In reviewing the "new news" out of the courts this morning, I came across this case: Doe v. Corp. of President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: 2004 WL 1846365 Utah App.,2004. Aug. 19, 2004. The church won, the basic premise was that the church owed no duty to the children to warn of a "high priest's" past sexual abuse activities.
"Church did not have special relationship with church "high priest" giving rise to duty to warn of his alleged sexual abuse; "high priest" was not church agent, employee, or member of clergy, and abuse did not occur on church property or during church-sponsored activity."
"Church did not have special relationship with victims of alleged sexual abuse giving rise to duty to warn; victims were not in church's custody."Here is the background:
| For many years, Jane and her son John were members of the Church and regularly attended a ward in the Salt Lake Holladay Stake. George Tilson was also a member of the Church, and held the positions of "High Priest" and scout leader within the Church. Beginning in 1966 and continuing through 2002, COP [Corporation of the President; ie. "Church"] received several complaints from its members that Tilson was sexually abusing children within his ward.However, COP not only failed to do anything in response to these complaints, it actively concealed Tilson's sexual abuse from its members and secular authorities. Moreover, COP allowed Tilson to continue to hold the positions of High Priest and scout leader. Two of Tilson's victims during the time period that he was alleged to have engaged in child sexual abuse were Jane and John. In the summer of 1976, Tilson enticed Jane, who was then thirteen years old, into his home where he fondled her under her clothing. Tilson sexually abused John, Jane's son, some time between 1993 and 1996 when John was approximately five years old. John's abuse also occurred in Tilson's home after Tilson lured him away from a neighbor's yard where he was playing. In the fall of 2001, Jane learned of news reports that led her to believe that COP had prior knowledge of Tilson's propensities to sexually abuse children. Jane's subsequent investigation of these reports ultimately prompted her to file a complaint in June of 2002 against Tilson, alleging that he had sexually abused Jane and John, and against COP, alleging negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of Tilson's alleged sexual abuse. |
Some of the analysis:
"Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts demonstrating that COP had custody and control over Tilson at the time he sexually abused Plaintiffs. For example, Plaintiffs do not allege that Tilson was a COP agent or employee, or that he was a member of COP's clergy. Nor do they allege that the abuse occurred on COP property, during a COP sponsored activity, or in connection with Tilson's position as a High Priest or scout leader. Although Plaintiffs do allege that "COP had the power to remove Tilson as a High Priest, and even had the power to excommunicate him from the church," these facts alone are insufficient to establish that COP had custody and control over Tilson. Therefore, we conclude that no special relationship existed between COP and Tilson at the time Plaintiffs were sexually abused that would give rise to a duty on COP's part to warn Plaintiffs about Tilson."
The very fact that the church provided faith based adivce to the children (and their parents/guardians) did not create the duty to warn/protect. Without establishing there was a duty to warn its parishioners, congregants, etc., the plaintiff would not be able to make the prima facie case for negligence. This case was dismissed in "summary judgment" (meaning the plaintiff's failed to make any sort of claim that would grant them relief in a court of law.) This was not a Supreme Court case, so it may not be finished yet.
But, basically, what the court says, is, even though the Church may have had a disciplinary system in place to "excommunicate" the priest in order to protect other chruch memebers, the church could not control the priest's conduct when he was not in their custody (and the victims were not). Because it was outside the Church's realm or control, the church had no duty to warn and protect.
Keep in mind that ths case is out of Utah, and that this case was decided in favor of the Mormon Chruch. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that there is a bias for the church in the Utah Courts. In my pitiful legal experience, I would bet that this one isn't finished yet. I think there is a duty here (particularly if the high priest was "using" his title to gain trust with his victims and the Church knew it...).
However, this case is absolutely on point with what occurs in many of the WTBS cases of abuse. (Church member/leader, ability to excommunitcate, ability to warn, not happening on chruch property, or during church activity...) So, if it moves past the Utah courts in appeals, then it will set the precedent for the WTBTS cases.
And finally, another obvious example that WTBTS is just like the other churches...
Shoshana