What Clergy Need to Know About Mandatory Reporting
“Currently, clergy are considered mandatory reporters in about half of all states. But even those laws vary because of the unique nature of pastoral care. Some states that include clergy as mandatory reporters exempt pastors from that requirement if abuse is disclosed or discovered during ‘pastorally privileged conversations.’” - Church Leaders
The article states:
From one perspective, without the expectation of privacy, congregants may not turn to church leaders when confronting various challenges. Because of their role as spiritual advisers, pastors often are entrusted with sensitive information about people’s lives.
One of the arguments I hear is that reporting laws will discourage people from going to pastors for help. If pastors are really going to be able to help people who are abusers, the abuser must be repentant. We need to understand that a truly repentant person is willing to accept the consequences of their actions.
Sadly too many in the church have been taught that they can confess without consequence. This often leads to repeated sin and repeated confession (it reminds me of my Catholic friends who wanted to party on Friday instead of Saturday because they would confess at church on Saturday night and they did not want to do anything too bad and have to wait a whole week to confess it). I fear that pastoral confidentiality can end up enabling a continued cycle of sin.
Pastors must avoid gossip and must keep personal matters quiet, but sin and criminal activity must be dealt with, not covered up by some traditional expectation. I am not suggesting that every private sin needs to be brought into the open, but if others are affected by it, it must be dealt with.
It strikes me that if someone is repentant of child sex abuse, part of that ought to involve going to the police and confessing. No?
That noted, what to do with counseling/penitent privilege is one of the most difficult parts of this; with adults, you cannot force someone into investigation, but with kids, the state does it for them. My gut feeling is that unless one has a really good reason not to report, one does well to remember that if the police/family services are investigating, they get a lot of the blame if they drop the ball or mess it up. Plus, they’ve got all kinds of great resources that we don’t—subpoena power, physical evidence collection, dedicated prosecutors and investigation, etc..
You might include a note if the person does not want to proceed, but as a rule, if we don’t report most of the time voluntarily, the decision will be made for us after a certain # of offenses hidden.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
That noted, what to do with counseling/penitent privilege is one of the most difficult parts of this;
Legally, it’s not that difficult at all. It is pretty simple. If, in your state you are a mandatory reporter and if your knowledge is from a third party, you have a duty to report. If your only knowledge is from the perpetrator in a pastoral relationship (not a friend or acquaintance, but pastoral), you cannot report; it is privileged and the privilege belongs to the penitent. If your knowledge is from a victim who requests confidentiality, it is a bit more muddled, based on age and other factors. For instance, in some states, if the victim is over 18 or 21, you are not legally mandated to report unless a minor child is reasonably suspected of being in danger. And if that victim does not want you to report, you could be violating clergy privilege and result in the case being jeopardized at prosecution.
It is a good idea to an attorney to guide you through the process. We are not trained in legal matters and it is foolish to expose yourself or someone else to risk without due care to seek legal advice. Don’t be arrogant. Get advice from someone who actually knows.
Suppose you’re a Christian school teacher, church SS teacher, or church nursery worker and see or hear what may be signs of abuse. Why should a policy be in place to require you to report to the pastor/elders or someone else in a leadership position in the church first? Personally, I’m calling the authorities. I think it’s the right thing to do and I’ve been in situations where making first reports internally did not end well.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron asked:
Why should a policy be in place to require you to report to the pastor/elders or someone else in a leadership position in the church first?
Control. That’s the reason. It’s a bad reason.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Control. That’s the reason. It’s a bad reason.
Perhaps, but more likely or at least as likely for information. Pastors should not be finding out about stuff after the fact, through news media or through calls from law enforcement. It might be related to control in some cases and that’s not a bad thing. If word gets started that the church was overlooking something, you want to control that information. You don’t want to look like you were covering it up. That’s why internal notification should be part of the policy.
Don’t assume that just because the alleged abuse is reported to the church leadership that it will be reported to the authorities. #cynicalforareason
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Tyler’s right. Notifying elders/pastors before going to authorities is generally a really bad idea born of trying to control things. Ironically, since you have mandatory discovery/subpoena power/physical evidence collection/right to confront evidence/etc. in a legal process, you’ve got more control of the situation if you give up control by notifying authorities.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
To repeat what I said elsewhere, reporting to church authorities (or school or employer) will not absolve of your requirement to report to law enforcement. If you are a mandatory reporter, you (as you) must report to authorities. No one else can report for you.
It strikes me that if someone is repentant of child sex abuse, part of that ought to involve going to the police and confessing. No?
I’d be curious to see just how many people have repented of child sexual abuse and turned themselves into the police. I’m betting that the number is extremely low - as in maybe 1 or 2 a year.
Pastors should not be finding out about stuff after the fact, through news media or through calls from law enforcement. It might be related to control in some cases and that’s not a bad thing. If word gets started that the church was overlooking something, you want to control that information. You don’t want to look like you were covering it up. That’s why internal notification should be part of the policy.
Normally, no. But in a case like this, I’m OK with a call being placed to law enforcement and then an immediate follow up call to the pastor. That being said, I’m far less trusting in men on this particular subject than many others are/would be. I know if a congregant called me (as their pastor) and told me they’d just turned in someone in my church for child sexual abuse, my first question is always going to be “Did you call the cops yet?”. The second question is likely “Why not, and do you want me to go with you?”
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Joeb, I am glad you agree with me. Thanks.
[Larry]To repeat what I said elsewhere, reporting to church authorities (or school or employer) will not absolve of your requirement to report to law enforcement. If you are a mandatory reporter, you (as you) must report to authorities. No one else can report for you.
This is something I’ve had to emphasize in child safety training—being in the shadow of Mayo, where a LOT of employees are mandatory reporters, there was still the question of whether to report. It’s one reason I’d heartily discourage any policy that says “tell the elders first”—people will get confused at just the wrong time.
One thing to note as well is that a fair number of people, especially of the older set, will put things in policies that will tend to work against reporting—and at that point, the person who’s working with them will have to say “you can do that, but be ready to go to jail if you do.” Yes, personal experience.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Sorry, Gentlemen, but the elders need to know what is going on in the church. Period. They are biblically, fiscally, and legally responsible for the church. Circumventing the elders in any matter involving the church is both unbiblical and unwise. As stated elsewhere, if one of the elders is being accused, of course you make provisions for that, but the elders need to be made aware. The threshold for reporting (at least in Ohio) is “reasonable suspicion.” If the person has reasonable suspicion that abuse has taken place, they should immediately report it… I’ll even grant you that they should report it first to the local authorities and then to the elders. But, to keep the elders in the dark until the police show up at the church is not good advice.
Tom, agreed, though in an ideal world, any report to the police would get them to the site of the crime so quickly you’d hardly have a chance to inform the elders. Obviously if you’ve been watching the news, that is a dream world at this point.
But that said, agreed, and one really ought to inform the whole congregation as well so you don’t get every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to take sides and making a miserable situation far, far worse with a flood of disinformation, retribution, and the like.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]one really ought to inform the whole congregation as well so you don’t get every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to take sides and making a miserable situation far, far worse with a flood of disinformation, retribution, and the like.
I would agree that the congregation should know that an accusation of child abuse at the church has been reported, that the church has policies in place to address this situation (one of them being to immediately report the suspected abuse to authorities), that the elders are seeking to minister to the victim and the family, and that the church is fully cooperating with law enforcement. However, I wouldn’t give any more details in order to respect the privacy of both the victim and the accused and to allow the police to conduct their investigation.
If the accused is charged, that would require another congregational meeting where the accuser is named, our continued cooperation with the authorities is mentioned, and our care and support for the victim and family is emphasized. But, we still wouldn’t publicly identify the victim.
If the accused is not charged, I would communicate the outcome of the investigation to the congregation, but I wouldn’t name the accused or the victim.
Discussion