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.
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
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/brain_development.pdf
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
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:
- 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.
- Confidentiality agreements related to child sexual abuse cases need to be banned.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The ages and genders of the alleged offender, the incident date, and the allegations will be presented.
- No false assurances of safety should be given.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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