No More "Sleep Overs" For Kids?

[Blackmarch]

I find this so incredibly enraging that I have to comment before reading all the responses. The reality is that child molestation is NOT any more common than it was in the past AND a child is more likely to be molested by their father, grandfather, or uncle. It bugs me to no end that overly paranoid people are taking away all the innocent joys of childhood. I teach my kids about keeping their bodies sacred and who is allowed to touch where and when and to trust that funny feeling in their tummies. And that anyone, including family, who tells them to keep secrets from mom or dad (including either one of us) should not be trusted until further notice.

it actually happening may not be much more than in the past, but lawsuits and false perceptions have increased greatly.

Nothing needs to happen to get the church into hot water, and if proper codes of conduct, guidelines, and etc... aren't followed then it becomes much harder to get out of said hot water when someone decides to take a legal action against the church, whether or not anything occurred that would warrant such.

[pyxiwulf]

it actually happening may not be much more than in the past, but lawsuits and false perceptions have increased greatly.

Nothing needs to happen to get the church into hot water, and if proper codes of conduct, guidelines, and etc... aren't followed then it becomes much harder to get out of said hot water when someone decides to take a legal action against the church, whether or not anything occurred that would warrant such.

well with that reasoning, I shouldn't be alone with my bishop during a meeting, because Just In Case.

The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the church and it's liability and everything to do with increased headlines AND education to children so that they DO report it getting people to act paranoid and irresponsibly. this is a society-wide problem of being too paranoid about this stuff and it's obvious that this leadership in this ward has fallen prey to the same hype.

[Honor]

I would not, as my Beehive advisor did, take my girls out to toilet paper the stake president's house (partly because I don't want my girls terrorized by the image of the stake president's teenage son chasing them down the street in nothing but his boxers).

Terrorized by the image? Maybe if it was the stake pres in his garment top rushing out the front door, but teenage son in boxers = traumatizing to a teenage girl? Not likely!

I agree 100% with JAG. This is not likely to be a church-wide recommendation. Trust the bishop's advice. I also think it's highly unlikely that they targeted sleep overs with other members only and anything else was not to be worried about. Just try to think of how you would phrase it if you were in a bishop's position if there is knowledge about particular situations that cannot be shared, but warning should be given to take caution. If it was given to your ward, it is FOR your ward. It seems like a delicate situation from a lot of different angles. I hope your ward members treat it as such.

[carlimac]

Consider that if there is a convicted/accused/significantly likely potential sex offender in your ward, the bishop is likely to know about it; but for both ecclesiastical and legal reasons he can't identify that person publicly. What are his other options? Openly announcing "yes, there's someone here who may do bad things to your kids" will only spur a ward witch-hunt.

I'd just take it on faith here that my bishop knows something I don't, and only allow my kids to stay with someone I know really, really well.

Aren't these folks identified in the news or on the state govt. websites? THat seems a funny response by a bishop if there is someone that dangerous. And those kinds' of people aren't generally allowed to be around kids anyway.

[Gwen]

they are only identified if convicted. if there is an investigation the bishop would know about it but be under legal restraints from talking about it. a general warning is appropriate.

also keep in mind the bishop may not know of anyone specific. it may be promptings he's been given. he may not know of anyone.... yet.

as for those that say it's not happening more now than in the past.... i think it is. particularly with the teenagers toward younger children. our world is very sexual, we are bombarded with sexual images from very young ages. that didn't used to happen. it creates a curiosity at a much earlier age. we also read reports all the time about how kids are entering puberty at an earlier age than they used to. put all that together and it's a very dangerous combination. kids need to know right from wrong, not just to protect them from being victims but from ignorantly becoming the abusers.

[carlimac]

well with that reasoning, I shouldn't be alone with my bishop during a meeting, because Just In Case.

The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the church and it's liability and everything to do with increased headlines AND education to children so that they DO report it getting people to act paranoid and irresponsibly. this is a society-wide problem of being too paranoid about this stuff and it's obvious that this leadership in this ward has fallen prey to the same hype.

I don't think a bishop can be too careful. My husband will never interview a woman in his office without other people nearby in the building. And one time he asked me to accompany him to deliver some papers (BYU application stuff) to a teenage girl he knew was home alone. He didn't want the non-member neighbors getting any funny ideas. Bishops do need to be very careful. And I would think there should be a little caution on the part of any woman meeting with any man in a room with closed doors. Even with bishops and stake presidents. Take your husband or a good friend along to wait outside. That's not paranoia- just smartness.

[Honor]

Aren't these folks identified in the news or on the state govt. websites? THat seems a funny response by a bishop if there is someone that dangerous. And those kinds' of people aren't generally allowed to be around kids anyway.

I think the point is that they don't know WHAT the specific reasoning was behind it. It doesn't mean that there is someone in their ward molesting children or even with a history of it. That type of thing would definitely be documented.

It's not our place to speculate what is going on. If it came from the bishop, he chose how to handle whatever situation it was, and now the members of his ward get to choose what they are going to do with the counsel given.

[Blackmarch]

well with that reasoning, I shouldn't be alone with my bishop during a meeting, because Just In Case.

If the bishop is doing it how he's supposed to then there shouldn't be a lot of concern, but once he steps out of those guidelines, should you decide to sue him and the church, he has a lot less protection, and the church will have to spend more money to resolve the issue.

The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the church and it's liability and everything to do with increased headlines AND education to children so that they DO report it getting people to act paranoid and irresponsibly. this is a society-wide problem of being too paranoid about this stuff and it's obvious that this leadership in this ward has fallen prey to the same hype.

I agree it is societal paranoia.. and that paranoia has a lot of potential for harm. Which is one of the reasons for sticking to guidelines.

[carlimac]

I think the point is that they don't know WHAT the specific reasoning was behind it. It doesn't mean that there is someone in their ward molesting children or even with a history of it. That type of thing would definitely be documented.

It's not our place to speculate what is going on. If it came from the bishop, he chose how to handle whatever situation it was, and now the members of his ward get to choose what they are going to do with the counsel given.

It was the "convicted/accused" words that puzzled me. Obviously that kind of thing should be made public- not necessarily over the pulpit in sacrament meeting- perhaps an email of some kind. No parent is going to allow their kid to be in that kind of situation anyway. (Would they? yikes)

ON a lesser note, we have been told not to let our young children go out to the bathrooms by themselves during church. There HAVE been strangers (unidentified men not dressed for church) lurking in womens' bathrooms in our stake on Sundays. Police called, guy took off in a hurry. Our buildings are public and open to anyone who wants to wander in. It's wise to take caution.

[Wingnut]

Terrorized by the image? Maybe if it was the stake pres in his garment top rushing out the front door, but teenage son in boxers = traumatizing to a teenage girl? Not likely!

That's what happened to us. I was 12, and the boy was 15 at the time. He grew up to be quite good-looking, but at the time he was very pimply, and I'd never seen a boy with so little clothes on, let alone chasing me and my friends down the street! :)

also keep in mind the bishop may not know of anyone specific. it may be promptings he's been given. he may not know of anyone.... yet.

In the early 80's, my dad was in the bishopric in our ward. I wasn't even five years old when all this happened. We lived in a cul-de-sac, and there was a male member of the ward living down the street from us. My dad says that several times, the bishopric considered calling him as Scoutmaster or to another position working with the scouts. He seemed like he would be a good fit. There was always a nagging feeling there, though, that they shouldn't, but they didn't know why. One day, another member of the ward came to my dad (on conditions of anonymity) and told him that s/he (i don't remember if it was a man or woman) had learned some things about the man down the street from us. I don't know the details (my dad never told me), or how this person came by the information, but they strongly suspected -- and had good reason to -- this man of being a pedophile. After the person left, my dad immediately called the bishop and told him of the conversation. The first words out of the bishop's mouth were, "Oh, sh**!"

The point is, they had a feeling that they shouldn't place this brother in a position to interact with the scouts, even though they didn't have a specific reason not to do so.

[NeuroTypical]

The church has taken several steps over the decades to protect our children from predators.

* The semi-recent "No single male teacher" policy: Husband and wife teachers are fine, a solitary sister is fine, two men are fine. No single male teacher.

* Windows on every door: You may have noticed these showing up in your ward building a year or two ago. Molestors need privacy.

* Permanent annotation on member record: If someone is convicted of a serious crime like sex abuse of a minor, a permanent mark goes on their record. It will follow them from ward to ward. It stays there regardless of excommunication and rebaptism. It can only be removed by a member of the First presidency. It's not just a way of protecting members, but also of protecting the church's good name. (Think about all the 'Catholic church moves pedophile pastors around' news we've heard in the last 5 years.)

* Creation of a 1-800 number that Bishops must call when they hear of a case of abuse. The number connects the Bishop/Branch President to legal advice for their area on what they must do.

* Training programs for leadership on the issue.

I'm glad I'm a member of this church. We do much to keep our kids safe from predators.

LM

[pyxiwulf]

The church has taken several steps over the decades to protect our children from predators.

* The semi-recent "No single male teacher" policy: Husband and wife teachers are fine, a solitary sister is fine, two men are fine. No single male teacher.

* Windows on every door: You may have noticed these showing up in your ward building a year or two ago. Molestors need privacy.

* Permanent annotation on member record: If someone is convicted of a serious crime like sex abuse of a minor, a permanent mark goes on their record. It will follow them from ward to ward. It stays there regardless of excommunication and rebaptism. It can only be removed by a member of the First presidency. It's not just a way of protecting members, but also of protecting the church's good name. (Think about all the 'Catholic church moves pedophile pastors around' news we've heard in the last 5 years.)

* Creation of a 1-800 number that Bishops must call when they hear of a case of abuse. The number connects the Bishop/Branch President to legal advice for their area on what they must do.

* Training programs for leadership on the issue.

I'm glad I'm a member of this church. We do much to keep our kids safe from predators.

LM

none of our rooms have windows on doors and the outside windows are opaque?

and since when is a single sister alone with a child not capable of abusing a child?

The fact is *if* this was prompted by an incident or even a spiritual prompting, stopping sleepovers for a couple hundred families will not stop abuse and does not address the issue. Use a fifth sunday to approach it from an educational POV instead of cutting out a perfectly normal and safe 99.9% of the time activity out of paranoia. Our bishopric did something similar not long ago in regards to teens and sex on a fifth sunday and it was nice.

[Elgama]

none of our rooms have windows on doors and the outside windows are opaque?

and since when is a single sister alone with a child not capable of abusing a child?

.

I have recently had this happen its not molestation but my child was 'bullied' by an adult sister we do have doors with windows but primary is not in those rooms.

I would listen to council - as the Sister that bullied my daughter is so plausible I can't get anyone to listen....... the person most likely to molest your child is someone you know, like, trust and has access to your home

[carlimac]

none of our rooms have windows on doors and the outside windows are opaque?

and since when is a single sister alone with a child not capable of abusing a child?

The fact is *if* this was prompted by an incident or even a spiritual prompting, stopping sleepovers for a couple hundred families will not stop abuse and does not address the issue. Use a fifth sunday to approach it from an educational POV instead of cutting out a perfectly normal and safe 99.9% of the time activity out of paranoia. Our bishopric did something similar not long ago in regards to teens and sex on a fifth sunday and it was nice.

You seem to be rather paranoid (at the very least "enraged") of paranoia. Why does it bother you so much if people want to take precautions to protect their children? It's simply common sense. I suppose you've never been a victim of something like this. Perhaps you would change your song and dance if you had been. Just wondering why the ruffled feathers?

[talisyn]

The thing about child molesters, is they look exactly like you and me. They come from all demographics, education levels, races, languages, cultures, income levels, and faiths. As the story of George P. Lee illustrates, sometimes they are active in the church, and occasionally even come from the ranks of our trusted leaders.

They do tend to be mostly (90%) male, and probably the greatest number of them are in their teen years somewhere. Another similarity they all share: when caught, a serial molester will leave behind a big pile of people with surprised looks and jaws hitting the floor - all of them saying "but he's such a nice guy! We trusted him!"

The point is, you can't tell by looking at them. It's not enough to just say "I'll only let my kids go to houses where I know everyone and trust them".

Melissa's mom rocks - that's how you protect your kids from molestation. Another thing to do, is just be open about what you've told your kid. Going to a sleepover? Just casually mention to everyone in that house that you've taught your kid about molestation, and the lies that molesters tell kids. Nothing causes a cowardly violent offender to shrink and hide, then seeing that their intended victim already knows their 'best moves' and won't be falling for it.

LM

My daughter got a huge eye-opener the other night when we watched that 'To catch a Predator' show on MSNBC. All these perfectly ordinary guys who happened to be pedophiles. It was an excellent teaching moment, especially about proper use of the internet with all those internet games kids like to play.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with sleepovers as long as you know the parents. Yes, pervs could look like anyone and be the nicest people on the block. But you can't be with your child all the time. Teach them to listen to the little voice that says 'this isn't right' and they should be ok. Should be. Operative phrase. Excuse me while I get some bubble wrap for my child....lol.

[Blackmarch]

My daughter got a huge eye-opener the other night when we watched that 'To catch a Predator' show on MSNBC. All these perfectly ordinary guys who happened to be pedophiles. It was an excellent teaching moment, especially about proper use of the internet with all those internet games kids like to play.

That being said, I see nothing wrong with sleepovers as long as you know the parents. Yes, pervs could look like anyone and be the nicest people on the block. But you can't be with your child all the time. Teach them to listen to the little voice that says 'this isn't right' and they should be ok. Should be. Operative phrase. Excuse me while I get some bubble wrap for my child....lol.

what? no kid-size hamster-ball?

[Traveler]

The ward in our area recomends that LDS members do not allow their kids to have sleep overs anymore, because of the risk of child molestation.

Is this in other wards as well, or just ours? I personally think that if you know the family very well, it should be ok. You just have to be more in touch with who your children are with, and watching their behavior for signs of being mistreated. If you think somebody might abuse your child, why would you let your child go anywhere near that family at all?

By blocking it in the church, they are only stopping members from having sleep overs at other member's houses. So the kids will have sleep overs with non-church-going families they meet in school. If I had kids, I would rather they spend the night in another LDS home, quite frankly.

I just don't know if I agree with it. Your child doesn't have to be "sleeping over" at a friend's house, for such a thing to happen. It can happen during a regular visit, in the daytime.

I suppose a concerned parent could just say "If there are any visits or any sleep overs, they will be at MY house". But if every parent insisted on that, nobody's kids would ever leave the house, lol.

So what's next? The kids won't be able to visit each other's houses at all?

I live in a upper middle class neighborhood in Sandy Utah where the Mormon density is rather significant. Our ward is comprised of just a few complete city blocks. Our stake is about ½ mile wide and less than two miles long. I have investigated a state wide website that list pedophiles in Utah. There are 3 convicted pedophiles living within the boundaries of our little ward, there are 15 within the boundaries of our stake.

I guess what I am saying is that if your bishop after careful and hart filled prayer and consideration has determined that it is not advisable for children in your ward area to be involved in sleep-overs; that it might be wiser to follow the counsel of your bishop and other leaders and avoid second guessing such advice as being ridiculous.

The Traveler

[Bini]

To OP I have heard this at my parents ward.

Growing up it wasn't a big deal to spend the night at a girlfriend's house but usually the slumber party was at our house because it was always sooo much better! I have fond memories of those late nights telling ghost stories and giving each other make-overs. Of course in retrospect, things are different now than they were back in 1990, which isn't too awfully long ago but I still think it was a bit safer in those days. For hell's sake, we played OUTSIDE all day and never even wanted to be inside for anything but a hot meal.

As a parent, I don't think I'll be allowing my children to spend the night elsewhere. Just because it seems that these days you hear so many more horrible stories than you did back when I was a kid. That's not to say terrible things didn't happen but I think the world just gets more evil as time goes on and less safer for our children.

[HiJolly]

My wife & I have not allowed our children to have sleepovers. We prayed about it & that's the answer we got.

We do allow "lateovers" ('til 11PM or 12AM), but not sleepovers. The only exception is with cousins. Even then, not at one home of cousins.

HiJolly

[NeuroTypical]

When considering allowing sleepovers, I look for potential issues. If there are teen males in the house, the answer is no. It doesn't matter how well I know the parents, they will be in bed asleep at nighttime, when hormones are raging and still-developing brains are suffering from a lack of maturity in the long-term-choice making centers.

My girls just got back from a girl scout sleepover - a basement full of giggly girls in tents, and 3 or 4 groggy mommies in the same rooms with them. Lots of potato chips and sugar. Everyone came home with another round of head colds, but that's it.

LM

[pam]

I live in a upper middle class neighborhood in Sandy Utah where the Mormon density is rather significant. Our ward is comprised of just a few complete city blocks. Our stake is about ½ mile wide and less than two miles long. I have investigated a state wide website that list pedophiles in Utah. There are 3 convicted pedophiles living within the boundaries of our little ward, there are 15 within the boundaries of our stake.

I guess what I am saying is that if your bishop after careful and hart filled prayer and consideration has determined that it is not advisable for children in your ward area to be involved in sleep-overs; that it might be wiser to follow the counsel of your bishop and other leaders and avoid second guessing such advice as being ridiculous.

The Traveler

Well said Traveler and I am in total agreement with you.