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
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.