Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[falafel]

A woman in Oregon in suing the church due to the church’s response to her husband’s confidential confession of child abuse. And it’s totally not the reason you suspect. What horrible people.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...on/2832368001/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm. Turned out to be exactly the reason I suspected.

[Lost Student]

A woman in Oregon in suing the church due to the church’s response to her husband’s confidential confession of child abuse. And it’s totally not the reason you suspect. What horrible people.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...on/2832368001/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Horrible people? They need your sympathy. They just lost their husband and father (to prison).

"It's been devasting [sic] on the family," Brandt said. "They lost a husband and a father."

[Green Monstah]

A woman in Oregon in suing the church due to the church’s response to her husband’s confidential confession of child abuse. And it’s totally not the reason you suspect. What horrible people.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...on/2832368001/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. I saw the headline earlier and assumed it was for failure to report sex abuse to authorities--not the other way around. Freaking Oregon Mormons...

[creekster]

Horrible people? They need your sympathy. They just lost their husband and father (to prison).

I would not want to make that closing argument to a jury.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Hmmm. Turned out to be exactly the reason I suspected.

That’s because you’re a Las Vegas attorney.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

A woman in Oregon in suing the church due to the church’s response to her husband’s confidential confession of child abuse. And it’s totally not the reason you suspect. What horrible people.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...on/2832368001/

That is nuts. Good luck with that argument.

[LVAllen]

Horrible people? They need your sympathy. They just lost their husband and father (to prison).

The only thing worse would be if she sued on behalf of their youngest daughter, who he molested for 4 years.

[Copelius]

The only thing worse would be if she sued on behalf of their youngest daughter, who he molested for 4 years.

She did. 5.5MM for her and 1MM for each of her 4 kids and 40k for the perp's criminal defense attorney.

[LVAllen]

She did. 5.5MM for her and 1MM for each of her 4 kids and 40k for the perp's criminal defense attorney.

They have 5 kids.

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020...onfession.html

[MartyFunkhouser]

This lawsuit is going nowhere. I looked at the privilege at issue here and I don't think prohibits clergy from reporting child abuse or suspected child abuse.

Any public or private official having reasonable cause to believe that any child with whom the official comes in contact has suffered abuse or that any person with whom the official comes in contact has abused a child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made in the manner required in ORS 419B.015 (Report form and content). Nothing contained in ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges) or 419B.234 (Qualifications) (6) affects the duty to report imposed by this section, except that a psychiatrist, psychologist, member of the clergy, attorney or guardian ad litem appointed under ORS 419B.231 (Appointment) is not required to report such information communicated by a person if the communication is privileged under ORS 40.225 (Rule 503. Lawyer-client privilege) to 40.295 (Rule 514. Effect on existing privileges) or 419B.234 (Qualifications) (6). An attorney is not required to make a report under this section by reason of information communicated to the attorney in the course of representing a client if disclosure of the information would be detrimental to the client.

As used in this section, unless the context requires otherwise:

(a)“Confidential communication” means a communication made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.

(b)“Member of the clergy” means a minister of any church, religious denomination or organization or accredited Christian Science practitioner who in the course of the discipline or practice of that church, denomination or organization is authorized or accustomed to hearing confidential communications and, under the discipline or tenets of that church, denomination or organization, has a duty to keep such communications secret.

(2)A member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member of the clergy in the member’s professional character unless consent to the disclosure of the confidential communication is given by the person who made the communication.

(3)Even though the person who made the communication has given consent to the disclosure, a member of the clergy may not be examined as to any confidential communication made to the member in the member’s professional character if, under the discipline or tenets of the member’s church, denomination or organization, the member has an absolute duty to keep the communication confidential. [1981 c.892 §35; 1999 c.7 §1]

The way I see this is all that the clergy-penitent privilege does in this circumstance is protect the clergy. The clergy is not required to report it. I also think that the person giving the confidential communication to clergy has the right to invoke the privilege and not have the clergy testify. However, I don't think the person is protected from having it reported.

[Art Vandelay]

what kind of lawyer takes this case? I don't mean from a moral standpoint (which is reprehensible) but from a business perspective. I assume it is a contingency case. They know the church has deep pockets, are they just hoping for a quick settlement? No rational person could think they would win at trial, do they?

[Jeff Lebowski]

what kind of lawyer takes this case? I don't mean from a moral standpoint (which is reprehensible) but from a business perspective. I assume it is a contingency case. They know the church has deep pockets, are they just hoping for a quick settlement? No rational person could think they would win at trial, do they?

I have to think that the church would welcome this case. No way do they settle - there is almost zero chance that this family would get a large settlement. And it highlights that the church doesn't mess around with abuse these days.

[Art Vandelay]

I have to think that the church would welcome this case. No way do they settle - there is almost zero chance that this family would get a large settlement. And it highlights that the church doesn't mess around with abuse these days.

100% agree. Just seems like a terrible case for any lawyer to take. Both from a PR and from a time vested perspective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Katy Lied]

As a fellow latter-day saint, I am not appalled that the Bish reported him. Seriously, who would be appalled?

[creekster]

This lawsuit is going nowhere. I looked at the privilege at issue here and I don't think prohibits clergy from reporting child abuse or suspected child abuse.





The way I see this is all that the clergy-penitent privilege does in this circumstance is protect the clergy. The clergy is not required to report it. I also think that the person giving the confidential communication to clergy has the right to invoke the privilege and not have the clergy testify. However, I don't think the person is protected from having it reported.

I haven't looked into the pleadings, but they might be alleging that some church representative, like a bishop or counselors, made negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations about what would happen to the guy if he confessed.

EIther way it is a horrible case to take. I am very willing to represent a lot of people. I represented some very questionable folks back in my public defender days, and have represented all sorts of evil corporations, but I would not take this case. From a Biz perspective, to address Art's question, this sort of case is a point of separation for a plaintiff's shop in an oversaturated field. They are trying to build or maintain a reputation here. (Note: I don't think this is a good idea on this case, but that is what I assume they are thinking).

I also think the church will not settle and will welcome the publicity from this suit, as well as look forward to the closing argument. But bear in mind the issues at trial are likely going to focus on the training received by lay leaders in dealing with penitents, and not the specific facts of the abuse.