PA Courts Weighing on the Matter on Child Abuse

[Dustparticle]

Here are the article Pa. courts weigh whether Jehovah's Witnesses elders must report confessed child abuse | Pennsylvania Record (pennrecord.com) 

 

Here is the opinion. J-47-2023mo - 105833415255212874.pdf (pacourts.us)

[Joey]

I thought our organization reported all  child abusers. 

I don't understand this lawsuit.

[Dages]

6 minutes ago, Joey said:

I thought our organization reported all  child abusers. 

I don't understand this lawsuit.

Depends on local laws and time. We have a topic about this.

[Sheep]

17 hours ago, Joey said:

I thought our organization reported all  child abusers. 

I don't understand this lawsuit.

I don't understand it either, really. Here's what I do understand: In some US states (Montana, for example), there is a law that exempts the elders from the normal mandatory reporting when someone voluntarily confesses to an elder that he abused a child. But this Pennsylvania lawsuit seems to have something to do with a law similar to Montana's. I'm not sure what the purpose of this exemption is, besides the explained "clergy-penitent privilege".

[Parale]

The relevant sentences in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection leaflet are worded very carefully. It is reported if either local mandatory reporting laws require it, or if a 'judgment call' is made that the minor is deemed to be still in danger.

 

Ergo I understand that:  if no longer a minor, it is not reported; or if they are still a minor, but no longer deemed to be in danger, then - without some other valid reason - it is not reported, with "clergy-penitent privilege" being cited as the reason.

 

The wording says: "When elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, they immediately consult with the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses to ensure compliance with child abuse reporting laws. (Romans 13:1) Even if the elders have no legal duty to report an accusation to the authorities, the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses will instruct the elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse or there is some other valid reason."

 

Where is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection leaflet on the JW.org website?

 

JW.org

> Information for Government Officials [at bottom of page]

> Global Information Brochures

> Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection [at bottom of page]

 

https://www.jw.org/en/gov-resources/global-information-brochures/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

 

[Landon1285]

Although the laws pertaining to clergy privilege should be clearer, I would think that the Good Samaritan laws would cover in this situation. 

[trottigy]

1 hour ago, Parale said:

The relevant sentences in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection leaflet are worded very carefully. It is reported if either local mandatory reporting laws require it, or if a 'judgment call' is made that the minor is deemed to be still in danger.

 

Ergo I understand that:  if no longer a minor, it is not reported; or if they are still a minor, but no longer deemed to be in danger, then - without some other valid reason - it is not reported, with "clergy-penitent privilege" being cited as the reason.

 

The wording says: "When elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, they immediately consult with the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses to ensure compliance with child abuse reporting laws. (Romans 13:1) Even if the elders have no legal duty to report an accusation to the authorities, the branch office of Jehovah’s Witnesses will instruct the elders to report the matter if a minor is still in danger of abuse or there is some other valid reason."

 

Where is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection leaflet on the JW.org website?

 

JW.org

> Information for Government Officials [at bottom of page]

> Global Information Brochures

> Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Scripturally Based Position on Child Protection [at bottom of page]

 

https://www.jw.org/en/gov-resources/global-information-brochures/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

 

 

I would just add to that ... each case is different and there isn't a clear cut "policy" that says - if no danger DO NOT report. It is possible that a report may still be made - but perhaps anonymously.

 

To me, this case is about "are they MANDATED to report or not. As there is a "clergy" exemption, it should apply to the elders.

 

IF they are MANDATED then obviously they will report and then they will have to keep some kind of record to show that they have reported. So, do they need to keep a record and what type of record would suffice if someone tried to sue later and say that they didn't report? This lawsuit is just about clarifying things to prevent future lawsuits.

[Jwanon]

It should have been mandatory from the start, that way we would have avoided all of this 

 

I'm glad we can finally put this to rest