Transparency and Accountability Sorely Lacking in Child Sexual Abuse Cases

Over the last several years, there has been publication related to inadequate responses of law enforcement and DCS related to abuse in our community. CSA has often been under-investigated. Not only this, last year GOP moved to dissolve an independent child advocacy commission.

‘Systemic failures’ of police investigations imperiled child sex abuse cases, prosecutor says

Audit: Tennessee Department of Children’s Services failed to investigate sexual abuse

Tennessee child advocates raise alarm as GOP moves to dissolve child advocacy commission

On top of this, the use of NDAs in CSA cases has been routine, which can make it difficult for individuals to speak up about cases and bring to light shortcomings in responses to claims of abuse.

Non-Disclosure Agreements Conceal Abuse

NDAs have come under scrutiny as a tool for concealing dangerous practices by both abusive individuals and institutions. Over the last several years, much of the attention related to NDAs concerns sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination in the workplace. NDAs prevent individuals from speaking up about their experiences. This can perpetuate cultures of sexual harassment and abuse, concealing the presence of these activities thus allowing them to continue. In addition, NDAs may impede individuals from speaking with family, friends, therapists, reporting to legal authorities, or making disclosures to protect the public interest. Also, many bound by an NDA find it personally damaging to be stripped of their voice.

Not enough attention has been given toward the use of NDAs in child sexual abuse cases. The same dangers are present in the use of NDAs for child sexual abuse cases, but the harms concealed affects children – the most vulnerable in our communities. There are many examples of institutions such as sports organizations, camps, and churches which have used NDAs. This limited accountability and scrutiny for all involved parties and allowed abusers in some cases to abuse many additional victims.

I have shared my experience with an NDA in this prior post.

Secret Settlements in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Cover-Up in Williamson County – Part 3 – Jane Speaks Up!

In April 2023, I learned via news reports that a member of GOP leadership was found guilty of sexually harassing a legislative intern. He retained his leadership position and government money had been spent on moving expenses for the intern. It was later reported that the intern felt like they were trying to buy her silence.

‘Trying to buy my silence’: We’ve got the sexual harassment receipts (newschannel5.com)

From the article, I learned that Rep. Bill Beck had previously passed a law to make government agencies’ sexual harassment settlements public.

Following reading this news article, I looked up the referenced law. At the same time, I found Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-34-103.

Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any provision of a settlement agreement that has the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of child sexual abuse, as defined in § 37-1-602, is void and unenforceable as contrary to the public policy of this state; except that identifying information concerning a victim of child sexual abuse shall be deemed and maintained as confidential.

This law was passed in 2018. I was surprised that I had never heard of it before since this has been a topic of great interest to me. I don’t recall nor have I found any publicity related to the passing of this law. I am not sure why this is the case.

Personal Efforts to Raise Awareness and Address Public Safety Issues

Over the last eight years, I have been seeking to raise awareness regarding the serious public safety issues related to the handling of child sexual abuse cases in group childcare settings in Tennessee. In 2014, a three-year-old boy made a verbal disclosure of abuse alleging that his teacher anally and orally raped him the week before. Though this teacher had a supervisory role over dozens of other toddlers over an extended period, the scope of the investigation was limited to the one disclosing child. This is a serious public safety issue that parents were not informed their child was supervised by an alleged sexual offender in a group childcare setting, especially considering the severity of the allegations and the developmental status of the exposed toddlers.

I have sought to bring attention regarding these serious public safety issues to multiple law enforcement agencies, DCS, Brentwood city officials, multiple legislators, and child sexual abuse advocates. I have also reached out to multiple clergy as well as the Boys Scouts and Metro Nashville Public Schools to inform both organizations of the presence of a convicted sexual offender in their organizations.

Between 2016 and 2019, I felt like I was making some headway in raising awareness and potentially resolving some of my concerns. However, it felt as if I ran into roadblocks. And, in some ways, it felt as if my efforts were counterproductive. In addition, it was a tumultuous time in the legislature, and I felt limited in seeking assistance legislatively. My state representative had resigned due to scandals, and my state senator was married to the judge for our case in which paperwork was introduced unbeknownst to us that made the confidentiality of our settlement overly broad and contrary to the public interest.

Between 2019 and 2023, I have maintained interest in raising awareness of the very serious public safety issues, though I was less active than I had been between 2016 and 2019. It is not because I felt less strongly. It was more due to the roadblocks and the uncertainty as to the most effective approach.

Through 2023, the case and corresponding issues came back into my attention more acutely. I felt strongly compelled to address the public safety issues and sought out legal assistance. In the fall of 2023, I contacted attorneys at Horwitz Law and retained them to represent me.

Are School Principals Being Notified of Juvenile Delinquencies as Required by Law?

In the past, I have shared several contacts and correspondences I have had with the various organizations and individuals, such as the Brentwood PD, the boy scouts, the church that sponsored the boy scout troop, and various legislators. I have not shared my notice to Metro Nashville Public Schools.

I feel partly motivated to share this as I have seen other cases in which breakdowns in communication and legal missteps led to horrific results.

Nashville clerk mistake blamed in Lauren Johansen’s Mississippi death (tennessean.com)

“Records show that several instructions outlined in a court order detailing the conditions of Rivers’ release were not followed, which Robert Johansen says allowed Rivers to leave Nashville, travel to Mississippi and kill his daughter.”

Perusing the local news, I routinely observe shortcomings and breakdowns in the legal system. However, in CSA cases, similar breakdowns may be happening, but they are more likely to remain hidden.

I made a contact to a principal at the school the juvenile offender was zoned for 0n October 18, 2017. By this point, I had lost trust that notification procedures would have been followed. Based on what I can tell, for certain juvenile offences, notification of a school principal is required by law.

Tennessee Compilation of School Discipline Laws and Regulations 3-20-2015

See section heading titled “Monitoring and Accountability”.

I found the zoned school for the teen offender, Hillsboro High School, and I emailed the principal.

Dr. Pelham,

I am writing to inform you that a convicted juvenile sex offender resides at an address that is zoned for Hillsboro.  I do not know whether he actually attends an MNPS or has transferred to a private school.  However, I know that the family has attended MNPS schools in the past including Hume Fogg.

The student’s name and address is

[Redacted]

His parent’s names are [Redacted]

[Redacted] pleaded guilty and was charged with aggravated sexual battery in 2015 for an incident in 2014 in a church classroom in Brentwood.  He was a Sunday school teacher for a three year old class along with other family members.  He also taught a two year old class in the ministry year before the incident.  The victim was a three year old boy who accused him of oral and anal rape.  From what I was told, [Redacted] was not sentenced to any jail time.

Given that juvenile records are sealed and there are privacy laws, I wasn’t sure that MNPS was notified.

I am also going to share some additional information since the scope of the investigation only included the one disclosing child. As such, there was a missed opportunity to uncover the potential full scope of the situation.  With young children, there is a limited window of opportunity to do an interview as their long term memory is not as developed as an older child or an adult.  No one can say for certain the offender didn’t attack multiple children multiple times.  Potentially, he could present more danger to the community than a one-time offender. 

The investigative process completely ignored the dozens of other children exposed to [Redacted] either as potential victims or witnesses.  This is concerning for two reasons – the only other teachers were [Redacted] relatives and all the community leaders with inside knowledge of the situation can provide no assurance the other children were unharmed.  I do know of other families whose sons showed signs of abuse.  The BPD knows this.  No other prosecutions are possible.  Part of the plea deal protected [Redacted] from future prosecutions from children in the class.  The families from the three year old class were notified of an incident between two juveniles sometime between August 2014 and 2015.  I don’t know if the families from the two year old class were ever notified.  I didn’t learn of the actual allegations until late 2015.   

I tried reaching out to[Redacted] parents since my son had signs of abuse during the time he was under [Redacted] supervision. [Redacted].  I asked the parents if [Redacted] brought my son to the bathroom, and I received no reply.

If this student is an MNPS student and you have not already been notified, I hope you find this information helpful.  I would think that school staff would want to know of a student that had a conviction for acting out violently toward another juvenile, especially to one that is helpless and defenseless.

Sincerely,

[Redacted]

Pelham, Andrew S Oct 18, 2017, 3:04 PM
to me

Thank you for sharing this information.

Shuler Pelham, Ed.D.

Executive Principal, Hillsboro High School

3812 Hillsboro Rd.

Nashville, TN 37215

I don’t know whether Metro Nashville Public Schools were contacted appropriately prior to my message. It does appear that notification of school principals is legally required. When students are in high school, there are additional extra-curricular activities. Some of these activities are overnight and others are day long activities in venues outside of the zoned school. For overnight activities, students might stay in a hotel, with four students per room. This highlights the importance of this legally mandated notice.

So much about how the case and aftermath was handled is very concerning. The case was limited to one disclosing child. Additional children or parents were not contacted as either potential victims or witnesses, and a Brentwood PD informed me of a plea deal that prevented the offender from future prosecutions. Was the school principal appropriately notified in accordance with the law? Is this the kind of conduct citizens from our community leaders that we should come to expect? At a minimum, additional transparency and accountability is need with respect to CSA cases. The community needs to know what to expect of our community leaders when claims of CSA arise and how to effectively address shortcomings in responses processes should those occur.

Response Following Notice of Sexual Offender in Church Sponsored BSA Troop

9/17/2023

In early May, Scott Sauls was placed on leave due to a toxic work culture then indefinitely suspended. In the past week, there was an article regarding PCA denomination accountability describing how “groups of former and current staff at Christ Presbyterian wrote letters to the church’s elders requesting a third-party evaluation”. This request has been dismissed, and the presbytery or church haven’t disclosed findings from their inquiry to church members or staff.

Shortly after learning that Scott Sauls was placed on leave and indefinitely suspended, I contacted CPC elders and Neil Spence of The Nashville Presbytery on May 19, 2023, and received a response the same day. In the past, I had contacted Scott Sauls, Todd Teller, and Christ Presbyterian in 2017/2018 as referenced in a past blog post. The reason why I had contacted them in the past was to notify them of a convicted sexual offender in the boy scout troop CPC sponsors. I also emailed Scott Sauls a second time asking for advocacy related to the handling of child sexual abuse cases in our community due to his exposure and knowledge of a case.

My email to the CPC Elders and Neil Spence reads in part:

I am not sure what response, if any, Scott Sauls or Todd Teller made in light of my report.

Given the recent reports of Sauls’ conduct, I am requesting you follow up. 

Over the last several years, there has been increased awareness regarding abuse in churches and other Christian contexts. In my family’s case, we have pursued care related to the abuse. And, I am grateful as we have experienced the faithful shepherding of Jesus who provides help while we are in need. 

Not only has their been increased awareness regarding abuse in churches along with the hurtful responses many experience, but if you are paying attention, there has also been publication related to inadequate responses of law enforcement and DCS related to abuse in our own community – see articles below. 

Knowing that CSA is often under investigated in our community is troubling. In the BSA troop’s case sponsored by CPC, there was a convicted offender participating without leaders being aware. 

In our family’s case, a report was made, but parents of toddlers were not informed of exposure despite the most severe allegations. Considering other potential victims is part of DCS protocol. An organization can use law enforcement and DCS inaction to deflect legal responsibility and will likely be guided to do so.

However, I do not see anywhere in Scripture that says, “Well done, good and faithful servant, you successfully limited your church’s financial liability.” 

Or, “The wounded sheep on the side of the road — the authorities passed them by. You are off the hook.”

My second contact referenced in my blog was regarding advocacy due to issues in our community. I understand pastors receive a lot of requests for advocacy particularly when high ranking Government officials attend. No one person or group can advocate for every issue someone presents. We live in a fractured world and community that feels like it is tearing apart at the seems with much in need of repair.

Scott Sauls was in a unique position in this case in that there are not that many people in the community that have the capacity to confirm to some degree the issues I presented. 

Personally, I do not enjoy sharing this information. Given the recent news, I felt compelled to make contact with your church and Presbytery.

‘Systemic failures’ of police investigations imperiled child sex abuse cases, prosecutor says

Audit: Tennessee Department of Children’s Services failed to investigate sexual abuse

Tennessee child advocates raise alarm as GOP moves to dissolve child advocacy commission

Neil Spence replied as follows:

Thank you for your email concerning this urgent and serious subject.  I have received your communication on behalf of Nashville Presbytery and will forward it to the appropriate individuals.

Grace to You,

R. Neil Spence

Stated Clerk

I do not know what concerns or complaints the current and former members of Christ Presbyterian Church shared with the elders or Nashville Presbytery. As the inquiry has not been as robust or transparent as current and former staff had hoped, I am sharing my letter so that church members, staff, and the community are made aware of these serious issues.

For additional background information, I have written three blog posts describing my family’s experience in a series titled “Cover-Up in Williamson County”. See Part 1 , Part 2, and Part 3.

Secret Settlements in Child Sexual Abuse Cases: Cover-Up in Williamson County – Part 3

This is part 3 of Cover-Up in Williamson County, which follow Part 1 and Part 2.

Part 1 covers the background of the story – that we learned through the news that our very young child had been under the supervision of a convicted offender. We became concerned about our son following that press release and had him evaluated medically, psychologically, and developmentally. We eventually came to the place where we believed our son was harmed while under the supervision of the offender. While we now have knowledge of our son’s exposure, evaluated him, and pursued treatments, we should have been informed in a timely and forthcoming manner — and believe we need new laws mandating a noticing of allegations when a child has been under the supervision of an alleged offender — especially in cases that involve very young children or those with developmental disabilities.

In this post, I share some more details regarding my legal journey and legislative advocacy.

Shortly after the press release from the lawsuit, I emailed Ms. Barnett and let her know that my son was in the class. She emailed me a copy of the lawsuit.

Initial Representation

In addition, I started calling attorneys that I knew in order to help us interpret what had happened and navigate our response. I was referred to Larry Crain, who we retained. Larry listened to our concerns, which he considered troubling. We discussed with him an upcoming meeting with church pastors. He said that he believed all of the children should be evaluated for harm. We pursued evaluations and consulted with him until we had tangible evidence of harm for our child. Around this time, he told me that some people only respond to threats. He said that he was hoping to be able to meet with the church board, but that was not going to be able to happen. In addition, he worked with churches setting up their legal protocols and recently started working with churches in Franklin and Brentwood. As a result, he could no longer work with us. I told him that I was disappointed, and he thanked me for my candor.

At first, when Larry Crain decided to let us go, it was disappointing, but I understood it in the context of the elevated status of the institutional church within our community, which many refer to as “the buckle of the Bible belt”. But, then again, he considered all the children at risk for abuse, that they all should be evaluated, and perceived there were parents “in the dark” regarding the risks their children were exposed to.

I don’t understand that when there are victims in a church setting, some might feel comfortable supporting privately but would not consider doing this publicly. Everything we walked through was so difficult, it really was discouraging to repeatedly feel like we were perceived as lepers in our attempts to search for answers and advocate for our son and others.

I cannot help but think of the passage in Matthew 25:31-46.

Matthew 25:45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

At the time that I was consulting with Larry, I did share his name with a pastor at another church. I had continued conversations with this pastor, and this may be a church that Larry worked with on their legal protocols. Recent news reports also show he represents Grace Chapel and recently sent a cease and desist letter to a blogger.

Settlement with the Church

We started looking for attorneys to represent us further and found some to represent us in May 2016. These attorneys contacted the church’s attorney. The church promptly reported suspicions of abuse to DCS after asking our attorneys for our identities by email on May 6, 2016. Conversely, when I tried to report suspicions of abuse, the Brentwood police detective told me that he would not ask me what my concerns were regarding my son nor would he take down a report. More details about this DCS investigation are in another post titled Complicit or Complacent. In addition, we learned that the church was not interested in pursuing a settlement. By July 26, 2016, our attorneys sent a draft of a lawsuit, and the church quickly responded that they would like to pursue mediation.

We settled with the church with allegations of sexual assault during a mediation September 28, 2016. We had our court hearing on November 8, 2016, with Judge Deanna Johnson as our judge. Judge Binkley was the original judge on the case, but Judge Johnson was helping him out by presiding over our court hearing. Prior to the mediation and court hearing, we expressed to our attorneys that we wanted to retain the right to speak publicly about our case both verbally and in writing. I also shared that I believe secret settlements for child sexual abuse cases are immoral. The church was also aware of our concerns as our attorneys shared a non-financial demand list and explained that it was more important than money.

After the mediation date in a conversation with our attorneys, I asked if I could speak to anyone about the settlement, and they said that I could. Later, I specifically told one of the attorneys on the phone that I was speaking to a reporter. He said that we could share that we sued and settled with the church, but the focus should be our experience with police and DCS. In speaking to the reporters, I informed them of the name of the attorneys we worked with on the settlement and expressed that I had no problem with them speaking to the attorneys. I assume that the investigative reporter spoke to at least one of the attorneys as part of the story preparation.

We also began working with the attorneys on the settlement paperwork. To the best of our ability, we struck out any language that would convey any sense that we were interested in keeping the overall situation confidential. In addition, I sent emails to our attorneys asking to confirm that the only the dollar amount of the settlement was confidential. I also continued to share my concern that it was a public safety issue and desired to maintain the right to speak out publicly about the case.

The Tennessean reporters also said they were interested in speaking with Brandy Whitehead as she was a witness in the meeting with us and church pastors in December 2015 as well as other families who had children in the class and the former church employee. I contacted all of these people either by text, phone, or email. None of my communications were secretive. There are specific reasons that I believe some of the individuals I contacted (or their spouses) spoke to the church pastors about the reporter’s request to speak to them for an upcoming article.

For our court hearing, we went to a back conference room in the court house to sign paperwork. The court hearing lasted about 10 minutes. We were told that we were signing paperwork that we had already reviewed. However, during the court hearing, new paperwork was introduced with language that we had not had a chance to review beforehand. This made the confidentiality of the settlement very broad.

Cease and Desist Letter

We found out about the broad confidentiality after reporters called the church which led to the church giving us a notice of the breach. Quoted from the letter,

“The agreement was violated so quickly that it leads us to conclude that your violation was planned in advance and made with actual malice. If our client suffers damage because of your actions we will be forced to pursue all available remedies for damages caused by this intentional malicious disclosure including but not limited to an award of punitive damages against each of you to deter future conduct in violation of the agreement.”

We never intended to enter into an agreement and violate it immediately. It was definitely a very scary letter to receive. We were frightened at what actions the church would take against us. As a result, we retracted any statements about the church and sought to address all issues through legal means. The Tennessean did publish an article about the cases in December 2016, but I didn’t even realize an article had been published until sometime the next spring or summer.

About a week after we received the cease and desist letter, we met with our attorneys to discuss the signed paperwork and asked for clarification on what the document prohibited us from doing. We talked about different sections of the agreement. We were not given a clear explanation about what we were allowed to do. It seemed like we could talk with the police and health providers but what we could share was unclear. They concluded that we should let them review any correspondence we have with anyone regarding our case and settlement before sending it. One of the attorneys also said he would defend us if the church ended up suing us. 

Personally, after this experience, I had to seek out medical care for my extreme distress. I had an appointment shortly after the meeting with the attorneys and was prescribed medication for the anxiety, something I hadn’t needed until that point in my life.

Following the holidays, I contacted the office of Judge Deanna Johnson. I spoke to Stacy Green and shared what happened in their court. I shared that had we known the language that was in the agreement ahead of time, we would not have agreed to it. I thought it was important for Judge Johnson and all of the judges become aware of experiences of citizens in their court with respect to child sexual abuse cases. Stacy Green said that I would need to talk to an attorney about my concerns.

Notice Not Given to Parents of all Exposed Children

I recalled that several years prior, I had learned of someone who had experience in law enforcement prior to becoming an attorney. I called this person, explained the situation, and was given an assessment of the type of legal situation and was referred to attorney Mark Beveridge in Nashville. Ironically, I had contacted this recommended attorney’s office before. But, when I spoke to an office staff person on the phone about our case in 2016, she said something about not wanting get involved in a situation with the church and police(a common response).

I followed the recommendation and called the attorney’s office. When I spoke to the law office employee on the phone, we both found out that our sons were in the church class together under the supervision of the convicted offender. However, her son was only in the teen offender’s two-year-old class but was not in the teen offender’s three-year-old class. My son was originally assigned to another three-year-old class, but the offender’s family noticed that he was not in their class and asked if we would like our son to join their class. (I think both of our sons were younger than the birth date cut off for their three-year-old class.)

I had a long conversation with the law office employee. She gave me her personal phone number as I said that I had been in contact with the police so I could pass it along to them. I learned that she had contacted the church following learning about the lawsuit with a number of questions, but did not receive a reply. I am not sure how she became aware that her son was in the offender’s class as she did not have a meeting with pastors and elders prior to the conviction. I later texted her offering to share information with her about our experience with police and DCS.

Text Message Two Year Old Class Mom

Police Communications

I was surprised to hear that this family was not contacted. The way the information was communicated to us made me feel like everyone that had been under the offender’s supervision had been contacted – not just everyone whose child was in one of his three-year-old classes.

I copied the following Facebook posts from the church page from late 2015 in which another parent whose child was in the three-year-old class only posted, and it sounds like she believed that all families were contacted. This mother was not in our meeting, so some of the information shared in her August 2015 meeting could have been different than ours. Also, the church’s children’s staff tried to follow up with parents after their meetings with elders. However, we were no longer there, so that didn’t happen with us.

Social Media Posts

Considering the law firm’s employee’s son was in the convicted offender’s class for a year, I thought that might be a conflict in them representing us. I did write a follow-up letter to Mark Beveridge and asked for a referral to another attorney.

Reducing Breadth of Confidentiality

We eventually reached out to and found some other attorneys to resolve the legal situation as best as we could. In the Settlement Agreement and General Release that we signed on November 8, 2016, the confidentiality and non-disparagement not only applied to conversations with the media, but also medical personnel, therapists, teachers, and investigative authorities. This was important in our situation, since our son had ongoing medical tests and therapy, and the events at the church are relevant in his evaluations and treatment. We were able to negotiate with the church to allow us to speak openly within these settings as well as advocate for the public safety hazard that our experience demonstrated, including legislatively. In addition, the contact from our attorneys encouraged the church to follow through on publishing a policy change they had agreed to.

I also submitted a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility as we felt we should have been afforded the opportunity to read and review the Settlement Agreement and General Release prior to the court hearing. I receive a reply from Kevin Balkwill dated November 29, 2017, which stated,

“The specific allegations of your complaint were investigated and found not to constitute an ethical violation of any specific Rule of Professional Conduct.”

Confidentiality Agreements

Regarding Non-Disclosure Agreements, I believe they should be made illegal for child sexual abuse cases. Child sexual abuse and the methods employed to cover up abuse are not trade-secrets to be protected. Though, I have been told multiple times by several people that it would be very hard to gain support for that in our community.

At the very least, I believe that confidentiality agreements should not be so broad that they apply to communications with police and other investigative authorities, health providers, and community advocates such as legislators. We should never had to have paid thousands of dollars to reduce the breadth of confidentiality that was so obviously contrary to the public interest.

In addition, I believe there needs to be more robust requirements on the communication of the terms of an agreement. When we have bought and sold houses, we got the settlement statement ahead of time before the closing. In addition, there was an attorney at the closing going over every element of the closing paperwork and answering questions as needed. And, we initialed every paragraph in the closing paperwork as we were going through it.

I think a settlement agreement for sexual abuse should have at least the same standards as a closing for real estate. I believe that a person entering into an agreement should at least get the agreement and every bit of related paperwork and documents several days in advance. In addition, there should be some way to make sure everyone has read each paragraph and provide at least some proof that happened — like initialing paragraphs as they have been read and further explained by the representing attorney and recording the court hearing.

Attention needs to be given not only for confidentiality agreements between a victim and an organization or individual but also for confidentiality agreements between an organization and an accused person or other employee such as in the case where a church/organization might offer money for counseling or legal fees to an offender, witness, or employee with an NDA attached.

In the case of child sexual abuse with a juvenile perpetrator, there is already a lot of confidentiality. Removing NDA’s for abuse settlements would not impact that. Regardless of whether an individual has an NDA with a church/organization, a juvenile offender and possibly their relatives could not be named. Let’s say that the offender was an adult. The offender would be named along with a photo published online in the case of a lawsuit. Even if a notice of exposure to the convicted offender is insufficient from a church or other organization, that is another method of reaching out to parents. In our case, we did not even know the offender’s family’s name. The church’s attorney gave our attorney the last name only. I was only able to find the people by photos on social media through the friends list of someone else at the church.  

All this being said, there are forces that work really hard to silence victims and keep misconduct covered up. I have found that it has been difficult and costly to bring these issues to light. In cases of abuse against children and vulnerable, I feel like the path needs to be made smoother in order to bring these public safety issues to light and resolve them.

Mandatory Notice of Allegations of Abuse

As I have described in prior posts, I have reached out to multiple legislators. I didn’t find any support among the legislators that I reached out to in Williamson County. A legislator outside of Williamson County, decided to take some action on these issues. We met with Representative Clemmons, and he agreed that if his child was exposed to an offender, he would want to know. From what I understand, he met with individuals from DCS and sought to compel them to take some action. However, as far as I know, there was not agreement on whether or how to do that.

In addition, I had reached out to several additional advocates within TN and with the church advocacy world. One I had reached out to was Boz Tchividjian, who founded Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment(GRACE), and said that legislation for a mandatory notice of allegations was much needed and would be happy to support it and those working hard to get it passed. I will include the statement I made in my first letter as I reached out for advocacy at the bottom of this post.

We have some serious problems in our society if three community organizations cannot come together and take meaningful and concrete action on behalf of the health and well-being of the most vulnerable of children. All organizations have obligations to multiple parties. The greater obligation of protection should be given to those most vulnerable to harm. Much needed care withheld from the vulnerable within an organization and community demonstrates the need for change so the vulnerable are not left without care. My hope is that others in the future might be spared the pain and difficulties that both my son and my family have had to endure.

A report was made to police and DCS in accordance with the law. In my opinion, that should have been enough to ensure that all potentially harmed children and their families were reached out to and cared for. It appears that there are no legal guarantees that even the most vulnerable receive care when found under the supervision of an alleged offender with the most severe type of allegations. Basic human decency and love for the weakest of our fellow citizens could not compel these three community agencies to take action on the behalf of their health and well being. Therefore, legal action needs to be taken so that the care of the vulnerable is ensured.

Statement on Mandatory Notice of Allegations

In our family’s situation, the incident notice to parents came tragically late, minimized, and under-distributed. When there are allegations of abuse within a group childcare setting, parents need this information in order to make informed parenting decisions regarding the mental and physical well-being of their child. This is especially important when dealing with young children or those with developmental disabilities. Above all, the physical and mental health and well-being of the vulnerable children who have been under the supervision of an alleged offender should be the top priority.  It is an unfair burden to place on a young child to verbally disclose abuse in order to receive help and healing.  Compared to older children and adults, there is a shorter window of opportunity in which to administer a productive interview.

Adverse childhood experiences such as child sexual abuse can have a long term impact on a child’s mental and physical health and well-being. I believe the state has an obligation to act on behalf of children exposed to an alleged offender that has been in a repeated supervisory role over young children. After an initial report has been made alleging abuse against an authority figure, I am concerned that each of the involved party’s responsibilities may be delineated in such a way that each party can meet the minimum requirements of the law and fulfill the function of their agency, yet classrooms full of children under the supervision of a convicted offender for a year or more are completely ignored as potential victims or witnesses and parents and other caregivers are left completely unaware of the risks of which their child was exposed.

The notice needs to be within a designated time period and forthcoming. Waiting a year after an allegation and after charges have been filed is much too late.  In addition, describing the alleged oral and anal rape of a three-year-old boy by a 14-year-old teacher as an “incident of a sexual nature between two juveniles” grossly minimizes the very severe allegations against our son’s teacher and the grave danger of which our son was exposed.  It was not until after the teacher’s conviction and a lawsuit was filed that we learned important details such as the allegations, incident date, and age and gender of both the offender and victim. 

Just imagine if charges would not have been filed in my son’s teacher’s case.  I am not certain that we would have ever been given any notice regarding the allegations of abuse.  That is precisely what I am concerned may be happening in other settings in Tennessee.  Sexual abuse allegations are very difficult to substantiate and prosecute, particularly for young children and those with developmental disabilities, but that does not mean it did not happen and that the vulnerable were not at risk for abuse and in need of intervention much like my son.  

I believe a mandatory notice would provide motivation for organizations that provide oversight to minors to shore up their abuse prevention protocol and training.  If there are allegations of abuse and protocol was not being followed or an organization cannot say for certain they are, they should have to answer to parents and guardians regarding the lack of oversight within the organization.  This is a reasonable minimal expectation for organizations that take on the task of providing care and protection over minors and the vulnerable.  

In closing, I believe it is too easy to cover up abuses in Tennessee. We need a robust and well clarified response process in the case of abuse allegations where multiple children are exposed to an alleged offender. I believe this type of legislation would be of benefit to not only church settings but also other type of youth service organizations like sports teams, camps, music lessons, or other settings in which children are cared for.

Making Tennessee Safe and Supportive for those who Disclose Abuse

The issue of sexual abuse has been elevated in the news along with the responses of those entrusted with positions of power and influence in our state. Such is the case with Representative David Byrd, who has been publicly accused of abusing three of his former students. My first and foremost concern is that our state, community, and schools are safe places to disclose abuse so that those harmed can receive help and healing. I think of a young person today who feels trapped and scared and is wondering if their disclosures will be heard. Will they be supported? Or, will they be shunned and accused of lying?

It has been almost two years since the beginning of the Me Too movement. Adult women and men have felt empowered to share their stories of sexual harassment and abuse they suffered as adults and children. My hope is that the Me Too reckoning that has revealed widespread abuses, threats, and silencing of adults and adults who were victimized as children will lead to reforms in abuse prevention and response to abuse allegations to protect children today. In order for this to happen in Tennessee, our leaders must open their hearts and their ears and listen to the adult survivors who have come forward with allegations abuse during their childhoods. Much can be learned from their experiences to protect children today.

It is a tragedy that the women who accused Representative David Byrd of child sexual abuse while he was their coach and teacher did not feel empowered to bring the allegations to the attention of the authorities during the statute of limitations. Unfortunately, delayed disclosure for child sexual abuse is the norm. That is one of the reasons for the widespread statute of limitations reforms that are being passed in many states. Work also must be done to empower children to identity and report abuse so that time gap between abuse and reporting is shortened. Some factors I have heard that have delayed or impacted reporting are the following:

  1. Misunderstanding of the power differential between the offender and child
  2. Misconception that the sexual contact involving a teacher and student is a relationship or affair, not abuse
  3. Impressions that a child is culpable in the abuse
  4. The offender is a beloved member of the community
  5. Fears of being disbelieved
  6. Threats and retaliation

These are valid concerns, and they did turn out to be warranted in the cases against Representative Byrd. When the accusations were first publicized, both former House Speaker Harwell and Lt. Gov. McNally called on Representative Byrd to resign. However, Representative Glen Casada supported Representative Byrd and used tax dollars to attack Byrd’s accusers. It is true that Byrd’s community supported him through in his re-elections.

Quoted from the article, Christi Rice says,

“Since that time, we have basically been ostracized, called liars.”

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/speaker-casada-used-tax-dollars-for-attack-on-rep-byrd-accusers

The sexual abuse of children under the care of a teacher or coach is a grave betrayal of trust. Though it is past the statute of limitations both criminally and civilly, the accusations have been brought forth publicly and a confession has been publicized. Since meeting with Christi Rice, Governor Bill Lee found her accusations credible and has stated that he wants Byrd to publicly answer to the allegations. There is nothing stopping Byrd’s fellow lawmakers from publicly asking the same. 

I am thankful that these women brought forth their accusations against Byrd to the public. An individual who holds public office holds the public trust. Past sexual violation of juveniles under one’s care is a violation of trust that makes one unfit to represent the people of Tennessee. In Byrd’s case, he has been publicly accused by three former students, the accusations are supported by a recording and the testimony of another school employee. He has not denied the abuse. He remained silent while Casada publicly attacked the accusers. Thus, on a moral level, his silence makes him complicit with the retribution that his former students, particularly Christi Rice, receives.

My question is, how will the rest of the legislature respond? At this point, no one is being forced to speak up. I would hope that leaders in our state would recognize the importance of nurturing an environment in our state that protects children from abuse and promotes disclosures of abuse. I have read that there was a “culture of fear” in the last legislative session. If it has been frightening for grown adults to speak up on this issue of child sexual abuse, imagine what it must be like for a vulnerable child in the midst of an abuse. Our leaders must demonstrate courage on behalf of the vulnerable in Tennessee.

A recent news report from WKRN News 2 reports,

“Tennessee graded out an ‘F’ in a 2016 USA Today investigation into educator-student sexual misconduct in schools. A central focus of that study, the ease at which an employee with a history could move from one district to another”

and 

“But out of inaction has come a considerable response. Last year, the Tennessee legislature passed five laws aimed directly at protecting students. One, outlawed those non-disclosures between teachers and districts. Another added a 30-day timeline, mandating school directors report misconduct, including sexual, to the state board of education.”

https://www.wkrn.com/special-reports/tennessee-responds-to-f-grade-for-failing-to-protect-students-from-sexual-predators-in-schools/

As a state, we have made progress, but I do believe that we have a long way to go. I am going to share an article of a recent case that was well documented with the perpetrator convicted. Quoted from the article, 

The victim said she lost several friends at DC Dance Factory after reporting the abuse, and her family ultimately moved out of state.”

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2019/01/14/former-franklin-dance-teacher-serve-8-years-prison-sex-crime-charges/2570148002/

This story is a real tragedy. Not only did the victim suffer abuse, she suffered secondary abuse by her community. 

I am asking that those of you who read this consider what I have shared and take whatever action you can to make Tennessee a safe and supportive state for those who come forward with abuse allegations.

Response of Local Church Leaders to a Child Sexual Abuse Cover Up within the Community — Cover Up in Williamson County Part 2

In this post, I will share information about reaching out to the broader Christian community following revelation of an abuse cover up at another local church. I am going to do this by sharing some correspondences. Over the past year, various Southern Baptist Church(SBC) groups have asked for those impacted by abuse to reach out. I have, and I will share those responses.

To give some background of our family’s church abuse experience, see the post below.

https://janespeaksup.com/2019/03/11/cover-up-in-williamson-county-part-1/

Pastors and church leaders are quick to speak about abuse and injustices on a general level. However, it is clear that pastors and clergy are not usually the ones who bring misconduct to light publicly. Consider recent exposés on various church groups. Many of these cases were well known within the abuse advocacy communities for years. Yet, it was not until mainstream media brought cases to light that many clergy began to speak out about specific cases. I see and hear Christian leaders cheering on this work. Yet, this follows years of victims or their families being ignored, dismissed, and even vilified for working to draw attention to the abuses.   

I believe this is an important issue to explore as I have been seeking out a resolution to the systemic issues and injustices that led to our family’s horrific church cover up experiences. Because the injustices happened in the context of a church setting, I naturally reached out for help within the local Christian community. What are the ethical boundaries of advocacy for ministers? Beyond this, what level of advocacy are Christian leaders comfortable with? Do they only prefer to speak about issues generally and avoid advocacy for specific cases, at least publicly? What about cases of gross injustice? What about public safety issues? Can the local community rely on the broader Christian community to rise up to resolve abuse cover ups in other local churches? Is that even possible?

Could there be something more going on that prevents advocacy related to systemic issues within the community? As Christian leaders have responded to the abuse crisis, there has been this general call to recognize and lament failures of the past. What about recognizing and repenting over actual cases of abuse and cover up? What about calling out privately and if necessary, publicly, those who have abused, covered up, or have been complicit in such actions? It is almost as if the church wants to forge a new path forward without a full reckoning of actual abuse and cover ups from even the recent past.

Over the past several years, I feel like I have been flailing and floundering asking for help. It shouldn’t be this way. Ironically, I live in the “buckle of the Bible belt” and have found that advocacy for the vulnerable in the context of a Christian setting is highly controversial. It is as if loyalty to the reputation of individuals supersedes loyalty to the integrity of individuals, their offices, and institutions. These practices can make the vulnerable easy marks for predation within the community.

Some say that crimes are covered up to protect the witness of the church. It would harm the reputation of Jesus or people might be afraid to come to church. But, is that really the truth? Might it be that we are a greater witness when we own up to our faults and model repentance? I have heard it said that you cannot lead people where you are not willing to go. Could that not also apply in cases of the handling of abuses within Christian settings?

In reading through Psalm 51, which is David’s psalm of confession, I was struck by verses 12 and 13. Following his confession earlier in the psalm, he has gained the renewed relationship with God and the authority to lead others into a restored relationship with God.

Psalm 51:12,13 “Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me. Then I will teach transgressors your ways,so that sinners will turn back to you.”

I am going to share a letter that contains letters within in it. Not only have I written to specific SBC groups regarding our family’s abuse experiences, I reached out to some specific individuals. One of those individuals is Phillip Bethancourt. We live in the same community and our families have a specific community connection. Phillip has been publicly vocal on the issue of abuse through SBC initiatives and his role as Executive Vice President of the SBC entity Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission(ERLC).

https://erlc.com/resource-library/press-releases/southern-baptist-convention-president-announces-formation-of-sexual-abuse-presidential-study-group

Quoted from the article,

At the 2018 SBC Annual Meeting, messengers approved a resolution, “On Abuse,” which declared, “all abusive behavior as uniquely sinful,” and implored people “to act decisively on matters of abuse, to intervene on behalf of the abused, to ensure their safety, to report allegations of abuse to civil authorities according to the laws of their state and to pursue church discipline against impenitent abusers.” At the same meeting, two motions were referred to the ERLC—one motion from Oklahoma pastor Wade Burleson requesting the ERLC study expanded resources to help churches protect themselves from sexual predators, and the other motion from ERLC Executive Vice President Phillip Bethancourt requesting a task force for helping churches protect themselves from sexual predators.

I didn’t ask anything of Phillip in the letter. I just shared the information and let it speak for itself. Perhaps he or others might feel compelled to speak up and take action on behalf of the vulnerable in our community.

Letter to Phillip Bethancourt

Note: I am bolding certain lines for emphasis, though they were not bolded in the original letters.

Abuse Response and Institutional Betrayal — including case involving your pastor

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 9:02 AM (Jane) wrote:

Dear Phillip,

I am thankful that the SBC is recognizing the prevelence of abuse in the church and working toward implementing prevention and response protocols. I am writing to share my prior letters to SBC groups regarding my experience with church abuse. They are included in this email below. The reason that I am writing you specifically is that we live in the same community (deleted information about specific community connection). I have not met you personally through this community connection, but I have met your wife and your mother-in-law. I met your mother-in-law (deleted information about specific community connection — mention of a specific time and place). It was interesting time-wise since as I had just written to the ERLC study group email a few weeks prior requesting to meet and share my abuse experiences. That same afternoon I received a polite decline to that request.

Another reason that I am interested in writing is that there was a financial misconduct incident in one of the churches I was a member, and your current pastor was involved with the handling of that misconduct. I have written about that on my blog that is linked in the letters below. To give a brief summary of events, an incident was reported to church leadership, the leadership began surveillance of the involved pastor’s financial transactions, the Senior Pastor confronted the offending pastor, and the offending pastor confessed. The Senior Pastor and offending pastor entered into a two-way confidentiality agreement. The offending pastor resigned during a service. Minimal information was offered to the church. I knew the offending pastor oversaw the benevolence fund as that is the fund gifts went to following my mother’s funeral. In addition, I found an email in which the offending pastor solicited donations from me for this fund. At no point was I notified nor was my family notified about the offending pastor’s activities even though we had contributed to this fund he oversaw. On top of all this, we were never informed of the issues that were being kept confidential on the Senior Pastor’s side of the confidentiality agreement.

Later that evening, we learned about the confidentiality agreement. Your pastor Jed Coppenger and another ordained lay leader Micah Carter (now pastoring a church) were involved as well. I approached Micah after the meeting, but my questions were met with silence. My husband and I later met with the Senior Pastor as we continued to be concerned with the lack of transparency. In addition, some things shared publicly versus what happened behind the scenes appeared different. We continued to be unsettled about the activities by leadership — including the funding and launch of the Redemption City Church plant that Jed Coppenger pastors. We ended up leaving after my father passed away.

I am specifically troubled by the use of confidentiality agreements in the handling of misconduct in church settings. Everyone involved with the confidentiality agreement were either pastors or church leaders. Each of these individuals also had obligations first to God and also to the church membership either as pastors or church leaders. In the church, I believe we all have various obligations and duties to each other just as we do as citizens within our community. However, I believe leaders have a greater duty of protection to the membership with the greatest duty of protection to the vulnerable. When the two pastors entered in this agreement with the support of the other church leaders, this priority was upended making it such they obligated themselves to protect the offending pastor. There were others like our family who quietly left. However, there were others who stayed and learned by example that this was the godly way to handle allegations of criminal misconduct. Secrecy often leads to more secrecy protecting evil and allowing it to grow. Transparency should be the standard in the handling of various types of abuses and misconduct. Church members and leaders should have some sort of mutual understanding and agreement how these things are handled. Confidentiality should be reserved to protect the vulnerable, not leaders and offenders.  

The article below addresses some things I have thought about regarding competing obligations and confidentiality. Quoted from the article,

 “…clergy have numerous duties that compete with canonical obligations of confidentiality – duties to protect their congregation, advance justice and to help wrongdoers down a path of repentance.”

 https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2019/05/the-catholic-church-is-tightening-rules-on-reporting-sexual-abuse-but-not-swearing-off-its-legal-privilege-to-keep-secrets-opinion.html

After we left this church, we went to another nearby church. You can see my most recent blog post regarding the sexual abuse case here.

 https://janespeaksup.com/2019/03/11/cover-up-in-williamson-county-part-1/  

 

In this case, there was horrific cover-up of child sexual abuse. A family reported their three-year-old son was orally and anally raped by his teenage Sunday School teacher. A year later, pastors informed families in the teen’s three-year-old class that there was an incident of a sexual nature between two juveniles sometime in the prior ministry year and formal charges had been filed, Brentwood police were involved and told pastors not to tell families, and an officer said it was the safest place in Brentwood on Sunday mornings. They also said they would update us as the case progressed, which never happened. Several months later, a lawsuit was filed. We learned of our then-toddler son’s exposure to a convicted offender from this lawsuit — not from church, police, or DCS. While public statements gave other impressions, we learned behind closed doors that neither police nor church could provide us any assurance that our child was safe from harm while under the supervision of the convicted offender. Upon learning of the horrific allegations, we became concerned over some physical symptoms and other behaviors. We initiated medical, psychological, and developmental evaluations. We came to the place we believe our son was assaulted. After being denied a meeting with the elder board, we approached the church with attorneys, and settled alleging sexual assault in Williamson County Courts.

There were some striking similarities in the handling of the misconduct at both churches. That is one reason my memory was jarred concerning Clearview following the relevation of cover-up in Brentwood leading me to follow up up on the misconduct at Clearview over that year. Plus, I had no idea what the pastors were hiding. My eyes had been opened to the horrendous potential. So, I did my best to bring everything I could to the attention of the church and authorities. 

When we first heard the reports from the lawsuit, I contacted attorneys who were involved in the Clearview case, not really fully thinking about the cover-up there. It was helpful as one of the attorneys responded that what happened at Brentwood sounded like a cover-up, and he asked me if my son was okay. There were others who asked about my son as well. I knew we had been misled about the case. But, it was unthinkable that we could miss signs of such serious abuse. We were referred to another Christian attorney who works with churches. He felt it was important for our child to be evaluated for harm and believed many of the families were “in the dark” about the potential harm their children were exposed to. 

We had moved to yet another church. In the new church, the Senior Pastor’s wife came to a meeting with Brentwood pastors as a witness where we learned the pastors could provide no assurance our child was safe from harm.   We shared we felt deceived by the church based on our earlier meeting. We had felt assured that it was an isolated incident. My husband also confronted the pastors and told them twice that the statement to the church was misleading. They didn’t disagree, but said the statement was true technically.

We consulted with the Christian attorney until after the church denied our meeting with elders and medical tests were beginning to lead us to believe our son’s symptoms were from abuse. He also started working with a church in Franklin. It sounded like he didn’t want to take a potentially publicly antagonistic position against a church as he works with churches. It was disappointing as he knew the families were likely unaware of the risks their children were exposed to and believed they should all be evaluated for harm. It feels like many are willing to advocate for the care and protection of the vulnerable, but there is a limit. People are hesitant to get involved if that care and protection exposes a pastor or a church. 

After our meeting with the pastors in Brentwood, I met with the senior pastor’s wife(also a care pastor at the church) who came to our meeting as a witness a few times over a year. I sent her an email about my legislative advocacy work. I believe that parents and guardians of children exposed to an alleged offender need to be notified of allegations so that parents can provide appropriate care to their children. This is especially important in cases involving very young children or those with developmental disabilities — most of whom are unable to physically fend off an attack and lack the capacity to verbally disclose abuse. My child fit both criteria as he was two and a young three-year-old and had been certified speech and language impaired as a preschooler by the state of Tennessee. He should not have been expected to spontaneously disclose abuse in order to receive help and healing when there was known exposure to an individual alleged to have committed a violent sexual attack of another toddler classmate. Though she did not respond to the request to join my meeting with the Senator, she did affirm my advocacy letter. I eventually asked for some spiritual support and guidance processing our experiences at the two churches. I never received a response to that email. I had been meeting with a counselor at this time to help work through these traumatic experiences. I asked her if it was an appropriate request to ask for spiritual guidance from your church to help process throught abuse situations. She felt like it was appropriate. I was disappointed at the lack of response. 

Around a year ago, I began writing online about my experience with abuse and the church. Shortly after I started writing, I started getting messages from a former church member at Clearview — someone who is close friends with one of the leaders involved in the handling of financial misconduct. She expressed a desire that pastors would sue me, tried to out our names on social media, and said that people would line up and testify against us if our son’s case went to court. When misconduct is handled in a way that is protective of offenders, church members are conditioned to believe this is the right thing to do. Church members mimic the leadership. If the goal is to protect the offender, the future employment of staff, and the financial status of the church, then anyone who threatens that protection is punished. These types of attitudes can spread to other Christian settings threatening the protection of the vulnerable.

Churches are standard-bearers in the community. The past leadership at Clearview Baptist led the church through a course where alleged criminal misconduct was covered up and minimized and offenders were protected from legal consequences. The result of this response to alleged criminal misconduct leads church members to minimize the seriousness of criminal misconduct. I saw this personally in a church member who considered the offense of stealing as “no big deal”. I saw similar type of responses in the Brentwood case. No matter the seriousness of the situation, many people defer to the church and trust the leadership. There may be some whispers questioning the integrity of the situation, but it is frowned upon. Within the broader community, not only is stealing overlooked, but people excuse inaction in a very serious sexual abuse case involving the most vulnerable. At what point will this end?   

I read the Caring Well report. I am glad the report touched on institutional betrayal. That resonated with my family’s experiences. Minimization of offenses, cover-up conduct, and protection of offenders have been so commonplace within the church and other organizations as well. The standard has been to cover-up the offenses using spiritual language to give the impression that it was the godly approach. Not only does this allow these offenses to flourish, it has the opposite impact on those impacted by the misconduct and abuses.

I am reminded of the Keith Green song, “Asleep in the Light”. I feel like the responses that I have encountered in faith environments in our own community are described by the lines:

Oh, can’t you see such sin?!

’cause he brings people to your door,

And you turn them away

As you smile and say,

“god bless you!

Be at peace!”

And all heaven just weeps,

’cause Jesus came to your door,

You left him out on the streets

Regardless of what pastors and institutions intended for my family or other people who have walked similar paths to feel, being on the receiving end of this sort of treatment is devastating. I understand that churches need to steward finances. Observing actions that have been taken within the community, it looks like the care and protection of even the most vulnerable has been made subordinate to financial stewardship. 

Luke 16:14 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Sincerely,

(Jane)

 

(Jane)

Mon, Mar 4, 10:58 AM

to pastor, Jared

Dear Pastors Slade and Wellman,

Thank you for your willingness to listen to those impacted by abuse. I have been impacted by abuse in two church settings. The first was an SBC church, Clearview Baptist Church in Franklin, TN, where there was cover up of criminal financial misconduct. The Sr. Pastor at the time and the offending pastor entered into a two-way confidentiality agreement before disclosing the misconduct to the congregation. When it was disclosed, the offending pastor resigned and confessed to a series of unauthorized transactions over an undisclosed period of time on a fund separate from the budget. It was very unclear what he was actually confessing to. It was only over the course of several years that I came to understand that it was more serious than presented to the congregation and there were other things covered up.

https://janespeaksup.com/2018/06/22/handling-financial-misconduct-internally-in-an-sbc-church/

I understand that the SBC has emphasized concern about sexual oriented abuses. However, the handling of this situation essentially groomed the church in a distorted forgiveness theology. In addition, the practice has been such that the priority in the community is protective of the financial standing of the church and the ability of those employed by the church to continue to find employment, sometimes at the expense of the vulnerable. I will explain how these issues can impact responses to sexual abuse allegations later in my story.

The church that I went to right after that was a non-denominational church right down the road that is listed in the TGC directory of churches. This is the church where our family experienced a sexual abuse nightmare.

For more details, you can read over my blog

https://janespeaksup.com/2018/07/31/complacent-or-complicit/. 

In late 2015, I learned by way of a publicly filed lawsuit that my son, while he was two and three years old, was under the supervision of a convicted sexual offender who was accused of anally and orally raping a three-year-old male classmate. We were horrified at the revelation, especially since our son had physical signs and behaviors of abuse that at that time we had attributed to other causes. We only attended this church for two years. We were attending a church in Franklin called Church of the City(listed in the SBC directory) at the time of the press release for the lawsuit. We called the pastors to get some advice. We were directed to the Senior Pastor’s wife, who had experience with sexual abuse cases. She was concerned along with us. She came to a meeting to us where we learned that pastors could provide no assurance that our child was safe under the supervision of the convicted offender. This was contrary to publicly made statements. I also called a Brentwood police detective to report suspicions of abuse. He told me that he would not ask me my concerns or take down a report. He told that the onus of disclosure was on the church, and that some people are in denial that there are deviants.

We requested to meet with the church elder board, and they denied our request. After significant medical, psychological, and developmental evaluations, we approached the church with attorneys. We settled with the church alleging sexual assault in Williamson County Courts. During the process of settling with the church, we learned that they were deflecting responsibility for not disclosing harm to the police and DCS, as those agencies both gave the church directives to not inform the families regarding the very serious allegations of oral and anal rape against a very young child. In addition, they called the situation a “botched” DCS investigation. 

After we had been denied the opportunity to meet with the elder board, I called up the children’s minister at Clearview Baptist in Franklin, which is the church with the financial misconduct cover up. I thought he should become aware of how sexual misconduct incidents are being handled in church settings in our community. He had reached out to our family when we left the church, and I thought he might care. I shared that behind closed doors Brentwood pastors and police could provide no assurance that our child was unharmed. I also shared the symptoms that concerned us, and that we were pursuing evaluations. I think this pastor had a hard time taking all the information in. He asked me who we had been consulting with legally, and I passed along his information. He also inquired with some concern in his voice whether and if we would be pursuing any legal action and asked if I might have some forgiveness issues with the teen offender. He prayed at the end of the conversation, and during the prayer asked that I not see things that were not there. In a conversation later in the year, he expressed sympathy for the “hell” the Brentwood church was going through. I also offered to meet with individuals from Clearview Baptist, but they did not take me up on my offer.

On one hand, I felt glad to speak to someone who seemed to at least partially understand and care. On the other hand, I felt like I had these spiritual “concerns” imposed on me for even pursuing evaluations and treatment for my son.  From what I have read, this type of response is common in church settings. It is not a sin to evaluate a child for harm upon learning a child’s teacher was convicted of a sexual offense. It is not a sin to consult authorities or to seek legal advice. When a parent learns of horrific revelations that might impact their child, it is a very sensitive time. Those in spiritual authority need to be aware of how their statements and behavior can promote healing or impede treatment and cause harm.

Although the alleged sexual abuse happened in a local non denominational church, the Franklin SBC church’s children’s minister and the Brentwood church’s children’s ministry know each other and have served in ministry work together, specifically on adoption and foster care initiatives. In addition, while the Franklin SBC church was reviewing their child protection protocol, the children’s minister told me(over the phone) that he was consulting with the Brentwood church where our family alleged sexual assault. I am sharing this as there are not always distinct lines between the churches and denominations. The churches are autonomous, but my perception is that the community is pretty open, supportive, and collegial with other local bodies, which I believe is a good thing. 

I am glad that staff at Clearview took efforts to review and update both their child protection and financial integrity protocol. However, the church I have been in where abuses took place appear to have taken a liability reduction orientation versus a values based orientation with respect to abuses. What I mean by this is that actions taken have been to reduce financial loss. Much of this is good for those served by the church, especially on the prevention side. On the back end, when allegations of abuses have been brought to light, it also can result in horrific treatment of the alleged victims or whistleblowers, as these type of individuals can represent liabilities.   

I would encourage the SBC to expand the study to include other abuses of power such as spiritual, financial, and domestic abuses. There are similarities which breed all of these abuses, and they are all damaging. Not only this, but financial exploitation of the disabled or elderly is also a reportable offense in many states similar to child abuse and neglect. When I think of the church being the body of Christ, I believe that as the body we should be a reflection of Jesus. When the church fails to render aid to the abused, further harms those who have been abused, or leaves the burden of seeking out the wounded on the already wounded, she is not reflecting Jesus in her conduct.   

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Again, I appreciate your willingness to listen.

Sincerely,

(Jane)

 

Jared Wellman <Jared@tatesprings.com>

Wed, Mar 27, 7:34 AM

to pastor@meridianbaptist.com, me

(Jane),

First, please forgive me for the delay in my response. After my tweet I received a full inbox of emails, and it has taken me a while to read and respond to each one. Thank you for your patience with me.

Second, as a parent of a 5 yo, 3 yo, and 7 month old, I empathize with your email, and your sentence about the revelation of a child molester watching your kid gave me a sick feeling in my stomach. I can only imagine the anguish of that moment.

I also appreciated the nuances of your email, sharing how churches can themselves be groomed. This is a tragic story all around, and for what it’s worth, I am so sorry you experienced it.

Know there are a group of individuals who are working to do our best to protect the SBC’s most vulnerable members. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if there is anything else you need.

Jared
(Jane)

Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 6:28 AM

to studygroup

I have been sharing my family’s story on twitter and through a blog https://janespeaksup.com/. I live in Brentwood, TN, and family members have been victims in two church misconduct situations. I would like to meet with individuals from the ERLC sexual abuse study group and share my family’s stories and share the impact it has had on us. In addition, I have been in the Middle TN area since 1999, and have heard or have been in close proximity to other concerning situations in SBC and other evangelical circles. I am concerned that the priority within our community is the protection of religious institutions sometimes at the expense of the vulnerable. The most significant case is our family’s situation at (church name), and the documented abuse of my son there. Besides this, I have recently been in conversation with Rep. Casada’s office and have met with individuals from an organization called AWAKE TN regarding my desired legislative advocacy on behalf of the vulnerable in TN.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Sincerely,

(Jane)

ERLC Study Group <studygroup@erlc.com>

Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 3:31 PM

to me

 Thank you very much, (Jane). We have received your email, and on behalf of the Sexual Abuse Advisory Study, we appreciate you taking the time to write to us. We are grieved by the abuse your family members endured. Thank you for being willing to share with us. We have made a note of your family’s situation, and as the study continues and develops further, we will keep you in mind. Thank you for your initiation and willingness to engage.

 

Response from Phillip Bethancourt

Phillip Bethancourt 

Jun 27, 2019, 8:00 AM

to me

(Jane),

Somehow your email slipped through the digital cracks right before the convention, and I just came across it as I’m preparing to go “off the grid” for the next two weeks on vacation with my family (in fact, we’ll be with my mother-in-law who you met). I really appreciate you reaching out about these matters, and I look forward to crossing paths with you in the Franklin area in the future.

Thanks,

Phillip

Cover Up in Williamson County – Part 1

Child sexual abuse cases rightly deserve a high degree of confidentiality. Confidentiality should be exercised for the protection of the vulnerable. What if instead of protecting the vulnerable, this confidentiality has provided coverage for institutions and offenders? That is the question I am asking about sexual abuse cases in a group childcare setting in Brentwood, TN — a place where we learned our very young son was under the supervision of a convicted sexual offender only after a publicly filed lawsuit. After many months of evaluations, we alleged sexual assault and settled in Williamson County Courts. I use the pseudonym “Jane” as “Jane Roe” is used in court documents. 

Personal Impressions of Response to Abuse Allegations in Group Childcare Settings

If your toddler/preschool-aged child was under the supervision of an individual who allegedly committed a violent sexual attack against a classmate, would you want to know in a timely and forthcoming fashion? I would. Parents deserve this crucial notification in order to make informed parenting decisions and provide necessary medical and mental health care. We weren’t informed in a timely and forthcoming manner, and my child and our family has suffered greatly by this inaction. The callous disregard for the health and the wellbeing of the children was appalling and dehumanizing.

In this setting, the church, police, and DCS all had prior ongoing relationships with each other.  The Brentwood police officers were on the church campus every weekend providing security for children’s classes. In addition, the children’s pastor had been involved with DCS on behalf of foster care and adoption advocacy initiatives. If there were a situation I would have considered a “best-case scenario” for the three community organizations to come together on the behalf of the health and well-being of the children, this was it. However, they did not. Basic common decency and compassion for the vulnerable did not prevail.

The involvement of the three community organizations and the repeated declaration of the incident as a one-time occurrence may have dissuaded some parents from considering their child’s behavior and/or physical signs to be potentially related to abuse. These messages have come from the church, which many in our community put their complete and unquestioned trust in. When given the opportunity in December 2015 and later, neither Brentwood Police nor DCS provided any comment to media inquiries. This allowed some families, church members, and general public to understand that the authorities were in agreement with the truthfulness of the church’s statement and that the church, police, and DCS acted in solidarity and integrity.

Background Information

In August 2014, a sexual abuse case was reported to DCS alleging a 14-year-old Sunday School teacher at a Brentwood church raped a three-year-old boy during his Sunday School class. Both Brentwood police and DCS told the church not to inform the families with children under the supervision of the alleged offender about the allegations/incident. Contrary to DCS procedures, DCS did not talk to parents and interview children. After formal charges were made against the teen, almost one year after the alleged incident, church leaders met with parents whose children were in the teen’s three-year-old class to inform them that there were allegations of incident of a sexual nature between two juveniles sometime in the past ministry year, which ran from August 2014 to August 2015. They explained it was a one-time incident, police were involved, and that a police officer told them it was the safest place in Brentwood on a Sunday morning. They also said they would not be issuing an official gag order, but they did say to use discretion. If we needed counseling, we should see one of three pastors, one of whom is an accountant by degree.

In late 2015, after the teen pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual battery, the family of the three-year-old victim filed a lawsuit against the church alleging a cover-up and oral and anal rape with penetration. We were shocked at the revelation. Our son was a classmate of the victim and under the supervision of the convicted offender for over a year. We were concerned as he had signs of abuse that we previously attributed to other causes. We were not notified in a timely manner of the severe allegations nor was our son interviewed. We do not believe he was cognitively capable of spontaneously disclosing abuse as a two-year-old and a young three-year-old.

In the church’s publicly released statement, they stated there was nothing to suggest this was more than a one-time, isolated event. We wanted to know if there was any concrete evidence that the children were actually safe from harm. We approached pastors at the church along with a witness/advocate and had a meeting with two pastors and our witness/advocate in December 2015. The pastors could provide no assurance that our son was safe from harm under the supervision of the convicted offender. After this meeting, I called Brentwood Police Detective John Wood to report suspicions of abuse. He told me that he would not ask me my concerns or take down a report. He said that the onus of disclosure was on the church, and that some people are in denial that there are deviants.

We requested to meet with the church elder board. They denied our request. After significant medical, psychological, and developmental evaluations, we approached the church with attorneys. We settled with the church alleging sexual assault in Williamson County Courts presided by Judge Deanna Johnson in November 2016. She was filling in for Judge Binkley, who was the original judge in the publicly filed case. During the process of settling with the church, they deflected responsibility for not disclosing abuse allegations to the police and DCS, as those agencies both gave the church directives to not inform the families. In addition, they called the situation a “botched” DCS investigation.

Shortly after settling with the church, I emailed the church’s children’s pastor. As the children’s pastor, it is important that he know DCS’s conduct as it involves children who were entrusted to his care. Also, I asked for his advocacy regarding the DCS concerns as he had an ongoing relationship with DCS for foster care and adoption initiatives. The church called the situation a “botched DCS investigation”. Wouldn’t they want to assist resolving a severe injustice that involved children entrusted to their care?

The email I sent dated November 27, 2016, reads in part,

“I am writing to inform you regarding some concerning action or inaction related to the two DCS investigations that I personally know about related to suspicions of abuse on the (redacted) Brentwood property.  Please see the below email that I sent to Ms. Dimple Dudley at DCS. She is the current Head of Safety. I was referred to her in my phone call to Customer Relations on Monday, November 14, 2016.”

and

Also, I do recall you had a previous relationship with DCS leadership due to your prior relationship related to the Wait No More conference. This situation has been highly distressing and a horrific nightmare for our family, and I would appreciate your assistance in looking into these concerns.”

I received communication that the church would not be taking any action based on my contact and that I should cease any direct communication with anyone at the church.

Reaching out to Brentwood Police

Our son had additional evaluations. I re-initiated contact with Brentwood Police. I met with Chief Jeff Hughes, Assistant Chief Tommy Walsh, Captain David O’Neil, and Detective John Wood. Chief Hughes said that he was interested in looking at the results of the evaluation.

During the time period that I communicated with Brentwood Police, I  shared directly to the officers that I spoke with a woman(via a business phone call related to the case) whose son was in the offender’s two-year-old class and not his three-year-old class. She said she was not notified of any incident from the church. There is no guarantee that the parents in the convicted offender’s two-year-old class would know their child was exposed to him. Due to the offender’s juvenile status, his name and photo were never released. How would a family from his two-year-old class know their child was exposed to a convicted offender? This is a very large church with hundreds of children who attend, and not a small, family church where everyone is known.

After sharing this information, I received the following email from Captain David O’Neil(emphasis mine).

O’Neil, David <david.oneil@brentwoodtn.gov>

Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 9:07 AM

to me, Jeff, Thomas

(Jane),

I receive both of your emails. As soon as you provide me the medical records I am going to have a detective take another look at your son’s case. Also, we will seek out other possible victims. Please be patient. This will not be a quick process. It will not be helpful if you go out on your own trying to discover other victims. However, if for some reason someone provides you with additional information, passing that along is appreciated and helpful.

I want to ensure you again that we are committed to giving the parents of children harmed the best possible information so they can properly care for their child. If this investigation reveals enough evidence for additional criminal prosecution, we will present the information to the district attorney’s office for prosecution.

Thank You,

David O’Neil, Captain

Criminal Investigation Division

The Brentwood Police did not keep this commitment. I see news articles where police search for additional victims in sexual abuse cases regularly. What is preventing the Brentwood police from acting likewise? Are these children and families not worth supporting?

Reaching Out to DCS

Beginning in 2016, I reached out multiple times to DCS. I didn’t receive any response until I sent a letter to Governor Haslam, legislators Jack Johnson and Charles Sargent, and the Brentwood Mayor on September 29, 2017, where I expressed needs for new child protection laws. Senator Jack Johnson responded, and we had a meeting. Governor Haslam responded to me and suggested I address my concerns with DCS. I sent an email dated October 23, 2017, to Ms. Bonnie Hommrich and received in reply a letter dated October 30, 2017, which states,

“Cases involving young children are especially difficult to investigate. We have a duty to find the facts as best we can, a duty that we must balance with an equally important obligation not to cause any further harm. This is especially true in cases involving large numbers of children. We need to be protective, but we also must guard against spreading undue trauma and fear.”

I don’t know what she meant when she said that “we also must guard against spreading undue trauma and fear”. I am not sure if DCS was given an impression from law enforcement that there were no concerns for additional victims. If law enforcement and DCS are keeping allegations from parents to avoid spreading trauma and fear or they are “believing the accused” and ignoring the fact there could be additional victims, I believe families in Tennessee deserve an explanation for their conduct.

Reaching out to Representative Glen Casada’s Office

I spoke with his office in both the summer 2018 regarding the need for new laws and after I sent an email to him and then Gov.-elect Lee to consider a new DCS Commissioner appointment. In that letter dated November 29, 2018, I stated(emphasis mine),

“I implore you to consider this information if appointments will be made to the Department of Children’s Services. Tennessee needs strong leaders who fear more the potential harm done by a non-interventionist approach to sexual misconduct allegations in group childcare settings than distraught responses of parents upon learning of exposure to a teacher who allegedly rapes a very young child.

When I spoke to the legislative liaison Carol Simpson over the summer, she asked to be connected with the advocates from AWAKE TN, who were aware of our family’s experience with abuse. When I spoke to Carol Simpson after I wrote the letter in November 2018, she shared their office believed I had valid concerns. Their office did contact the church. She expressed concern and dismay that the setting involved a church. However, Representative Casada’s appointment as House Speaker would be an impediment to advocacy.

DCS Responsibilities

Based on conversations with multiple DCS employees, the expectation is that DCS would speak to all the parents with children under the supervision of an alleged offender and interview all children who could be interviewed. Both the DCS Clients Rights Handbook and Task by Allegation document detail some DCS procedures. The Client Rights Handbook that was issued in 4/2014, on page 3 under Abuse and Neglect investigation, says, “You, as the parent, will be interviewed, as will any alleged perpetrators of abuse and all other persons who may have witnessed the abuse or neglect or may have relevant information regarding the circumstances of you and your child.”

In the current Client Rights Handbook, the following is listed on page 6.

In addition to interviewing your child and determining their immediate safety needs, the Assessment worker will:

  • Interview the alleged abuser;
  • Interview anyone who may be able to provide additional information about the abuse;
  • Interview you and other caregivers in the home;
  • Interview siblings, if applicable;
  • Make a visit to your home; and
  • Make a visit to the location where the abuse occurred, if it differs from the home.

On the Task by Allegation document, the following list is found on pages 2 and 3.

Sexual Abuse: a) Required:

  • Convene CPIT
  • Review DCS History
  • Contact referent and send referent notification letter
  • Interview/observe child victim(s)
  • Interview other children in the home
  • Assess risk to other children in the home
  • Visit home or visit location of incident
  • Photograph location of incident
  • Interview parent/caregiver or obtain interview from law enforcement
  • Interview other adults living in the home
  • Obtain medical exam and/or treatment for the alleged victim if child is non-verbal or disclosure
  • Obtain medical records (previous and current)
  • Interview perpetrator or obtain interview from law enforcement
  • Interview witnesses, collaterals, other professionals or agencies
  • Complete background checks
  • Complete Structured Decision Making (SDM) or other assessments as appropriate

TN DCS Client Rights 2014

TN DCS Client Rights Current

Child Protect Services Task By Allegations

My hope would be that the combined involvement of the church, police, and DCS would act as a system of checks and balances — not shifting blame and turning a blind eye. Every adult who knew about this situation should have to answer for their action or inaction. This is a serious public safety issue that parents were not informed their child was supervised by an alleged sexual offender in a group childcare setting. All three involved parties have had ample opportunity to remediate the situation. As far as I know, none have taken any action. If one party did not feel like it was their responsibility to take action, have they at least implored the responsible party to act? The persistent posture of inaction on behalf of very young children is immoral and highly repugnant.

Adverse childhood experiences such as child sexual abuse can have a long-term impact on a child’s mental and physical health and well-being.  The state has an obligation to act on behalf of young children exposed to an alleged offender that has been in a repeated supervisory role over young children beyond simply removing him from a position of authority. If the investigative process for allegations of abuse in group childcare settings follows this pattern utilized in this child care setting in the future, I consider that nothing short of government sanctioned cover up of child sexual abuse. No more “hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil”, all the while little children are thrown under the bus. What is more important — the convenience and protection of the powerful or protection of the vulnerable?

Like many who have experienced severe, traumatic injustices, I desire that no one experience the horrors our family has. Tennessee needs to do better in its response to abuse disclosures, consider the carnage of inaction, and take proactive steps of care on behalf of the vulnerable.

 

Investigate Allegations Against Representative Byrd

I am a resident of Williamson County who resides in House Speaker Glen Casada’s district, and I have children who attend Tennessee public schools. In addition, our family has been personally impacted by abuse and cover up in a church childcare setting in Brentwood, TN. I have had conversations with House Speaker Casada’s office, specifically with my legislative liaison Carol Simpson, regarding our family’s horrific experience and desired legislative advocacy. I feel for the women who have come forward in this case. There is a great deal of skepticism directed towards those who bring forward allegations of abuse. People do not like the status quo to be disrupted. This is especially true when the allegations involve a person or an institution that is powerful in the community. 

Concerns About Appointment of Representative Byrd

The appointment of Representative David Byrd to Chair the Education Subcommittee was a devastating blow to survivors, those impacted by abuse, and advocates for abuse.

House Speaker Glen Casada stated in his Tennessean Opinion Editorial,

“America’s justice system has a responsibility to enforce the sacred principle of being innocent until proven guilty.

Our justice system also has a duty to carry out due process for those accused of crimes.”

I agree that in our criminal justice system there is a presumption of innocence for the accused. However, Representative David Byrd is not being accused in the criminal justice system. The statute of limitations has expired both civilly and criminally.

Given that Representative David Byrd has been appointed as Chair of the Education Subcommittee, I believe a more appropriate standard of conduct is that of a current Tennessee educator and the burden of proof should be something similar to what would be applied to a teacher in the case of educator misconduct. Teachers have a higher ethical code of conduct toward students beyond avoiding criminal behavior and conviction.  

While the women who have accused Byrd have made their specific allegations known publicly, Byrd has not made the acts to which he admitted over the phone known. However, he did convey that the acts were very serious in nature as he lamented the hurt they have caused him over the years. He also stated that he continues to confess his sins against student(s) on a weekly basis at church during communion. Given the persistent weight of guilt Representative Byrd carries for his misconduct against student(s), the very least that I would expect is that House Speaker Casada investigate the allegations. So far, there are three women who have come forward publicly, but perhaps more would be willing to speak privately about concerning behavior should there be an investigation.

I have heard criticisms against the women for not coming forward sooner. It is very common for victims of childhood sexual abuse to wait decades before telling anyone about the abuse. Christi Rice has been open about the reasons she delayed coming forward. Many states are making changes to Statutes of Limitation for these types of crimes since delays in disclosures and reporting are such a frequent occurrences. In our state of Tennessee, there are currently bills proposed to eliminate the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse.

Accusations of lying as well as the possibility of threats and shunning are additional barriers that may prevent victims from coming forward soon after the abuse, especially if the victim feels he or she is the only one. In addition, there is this misunderstanding that no conviction means it didn’t happen. What if the victim doesn’t think there is enough evidence for a conviction? Why go through the horrors of disturbing the status quo, threats, and social shunning?

Byrd Appointment is Barrier to Advocacy

As a concerned parent, I desire a safe and supportive learning environment for my children. Through media reports and through conversations with local area abuse advocates last year, I learned that in 2018, a new law amended both Erin’s Law and The Family Life Curriculum to cross-reference each other and to require all public schools to provide education on the prevention, detection, intervention and treatment of child sexual abuse.  Lack of education on this subject means that students are often unable to identify sexual abuse or communicate about incidents of abuse.

https://www.awaketn.org/2018_legislation_dv_sexual_abuse

http://www.erinslaw.org/

As a parent and one who would like to see children and families empowered to identify and report abuse, I would like to have the confidence to approach legislators on these very important issues in education and that my concerns would be heard. I do not feel confident when I know our House Speaker has outright dismissed and disparaged the women who have come forward with abuse allegations. He is the leader and sets the tone on the issue of response to sexual abuse allegations. How is a child today expected to feel about disclosing when he or she sees leaders in our state calling alleged victims “fake news” or questioning why they didn’t come forward sooner. Experiencing sexual abuse is difficult enough on its own. Victims deserve to be heard and supported.

A 2018 report was created by the state Comptroller’s office titled Educator Sexual Misconduct Involving Students in Tennessee Schools. The report states,

“In early 2016, USA Today published the results of a national investigation of educator sexual misconduct in schools, particularly looking at each state’s efforts to reduce the chances that an employee with a history of sexual misconduct could move from one school to another without repercussions. …  Only seven states received an A; Tennessee received an F.”

https://comptroller.tn.gov/content/dam/cot/orea/documents/orea-reports-2018/2018_OREA_TchrMisconduct.pdf

Bills were passed last session to address some of these shortcomings. There is still work to be done to make our schools safer. Sexual and other teacher misconduct will always be an issue relevant to education related legislative work. As a parent, I would like an appointed chair who can lead by example without a dark cloud of past undisclosed(on Byrd’s part) misconduct.

At the very least House Speaker Casada should take an approach similar to what Lt. Gov. Randy McNally said he would likely take. He said he would probably request a Senate ethics committee to investigate. Tennessee’s children and parents deserve to know that the Tennessee House Speaker and legislators care for the children and families entrusted to the care of our schools. This care must be demonstrated not just by lip service and assurances that reports of abuse and other teacher misconduct will be heard and supported, but with concrete action. I expect no less integrity by the Chair of the Education Subcommittee in his interactions with past students than I expect from teachers with their students today. The minimum action needed is an investigation into the past misconduct of Representative David Byrd.

What are the Boy Scouts Practices Upon Reports of Convicted Juvenile Offenders?

This is Part 4 of my family’s #churchtoo story.

Part 1 – Police and DCS Response to Sexual Abuse Allegation in Church Childcare Setting

Part 2 – Confidentiality Agreements Conceal Abuse

Part 3 – Complicit or Complacent

Background

In the prior posts, I shared that our family was involved in a church in which there were allegations of sexual abuse reported on August 30, 2014, with the date of the incident August 24, 2014. The offender and his family denied the abuse. According to an individual at the Child Advocacy Center, Brentwood Police Detective John Wood considered the offender believable. John Wood gave a directive to the church to not inform the families with children under the supervision of the offender. On July 30, 2015, families of children in the offender’s three-year-old class were notified of a meeting regarding an incident in our children’s classroom. On August 2, 2015, we met with pastors and elders and learned there was an incident of a sexual nature between two juveniles in our child’s classroom, charges had been filed, and a court date was pending. We were told that we would be updated as the case progressed. On November 8, 2015, I followed up via email and received a call back from a pastor who told me that the teen was through the courts and was not permitted on the church campus. On November 30, 2015, we learned that a lawsuit was filed against the church alleging the male teen volunteer orally and anally raped a three-year-old boy.

Once we learned about the horrific allegations, we were concerned for our son, who was two and three-years-old while under the supervision of the convicted offender. We contacted church leaders and the police, none of whom could provide any assurance that our child was safe from harm under the supervision of the convicted offender. They told us these thing privately while publicly refuting claims in the lawsuit or maintaining a posture of silence.

The investigation in 2014 and 2015 was limited to considering only the one disclosing child. As such, there was a missed opportunity to uncover the potential full scope of the situation. With young children, there is a limited window of opportunity to do an interview as their long term memory is not as developed as an older child or an adult. Parents learning of an incident one year or more after exposure is too long to wait. No one can say for certain the offender didn’t attack multiple children multiple times. Potentially, he could present more danger to the community than a one-time offender.

Church members may feel secure that the offender was monitored while on the campus prior to his court hearing and was later banned from the church campus. But, the offender didn’t disappear from the face of the earth. He was in other settings, which may not have been informed of the very severe allegations and consequent conviction.

Reporting Suspicions of Convicted Offender in Boy Scouts

In prior posts, I explained that I attempted communications with the parents of the juvenile offender. While doing online searches for the family, I found the father’s contact information on a merit badge counselor list for a local boy scout troop in Nashville. I was able to use that information to attempt contact with the parents. I was concerned that the teen offender might be participating in the troop. However, I wasn’t certain he was still participating.

Later, I saw a flyer on the troop website for a trip that the father of the teen offender led. At that point, I sent an email listed on the site below to the Middle Tennessee Boy Scouts informing that I suspected a convicted juvenile offender was in a troop.

https://web.archive.org/web/20161113072815/http://www.mtcbsa.org:80/Parents/scout/aboutus/whistleblower.html

I received a call back from Larry Brown, who found a scout with the same name as the offender’s on the roll. We discussed the situation at the church, and he seemed concerned for the young children. He commented that there is usually more than one victim. We further discussed that I had learned the convicted offender had no jail time and that because juvenile records are sealed, there would be no reason that scout leaders or anyone else would have known about the very serious allegations and the conviction. I left the conversation with the understanding that Larry Brown would be contacting the church.

I later emailed him a timeline of events and provided contacts for both the police and DCS. I wrote that I would appreciate his advocacy.

Included in the information I sent Larry Brown were the attempted contacts to the teen’s father in which I asked the parents if the teen ever brought my son to the bathroom. I didn’t receive a reply. I felt that the lack of responsiveness from the father was unbecoming of a scout leader in that he was not kind enough to provide a reply to my very reasonable questions regarding my very young and vulnerable child who was under his family’s care.

The Boy Scouts have been riddled with abuse scandals including a recent one in Nashville involving former Scout leader Darrell Fisher.

https://www.wkrn.com/news/west-meade-man-taken-into-custody-for-rape-of-12-year-old-boy/1091588745

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/04/indictment-ex-scout-leader-sexually-abused-5-boys/83926632/

http://www.wsmv.com/story/36263661/former-nashville-boy-scout-leader-sentenced-to-18-years-in-prison

Because of the abuse scandals that have plagued the organization, I know they have developed some of the best abuse prevention protocols, so I trusted that Larry Brown would take the best course of action.

Contacting Christ Presbyterian About Convicted Abuser

To give some background on the teen’s family, his father runs a ministry that does overnight events for youth and adults, including events with both youth and adults. The father’s ministry does fundraisers, and these fundraisers are sometimes at church facilities. For instance, while the teen was being investigated for sexual abuse against the three-year-old at the Brentwood church, the ministry held their fundraiser at the Brentwood church.

Later in the year after I had made a report to the Boy Scouts and spoke to Larry Brown, the teen’s father held a fundraiser at Christ Presbyterian Academy. This school is related to the church that sponsors the troop that it appeared the teen and his father participated in. It didn’t make sense to me that if the church had been notified of the teen’s conviction and his presence in the troop, that the father’s ministry would be hosting a fundraiser at the church.

As an aside, around this time, I also saw evidence the family participated in another Nashville troop, but it appears they changed troops several years ago.

I decided to contact the church and learned that Todd Teller would be an appropriate person to contact. I sent an email to both him and the Senior Pastor Scott Sauls. The reply I received is below.


Scott Sauls <ssauls@christpres.org>
Tue, Dec 12, 2017, 11:39 AM
to Todd, me

Dear (Jane),

This is the first I have heard of this.
Thank you very much for bringing your concern to our (and my) attention.
I have reached out directly to congregational care and asked that you receive a call as soon as possible.

Scott Sauls


I spoke to the congregational care minister Todd Teller after this email and explained the situation.

I don’t know what, if any, action the Boy Scouts took. Nor do I know what, if any, action Scott Sauls took.

By this time, the convicted offender should be 18 years old, so he should be ineligible to participate in the Boys Scouts based on his age.  I am curious to know if the convicted offender has been listed in the Ineligible (IV) Volunteer Files. I am not sure how juvenile offenses affects a person’s record in adulthood, but I wonder if a criminal background check would show an offense.

What I do know is that parents whose children are participating in activities that present a higher risk for abuse such as camping and other overnight events, are entitled to know the Boy Scout’s official position on convicted juvenile offenders (particularly violent offenses), and more importantly the Boy Scout’s actions based upon a notice of a convicted juvenile offender within a troop(when he was a juvenile).

According to the training guide regarding the prevention of youth-on-youth abuse, important information on page 8 states regarding higher risk activities for abuse,

“It’s important that we remind everyone that youth-on-youth abuse can occur in Scouting during any activity, but especially where observation or adult supervision is limited. This includes overnight activities and events that occur in less-structured environments as well as secluded areas in regular meeting places. Higher risk situations include overnight hotel stays, overnight tenting and camping, and situations involving group latrine and/or showering facilities.”

In addition, page 9 lists some facts about abuse and youth:

  • More than one-third of serious physical and sexual abuse incidents are committed by youth (U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2009, “Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors”).
  • Nearly one out of every four students (22 percent) report being bullied during the school year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015). Further, 19.6 percent of high school students report being bullied at school in the past year; 14.8 percent report being bullied online (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014).
  • Research indicates the peak age for male youth offenders is age 13 to 16.
  • Targets of (sexual) abuse tend to be boys and girls three to five years of age younger than the perpetrator.
  • Sexual experimentation can lead to abuse.
  • Youth offenders who groom and abuse can be of any age or demographic.

Not only this, but the troop is sponsored by a church that also runs a school. There are many youth under the care of Christ Presbyterian Church and Christ Presbyterian Academy. What is the church’s position on the notice of a convicted juvenile offender within its programs?

The Gospel Coalition Article Featuring Governor Haslam

I did follow up with Scott Sauls regarding advocacy on behalf of the vulnerable in Tennessee. In March 2018, I saw that The Gospel Coalition ran an article on Governor Haslam’s advocacy for education in Tennessee. The article stated that Governor Haslam attends Christ Presbyterian Church and that Scott Sauls is his pastor. I forwarded the letter that I sent to legislators in January 2018 that I included in Part 3 of my #churchtoo story with the addition of the request below.


Subject: Fwd: Child Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, and Harassment Laws in TN

To: ssauls@christpres.org

Dear Pastor Sauls,

I recently saw this article on the TGC website.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/tennessees-reformed-republican-governor-champions-free-college/

I see that Governor Haslam is a participating member of your congregation.  Due to your exposure to the referenced situation via my contact in December 2017 and your proximity to our governor, I am forwarding you this email in which I express a need for legislative change regarding child sexual abuse cases.  I would appreciate your review of the email and advocacy on behalf of the vulnerable in Tennessee.

Personally, I feel like the system is broken related to sexual abuse cases.  In the stories I have read over the last several years in which abuses have occurred in institutional settings, the narratives are strikingly similar.  It is almost like you have the same storyline with a different set of actors.

What I have suggested just scratches the surface of the issues, but it is a start.  I believe it time to make some changes so that the same tragic stories are not repeated time and again.

Sincerely,

(Jane)  


I did not receive a reply to this email. I did follow up via this tweet without any comment.

Attempted Contact to The Gospel Coalition

Additionally, the Brentwood church where the abuse occurred in the church childcare setting is listed in The Gospel Coalition(TGC) directory of churches. I have attempted to contact TGC twice via their website regarding the abuse situation. I first contacted in November 2017 and next in June 2018. I did not receive a reply after either notice. I have copies of the notices that I sent.

Youth-on-youth abuse is common, affecting approximately 30% of abused youth. Youth-on-youth abuse needs to be handled more sensitively due to the juvenile status of of both parties. However, a response of inaction is unacceptable. Abuse perpetrated by youth is devastating and harmful to an abused child. Care should not be withheld. Juvenile cases are confidential. This is to protect the privacy of the offender. However, transparency and oversight are also important. Is it possible that confidentiality is being used to cover-up criminal misconduct and prevent appropriate safeguards to be put in place? There needs to be accountability even in cases in which there are confidentiality issues.

Just like in the adult offender world, juveniles who offend are still out in the world potentially exposing others to risks outside of the original place of offense. If this is not already happening, consideration needs to be made for individuals who maybe exposed to an offender outside of the reported abuse setting.

Complacent or Complicit?

This is Part 3 of my family’s #churchtoo story. I will be filling in some of the blank spots and adding in a timeline. You will find the prior stories below.

Part 1 – Police and DCS Response to Child Abuse Allegations in Church Childcare Setting

Part 2 – Confidentiality Agreements Conceal Abuse

In addition, reading the post about financial misconduct in a Franklin, TN SBC church may be helpful as well.

Handling Financial Misconduct Internally in an SBC Church

For background, the family of a victim in a church childcare setting in Brentwood, TN, reported to DCS in August 2014 alleging a teen male Sunday School teacher had orally and anally raped their three-year-old son during Sunday school. My son was under the supervision of this offender both in the two-year-old classroom which ended in early August 2014 and the three-year-old classroom which began August 10, 2014.

Initial Church Disclosure

Approximately 11 months later, we received an email from the church informing us of a meeting regarding an incident that happened in our child’s three-year-old classroom during the current ministry year. During our meeting on August 2, 2015, we learned there were allegations of an incident of a sexual nature between two juveniles in our child’s class. A police investigation had been completed, charges had been filed, and a court date was pending.  They really wanted to tell us earlier, but they couldn’t. Because of the juvenile nature, they could not give us more information. If the offender was an adult, they would have been able to give us more information. They did not tell us the date other than it was sometime in the prior ministry year (the ministry year begins and ends in August with the start of the school year). They did not tell us when the investigation was completed or when the charges were filed. They made it sound like they reported the incident to the families immediately after charges were filed.  

At this point, the teen still attended church and youth group. There was an adult assigned to monitor him and know where he was at all times when he was in youth group.

During the meeting, they called it a one-time incident and that police said it was the safest place in Brentwood. They said that they would be providing additional communications with us as the case progressed.

We were told there had been tightening up the security of the building – measures such as ensuring there were no accessible unlocked closets.  

The children’s minister handed out forms on discussing abuse with children. The main speaker(a pastor/elder – not the children’s minister) closed by saying that he was not issuing an official gag order. But, he did say to use discretion. If we needed to talk to anyone such as for counseling, he said we could contact either him or one of two other pastor/elders. He passed out a sheet of paper with their contact information. (Note: None of these pastors are mental health counselors. One is a degreed accountant.)

In my brief discussion with the one friend of mine with a child in the class, she made it sound like those in her group (she met with pastors and elders at a different hour) handled the information just fine, in a matter of fact fashion, like any other informational meeting – though she wouldn’t discuss any further, referred to a no-gossip policy, and reminded me that the pastors were the appropriate place to take my concerns and not talk around with others.

Follow-Up on Case

On November 8, 2015, I had followed up with one of the pastors since we had not received any communications from the church about the case as promised. I received a reply to my email via a phone call to tell me that there would be no communications from the church.  He did say that he heard from a “source” that the perpetrator was through the courts. They said he would no longer be on the church campus.

I told him that my children took an extra-curricular class on the church campus.  One of the mothers had commented on the obvious stepped up security and said, “something serious must have happened here”.

As I had mentioned that we were no longer attending the church on Sundays, this pastor also mentioned that security was stepped up on Sundays.  They wanted to make sure the building was less “porous”. I mentioned that when we volunteered on Sunday mornings there was a side door unlocked and unsecured between an outside building and the primary classroom of the class we volunteered in that was used to go back and forth between the two places.  This (formerly) unsecured and unlocked side door is also right by the playground.

I told him that the situation was traumatizing and given the obvious changes that communication is important.

Shock Over Reports of Allegations

On November 30, 2015, we heard of the details of the originally reported incident on News Channel 5. By the next day, other media outlets like the Tennessean had similar articles.

A lawsuit was filed against the church by the family who reported an incident in August 2014. They alleged the their three-year-old son was anally and orally raped including penetration by his Sunday school teacher. The teacher had already been convicted of aggravated sexual battery.

At this point, we were terribly distressed, as we never had imagined that parents would be kept totally in the dark with such severe allegations made against the teacher.

In my prior posts, I shared that we sought both spiritual and legal guidance and learned that no one – not the church or the police – could provide us any assurance that our child was safe from harm while under the supervision of the offender.  Not only that, but the police later acknowledged that our child was exposed to the offender and that there was potential for harm.

police communications part 3

The church made the statement, “In our cooperation with authorities and our communications with parents, there has been nothing to suggest that this was more than a one-time, isolated event.”

However, there were no investigations of children or families as potential victims or witnesses. In addition, the primary teacher was the offender’s mother and the third teacher was his sister. From what I have learned is that they did not communicate with police.

Even though nobody was aware(or at least admitted to any awareness) of any additional victims at that time, there was no concrete evidence that the children under the supervision of the offender were actually safe from harm.

There may be those who are reading this thinking – well, what does it matter? If a child suffered a horrific sexual attack at the age of two or three years old, they are not going to remember it anyway. I have heard this argument before. So, is this actually true? Also, this information is upsetting to parents. Is it better for them to remain in the dark and unaware of any risks to their child, so as not to upset them?

Evidence suggests that maltreatment in the early years does matter. For those of you who are unconvinced, please see the resources below.

https://www.tn.gov/dcs/program-areas/child-health/aces.html

ACEs_Case_Attention_Action

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/brain_development.pdf

Re-victimization study

One the counseling side, some of the first work that the therapist did with my son was body safety teaching. I believe this is very important for children who may have had their body boundaries breached. I also think that families need to be able to discuss exposure to a sexual offender with their children’s medical doctors.

I just can’t fathom why caring adults would maintain a position of do-nothingness when there is a potential of harm against the most vulnerable in a faith community.

At the time of the press release of the publicly filed lawsuit, neither the police or DCS offered any comment. This is despite during a private conversation on December 23, 2015, John Wood told me personally, “The onus of disclosure was on the church.  They are in big trouble and have a lot to answer for.”  He also said something to the effect that some people are in denial that there are deviants. 

This was after the church had already stated that the church’s actions were in accordance with the authorities. Things were not adding up to us.

Conversation with Plaintiff’s Attorney

In December 2015, I also contacted the attorney who represented the family who filed the lawsuit against the church. I told her I was in correspondence with the church.  I wanted to know what the victim’s family wanted us to know about the case. She sent me the complaint. She said the victim’s family met with the whole elder body shortly after the incident and that other families were not informed of the incident because there was not a unanimous decision among the elder body to share the information.  The church requires unanimity among elder board for decisions. She said the family was concerned for the other children who attended the same class. She said the perpetrator was “tricky” and had undergone a psychological evaluation. She said that some people who had contacted her up to that point were scared.

I also told her about my prior church’s situation. She asked if I would be willing to be a witness should the case go to trial.

I was kind of confused about the elder board’s unanimous decision. I thought about it some more. Given that the authorities had given the church the directive to not tell the families about the incident, the church board would need to vote unanimously to go against the directive of authorities in order to inform the families. Just one dissenter would prevent the church from informing the families of the allegations.

After we had met with the pastors and Brandy Whitehead in December 2015, and I spoke to and attempted to report suspicions of abuse to Brentwood Police Detective John Wood, my husband emailed a request to the pastors to meet with the elder board on January 29, 2016.

Conversations with Other Church Members

In the month of February, I contacted the friend I knew from the class about our findings. She was shocked and visible shaken. I had spoken with her after the press release for the lawsuit, and both she and her husband had decided to “trust the church” at that point in time.

This family did come to understand that neither the church or the authorities could provide any assurance of safety for their children. They met with the two pastors just like we did. They did share with the pastors their child showed concerning signs in 2014, though they were prevented from sharing the specific signs with them.

We did speak to other families, including a long-time member. She had spoken to a former childcare employee and gave me her number to call.

Phone Call with Former Church Employee

In early May 2016, I had a conversation with this former church childcare employee. She and the children’s minister were the first individuals from the church to hear the allegations. They wanted to come early in the morning to intercept the family to prevent them from teaching.  

The family (perpetrator’s) denied anything happened.  The childcare employee made it sound like the church staff did not know how the family ran the class.  It sounds like they were not keeping tabs of that. She offered no assurance that the kids in that class were safe.  

She said they (I am assuming elders or decision making pastors) knew the allegations.  She believed they believed something happened but didn’t know exactly what it was.

She was told that police and DHS(she said DHS not DCS) were looking into the situation.  The church was told to hold off on sharing the information. She had a hard time with the fact that the parents were not told.  She feels like parents should have been informed. She wanted them to be able to look out for signs of abuse. At some point, she was sat down with a church attorney, Alan Hall, who informed her that “the church would be okay” if they were following police instructions.  She thought about going against church orders. There were closed door meetings that she wanted to attend that she was not permitted to attend. She also asked to be at the parent disclosure meeting. She feels like the church mishandled the situation. During this phone conversation, she denied that there was a cover-up.  She said the police did tell the church not to tell families.

Related to the “church being okay” if they were following police instructions, we were advised that the church would not be liable for the delay in disclosure if they were following police instructions.

She said something about the church trying to avoid “bad press”.

She also said the Brentwood police department worked for the church providing security including the 8 am service.    

She took issue with the allegations that they didn’t train volunteers and don’t do background checks.  

She said the child victim was very verbal and was vocal about sharing his opinions.  She knew the family well as she used to babysit for their children. The mother of the victim’s family used to work for the church.  

It appears that this child care staff person has spoken to a number of people from the church. Some people think the lawsuit is wrong and others are upset with the church.

She said that she had visited the Davis House.  She said that someone else from the church had gone through the Davis house as well.

She said at some point the “Doe” family stopped communicating with the church directly.

DCS Investigation

We continued our medical and psychological evaluations for our son. On May 11, 2016, a representative from the church reported suspicions of abuse, and a case was opened. We met with a DCS investigator, Heather Seabrooks, on May 13, 2016. In my discussion with the DCS investigator, she conveyed to me that in daycare cases she interviews all the children who can be interviewed and parents. She was very surprised when I said that I had not ever spoken to anyone from DCS so much so that she had a hard time believing what she was hearing. She had tried to do some research into the case before meeting with me. There is no one from her team that was there during the time period of the incident. So, she had a hard time finding information. Following our Friday morning meeting, she was planning to go back to the office and find more information. I also gave her a former church childcare employee’s number – one of the individuals who the victim’s family reported the abuse to first at the church. I told her that she would know the name of the perpetrator and would have the class records.  She also said that she would be making an attempt to contact other families from the class. We also dealt with logistics such as signs of releases for the various specialists our son was seeing. She also explained to us the DCS process such that there was a 60 day period to classify the case.

CPS Investigative Tasks Current

CPS Investigative Tasks 2014

A forensic interview was scheduled at the child advocacy center on June 3, 2016. During this appointment, an advocate from the child advocacy center talked with us. She told us that we were the first family from the victim’s class after the original victim to come through the Davis House.  She was surprised that it took this long for anyone to come forward. We talked to her about the one-time incident conclusion. She said – first time to get caught. She gave us a resource book of counselors. I told her that we were having a hard time with people believing we should be concerned given that the church and police were involved.  She said there was legitimate cause for us to be concerned.

Her team (DCS, detective, and Davis house) doesn’t think the church handled the situation well.  But she said it was their church. They can run things any way they would like.

We requested a meeting with Detective John Wood, the investigator with the Brentwood Police Department. She and the DCS investigator said they would pass along our message. We never got a contact back from him about a meeting.

The child advocacy center did wonder initially if they were going to be interviewing the whole class of children.  Something about the investigation led the investigator to believe it was an isolated incident and other families were not investigated.  The advocate we spoke with thought maybe the investigator considered the perpetrator to be believable. She explain that the teen denied the incident for a long time – all the way up to the court hearing –  so he is not trustworthy.

After the forensic interview on June 3, 2016, we received no contacts from either Heather Seabrooks or John Wood. I contacted Heather Seabrooks multiple times and received no reply after asking for updates on the case. Both prior and after the forensic interview, I also reported suspicions of abuse related to concerns with another child in the class.

By July 26, 2016, the church reviewed our evidences of abuse.

On August 5, 2016, John Wood called and left a message on my husband’s cell phone. He closed the case and said there was no evidence of injuries related to anything at the church. He also asked us to contact him should there be any updates on the medical side.

During this time period, we also voiced our concerns to DA Kim Helper’s office. We received a reply from her in late September 2016. She denied any bias in the initial investigation, and she could not answer a lot of our questions due to confidentiality based on the juvenile nature of the cases.

I also got a copy of the DCS file to review. After my son’s forensic interview at the child advocacy center, the report notes that the DCS investigator went to the house of the alleged perpetrator on June 6, 2016, but she was not able to make contact. She left a card. There was no activity on the case until July 28, 2016, when she called the pediatrician’s office and asked if the pediatrician (not the specialist) knew the etiology of my son’s symptoms. The pediatrician did not know. I saw the pediatrician’s medical record was time stamped 10:31 am to 10:54 am on July 28, 2016. The case was classified unsubstantiated due to no verbal statement and that the medical records could not be used to determine abuse. On August 3, 2016, Heather Seabrooks provided a case update for two separate staff people at the church via phone messages.

When I read the record and I thought about John Wood’s phone conversations, I was a little confused. If he was interested in being updated on the medical side, why did he not consult the relevant doctor. The most recent medical tests, which were done in mid and late July 2016, were not in the pediatrician’s medical file.

Second Conversation with Church Employee

In mid October 2016, I spoke with the former church employee again. During this conversation, she said that she doesn’t think the incident and the way it was handled can be anything but a gross cover-up.

She said that there have been other allegations of abuse incidents in churches in Williamson county.  We don’t hear about it, because it is not publicized.

I told her about my experience at a previous church with the vague disclosure of the “financial indiscretion” with the two-way confidentiality agreement between the offending pastor and Senior Pastor. I felt like it was handled similarly though the type of misconduct was different.

We discussed the idea that the families would likely have never been notified if charges were not filed.

Thinking of the pattern at the church – let’s say a church is given some instruction to “keep it confidential during the investigation” all the while police/DCS don’t contact parents or interview other kids.  A church may feel like they don’t have the civil obligation and would not be civilly liable to disclose to parents until and unless charges are filed. So, if DCS calls it unsubstantiated or no charges are ever filed, parents with children exposed to an alleged offender would never hear of it.  In our son’s case, the August 2015 disclosure was vague. We only heard the original allegations and became aware of the risks our son was exposed to because the “Doe” family filed a lawsuit against the church.

After the time of the disclosure of the incident to families in August 2015, the childcare staff tried to talk to the families after their meetings to see how they felt.  We didn’t go to the church after that meeting, so we didn’t have a chance to talk to the childcare staff.

We discussed the teen’s consequences and that we both had heard different information as to whether he was a registered sex offender.

She explained to me that even though one of the main pastors resigned, he will still be responsible legally.

She talked about her new church(out of state.).  She said that she appreciated that they seem transparent.  For instance, when a staff person resigned, they gave an explanation and shared what the staff person was moving on to.  It was not all hush-hush.

Communication with Brentwood Police

During this time period, we were continuing with medical evaluations and had another series of tests scheduled. I called Assistant District Attorney Jay Fahey as he handles the juvenile cases. I got a call from Brentwood Police Detective John Wood, and we spoke for about an hour.  He and the DCS investigator planned to get together over my son’s situation and would be getting back to me in a couple of weeks.  He told me to call back in 2 weeks if I don’t hear from him.  He knew that we have upcoming tests, and he planned to go over medical results. 

I asked him if there was any basis for no additional victims besides no verbal disclosure.  He said there was not. 

I told him that I understood that they have laws and statutes that must be followed.  I said that I believe that it is an injustice that parents aren’t permitted information about their children’s exposure to a volunteer with serious allegations in a timely and truthful fashion.  Perhaps our son could have avoided some of his medical testing. 

I also talked to him about some things we have learned about memory at young ages from therapists.  I can’t remember the technical verbiage that was used or exactly was said, but at the young age of 2 or 3, memories may not be transferred to long term memory part of the brain.  I told him I showed my son a picture of his teacher at the time(the mother of the teen offender), and he did not know who she was.    

After several weeks, I didn’t get a call back from John Woods. At this point, I had lost confidence in him. I wrote a letter to the Brentwood Police Chief, Representative Charles Sargent, and former Mayor Regina Smithson. I got a call back, and I came into the department and spoke to him, Assistant Police Chief Tommy Walsh, Captain David O’Neil, and Detective John Wood.

Police Chief Jeff Hughes started off by saying that Regina Smithson saw the email and that she would let them take care of my concerns. He also shared that he was friends with Representative Charles Sargent.

Captain David O’Neill ensured that if there are allegations of sexual misconduct in a child care setting, such as a church’s children’s class or nursery, that they would make certain that each of the parents in the class would be contacted.  So, at the very least, in Brentwood a parent should expect a contact if their child has been under the supervision of an alleged sexual predator in a church childcare setting.

They did seem to have a genuine sense of concern over the situation.  There was a sense that people often can only learn about how to handle situations more effectively through hindsight.

I don’t know if contact with families under a similar scenario can be assured elsewhere in TN.  They said no laws were broken in the way things were handled following the August 2014 incident.

They made it sound like they relied on the church to inform the parents.  It does not sound like it was the department’s intention for the families to be informed at such a late date and in the manner in which we were informed (incident between two juveniles of a sexual nature).  There was some discussion that DHS could have asked the church to not inform parents or there could have been some statement or conversation of that nature, but they don’t believe the intention of such a statement would be waiting a year to tell parents.

They said the police are limited about what they can say about a case and can actually be prosecuted for sharing particular information.

I don’t think the church staff have the same restrictions.  From what I understand, it would not be illegal for them to repeat the allegations the victim’s family shared with the elder board.  But, for the church, it is a civil matter. On the perpetrator end, they have to be concerned about slander and being sued by him or his family.  With respect to the parents of the children in the Sunday School class, they have a duty to warn.

There was some acknowledgement that churches don’t deal with this sort of thing all the time – not familiar territory for them. (Though, sexual abuse cases are familiar territory for law enforcement.)

John Wood did say that he met with a pastor and the head of the Davis House about writing a letter to the parents.  The only letter that we received was the July 30, 2015, email. So, I don’t know if this was earlier in the process or if he was referring to the July 30 email.

John Wood denied he made the statement about the church being the safest place in Brentwood.

They were interested in seeing the medical records after the next set of medical tests.  They did say that the testing has to be 99% definitive to prosecute.

The BPD chief asked if my son had been interviewed.  I said that he had in June 2016. I also shared that due to his young age, he cannot be expected to know events from two plus years ago. I had shared that I showed my son a picture of the main teacher he had every week for one year, and he did not recognize her.

Because he was not interviewed in 2014, we can never know whether he would have given some verbal statement (rudimentary or not).  Also, we can never be sure if any of the other children could have given a verbal statement as they were not interviewed or even given an opportunity to be interviewed in a timely manner.

Regarding interviewing the teen, they cannot compel anyone to speak to them.  I am free to attempt contact with the family. I explained that I already attempted contact. 

DCS Contacts

I continued sharing similar sets of concerns with DCS by email, but shared specific concerns regarding the DCS process. I inquired as to why the case at the church deviated from typical protocol – interviewing children and families and considering the possibility of additional victims. The delay made ascertaining abuse significantly more difficult and contributed to the suffering our our child and family.

Quoted from my email dated November 16, 2016, to DCS Head of Safety Dimple Dudley and Representative Charles Sargent,

“It is a significant public safety issue that parents can have no assurance that they would be contacted should their child be exposed to an alleged predator in a church childcare setting.  Many churches are very large and people in attendance are virtual strangers.  There is no surefire way for a parent to learn of incidents through informal channels.  Even though these very large churches are private organizations, they do invite the public into their premises and provide childcare for parents attending worship services.  Should families in Tennessee come to expect no contact either as a witness or a potential victim if they are in a church childcare setting?”

Frustrated that I didn’t receive a response from DCS, I recalled that the children’s minister from the church had connections to DCS through various foster care and adoption initiatives. I reached out to him on November 27, 2016, and asked for his help in the matter due to his connections. I explained that I think it is important that he know of the conduct during DCS investigations in that it relates to the children who were entrusted to his care. Specifically, in the email, I shared, “This situation has been highly distressing and a horrific nightmare for our family, and I would appreciate your assistance in looking into these concerns.”

Legislative Advocacy

I continued speaking with Brentwood Police in early 2017. In addition, I sent files of information detailing my experience with all parties to both the Brentwood Police and DCS.

As it appeared that this was a case in which all of the parties met the minimum requirements of the law yet classrooms full of children were ignored as either potential victims or witness, I came to the conclusion that I believe laws need to change. I began contacting my local Senator Johnson, Representative Sargent, and the Governor and his wife.

After I sent my first letter on September 29, 2017, suggesting that we need laws mandating disclosure to parents should their be allegations of abuse against an individual in a supervisory capacity, I received a message back from Senator Johnson’s office. We met several weeks later to discuss the issues. He did indicate that he believed that parents should have access to this kind of information and that waiting one year was too long. He also said that it is important to anticipate concerns from potentially affected groups such as the Boy Scouts. He indicated the need for legal research.

Curiously, during the discussion, he said, “Of course there are allegations you don’t hear about. There are a lot of churches in Williamson County.”

One of the statements that the former childcare worker said was that she doesn’t think the incident and the way it was handled can be anything but a gross cover-up.  She said that there have been other allegations of abuse incidents in churches in Williamson county. We don’t hear about it, because it is not publicized.

It seemed like he could be talking about this statement. However, I never shared this information with Senator Johnson. I had, however, shared this information with the Brentwood police.

He also referred to John Wood’s request for follow-up with my son’s medical situation on August 5, 2016. He suggested that John Wood was concerned there was negligence on the part of the church.

I had been confused as to why there was a request for follow-up for several reasons. First, John Wood didn’t even reach out to the relevant specialist in the first place. Secondly, there was this plea deal that Detective Russ had referred to.

I didn’t share this information with Senator Johnson either. Based on several parts of the conversation, it seemed like he had prior knowledge of the situation beyond what I had personally shared with him.

I don’t know how he got the information. Did he speak directly to the police? His wife is a Williamson County judge. Did she speak to the police and then share the information with her husband?

One thing I am concerned about after having witnessed misconduct in two church settings in Williamson County is that there may be a “blueprint” response to allegations of abuse in faith-based settings. Let’s say a report of abuse is made in a church setting. Police and/or DCS come in and tell the leaders to keep the case confidential and not inform families. This relieves the church of the duty to warn parents of the risks their children were exposed to. Child sexual abuse cases are difficult to substantiate and prosecute, so the likelihood of charges actually being filed are very slim. In addition, I have heard plenty of instances of faith communities using theologies like forgiveness and grace to pressure victims or parents into dropping a case.

In addition, the church and alleged offender may not share information with the police that would negatively impact them. Would a church voluntarily tell the police that best practices protocol are not being followed (if they even know what those are)?

Given that the situation in Brentwood, TN, was protective of everyone involved except for the vulnerable children under the supervision of the offender, I believe the state and local authorities need to examine the conduct and responses that lead to that end. If abuse reports are handled in the future in the manner they were handled in Brentwood, TN, knowing full well they are protective of institutions and offenders, I consider that government sanctioned cover-up of child sexual abuse.

I have shared in my past posts legislative changes that I believe are essential in Tennessee. Below I have included a copy of the letter dated January 3, 2018, that I sent to members of the Members of the Tennessee House Civil and Criminal Justice Committees as well as Governor and First Lady Haslam advocating these changes.

Jane
Jan 3, 2018
to rep.andrew.far., rep.debra.moody, rep.bill.beck, rep.mike.carter, rep.glen.casada, rep.martin.dan., rep.john.forge., rep.ga.hardaway, rep.courtney.r., rep.mike.stewa., rep.bryan.terry, rep.william.la., rep.michial.cu., rep.raumesh.ak., rep.jim.coley, rep.tilman.goi., rep.sherry.jon., rep.mary.littl., rep.antonio.pa., rep.paul.sherr., rep.micah.vanh., Bill.Haslam, crissy.haslam

Dear Members of the Tennessee House Civil and Criminal Justice Committees:

I am writing to you because we need new laws in Tennessee to protect children in unlicensed classrooms and group childcare settings in which allegations of abuse or neglect arise against an individual in a supervisory role.  Unlicensed settings can include sports teams, mother’s day out programs, Sunday school classes, and gymnastics and dance classes.

Specifically, we need to pursue new laws such as follows:

  1. A mandatory notice will be given to parents and/or guardians of minors who were under the supervision of an individual in which allegations of abuse have been reported.
  2. Confidentiality agreements related to child sexual abuse cases need to be banned.
  3. Confidentiality agreements related to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination cases need to be banned.

For a more detailed explanation of my family’s experience specifying the need for a mandatory notice, please see my attached letter that is dated September 29, 2017.

As an update to this September 29 letter, I have met with Senator Johnson regarding a mandatory a notice.  He agreed that families should be made aware of allegations against individuals in supervisory roles and indicated the need for legal research.  I have not heard back from inquiries.

In addition, I have shared my concerns regarding the case with all parties involved and the individuals to whom they are accountable.  For your reference, I have attached documents that detail my concerns about the case with DCS, the Brentwood Police, and attorneys.

A mandatory notice must be given to parents and/or guardians when there are allegations of abuse against an authority figure.  Parents need this information in order to make informed parenting decisions regarding the mental and physical well-being of their child.  This is especially important when dealing with young children or those with developmental disabilities. Above all, the physical and mental health and well-being of the vulnerable children who have been under the supervision of an alleged offender should be the top priority.  It is an unfair burden to place on a young child to verbally disclose abuse in order to receive help and healing. Compared to older children and adults, there is a shorter window of opportunity in which to administer a productive interview.

Adverse childhood experiences such as child sexual abuse can have a long term impact on a child’s mental and physical health and well-being.  I believe the state has an obligation to act on behalf of children exposed to an alleged offender that has been in a repeated supervisory role over young children.  After an initial report has been made alleging abuse against an authority figure, I am concerned that each of the involved party’s responsibilities may be delineated in such a way that each party can meet the minimum requirements of the law and fulfill the function of their agency, yet classrooms full of children under the supervision of a convicted offender for a year or more are completely ignored as potential victims or witnesses and parents and other caregivers are left completely unaware of the risks of which their child was exposed.

The notice needs to be within a designated time period and forthcoming.  Waiting a year after an allegation and after charges have been filed is much too late.  In addition, describing the alleged oral and anal rape of a three-year-old boy by a 14-year-old teacher as an “incident of a sexual nature between two juveniles” grossly minimizes the very severe allegations against our son’s teacher and the grave danger of which our son was exposed.  It was not until after the teacher’s conviction that we learned important details such as the allegations, incident date, and age and gender of both the offender and victim.

Just imagine if charges would not have been filed in my son’s teacher’s case.  I am not certain that we would have ever been given any notice regarding the allegations of abuse.  That is precisely what I am concerned may be happening in other settings in Tennessee. Sexual abuse allegations are very difficult to substantiate and prosecute, particularly for young children and those with developmental disabilities, but that does not mean it did not happen and that the vulnerable were not at risk for abuse and in need of intervention much like my son.  

I believe a mandatory notice would provide motivation for organizations that provide oversight to minors to shore up their abuse prevention protocol and training.  If there are allegations of abuse and protocol was not being followed or an organization cannot say for certain they are, they should have to answer to parents and guardians regarding the lack of oversight within the organization.  This is a reasonable minimal expectation for organizations that take on the task of providing care and protection over minors and the vulnerable.

I propose the following at a minimum for a notice:

  1. A copy of the notice given should be provided in writing and a record should be made of it.  All parties involved in a case should have access to these written records, including the dates, contents, the recipients of the notice, and the specific periods of time the children were under the supervision of the offender.
  2. If law enforcement feels like a delay in the notice is warranted, that needs to be made in writing as well along with the specific reasons.  
  3. It is to be given to all parents whose children have been under the supervision of an alleged offender – whether the accused individual is a lead instructor, assistant, floater, or minor.  If the alleged offender has held a position over children in previous ministry years, school years, semesters, or seasons, the parents of those children must be notified as well.
  4. The ages and genders of the alleged offender, the incident date, and the allegations will be presented.
  5. No false assurances of safety should be given.
  6. No statements or conduct should follow the notice that would have a silencing effect such as directing concerned parents to individuals who have access to funds for counseling which would include confidentiality agreements.
  7. The notice will be made as soon as possible.  The first contacts should be made within three days, and the contacts should be completed within two weeks of the initial report.

Documenting disclosures in writing might allow other people in the process to know and be certain the specifics of the other party’s communications.  In our family’s situation, it might help clarify why the teen was not only able to avoid juvenile detention but was also permitted a plea deal to avoid future prosecutions when only a portion of the families whose children were exposed to the offender was informed of an alleged incident before the court hearing.  (Please see attached text message of a mother whose son was enrolled in the offender’s class for an entire year but did not learn of the incident until after conviction.) What was Assistant District Attorney Jay Fahey told and by whom?

Secondly, we need legislation to ban confidentiality agreements related to child abuse, sexual assault, and harassment cases.  Child sexual abuse, assault, and harassment are all horrific societal ills that happen in secret.  Abuse and abusers thrive in secrecy. Sexual assault survivors deserve privacy if desired and child sexual assault survivors must be granted privacy.  Privacy should not be legally granted to institutions in which abuse is alleged to have occurred even when none of the parties has any plans of publicizing an alleged incident.  Abusers often silence victims with threats if secrets are told. Institutions use the same tactics with confidentiality agreements.

Confidentiality agreements should be banned between any parties that suppress knowledge of an alleged sexual offense.  This includes agreements that might include an organization, an alleged offender, alleged victims and their guardians, board members, and any employee or servant of an organization.  Facts that should not be suppressed are alleged incidents and the facts surrounding the alleged incidents including lapses in the adherence to current best practices in abuse prevention protocol and accountability structures.

Currently, within the state of California, there is a law which bans confidentiality agreements for cases of child sexual abuse and abuse of other vulnerable people.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-1002.html

I have contacted an attorney in California who works with child sexual abuse victims.  His name is Robert Allard. He said he was involved in the above listed legislation to ban confidential settlements for child sexual abuse cases.  One argument that I have heard against confidentiality agreements is that it makes cases more difficult to settle and causes expensive court battles.  I specifically asked him if he found this to be the case. He said that in his experience it did not cause this result.

In addition, there is proposed legislation to ban confidential settlements in sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination cases.

http://sd20.senate.ca.gov/news/2017-10-19-senator-leyva-ban-secret-settlements-sexual-assault-and-harassment-cases

I have contacted the office of California Senator Connie Leyva.  The staff person I spoke to on the phone said they will have draft language for the law they are proposing in the first week of January 2018.  She gave me her email so that they can email me that draft language when it becomes available.

On a national level, Tennessee Representatives Marsha Blackburn and Jim Cooper are joining with three other U.S. House members to try to out Congress members who have used taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment claims, according to the article below.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/29/blackburn-cooper-bill-would-out-congress-members-who-use-taxpayer-funds-settle-sexual-harassment-cla/906198001/

Quoted in this article, Representative Cooper says, “No more cover-ups.  We need transparency, safety and appropriate behavior. Sexual misconduct has no place here, or anywhere.”

At the very least, the young and the vulnerable within the state of Tennessee should be afforded the same protections that our U.S. Representatives are seeking.  Secret settlements are a tool to cover-up and threaten victims into silence and serve to perpetuate abuse and the culture that allows sexual violence against children and the vulnerable to thrive.  I am asking that you remove this tool from the toolbox.

I will leave you with one final question.  If your child was under the supervision of an individual who was alleged to have orally and anally raped your child’s classmate, would you want to know in a timely and forthcoming fashion?  If the answer to that question is “yes”, please contact me so that we can pursue new laws in this state to ensure parents have this necessary information.

Sincerely,

Jane

Confidentiality Agreements Conceal Abuse

This is part 2 of my family’s #churchtoo story. Part 1 is linked below.

https://janespeaksup.com/2018/06/28/police-and-dcs-response-to-allegations-of-sexual-abuse-in-church-childcare-setting/

This #churchtoo story demonstrates the need for new laws in Tennessee to protect children in classrooms and group childcare settings in which allegations of abuse or neglect arise against an individual in a supervisory role. In my first post, I shared that the first is that a mandatory notice should be given to parents and/or guardians of minors who were under the supervision of an individual in which allegations of abuse have been reported. The second is that we need legislation to ban confidentiality agreements related to child abuse, sexual assault, and harassment cases.

I also said that I would not name the church or the city of the church in that post as there still may be families unaware of the risks their children were exposed to in this church. At this point, I am going to reveal that the city that these incidents took place in is Brentwood, TN. Detective John Wood was the initial detective on the case. The four officers that I met with in person were Chief Jeff Hughes, Assistant Chief Tommy Walsh, Captain David O’Neil, and Detective John Wood. The second detective assigned to the case was Detective Lori Russ. In the past, I reached out to Brentwood’s former Mayor Regina Smithson. I have also reached out to the current Mayor Jill Burgin and the City Manager Kirk Bednar to inform them of the way these incidents were handled.

I have attached a police communications file. In it, Detective Russ shares that she planned to speak to the church. See text highlighted in yellow. Did those conversations ever happen?

BPD Police Communications No Date

Much like the prior post, I will be sharing context for why I believe these legislative changes are necessary. First I will share some information that we learned from the church. Second, I will share my communications to the lead teacher’s family.

Almost one year after the initial report, parents of children who were in the offender’s class that current ministry year were notified of an “incident of a sexual nature”. We were also told that we would be notified as the case progressed. Months went by with no update. Three months after our meeting, I emailed one of the pastors who we were to call should we need counseling for an update. He called me back and told me that there would be no communications from the church.  He did say that he heard from a “source” that the perpetrator was through the courts.  This pastor also said the perpetrator would no longer be on the church campus.

Several weeks later, we learned from another source that the offender was convicted. At the same time we reached out to various people for legal and spiritual guidance, we also sought clarification from the church. My husband wrote a letter to pastors of the “incident” church and we scheduled a meeting in which Brandy Whitehead, Care Pastor at Church of the City, Franklin, attended both as an advocate and a witness.

Below are some of serious concerns noted in the letter.

1) When we met in xxxxxx, the charges were still allegations and a court date was pending. The description of the incident provided to us was vague.  We were told we’d be updated as the case proceeded.  From xxxxxx until now, we received no communication from church leadership.  (Jane) did email the church a few weeks ago xxxxxx for an update.  Though, we just came away with a vague understanding that the perpetrator had gone through the courts and was no longer allowed on xxxxxx property.  Why was it that we had to learn xxxxxxxxxx(about the allegations and convictions the way we did)?   

2) We don’t understand why the authorities asked you to keep the matter confidential from the parents of the other children in the class.  Why did the investigation not include having professionals interview the other children in the class and their parents?  And, why weren’t we notified immediately?  We were given a handout in xxxxxxxxx about how to discuss sexual abuse with our child, but how effective are these discussions nine plus months after the incident occurred compared with immediately afterwards especially with such young children who are only emerging communicators?

3) Your email said there was no reason to believe this was more than an isolated incident, but we don’t understand how you reached this conclusion.  Our family was not interviewed by anyone after the incident.  It would certainly seem plausible that before a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (a level 10 on a scale of one to 10 incident) there may have been other less severe incidents that could have occurred prior to this. Our child was with the same teachers the year before as well.  

During the meeting, the pastors affirmed that they had no assurance our child was safe from harm while under the supervision of the offender.

We had an opportunity to ask the questions listed during that meeting.  Regarding why they did not communicate with us as promised, first, they were dealing with some legal issues with the first disclosing victim’s family. Second,  they were bound by something else legally not to talk.  We were not sure what that was, and it seemed like they couldn’t share any more information.  Therefore, they did not continue communications with parents of other children in the classes as they had promised.

Regarding why the authorities asked the church to keep the matter confidential from the parents of the other children in the class, the detectives did not want the integrity of the investigation to be interfered with.

The church made a list of children as soon as the police started investigation.  No one(police or DCS) asked for that list.

A pastor agreed that having a conversation about abuse with our children a year past any potential incident would be less effective than immediately afterward.  

Regarding any potential of behaviors leading up to the reported incident, the pastor said, “We discussed grooming.”

There was discussion that once the case was under the jurisdiction of the police, they would not be updating the church on details.  This made sense to Brandy.

We then discussed the issue of them presenting the incident as isolated.  They addressed this in our disclosure meeting and provided a handout with information on sexual abuse.  They relied on parents to present them with evidence of sexual abuse.

We shared we felt deceived by the church based on our disclosure meeting.  We felt assured that it was an isolated incident. Pastors relayed a police statement that it was the safest place in Brentwood, the police knew everything and were handling the situation.  A parent’s natural reaction is to deny or minimize the possibility that anything happened. This coupled with the vague description of the incident and the involvement of the police reassured us of choosing a safe place for our child.  Brandy also shared that a parent is likely to think that based on what was shared the incident was something in the realm of seriousness of improper touching over clothes or a diaper.

We shared concern that our son may not have had the cognition or communication skills during that time period to disclose any abuse that may have occurred.  

The pastors also said that would be their only notice to families.  

After this conversation, we continued seeking medical, developmental, and psychological evaluations and treatment. We also requested to meet with the church board. Next, we updated the church after we had tangible evidence of harm and asked them to notify families and the church. We also asked for advocacy with DCS.

After we learned the last name of the lead teacher for the class, I sought out contact information. I was able to find a social media profile for the lead teacher and an email for her husband. I reached out to both of them via Facebook and I sent an email directly to the lead teacher’s husband. For reference, the lead teacher is an educated medical professional. Her husband runs a Christian ministry. I thought in reaching out to them, they might have some measure of compassion for my son.

In my messages, I gave an update on my son and his condition. I shared the minimal disclosure and how our family was left out of the investigative process. I closed the message by asking if the convicted offender ever brought my son to the bathroom. 

I never received a reply from this set of attempts to communicate.

Three months later, I attempted contact again. They still provided no reply.

After I learned about the allegations and convictions in the Brentwood church, I was struck by some of the commonalities between the manner in which misconduct was handled in both churches.

Last fall, I wondered to myself, maybe the two churches utilized the same legal scheme? It felt like they were following very similar “blueprints”.

I reached out via email to the Franklin Police Chief Deborah Faulkner. Specifically, I shared my concern that a two-way confidentiality agreement may have been utilized between individuals related to the Sunday School class and staff person(s) at the Brentwood church similar to what was done at Clearview Baptist Church in Franklin. Looking back at that meeting with the pastors at the Brentwood church, they did say that they were bound by something else legal not to talk.

I am not certain the method in which the knowledge of these legal schemes are being passed around the community. I shared several potential thoughts. At Clearview Baptist, Tommy Campsey, who was formerly the Captain of the Brentwood Police Department Criminal Investigations Division, is a member. The Brentwood church case was handled by Detective John Wood of the Brentwood Police Department Criminal Investigations Division.  I wondered if the Brentwood Police Department Criminal Investigations Division could be a source of these cover-up schemes.

Nonetheless, pastors at the church were bound by something legally not to talk – something else apart from concerns with the initial disclosing victims family.

Based on my personal experiences in two churches in Tennessee and noteworthy cases in the news over the past year, we need legislation to ban confidentiality agreements related to child abuse, sexual assault, and harassment cases.  Child sexual abuse, assault, and harassment are all horrific societal ills that often happen in secret.  Abuse and abusers thrive in secrecy. Sexual assault survivors deserve privacy if desired and child sexual assault survivors must be granted privacy.  Privacy should not be legally granted to institutions in which abuse is alleged to have occurred even when none of the parties has any plans of publicizing an alleged incident.  Abusers often silence victims with threats if secrets are told. Institutions use the same tactics with confidentiality agreements.

Confidentiality agreements should be banned between any parties that suppress knowledge of an alleged sexual offense.  This includes agreements that might include an organization, an alleged offender, alleged victims and their guardians, board members, and any employee or servant of an organization.  Facts that should not be suppressed are alleged incidents and the facts surrounding the alleged incidents including lapses in the adherence to current best practices in abuse prevention protocol and accountability structures.

Specifically, in religious settings, confidentiality agreements create additional secrecy in an already confidential setting as pastors and other clergy have clergy-penitent privileges. Tennessee is a state with a lot of religious power. As it is known that confidentiality agreements are being utilized in church-based misconduct incidents, it also keeps sensitive information about misconduct within a tight-locked circle of individuals. It is a dangerous situation where clergy, attorneys, law enforcement, and politicians might know this information, but parents and guardians of the vulnerable do not.

Currently, within the state of California, there is a law which bans confidentiality agreements for cases of child sexual abuse and abuse of other vulnerable people.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-1002.html

I have contacted an attorney in California who works with child sexual abuse victims.  His name is Robert Allard. He said he was involved in the above listed legislation to ban confidential settlements for child sexual abuse cases.  One argument that I have heard against confidentiality agreements is that it makes cases more difficult to settle and causes expensive court battles.  I specifically asked him if he found this to be the case. He said that in his experience it did not cause this result.

In addition, there is proposed legislation in the state of California and other states to ban confidential settlements in sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination cases.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB820

http://sd20.senate.ca.gov/news/2018-07-03-assembly-judiciary-committee-approves-leyva-bill-banning-secret-settlements-sexual

On a national level, Tennessee Representatives Marsha Blackburn and Jim Cooper joined with three other U.S. House members to try to out Congress members who have used taxpayer funds to settle sexual harassment claims, according to the article below.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/29/blackburn-cooper-bill-would-out-congress-members-who-use-taxpayer-funds-settle-sexual-harassment-cla/906198001/

Quoted in this article, Representative Cooper says, “No more cover-ups.  We need transparency, safety and appropriate behavior. Sexual misconduct has no place here, or anywhere.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2236/text

At the very least, the young and the vulnerable within the state of Tennessee should be afforded the same protections that our U.S. Representatives are seeking.  Secret settlements are a tool to cover-up and threaten victims into silence and serve to perpetuate abuse and the culture that allows sexual violence against children and the vulnerable to thrive.

If your child was under the supervision of an individual who was alleged to have committed a violent sexual attack against a classmate, would you want to know in a timely and forthcoming fashion? The church, police, and DCS all had prior ongoing relationships with each other.  The Brentwood Police officers were on the church campus every weekend providing security in the church nursery and children’s classes and traffic support. In addition, the children’s pastor had been involved with DCS with various foster care and adoption initiatives. If there were a situation I would have considered a “best-case scenario” for the three agencies to come together on the behalf of the health and well-being of the children in the class, this was it. However, they did not. Basic common decency and compassion for the vulnerable did not prevail.

Jesus shared about the two greatest commandments. If everyone could follow these laws, we would need no further laws.

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

However, that is not the case. In Tennessee, churches are so revered that people hesitate to scrutinize or hold accountable the institutions or leaders. Scrutiny is directed instead to alleged victims. This provides fertile ground for deception and the protection of institutions and offenders at the expense of the vulnerable.