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
I guess you could keep the name quiet for a little while, but if someone is being investigated, their name is going to become well known at least among those who are approached by police very quickly. People will also tend to guess the name of the accusers from the direction of the investigation as well.
So in my view, the key issue isn’t privacy, but rather making sure that people know who to talk to, and who not to talk to. You stand up there, tell them that someone has been accused and that there are a number of accusers, and ask them to tell whatever they know to either the police or the church’s lawyer—and give contact information. Your goal is to limit or shut down the gossip mill.
As I noted above, the best way to control what goes on in a case like this is to give up control and let mandatory discovery keep you informed.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Yes, people may guess or find out who the accused is, but the elders shouldn’t name the person until there is an indictment. Then, it is public knowledge and the grand jury has found that there is enough evidence to proceed with a criminal prosecution. Until then, the allegations remain just allegations. Remember, reporting sexual abuse does not establish that sexual abuse actually occurred. I don’t want to ruin a person’s reputation and character in the church and in the community if the criminal justice system finds that the allegation could not be substantiated or corroborated.
Suppose you’re a pastor or CDS Principal and someone from child services contacts you to inform you that they are investigating and allegation of abuse in your church/school. What’s your reaction?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
1. Take careful notes and get the investigator’s card/contact information. Make no commitments beyond telling him/her that you are going to immediately call your church’s insurer and lawyer for advice on how to proceed, and to work with the investigation.
2. Call the church’s insurer and get the name of the lawyer they recommend. Listen carefully to what they tell you.
3. Get an urgent appointment with the lawyer and listen carefully and do what he tells you. (he will tell you whether it’s better to name the accused or not, per another discussion)
4. As a rule, part of what the insurer and lawyer will recommend is to announce the charges to the congregation and provide their contact information, as well as that of the police, so those who know something talk to them and not just to each other.
5. Plead with the congregation to talk with investigators, and not to make public accusations or defenses of either accuser or accused.
6. Comply with requests for information/interviews per consultation with the lawyer.
Note; failure to do this appears to be extremely likely to cost my alma mater, Michigan State University, about half a billion bucks in insurance money. It’s also resulted in the prosecution of at least four MSU employees besides Larry Nassar. It’s a big deal, and it will help your organization avoid a lot of problems.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
What’s your reaction?
If you have a good policy, your answer is, “We already know. The person has been suspended from all contact with children. Let us know what you need.”
If you have a bad policy or someone who doesn’t follow the policy, you say, “Wow. I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven’t heard anything. Let me go get them because they are in a classroom right now because we didn’t know he or she should have been suspended.”
Take your pick which position you would rather be in.
Larry, there are two points that make your scenario incomplete. First, even the best policies don’t ensure success—you hint at that, but let’s make it explicit. We might also add that policies don’t change church culture, and that’s the key issue for avoiding these problems.
Second, if you’ve got a good, legally sound policy, and you’ve determined someone is a risk, you’re strongly likely to have contacted the police or child protective services yourself, no? So we would assume Ron’s case is either “bad policy/no policy” or “policy-breakers”.
Finally, even if you knew and contacted them yourself, again, you talk to your insurance company and lawyer.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert’s response is the best so far. When I got a surprise visit from Child Services as a CDS Administrator about an alleged incident of which I had no knowledge I gave him free reign to do his investigation. (The allegation was unfounded.)
I’ve also seen Larry’s scenario:
If you have a good policy, your answer is, “We already know. The person has been suspended from all contact with children. Let us know what you need.”
The investigator’s response in this case was “Why didn’t you call us?”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
First, even the best policies don’t ensure success—you hint at that, but let’s make it explicit.
No, it was explicit. I said “someone who doesn’t follow the policy.”
Second, if you’ve got a good, legally sound policy, and you’ve determined someone is a risk, you’re strongly likely to have contacted the police or child protective services yourself, no? So we would assume Ron’s case is either “bad policy/no policy” or “policy-breakers”.
Yes, and that’s the answer to Ron’s question: “We didn’t call you because the person who told us had already told you.”
Finally, even if you knew and contacted them yourself, again, you talk to your insurance company and lawyer.
Probably good to your lawyer first in most cases to make sure you are doing it correctly and not jeopardizing something by doing it wrongly. There is a “good faith” clause in reporting statutes, but good faith won’t make up for failing to take proper steps to retain evidence and protect the integrity of the investigation.
The investigator’s response in this case was “Why didn’t you call us?”
The answer is, “Because the person who told us had already told you. Here’s a copy of the report that you were given.”
Larry, it strikes me that even if a church’s source on a person’s wrongdoing had already reported, that (a) does not in general satisfy mandatory reporting requirements and (b) the church’s experience with a person will be of interest to an investigation. So quite frankly, the scenario you described will sometimes send someone to jail.
Also, regarding “call the lawyer first”, lawyers specialize. The guy who handles code issues and contracts isn’t the right guy in this case, and if he’s any good, he’ll tell you to go to your insurance company and see who they recommend. If he’s not good, he’ll “help” you, often with disastrous results.
Call the insurance company first. It’s in the contract, and it’s the smart thing to do.
Finally, the explicit statement is “even the best policies don’t ensure success”. That concept is implicit in the statement “someone doesn’t follow the policy.” See the difference? Again, when people get easily confused regarding issues of reporting and such, you’ve got to follow the “KISS” principle.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Yes, and that’s the answer to Ron’s question: “We didn’t call you because the person who told us had already told you.”
and
The answer is, “Because the person who told us had already told you. Here’s a copy of the report that you were given.”
In reality, the response to these is often, “No. Actually the accuser was the one who called us.”
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Larry, it strikes me that even if a church’s source on a person’s wrongdoing had already reported, that (a) does not in general satisfy mandatory reporting requirements and (b) the church’s experience with a person will be of interest to an investigation. So quite frankly, the scenario you described will sometimes send someone to jail.
It strikes you wrongly. Assuming a person is a mandatory reporter (most church volunteers are likely not which means they won’t get sent to jail), the report is to be made by the individual with the reasonable suspicion. Not by a third party who has no reasonable suspicion. If the church’s source makes a report, then the mandatory reporting requirements are likely met.
The church’s experience probably will be of interest, hence, the statement, “Let us know what you need.”
As with previous conversations, I am once again convinced that you don’t read with the goal of understanding.
Also, regarding “call the lawyer first”, lawyers specialize. The guy who handles code issues and contracts isn’t the right guy in this case, and if he’s any good, he’ll tell you to go to your insurance company and see who they recommend. If he’s not good, he’ll “help” you, often with disastrous results.
Call the insurance company first. It’s in the contract, and it’s the smart thing to do.
Don’t nitpick stuff like this. Of course you call a qualified lawyer and if you need to ask your insurance company, then do so. Don’t be silly Bert. If you are calling a codes and contracts lawyer about mandatory reporting, you are an idiot. That doesn’t even need to be said among reasonable people. Again, read with understanding.
Finally, the explicit statement is “even the best policies don’t ensure success”. That concept is implicit in the statement “someone doesn’t follow the policy.” See the difference? Again, when people get easily confused regarding issues of reporting and such, you’ve got to follow the “KISS” principle.
My statement was explicit, probably moreso than yours general statement about policies. Mine was an explicit statement about the person who doesn’t follow the policy. So yes, there’s a difference. Your statement addressed a policy; mine addressed a reporter, a person. Mine was sufficiently explicit.
In reality, the response to these is often, “No. Actually the accuser was the one who called us.”
I am not following this. When the investigator asks the church, “Why didn’t you call,” the response is “The accuser was the one who called us”?
The bottom line is, that if the policy is followed, the report is made both to law enforcement and to leadership. Let’s face it: Law enforcement can’t remove a volunteer from a classroom, and church leadership can’t remove the volunteer unless they were informed. So tell the police and tell the leadership.
Suppose you’re a pastor or CDS Principal and someone from child services contacts you to inform you that they are investigating and allegation of abuse in your church/school. What’s your reaction?
“OK, what does my organization need to do (or what do I need to do personally) to ensure that get you whatever you need in terms of access to people, materials, video (if we have cameras), etc as fast as is humanly possible?”
For the record, New York does not mandate reporting for clergy. I think that’s absolutely nuts and would report regardless of what the state statues are. I literally shake my head every time I think about it, because the state is so intrusive and finicky to deal with in so many other ways.
"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
If you tell the investigator that you already knew, they will respond “why didn’t you call us IMMEDATELY?”
I’m assuming that the investigator shows up and surprises you with his reason for investigation.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Discussion