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.