Wasn't watching the papers as closely as I normally do, and missed this little gem regarding the Amarillo case. Texas *is* a reporting state.
http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/032504/new_abusecase.shtml
Web-posted Thursday, March 25, 2004
Abuse case argued
By JIM McBRIDE
[email protected]
The Amarillo Globe-News
| |||||
An Amarillo judge heard legal arguments Wednesday in a civil lawsuit over whether Jehovah's Witnesses organizations can be held responsible for sexual abuse a church member allegedly committed against a young girl.
An Amarillo woman, Amy B., filed a lawsuit last year against Larry Kelley and several Jehovah's Witnesses organizations, claiming Kelley sexually abused her and church officials took no action to halt the abuse.
According to the suit:
On Wednesday, attorney Marvin Jones told 251st District Judge Pat Pirtle that previous courts have determined churches have no legal duty to protect one church member from another's misdeeds.
"There is no fiduciary duty owed by a church to its congregants," Jones said. "The courts have said: 'We are not going to recognize a duty under these circumstances."'
In legal briefs, Jones argued the First Amendment prevents a secular court from inquiring into the adequacy of internal church practices or policies. Jones also argued the woman's claims are barred by a statute of limitations.
In earlier court documents, Kelley admitted he had committed sexual abuse but denied some allegations in the suit.
"I don't intend to minimize my offense, however, plaintiff implies that abuse took place from 1988 through 1992, when in fact, there were only two instances of sexual contact," according to Kelley's response.
Hartley Hampton, an attorney representing Amy B., argued church officials knew about Kelley's pedophilia but allowed him to have access to her.
"What we have is actual knowledge of pedophilia plus three separate affirmative acts causing Amy to be allowed with this guy," Hampton said.
In legal briefs, Hampton also cited previous court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses and disputed the church groups' claims of First Amendment protections.
"In similar cases that involved the specific religious organization in this lawsuit, courts have uniformly held that considerations of child safety and welfare prevailed over any claimed infringement of religious freedom," according to a motion filed by the plaintiffs.
Pirtle now must rule on the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs' attorney contends the motion should be denied and the case should proceed.
CG