Shocked no one has even brought this news up...

[Guest mirancs8]

Susan Brock wife of Arizona's Maricopa County District 1 Supervisor Fulton Brock.

"Law-enforcement authorities said local leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never reported information to police that could have protected a teenager abused by Susan Brock, wife of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock."

Being in AZ this of course is the big news. Why didn't church leaders report the information?

"In October, Susan Brock admitted to Bishop Matthew Meyers that she had molested the teen three times, the records show. The bishop is the lay leader of the local ward, or congregation."

The parents having expressed their concerns as far back as 2009 still didn't seem to trigger a larger intervention/investigation. And apparently after the father got tired of waiting he decided to take his son to the Chandler police department.

"Fulton: I ran into the governor today… she shook my hand again and said we need to have lunch…

so she said lets make it happen and I walked away.

Susan: Well... you need to have lunch with her. Wow that is great.

Fulton: She has the power to pardon.

Susan: Well I am going to need it."

I find this part interesting. He works to use all his resources to get her pardoned but once she's sentenced to 13 years he doesn't waste a second to file divorce. Being that this man is in government didn't he think he was being taped? Really now.

Knowing full well that LDS is not exempt from these types of things happening it's just shocking when I read how long this had been going on. I can't imagine as a parent what one would feel emotionally to know that someone was doing such things to your child. Naturally one would ask why didn't the parents immediate go to the police? May be that one wants to believe if they go to the church leaders they will take appropriate action? Fear of bad publicity? Who knows.

It's sad no matter what faith you hear this type of situation happening.

[Suzie]

There seems to be conflicting reports because according to the Church spokesman, one of the leaders indeed reported the incident however the police denies it. If they didn't report it to the police, it won't be the first time. We had a bunch of similar cases (unreported). Of course in my opinion, doesn't matter to me whether or not Bishops are protected by law and they aren't obligated to tell what is happening but we are talking about children here and their safety should be the number one concern.

If I was the parent, I would have contacted the police FIRST and THEN the Bishop.

[Guest mirancs8]

I agree. It just doesn't sit right with me that they didn't go to the police first.

[Suzie]

I agree. It just doesn't sit right with me that they didn't go to the police first.

I think they didn't because they didn't have proof. The boy during that meeting denied they ever had sex and she also denied the whole thing. However, the father of the boy was smart enough to put some programs on his home computer that recorded emails and chats between them and with that information, he contacted a retired police officer from his ward and told him he has "proof". This police officer apparently, is the one that called the police.

The details on this case are extremely disturbing.

[Suzie]

Susan Brock started "grooming" the boy when he was 11 years old but this is not all..

Susan Brock began the three-year relationship with the boy after her daughter Rachel Brock, 21, began having sexual encounters with him, according to police. Rachel Brock has been indicted by a grand jury on five sexually related counts of sexual conduct with a minor and furnishing harmful materials to a minor.

Court records show Rachel Brock sent nude photos of herself and an explicit video to the boy’s cell phone. The trysts occurred when she was 18 and the boy was 13.

Prosecutors: Susan Brock pursued molested boy's brother first, Mormon church knew of sex - East Valley Tribune: Cop Shop

Edited April 25, 2011 by Suzie
Added link

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

This brings to mind the scandal involving a child molesting ring inside the Jehovah Witness church during the 1980's. Though church administrators were aware or the problem, distrust of police, social services, and society in general outside of their cloister was at a pitch. They tried to deal with the problem "in house" and their failure to do so allowed the ring to thrive within the cloister undetected for several years.

I'm aware of the difference in scale, this recent incident involving one victim and one perpetrator, but the principle is the same; when a child is abused, it is absolutely irresponsible, and some would say evil, to not immediately bring the offense to light. In the wake of the sex abuse scandals, the Catholic Church in America has reformed its practices to one of no tolerance, and immediate reporting when a case of abuse is discovered.

We all need to be on that boat.

[MarginOfError]

The instructions given to priesthood leaders on how to respond to abuse are as follows:

"While interviewing or counseling a person, a priesthood leader may become aware of incidents of abuse of a child, spouse, or other person. Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Guidelines for reporting and responding to abuse are provided in [book 1] 17.3.2" (Book 1, 17.5)

"In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse. Victims of sexual abuse (including rape) often suffer serious trauma and feelings of guilt. (17.3.2)"

I won't quote more, but will summarize that the Church instructs priesthood leaders to call the Church's abuse hotline if they become aware of abuse having occurred, suspect that abuse is occurring or is at risk of being abused, or if a member is involved or consuming child pornography. Through the help line, they can speak with legal and counseling experts to get advice on the best course of action that includes legal responsibilities in that person's state. I can't speak as to whether the bishop in this case followed these procedures, but I can assure you that this is something the Church takes very seriously. If he didn't, there could be repercussions. If he did, he was likely acting under some of the best counsel available, even if we don't understand the particulars.

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is the Arizona child abuse reporting statute, if anyone's interested.

I'm more or less in the "don't blame the Church for not doing what you were too much of a weenie (and equally obligated under the law) to do yourself" crowd.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

MOE, I am not very familiar with the procedure however if the leader becomes aware of the abuse, why he has to call the Church hotline? One would think the police should be the first option to ensure the perpetrator is arrested or investigated and cannot longer hurt another person and THEN take care of the victim through counseling.

[mightynancy]

As an educator, I am under obligation by law (not to mention decency) to report suspected abuse. In my position, I am to report it to my administrator and follow up to ensure that the call to Child Services has been made. If it has not, I must make the call myself. We have a 24-hour window in which to act.

I find it icky that the Church would want bishops/leaders to call the Church hotline instead of local civic authorities - it smacks of the very thing we're so often accused of (looking out for our image rather than improving the reality).

I don't know what the parent's problem was with reporting these crimes to the police, but the moment the Bishop got wind of it, he should've placed that call.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

MOE, I am not very familiar with the procedure however if the leader becomes aware of the abuse, why he has to call the Church hotline? One would think the police should be the first option to ensure the perpetrator is arrested or investigated and cannot longer hurt another person and THEN take care of the victim through counseling.

It seems to me that notifying Church leadership via hotline should precede calling the police. I don't think this is a matter of trying to contain and cover up a scandal, but rather a matter of the leadership being informed so as to brace for the community and media fallout. It would also seem fair that the leadership is owed a chance to confirm the validity of the claim before throwing themselves to the lions over a misunderstanding. This seems reasonable.

[Suzie]

It seems to me that notifying Church leadership via hotline should precede calling the police. I don't think this is a matter of trying to contain and cover up a scandal

I understand. I am not suggesting a matter of trying to cover up a scandal. I am addressing what I consider should be priority but I understand what you are saying.

but rather a matter of the leadership being informed so as to brace for the community and media fallout.

Would you consider that a priority in an abuse case? I don't.

It would also seem fair that the leadership is owed a chance to confirm the validity of the claim before throwing themselves to the lions over a misunderstanding. This seems reasonable.

It's not the job of the Church to confirm the validity of the claim, that's the job of the police. If abuse is suspected, the authorities need to be contacted right away.

[blackknight5k]

The instructions given to priesthood leaders on how to

I won't quote more, but will summarize that the Church instructs priesthood leaders to call the Church's abuse hotline if they become aware of abuse having occurred, suspect that abuse is occurring or is at risk of being abused, or if a member is involved or consuming child pornography. Through the help line, they can speak with legal and counseling experts to get advice on the best course of action that includes legal responsibilities in that person's state. I can't speak as to whether the bishop in this case followed these procedures, but I can assure you that this is something the Church takes very seriously. If he didn't, there could be repercussions. If he did, he was likely acting under some of the best counsel available, even if we don't understand the particulars.

The bolded part is the important part - no man can know every law in their state. The bishop, in this case, has just been pulled into a VERY serious situation with very complicated laws dictating what he is and is not suppose to do. He can't go jump the gun and call the police right away, he NEEDS the legal aid supplied by the helpline.

It's kind of like what they teach you in most concealed carry courses, if you have to shoot someone in self defense your FIRST call should be to your lawyer. If the shooting was in public, more people are probably calling 911. If you are at home in your boxer shorts then you let your lawyer contact the police and meet you at your house.

Whenever anything deals with the law, lawyer up.

[Wingnut]

MOE, I am not very familiar with the procedure however if the leader becomes aware of the abuse, why he has to call the Church hotline? One would think the police should be the first option to ensure the perpetrator is arrested or investigated and cannot longer hurt another person and THEN take care of the victim through counseling.

In some states, a bishop may be mandated to report it to the police. In other states, he may be prohibited from reporting it to the police. In other countries, it may not matter (legally speaking). The first option is to make sure that the Church (and the bishop as its representative) is acting within the parameters of the law. Because that cannot be consistently and widely advised in print, the hotline exists instead.

[slamjet]

Here in California, the Catholic Church scandal really changed the completion of reporting. Mainly, because Cardinal Mahone was so adamant about not releasing church records on suspected Priests (not saying good or bad, just that it was the catalyst for changes in the laws). So now, any teacher, shrink of any kind or clergy of any kind MUST report any child abuse to the authorities. They tried to get rid of the statutes of limitations on molestations, but they lost that one so it's still at five years (from what I've been able to find out).

[selek]

The "gossipy" nature of this thread offends me.

What it it's purpose?

What is it's point?

Is it an attempt to understand a weighty theological issue confronting a believer? Hardly.

Is it a plea for advice or guidance? Not even close.

Seems to me the OP was written for three reasons and three reasons only: to cast discredit and doubt upon the Church and its leaders, to sow dissension among the faithful, and to exult in the misery and misfortune of others.

While certain people can savor the bitter cup of their schadenfreud, and still others can spout pious platitudes about what the leaders "should" do or have done, it is inescapable that they do so from the comfort and security of their anonymous armchairs and computer keyboards.

Local ecclesiastical leaders, on the other hand, are on the front-line on such things and are bound by a variety of laws, not the least of which is the sanctity of the confessional.

If a Bishop or Stake President were to "leap without looking" as some here seem to demand, they could in fact open both themselves and the Church to criminal and civil liabilities- not the least of which are lawsuits for defamation, for slander, and breach of confidence.

Mormon priesthood leaders are bound by essentially the same confidentiality laws as lawyers; and reporting requirements- and limitations- vary from locality to locality.

That's why the Chuch almost never publishes the transcipts of disciplinary proceedings or other specific membership reports.

If a Church/Priesthood leader- whether by accident or design- reports something he shouldn't have, he's placing his own freedom, reputation, and his family's financial security at risk- not just the Church's.

He (or she) can be personally sued right alongside the Church for the "bad call" - and how many of our leaders are in a position to resist decades of punishing and expensive legal battles?

While stories such as the OP may titilate those inclined towards prurient, self-congratulatory hen-cackling, holier-than-thou gossip-mongering, legal matters such as reporting unsubstantiated abuse CANNOT be settled in a Peyton-place kangaroo court or a good gossip session over the afternoon soaps.

Child abuse is never something to be overlooked or ignored- but sanctimonious "Monday-morning quarterbacking" demonstrates more ignorance than understanding and more smug complacency than compassion.

A hotline where the Bishop or others can seek sound legal advice is the very least protection the Church can offer these all-volunteer leaders.

Feeling "icky" about this tragic situation is a visceral emotional response, not a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of a very difficult situation and a very complicated issue.

No reasonable person would demand that our LDS leadership risk their freedom, their livelihoods, or their children's security on the altar of an uninformed stranger's very-far-removed-from-the-actual-situation indignation.

Edited April 25, 2011 by selek

[Suzie]

The "gossipy" nature of this thread offends me.

Then choose not to be offended.

Seems to me the OP was written for three reasons and three reasons only: to cast discredit and doubt upon the Church and its leaders, to sow dissension among the faithful, and to exult in the misery and misfortune of others.

Really? All that? And how exactly he/she did that in the OP? Your conclusion (based only on the OP) it's ridiculous, it's not even funny. I appreciate your reply on the topic (which you addressed in part) but the rest (IMO) is just full of dangerous and judgmental assumptions on your part. We are here to debate a topic, and that sometimes includes challenging a view or question what we may not understand.

[MarginOfError]

The "gossipy" nature of this thread offends me.

What it it's purpose?

What is it's point?

Is it an attempt to understand a weighty theological issue confronting a believer? Hardly.

Is it a plea for advice or guidance? Not even close.

Seems to me the OP was written for three reasons and three reasons only: to cast discredit and doubt upon the Church and its leaders, to sow dissension among the faithful, and to exult in the misery and misfortune of others.

While certain people can savor the bitter cup of their schadenfreud, and still others can spout pious platitudes about what the leaders "should" do or have done, it is inescapable that they do so from the comfort and security of their anonymous armchairs and computer keyboards.

Local ecclesiastical leaders, on the other hand, are on the front-line on such things and are bound by a variety of laws, not the least of which is the sanctity of the confessional.

If a Bishop or Stake President were to "leap without looking" as some here seem to demand, they could in fact open both themselves and the Church to criminal and civil liabilities- not the least of which are lawsuits for defamation, for slander, and breach of confidence.

Mormon priesthood leaders are bound by essentially the same confidentiality laws as lawyers; and reporting requirements- and limitations- vary from locality to locality.

That's why the Chuch almost never publishes the transcipts of disciplinary proceedings or other specific membership reports.

If a Church/Priesthood leader- whether by accident or design- reports something he shouldn't have, he's placing his own freedom, reputation, and his family's financial security at risk- not just the Church's.

He (or she) can be personally sued right alongside the Church for the "bad call" - and how many of our leaders are in a position to resist decades of punishing and expensive legal battles?

While stories such as the OP may titilate those inclined towards prurient, self-congratulatory hen-cackling, holier-than-thou gossip-mongering, legal matters such as reporting unsubstantiated abuse CANNOT be settled in a Peyton-place kangaroo court or a good gossip session over the afternoon soaps.

Child abuse is never something to be overlooked or ignored- but sanctimonious "Monday-morning quarterbacking" demonstrates more ignorance than understanding and more smug complacency than compassion.

A hotline where the Bishop or others can seek sound legal advice is the very least protection the Church can offer these all-volunteer leaders.

Feeling "icky" about this tragic situation is a visceral emotional response, not a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of a very difficult situation and a very complicated issue.

No reasonable person would demand that our LDS leadership risk their freedom, their livelihoods, or their children's security on the altar of an uninformed stranger's very-far-removed-from-the-actual-situation indignation.

First, calm down.

Second, Public opinion across the nation is trending toward a mandate that clergy report suspected child abuse even if it is revealed to them within their duties as a religious leader. A number of states are writing this into law. Within 5 - 10 years, it is very possible that all states will mandate this. If you want to debate the validity or value of these laws, please do so on rational terms instead of ranting about gossip and visceral, emotional responses.

Third, calm down.

[Dravin]

Feeling "icky" about this tragic situation is a visceral emotional response, not a reasoned, thoughtful analysis of a very difficult situation and a very complicated issue.

Irony coming from the guy who's post all but drips self righteous superiority. Maybe you should be applying some of that reasoned thoughtful analysis of why someone may not fully understand an issue and need a reasoned response instead of wallowing in your visceral emotional response?

Third, calm down.

Indeed.

[MarginOfError]

MOE, I am not very familiar with the procedure however if the leader becomes aware of the abuse, why he has to call the Church hotline? One would think the police should be the first option to ensure the perpetrator is arrested or investigated and cannot longer hurt another person and THEN take care of the victim through counseling.

As an educator, I am under obligation by law (not to mention decency) to report suspected abuse. In my position, I am to report it to my administrator and follow up to ensure that the call to Child Services has been made. If it has not, I must make the call myself. We have a 24-hour window in which to act.

I find it icky that the Church would want bishops/leaders to call the Church hotline instead of local civic authorities - it smacks of the very thing we're so often accused of (looking out for our image rather than improving the reality).

I don't know what the parent's problem was with reporting these crimes to the police, but the moment the Bishop got wind of it, he should've placed that call.

It seems to me that notifying Church leadership via hotline should precede calling the police. I don't think this is a matter of trying to contain and cover up a scandal, but rather a matter of the leadership being informed so as to brace for the community and media fallout. It would also seem fair that the leadership is owed a chance to confirm the validity of the claim before throwing themselves to the lions over a misunderstanding. This seems reasonable.

Here's a brief article describing Ohio's law. In Ohio, clergy are mandated reporters under certain circumstances. The description of when they are required to report may shed some light on the value of calling the abuse hotline before calling the police.

The child abuse reporting statute contains some carefully chosen language about when clergy are required to report non-confidential information: when they have “reasonable cause to believe based on facts that would cause a reasonable person in a similar position to believe” that a child under 18 years of age (or someone under 21 years of age who is mentally retarded or developmentally disabled) has suffered or faces the threat of suffering physical or mental abuse.

The references here to “reasonable cause to believe” what a “reasonable person in a similar position” would believe mean that clergy cannot avoid their duty to report child abuse simply because they may not have actually believed that child abuse was taking place. This is an objective standard. The question is whether, in retrospect, a judge or other authority would determine that the clergyperson should have believed that child abuse was occurring, based on the facts and circumstances involved, regardless of what the clergyperson actually believed or didn’t believe. If, objectively speaking, a “reasonable person” in a similar position would have foufound the information credible, it must be reported. Clergy who decide that the information they have received is not credible need to understand, in other words, that any decision not to report nonconfidential information about child abuse can be second-guessed.

To sum up, a bishop who hears reports of child abuse would have to determine if the reports were credible. If they are not credible, he is not required to report. If they are, he is required to report. If he doesn't report and then child abuse is found, the courts can examine what the bishop knew, and if they find a standard of credible evidence, the bishop and the Church are subject to legal action.

The hotline, therefore, gives the bishop (who probably has very little training in what qualifies as credible evidence) a resource with which to determine if the evidence he has constitutes 'credible evidence.'

I know it feels icky, but there truly are instances in which it may be preferable not to report a parishioner's report of abuse. For instance, Peter is a 16 year old boy who just got denied his Eagle scout rank at his Scoutmaster conference. The next week, Peter's father is telling the bishop he thinks the scoutmaster has been sexually abusing Peter. All of a sudden, the bishop has to determine if there's a vindictive spat going on, or if there's credibility to the report. The hotline can help him determine this.

What's bizarre about the Arizona case is that it was the abuser who reported that she was abusing (if I've read this correctly). I have a hard time imagining that a self report doesn't qualify as credible evidence.

Still, calling the hotline may make sense since mandated reporters might be encouraged to report to a governmental agency instead of the local police force. The hotline would know who the bishop should be reporting to.

Lastly, there's an argument to be made that mandated reporting prevents abusers who want to stop from seeking help. The natural counter to this is that people want to protect the child(ren), but the argument exists nonetheless.

[Dravin]

Really? All that? And how exactly he/she did that in the OP? Your conclusion (based only on the OP) it's ridiculous, it's not even funny. I appreciate your reply on the topic (which you addressed in part) but the rest (IMO) is just full of dangerous and judgmental assumptions on your part. We are here to debate a topic, and that sometimes includes challenging a view or question what we may not understand.

If this is how he normally responds...

Person: My cat died.

Selek: What is the point? Why are you engaging in gossipy God blaming in the wake of the death of your pet? Don't you know we live in a fallen world and that animals die?

Person: Uh...

Selek: Now stop this visceral emotional reaction in regards to the death of your pet.

Person: *walks away*

The idea of commiserating with others is foreign to him I guess.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Suzie]

Here's a brief article describing Ohio's law. In Ohio, clergy are mandated reporters under certain circumstances. The description of when they are required to report may shed some light on the value of calling the abuse hotline before calling the police.

To sum up, a bishop who hears reports of child abuse would have to determine if the reports were credible. If they are not credible, he is not required to report. If they are, he is required to report. If he doesn't report and then child abuse is found, the courts can examine what the bishop knew, and if they find a standard of credible evidence, the bishop and the Church are subject to legal action.

The hotline, therefore, gives the bishop (who probably has very little training in what qualifies as credible evidence) a resource with which to determine if the evidence he has constitutes 'credible evidence.'

I know it feels icky, but there truly are instances in which it may be preferable not to report a parishioner's report of abuse. For instance, Peter is a 16 year old boy who just got denied his Eagle scout rank at his Scoutmaster conference. The next week, Peter's father is telling the bishop he thinks the scoutmaster has been sexually abusing Peter. All of a sudden, the bishop has to determine if there's a vindictive spat going on, or if there's credibility to the report. The hotline can help him determine this.

What's bizarre about the Arizona case is that it was the abuser who reported that she was abusing (if I've read this correctly). I have a hard time imagining that a self report doesn't qualify as credible evidence.

Still, calling the hotline may make sense since mandated reporters might be encouraged to report to a governmental agency instead of the local police force. The hotline would know who the bishop should be reporting to.

Lastly, there's an argument to be made that mandated reporting prevents abusers who want to stop from seeking help. The natural counter to this is that people want to protect the child(ren), but the argument exists nonetheless.

Thanks for such detailed post. I can see now that it makes sense in some cases. I wonder: If a Bishop feels the abuse allegation is serious and real but calls the hotline and the Church determines it is not and shouldn't be reported, can the Bishop still report it to the authorities? Will he face any disciplinary action by the Church concerning this? The reason I ask is if the Bishop disagrees with the Church over this issue but he chooses to follow their advise, if the abuse allegation happens to be true won't he be held accountable by authorities and face charges? (depending on the state)

[estradling75]

Here is something else that was only briefly brought up but never really looked at. What if the bishop did report it to the proper legal authorities? Tempe is pretty close to my local stomping grounds. And CPS (Child Protective Services) in this area has been in the news quite a bit for their failure to act. Of course the only newsworthy stories are the ones were the kid ends up dead. I am not entirely sure of the time frame but it seems like it is pretty close..

[MarginOfError]

Thanks for such detailed post. I can see now that it makes sense in some cases. I wonder: If a Bishop feels the abuse allegation is serious and real but calls the hotline and the Church determines it is not and shouldn't be reported, can the Bishop still report it to the authorities? Will he face any disciplinary action by the Church concerning this? The reason I ask is if the Bishop disagrees with the Church over this issue but he chooses to follow their advise, if the abuse allegation happens to be true won't he be held accountable by authorities and face charges? (depending on the state)

I don't have any experience with the hotline, so I can't really say much about what would take place.

From the LDS Newsroom

The Obligation to Report

At the heart of many legal contests is when and whether notice of a potential abuse or abuser is reported. Church officials follow state law regarding when and how to report an act of child abuse to public authorities.

The more difficult moral issue is whether a bishop should report abuse information to public authorities when he has obtained that information in an official capacity in the privileged context of a private confession. Apart from the difficult religious issue involved, some churches and professionals believe that to force clergy to report a private confession makes it less likely that child abusers will come forward to get help. They will likely continue to abuse. Others argue that law enforcement needs to be involved quickly because of the high risk of repeat offenders. There is no consensus on this difficult issue.

The complexity of the problem is reflected in a wide variety of reporting laws from state to state. Twenty-three states have laws requiring clergy to report only when the information is not privileged. In these states, for instance, a clergyman who learns of abuse in a confidential communication, such as a confession, has no legal duty to report it to authorities, whereas a clergyman who personally observes abuse or has an independent reason to suspect abuse is required to report. In nine other states, clergy have a duty to report child abuse no matter what. And in the remaining 18 states and in the District of Columbia, reporting statues do not require clergy to report child abuse at all.

Bishops in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are taught that they have two primary responsibilities when they learn about a case of child abuse. First, they must protect the victim. Second, they must hold the perpetrator accountable for his actions. Even in states where the confidentiality of the confessional prevents clergy from reporting, bishops do all they can to prevent further abuse. Every effort is made to persuade the abuser to take responsibility for his actions, including going to the legal authorities. The very fact that a man has gone to his bishop with a confession makes it more likely that a respected Church leader can influence him to do the right thing.

[NeuroTypical]

This issue always seems to bring out strong emotions in people - for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, it also tends to bring out a bunch of useless armchair quarterbacking and unrighteous judging. We feel very comfortable reading an account written by someone who wasn't there, and opining about what people involved should and shouldn't have done. We often base our opinions quite often on our own assumptions about how things work, and those assumptions are often lacking.

The more I learn about the issue, the more hesitant I am to judge one of the actors. It's difficult to know what to do. So we organize policies to help people know. But even when those policies are followed, sometimes good doesn't come of it.

I know a lady who, back as a young teen showed many of the textbook symptoms of sexual abuse. She showed these signs because she had been sexually abused by an older brother across several years. And yet, in the year before she dropped out, she was reported only two or three times - each time by a substitute teacher. And there was never any action taken as a result of those reports. To the extent someone tried to figure out what was going on, she walled up and would not divulge any details. And of course the family was even more walled up, so even if someone had talked to them, it would have done no good. Church leaders counseled and disciplined her about her inappropriate behavior, totally missing why the behavior was happening. This girl and the family needed an intervention, but without her cooperation, nobody had the legal standing to do anything.

We try to comfort ourselves with the assumption that if we just follow the checklist in the right order, it'll all be good. That's often a false comfort.

LM