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