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

[UrbanFool]

Pinal County prosecutors, pushing for the maximum 15 years in prison for the estranged wife of Maricopa County Supervisor Fulton Brock, portrayed Susan Brock as a predator who repeatedly molested a teenage boy after initially pursuing his older brother without success — all while they said the Mormon church concealed the abuse.

Wow. This is a REALLY long sentence. I like the way it turns into the church's fault at the end --because they didn't report the abuse.

[estradling75]

Wow. This is a REALLY long sentence. I like the way it turns into the church's fault at the end --because they didn't report the abuse.

What I love is in the very first link the point they make about the Church knowing about the abuse was when the parents of the boy approached and had a meeting with the Stake President...

In other words the boy parents had reason to believe their son was being abused... But some how it is the Church's fault that nothing was done.

It would be different if the Church leaders knew while the parents did not. But the parents did and they are the first line of protection, not the church.

[Blackmarch]

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.

In some areas of the world the police can't be trusted. Also sometimes there are dedicated units that specially tailored for such events my guess is that the hotline service would have the proper listings for them....

Now I dont know why they hav ethat first but I can certainly think of a bunch of reasons why calling that hotline would be the first step.

What i'd be interested to know is what happens after they call the hotline.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Blackmarch

[Suzie]

MOE, I am trying to be fair here but does it really matter in the end if the Bishop has a legal "duty" to report it to the authorities? (if he is well aware of the abuse?) Does it matter in the end if the remaining 18 states does not require clergy to report child abuse at all? So if a Bishop is aware of abuse and the the law doesn't require of him to report it, should he follow that course of action and it will be ok/acceptable? I think that alone creates a moral dilemma.

For me, whether the Bishop has a legal duty to report the abuse or he doesn't, he should do it regardless. In my view, reporting it to the police (whether or not he has a "legal" duty to do so) is a way to protect the victim. It also concerns me the fact that the perpetrator may NOT contact the authorities after speaking with his Bishop.

[MarginOfError]

What I love is in the very first link the point they make about the Church knowing about the abuse was when the parents of the boy approached and had a meeting with the Stake President...

In other words the boy parents had reason to believe their son was being abused... But some how it is the Church's fault that nothing was done.

It would be different if the Church leaders knew while the parents did not. But the parents did and they are the first line of protection, not the church.

The really messy issues don't concern whether or not the Church knew about the abuse or not. The messy part is whether the Church put the youth at risk or not. If the boy was abused by a an officially sanctioned leader/teacher, then the following question is whether or not the Church put in proper safeguards for the youth. Things like proper adult supervision, no isolation of adults and leaders, etc. So even if Church leaders knew nothing of the abuse, the Church can be held legally responsible if they didn't put in place or enact policies that could have prevented the abuse.

[Wingnut]

MOE, I am trying to be fair here but does it really matter in the end if the Bishop has a legal "duty" to report it to the authorities? (if he is well aware of the abuse?) Does it matter in the end if the remaining 18 states does not require clergy to report child abuse at all? So if a Bishop is aware of abuse and the the law doesn't require of him to report it, should he follow that course of action and it will be ok/acceptable? I think that alone creates a moral dilemma.

For me, whether the Bishop has a legal duty to report the abuse or he doesn't, he should do it regardless. In my view, reporting it to the police (whether or not he has a "legal" duty to do so) is a way to protect the victim. It also concerns me the fact that the perpetrator may NOT contact the authorities after speaking with his Bishop.

I think part of the problem may be not that he's just not required to in some states, but that there may be some states in which he's not allowed to report it. In those cases, no he should not.

[Suzie]

I think part of the problem may be not that he's just not required to in some states, but that there may be some states in which he's not allowed to report it. In those cases, no he should not.

Oh, some sort of prohibition? If so, under what basis? The Church statement doesn't seem to address that particular issue though. I got the impression after reading the statement that they were talking about whether or not the Bishop is obligated to report it.

[rameumptom]

Church policy is that anytime child molestation occurs, police must be notified. Had the bishop called the 1-800 hot line, this would have been the guidance given. It is for the police to investigate and determine guilt/innocence enough to send to a prosecuting attorney.

[MarginOfError]

MOE, I am trying to be fair here but does it really matter in the end if the Bishop has a legal "duty" to report it to the authorities? (if he is well aware of the abuse?) Does it matter in the end if the remaining 18 states does not require clergy to report child abuse at all? So if a Bishop is aware of abuse and the the law doesn't require of him to report it, should he follow that course of action and it will be ok/acceptable? I think that alone creates a moral dilemma.

For me, whether the Bishop has a legal duty to report the abuse or he doesn't, he should do it regardless. In my view, reporting it to the police (whether or not he has a "legal" duty to do so) is a way to protect the victim. It also concerns me the fact that the perpetrator may NOT contact the authorities after speaking with his Bishop.

It seems to me that you're confounding the legal dilemma with the moral dilemma. And I can empathize with that. I'm of the persuasion that suspected abuse should always be reported (full disclosure, my parents were investigated three times by CPS--while my dad was bishop. All three times the reports were determined to be false). But when we get outside the legal requirements and into the moral requirements, things get a bit hazier. I don't want to enumerate every possible scenario, but I will say that I find it hard to believe that the interests of the child are always best served by immediate reporting. In the majority of cases, yes, I do believe it is, but not always, and so I think the time should be taken to evaluate if that really is the best course of action (because making the wrong decision can have devastating consequences).

That being said, the decision has to be made quickly (as in, within 24 hours at most). You don't sit around on this one for very long without doing something.

[MarginOfError]

I think part of the problem may be not that he's just not required to in some states, but that there may be some states in which he's not allowed to report it. In those cases, no he should not.

I suppose theoretically this is possible, but I would be kind of surprised if any such prohibition existed today. But that is entirely dictated by my personal biases.

[Suzie]

It seems to me that you're confounding the legal dilemma with the moral dilemma. And I can empathize with that. I'm of the persuasion that suspected abuse should always be reported (full disclosure, my parents were investigated three times by CPS--while my dad was bishop. All three times the reports were determined to be false). But when we get outside the legal requirements and into the moral requirements, things get a bit hazier. I don't want to enumerate every possible scenario, but I will say that I find it hard to believe that the interests of the child are always best served by immediate reporting. In the majority of cases, yes, I do believe it is, but not always, and so I think the time should be taken to evaluate if that really is the best course of action (because making the wrong decision can have devastating consequences).

That being said, the decision has to be made quickly (as in, within 24 hours at most). You don't sit around on this one for very long without doing something.

I agree with everything you just wrote. I also understand the need of the Church to protect itself from false allegations and law suits. Having said that, it just doesn't sit well with me to think that a Bishop may be aware of abuse and he may be counsel not to report it (or he personally chooses not to) just because he doesn't have a "legal duty" to report it. In cases such as this, I think it's morally wrong and dangerous.

[Dravin]

I suppose theoretically this is possible, but I would be kind of surprised if any such prohibition existed today. But that is entirely dictated by my personal biases.

The newsroom article you quoted included this line:

Even in states where the confidentiality of the confessional prevents clergy from reporting, bishops do all they can to prevent further abuse.

It's not clarified though if what prevents reporting is a legal issue or belief in the sanctity of privileged communications. My understanding is that in some states the privilege is either held by both parities or by the 'confessor' (the other option is it resides with the clergy) which means the confession wouldn't be admissible in court and the holder or part holder of the privilege can prevent testifying. What I don't know is if there are possible legal ramifications for Clergy reporting to Child Protective Services with the idea that while he can't testify maybe CPS can find what they need.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

I agree with everything you just wrote. I also understand the need of the Church to protect itself from false allegations and law suits. Having said that, it just doesn't sit well with me to think that a Bishop may be aware of abuse and he may be counsel not to report it (or he personally chooses not to) just because he doesn't have a "legal duty" to report it. In cases such as this, I think it's morally wrong and dangerous.

I think laws often shy away from requiring churches to really do anything (separation of church/state and all that, which is understandable). But then that opens such a grey area. Are religious leaders required to report? If they're not required, how much blame can be put on the church?

I agree that the Church is at fault if reasonable safeguards were put in place and the abuse happened within a church function.

But yeah... I'm in the camp that people should use their heads and go to the police and stop relying on the church to solve everything.

[Saguaro]

"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.

Did you listen to the tape? It sounded to me like they were joking, they would have to be delusional to think that the governor would pardon a child molestor.

Did you read the article? It stated "On the tapes the two repeatedly remind each other that they are being recorded", so yes, he knew he was being taped.

One other thing, he didn't file for divorce after she was convicted which was in April. According to news reports he filed for divorce shortly after she was arrested back in October.

[estradling75]

For those that were wondering what the law was in this case... (and missed in on the side bar)

Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3620 (Edited for clarity [removing legalese redundancy])

"A member of the clergy, who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, in the course of the discipline enjoyed by the church to which the member of the clergy, belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, may otherwise make of the minor."

[Suzie]

if the member of the clergy, determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, may otherwise make of the minor."

I wonder how this part applies to our Bishops.

[estradling75]

I wonder how this part applies to our Bishops.

Well lets take a look at how this breaks down time line wise.

October 09 The boy's parents and Susan Brock meet with LDS Stake President Mitch Jones. Why a Stake President? Most likely reason is that they didn't have a Bishop in common. The boy's parents had issues with how Brock was interacting with their son. The boy's father directly accuses Sister Brock of having sex with his son which she denies. This is the first time the church learns about it and what does the President Jones have? He has an accusation. No proof, no confession, just the worry of a parents that something is off.

The article makes a big deal that the church should have reported it. At this point I ask report what? The parents had the concerns, and the worries. They were also clearly trying to work out the issue. Responsibility stays with the parents with the church supporting them as it can.

The article also plays a what if. It says that if President Jones would have called in and talk to the boy they would have caught this a year earlier... Say what? Really that is quite a leap. First the worst case possibly (which turned out to be true) is that the young man has been groomed to lie and protect the relationship, and has been lying to his parents. Why would he suddenly tell the Stake President the truth? Most likely the President would have to push pretty hard to get anything. And the President has to consider the possibility that there is nothing. How hard do you push a kid if the lying answer and a potentially true answer are the same? The article makes it a given that the boy would have confessed, facts as presented and experience tells me its not a given, and the pursuit of it could have alienated the boy from church leaders entirely.

So we move along

The article reports that On Oct. 9-10, 2010: Susan Brock confesses to Bishop Matthew Meyers. Church instructions have Bishop Meyers calling the help line. I would guess that the law is read and understood. (ie he did not have to call police) and that the child needs to be protected. So Sister Brock's bishop (Meyers) calls the The boy's bishop (Hansen) that day and tells him what is going on. This happens on the 10th or 12th according to the article. Worst case is it took 2 days. Given that a Bishop can't just leave this information on a voice mail some phone tag might have happened. Bishop Hansen calls The boy's father and the boy in to his office to tell them.(Oct 19) For some reason this takes 7-9 days. We are not told why? Did the Bishop Hansen have problem getting an appointment for some reason? where they out of town or too busy to meet? The article is interestingly blank on this.

The father knew on Oct 19, he reported on the 22 saying he was tired of waiting. Waiting for whom? Waiting for what? Someone else to take over his parental responsibility to protect his son? To me it looks like the church did everything it could to support and assist the family in it time of trouble based on what it knew and when it knew it.

Technically the Bishop could have called the police after the confession. (October 9-10) But according to the facts found out later it would change nothing about what happened to the boy. Total time between confession (and the Church knowing) and jail time was 12 to 14 days depending on exact date of confession. Clearly there is room for improvement but thinking the church is some how protecting or sheltering child abusers simply is not there.

Edited April 26, 2011 by estradling75

[Guest mirancs8]

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.

Are you serious!? Let me make this very clear to you. I am a faithful member of this church with a solid testimony. I have zero need to "cast discredit and doubt" as you put it of it's leaders (among the other things that you labeled me as doing). I am inviting dialog about something that is EXTREMELY serious for which I think people have a right to have an opinion on.

Do you realize that this was not a one time event and that this had went on since as early as 2009? I think that many can agree that the leaders should have instructed the parents to go with their suspicions to the proper authorities, and it could very well be that the leaders did. As a parent I find it bothersome that it went on for so long.

I ponder the question, when is it considered to long to wait for the parents to take action and time for those who are aware (friends, church leaders etc) to call?

In my OP I did state that LDS are not exempt from these types of events and I stand by that. Just because I love this church and the leaders too doesn't mean I don't have a brain to think on my own. We are human and we do err so I am not casting judgment I am only question that which should be questioned.

[Guest mirancs8]

One other thing, he didn't file for divorce after she was convicted which was in April. According to news reports he filed for divorce shortly after she was arrested back in October.

I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out :)

[selek]

This is my third iteration of this post.

The first two were spent reigning in my temper and sarcasm, respectively.

Are you serious!?

Deathly.

Let me make this very clear to you. I am a faithful member of this church with a solid testimony.

I'm glad to hear it- so what do you expect your public criticism of the Church to accomplish?

Are you sowing seeds of understanding? Your original post (and several that followed it) spent more time criticizing the decisions of the local leaders than asking questions.

I have zero need to "cast discredit and doubt" as you put it of it's leaders (among the other things that you labeled me as doing).

Perhaps not- but what do you expect your "dialogue" to accomplish?

You can't change what's happened. Do you really expect publicly criticizing these leaders- when you haven't walked in their shoes- will somehow make this better, or prevent it happening in the future?

I am inviting dialog about something that is EXTREMELY serious for which I think people have a right to have an opinion on.

Really? I don't recall any serious questions about the situation in your OP, but you were more than willing to criticize those who actually have to live with the decisions made.

So seriously- what outcome did you expect from this thread? That the First Presidency and local leadership would suddenly change their policies and shout huzzah's to your sheer, undimmed, unwitting brilliance?

What did you expect your thread to change?

What do you expect your "dialogue" to accomplish- other than to cast doubt about the actions and judgment of the leaders actually dealing with the problem?

No- but you've failed to produce a single scrap of actual evidence suggesting that the Church or local leaders were at fault in any way.

You've yet to show that the Church or local leaders might have prevented this predatory behavior- but you're willing to criticize them nonetheless.

Because of past tragedies, the Church and its leaders have established tried and wise procedures to handle such events to ensure (as much as is humanly possible) that the rights of all parties are protected and that children are protected as much as possible from further harm.

Who, then are YOU to second-guess and publically excoriate them?

What calling do you hold, what Priesthood keys were you given, what Heavenly commission were you granted that authorized you to declare the Church "wrong" because they didn't handle it YOUR way?

I think that many can agree that the leaders should have instructed the parents to go with their suspicions to the proper authorities, and it could very well be that the leaders did.

And that's my point- you don't know.

You don't know what actually happened- but you're more than willing to criticize the actual participants before the whole world.

As a parent I find it bothersome that it went on for so long.

As both a parent and a victim of abuse, I'm inclined to agree.

I don't, however, believe that you have any right, justification, calling, or clue to justify your very public ark-steadying, let alone to declare what the Bishop "should have done".

The bottom line is this:

• You don't know what counsel the Church or the Bishop gave those involved.
• You don't know what steps the Bishop and Stake President took to try and end the abuse.
• You don't know what they went through or what their thoughts were.
• You don't know whether the abuse was reported or not.
• You don't know any of the principals involved and precious few of the actual facts of the case.
• You don't know (or at least didn't know) the legal obligations held by the local leaders.
• You don't know (or at least didn't know) the legal obligations that tied those same leaders' hands.

But- based solely on everything you didn't know- you were willing to come here and publicly criticize them.

You didn't ask howsuch a tragedy should be handled- you waved your opinion about in our faces and invited us to agree with you.

You didn't ask about the limits of a Bishops authority or obligations to act- you simply offered your opinion about how much better things would be if only they'd handled it your way.

I ponder the question, when is it considered to long to wait for the parents to take action and time for those who are aware (friends, church leaders etc) to call?

When you're put in that position, you'll have to decide.

Until then- these ecclesiastical leaders were forced to make some tough calls- and backbiting and Monday-morning quarterbacking thier decision is a self-congratulatory, but ultimately useless and self-defeating exercise.

It's kinda funny- If you'd started out with this question in a general sense, you wouldn't have riled me.

I have no objection to honest questions- but instead you started out by criticizing those who have been forced to walk that mile; and found them wanting based solely on your own ignorance.

In my OP I did state that LDS are not exempt from these types of events and I stand by that.

And I agree with you- unfortunately, our leaders will continue to have to deal with such tragedies.

But publicly second-guessing their decisions from a root of ignorance will not make their job any easier.

Publically criticizing them- especially when you don't know all the facts- will not help them protect one more child, nor will it allow them to bring the sinner to repentance, nor will it allow these wounds to heal.

Just because I love this church and the leaders too doesn't mean I don't have a brain to think on my own.

No one is demanding otherwise. I DO, however, expect you to have all the facts before you begin publically criticizing those actually bearing the burden.

We are human and we do err so I am not casting judgment I am only question that which should be questioned.

But you didn't start with questions- you started with criticisms and unfounded assumptions.

And others followed happily in your footsteps.....

[slamjet]

And others followed happily in your footsteps.....

I was almost ok with your rant of self righteous indignation until I read your last line. Essentially, you completely and fully shot your argument out of the water by taking a stance of superior moral authority for which you are not to be questioned.

Now you look like a pompous idiot worth ignoring. Welcome to the real world.

[NeuroTypical]

People, time to chill. If you figure someone has violated forum rules, report their post and mods will consider action. If not, everyone take a look at rule #3:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

I'm speaking to nobody in particular, but rest assured that the mods will turn this car around if y'all don't start behaving.

[estradling75]

Update for those still interested

Susan Brock molestation case: LDS bishops won't be charged

[Backroads]

Update for those still interested

Susan Brock molestation case: LDS bishops won't be charged

That's good... according to my views on the subject...

[selek]

Update for those still interested

Susan Brock molestation case: LDS bishops won't be charged

That's excellent news, but it begs a single question:

Having been falsely (and ignorantly) maligned, having had their morality and integrity questioned and besmirched, where do these brethren go to get their reputations back?