What about a case in which one becomes aware of a person against whom there are allegations of sexual misconduct with a minor. Does the Church:
* ban that person from any Primary/youth function
* ban that person from having any contact with any children or youth
* announce to Primary/youth leaders of the allegations and give instructions on whether he can be present at functions
* announce to the ward membership ...
The danger is these are allegations. Nothing has been proven. But sometimes a serious allegation might be enough to warrant precautions/warnings. The problem with such acts is that one could easily trespass into slander, which is actionable. The Church might also be responsible for damaging the reputation of an innocent man.
I don't know the answers to this question.
I believe the Church does number 1 to 3 (I never saw doing number 4) in situations where there is no doubt the offense took place either by confession or was taken to the police who determined the individual indeed abused a child/children. I do not agree with "I think he/she did it". There must be PROOF before taking any type of action. At the mean time, it is within the Church discretion to take whatever measures they need until the conflict is solved.
QUOTE |
There must be PROOF before taking any type of action. At the mean time, it is within the Church discretion to take whatever measures they need until the conflict is solved. |
Tortdog:
QUOTE |
So in a case where it's one kid's word against another person, you do what? That's the most common and problematic case. You have a child claiming a person did something (could be another kid) and then you have to decide what to do with that information. |
QUOTE |
In the case where there is not enough "evidence" I think leadership should be cautious (predators cannot help themselves and they usually "attack" again) so it won't be too long until you hear of another allegation. |
QUOTE |
Personally as a mom, I won't commune in the same Branch/Ward of someone who abused my kid even if it was not proven. |
Tortdog:
QUOTE |
But that second instance is too late. That means a second kid's life is potentially ruined, all because you gambled and didn't act to protect him from the "potential." See the problem? |
QUOTE |
And that happens. Of course, in the Church that presents a problem. If that person who you cannot commune with continues to attend your ward meetings your only real choice is (I) go inactive or (ii) move. That's unfortunate as you are the innocent party. |