDA be prepared and sent to the Church headquarters in Utah when the discipline is disfellowshipment or excommunication. An RCDA is a summary of the disciplinary proceedings and describes the decision of the council. The LDS Church did not report Jane Doe's allegations that her stepfather sexually abused her to the civil authorities.
  State v Archilbeque:Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gemmill, J., held that:1 defendant's alleged confession was protected by the clergy-penitent privilege unless the privilege was waived;2 defendant did not waive the clergy-penitent privilege by having his wife present during the alleged confession;3 defendant did not impliedly waive the clergy-penitent privilege; and4 defendant's statements to his wife in advance of allegedly confessing to the bishop did not constitute a waiver of the clergy-penitent privilege.
  People v Bragg:
  Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gleicher, P.J., held that:1 cleric-congregant privilege is not limited to “confessions”;2 defendant's statements to his Baptist pastor, admitting to having sexually assaulted his minor cousin, fell within scope of cleric-congregant privilege;3 privilege applied regardless of whether cleric or congregant initiated the conversation; and4 presence of defendant's mother at time of defendant's communication did not waive privilege.
• 

  Richard Oliver

  • McFarland v W Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Loraine, Ohio
    

    Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Whitmore, J., held that:

    1 correspondence of a secular nature between local congregation and service department of society's national headquarters was not protected by clergy-penitent privilege;
    2 correspondence regarding spiritual guidance was protected by clergy-penitent privilege; and3 documents were not protected by attorney-client privilege.
    Communication to anyone that holds privilege is not automatically revoked if that communication is shared to a third party. That would negate confidentiality between a doctor and patient, if the doctor has to share that confidential information to the rest of the patient's care team. Them repeating what they spoke with the patient about does not release the privilege.Also, the number of people in a room does not release privilege. If a client has hired a law firm to handle a case, depending on the complexity of the situation there maybe a number of lawyers and staff in a room to discuss the matter. Just because there maybe 5 people in the room, all 5 people in that room still has to be bound by the confidential nature of the discussion.
    Some will also say that the nature of the Judicial Committee also voids the confidential nature of the communication. Where yes that is true in some states such as Deleware, in Deleware v Laurel Congregation, the court ruled that because the elders said that the conversation was "seeking spiritual advice and counsel from us as elders in a private setting." The court ruled that this is not this conversation was not intended to be a repentant communication in a communication of sacrament. The court ruled that because the legislature did not spell out specifically what is considered a confession, they were to make the determination based on the standard reading of Black's Law Dictionary.
    But not all states view it this way. Many states in their clergy-penitent privilege include the term discipline in their statute. Washington State is one example. their priest-peninent privilege reads as:A member of the clergy or a priest shall not, without the consent of a person making the confession, be examined as to any confession made to him or her in his or her professional *785 character, in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs.And in State v Martin the Washington State Supreme Court ruled:(1) requirement for applicability of statutory clergy member privilege that confession be received “in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs” refers to clergy member, rather than penitent; (2) what constitutes a “confession” for purposes of statute is determined by church in question, rather than court, with term broadly construed; and (3) communications in question were protected by privilege.
    Flag Lin
• 

  Fisherman

  RO,

  Kindly provide a link with your views and please don't flood the thread with cut and paste. Very informative I may add.
• 

  Listener

  Fisherman - As a result of the parent's failure to protect their child.

  
  

  The victims father is an elder. Will he be disfellowshipped for this wilful neglect? Will he be stood down for failing to be exemplary?