Category: Cover-Up in Williamson County

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoted from the article,

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

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

Letter to Phillip Bethancourt

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

Abuse Response and Institutional Betrayal — including case involving your pastor

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

Dear Phillip,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, can’t you see such sin?!

’cause he brings people to your door,

And you turn them away

As you smile and say,

“god bless you!

Be at peace!”

And all heaven just weeps,

’cause Jesus came to your door,

You left him out on the streets

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

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

Sincerely,

(Jane)

 

(Jane)

Mon, Mar 4, 10:58 AM

to pastor, Jared

Dear Pastors Slade and Wellman,

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

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

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

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

For more details, you can read over my blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

(Jane)

 

Jared Wellman <Jared@tatesprings.com>

Wed, Mar 27, 7:34 AM

to pastor@meridianbaptist.com, me

(Jane),

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

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

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

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

Jared
(Jane)

Fri, Sep 21, 2018, 6:28 AM

to studygroup

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

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Sincerely,

(Jane)

ERLC Study Group <studygroup@erlc.com>

Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 3:31 PM

to me

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

 

Response from Phillip Bethancourt

Phillip Bethancourt 

Jun 27, 2019, 8:00 AM

to me

(Jane),

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

Thanks,

Phillip

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

Personal Impressions of Response to Abuse Allegations in Group Childcare Settings

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

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

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

Background Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

Reaching out to Brentwood Police

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

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

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

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

Thu, Jan 19, 2017, 9:07 AM

to me, Jeff, Thomas

(Jane),

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

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

Thank You,

David O’Neil, Captain

Criminal Investigation Division

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

Reaching Out to DCS

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

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

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

Reaching out to Representative Glen Casada’s Office

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

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

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

DCS Responsibilities

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Abuse: a) Required:

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

TN DCS Client Rights 2014

TN DCS Client Rights Current

Child Protect Services Task By Allegations

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

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

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