Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 22:11:05 GMT -5
You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. The outcome of the hearing was that the motion to dismiss was denied and the court found, as a matter of law, that JF is a member of the clergy. Whether JF is a mandated reporter or not is a matter of fact which will be determined by a jury. Mr.Frandle will enter the trial as a legal member of the clergy which gives him legal status as a mandated reporter. The jury will determine if he is the appropriate mandated reporter for the case cited and it will determine whether or not he had knowledge of and failed to report the cited case. The jury won't have to re-invent the wheel and re-determine Mr.Frandle's legal status as a member of the clergy which makes him automatically a legally obligated mandated reporter.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 16, 2012 22:14:17 GMT -5
I have a ex-professing friend who is a lawyer for the State government in Oregon.
He says that since JF has been declared clergy--that as a clergy, he is by statute a mandated reporter in Mi. The question at trial will be if he was THE mandated reporter who should have reported in this particular instance.
I don't know. I am still struggling to make heads or tails out of some of what is going on in this case.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 16, 2012 22:15:01 GMT -5
yep--what Clearday said (we must have been typing at the same time)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 22:34:01 GMT -5
yep--what Clearday said (we must have been typing at the same time) Beatcha' by three minutes! ;D
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 16, 2012 22:42:36 GMT -5
What does that mean? In Ontario you only have to report abuse by a parent or caregiver (I forget the exact wording but that's the gist) or where the parents are neglecting to report. IOW, you don't have to report if the parents are taking responsibility. In Michigan a mandated reporter has to report not only abuse by a parent, but also abuse by a member of the clergy. Is this what you are referring to when you say "appropriate"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 6:20:27 GMT -5
The judge has only ruled that the motion to dismiss was denied (page 55 - line 10). A court "finding" is synonymous to a "ruling". A finding is specifically "the result reached by a judge or a jury". You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. This is further underlined (p.56-57) by the Judge stating he has found Mr Frandle to be a member of the clergy under the statute.This automatically makes him a mandated reporter as a member of the clergy. This is not a matter for the Jury to decide. What is up to the Jury to decide is whether or not JF was the person who was legally bound to report it. This will be drawn from the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to report. If JF is found not guilty on this charge it will not be because he is not a mandated reporter, it will be because the Jury has decided in the circumstances that he was not the person who was duty bound to report on this occasion, or the evidence falls short on some other requirement, eg (hypothetically) he did not have knowledge of the incident. In MI workers belong to a recognised religious organisation and the workers are members of the clergy, just like any other ministers of religion. Of course there may be an option for the defence to appeal as the defence stated they had witnesses to counter Ms Konings testimony upon which the decisions were made. However, they were not prepared (as they should have been). Nevertheless was there anything that Ms Koning said that was untrue?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 6:24:37 GMT -5
What does that mean? In Ontario you only have to report abuse by a parent or caregiver (I forget the exact wording but that's the gist) or where the parents are neglecting to report. IOW, you don't have to report if the parents are taking responsibility. In Michigan a mandated reporter has to report not only abuse by a parent, but also abuse by a member of the clergy. Is this what you are referring to when you say "appropriate"? Put it another way: Mr.Frandle, under MI law, would not be required to report abuse by a Catholic priest. The law is set up to pick up abuse within the sphere of the mandated reporter's profession. The MI law is logical but remarkably narrow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 6:32:11 GMT -5
Michigan law has a specific guideline for clergy reporting.
Here is some of it:
The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Clergy became mandated reporters when the CPL was amended effective March 1, 2003. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to file a report. However, there are no penalties for reports made in good faith.
What must you report?
Physical abuse = non-accidental injury to a child by a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare. Actions that may constitute physical abuse include but are not limited to burning, beating, kicking, or punching. If a child has injury (burns, bruises, broken bones, welts, etc.) as a result of any of these actions, this constitutes physical abuse. Spanking is not physical abuse unless the child suffers welts, marks or bruises as a result.
Neglect = harm or threatened harm by the child’s parent, legal guardian or caretaker where this individual fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care. If the child is suffering or is negatively affected by as a result of these basic needs not being met, this constitutes neglect. Neglect also occurs if a caretaker places a child at risk or fails to protect a child from known or potential risk of harm. As long as the caretaker intervened to protect the child or eliminate the risk, neglect has not occurred.
Sexual abuse = engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of 18. Sexual exploitation is also sexual abuse and occurs when a caretaker allows, permits or encourages a child to engage in prostitution or in the photography, filming, or depicting of a child engaged in a sex act.
Maltreatment = treating a child in a way that is cruel or makes the child suffer in ways that a reasonable person would consider excessive (such as: a child who is afraid of the dark being locked in a dark closet, forcing a child to eat animal food, teaching a child to engage in criminal activity such as drug sales or shoplifting, public humiliation by making the child wear a sign that he/she wets the bed).
What if the legal duty to report conflicts with the church safety policy?
The CPL does not prevent clergy from supporting a family when CPS or law enforcement is investigating allegations of abuse or neglect as long as you do not interfere with the investigations. However, there are no exceptions in the CPL that permit a church safety policy to circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report; therefore, church safety policies must conform to the law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 6:52:10 GMT -5
A court "finding" is synonymous to a "ruling". A finding is specifically "the result reached by a judge or a jury". You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. This is further underlined (p.56-57) by the Judge stating he has found Mr Frandle to be a member of the clergy under the statute.This automatically makes him a mandated reporter as a member of the clergy. This is not a matter for the Jury to decide. What is up to the Jury to decide is whether or not JF was the person who was legally bound to report it. This will be drawn from the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to report. If JF is found not guilty on this charge it will not be because he is not a mandated reporter, it will be because the Jury has decided in the circumstances that he was not the person who was duty bound to report on this occasion, or the evidence falls short on some other requirement, eg (hypothetically) he did not have knowledge of the incident. In MI workers belong to a recognised religious organisation and the workers are members of the clergy, just like any other ministers of religion. Of course there may be an option for the defence to appeal as the defence stated they had witnesses to counter Ms Konings testimony upon which the decisions were made. However, they were not prepared (as they should have been). Nevertheless was there anything that Ms Koning said that was untrue? I think you have it right on ram. In the trial, a Not Guilty verdict will not reverse the ruling that Mr.Frandle is a mandated reporter. That will remain in place no matter what the outcome of the trial unless the original ruling is appealed. By extension mandated reporting now includes all workers as I believe that Mr.Briggs was ruled a member of the clergy as well. So all workers and overseers are ruled to be mandated reporters in the State of Michigan. It seems that the implications of the rulings within Motion to Dismiss has not sunk in yet with many people, including some on this board. Workers are now legal clergy as part of a legally recognized religious organization in the State of Michigan. This is a first in the world and this court ruling is now available for legal reference anywhere in the world. Its implications extend far beyond the abuse subject. The result of the trial in either direction pales in comparison to this.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 8:02:36 GMT -5
I believe you have this wrong, CD. The MI law is clear. Members of the clergy are mandated reporters and must report known or suspected cases of abuse. The same was true, for example, when I was teaching. It was not just cases of abuse that I might suspect within the school but any known or suspected cases. The part you put in bold is simply stating that the clergy may provide comfort to the victims/actors of cases of abuse that are currently being investigated as long as that aid does not hinder the investigation. It also states that the abuse 'regulations' or safety policy of an organization cannot "...circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report...". In other words, you cannot have a policy that will somehow exclude reporting. The law is quite simple: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS).
Michigan law has a specific guideline for clergy reporting. Here is some of it: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Clergy became mandated reporters when the CPL was amended effective March 1, 2003. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to file a report. However, there are no penalties for reports made in good faith. What must you report? Physical abuse = non-accidental injury to a child by a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare. Actions that may constitute physical abuse include but are not limited to burning, beating, kicking, or punching. If a child has injury (burns, bruises, broken bones, welts, etc.) as a result of any of these actions, this constitutes physical abuse. Spanking is not physical abuse unless the child suffers welts, marks or bruises as a result. Neglect = harm or threatened harm by the child’s parent, legal guardian or caretaker where this individual fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care. If the child is suffering or is negatively affected by as a result of these basic needs not being met, this constitutes neglect. Neglect also occurs if a caretaker places a child at risk or fails to protect a child from known or potential risk of harm. As long as the caretaker intervened to protect the child or eliminate the risk, neglect has not occurred. Sexual abuse = engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of 18. Sexual exploitation is also sexual abuse and occurs when a caretaker allows, permits or encourages a child to engage in prostitution or in the photography, filming, or depicting of a child engaged in a sex act. Maltreatment = treating a child in a way that is cruel or makes the child suffer in ways that a reasonable person would consider excessive (such as: a child who is afraid of the dark being locked in a dark closet, forcing a child to eat animal food, teaching a child to engage in criminal activity such as drug sales or shoplifting, public humiliation by making the child wear a sign that he/she wets the bed). What if the legal duty to report conflicts with the church safety policy?The CPL does not prevent clergy from supporting a family when CPS or law enforcement is investigating allegations of abuse or neglect as long as you do not interfere with the investigations. However, there are no exceptions in the CPL that permit a church safety policy to circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report; therefore, church safety policies must conform to the law.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2012 8:11:05 GMT -5
What does that mean? In Ontario you only have to report abuse by a parent or caregiver (I forget the exact wording but that's the gist) or where the parents are neglecting to report. IOW, you don't have to report if the parents are taking responsibility. In Michigan a mandated reporter has to report not only abuse by a parent, but also abuse by a member of the clergy. Is this what you are referring to when you say "appropriate"? Put it another way: Mr.Frandle, under MI law, would not be required to report abuse by a Catholic priest. The law is set up to pick up abuse within the sphere of the mandated reporter's profession. The MI law is logical but remarkably narrow. That makes sense but where do you see that in the statute? Also, Ontario law is much more narrow than the Michigan statutes. I understand it; it makes sense to me. I'm also sure that I've been reading two very different documents put out by the Michigan govt. I've not had time to pin this down.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 8:12:25 GMT -5
I have a ex-professing friend who is a lawyer for the State government in Oregon. He says that since JF has been declared clergy--that as a clergy, he is by statute a mandated reporter in Mi. The question at trial will be if he was THE mandated reporter who should have reported in this particular instance. I don't know. I am still struggling to make heads or tails out of some of what is going on in this case. You need to look Matters of Law and Matters of Fact. The court, in this case, can rule on matters of law and did so - JF is a member of clergy. The jury will have to rule on matters of fact - was JF, in these circumstances, a mandated reporter. Clearday said it well but, I think, included an error- The jury will determine if he is the appropriate mandated reporter for the case cited and it will determine whether or not he had knowledge of and failed to report the cited case.It has been ruled that JF is a mandated reporter. The only remaining question is did he have knowledge of the incident that would have required him to report. Not sure what is meant by "appropriate mandated reporter". I do not believe there are classes of mandated reporters.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2012 8:12:45 GMT -5
Quite a bit struck me as hearsay, although the hearsay was likely true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 8:15:40 GMT -5
I believe you have this wrong, CD. The MI law is clear. Members of the clergy are mandated reporters and must report known or suspected cases of abuse. The same was true, for example, when I was teaching. It was not just cases of abuse that I might suspect within the school but any known or suspected cases. The part you put in bold is simply stating that the clergy may provide comfort to the victims/actors of cases of abuse that are currently being investigated as long as that aid does not hinder the investigation. It also states that the abuse 'regulations' or safety policy of an organization cannot "...circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report...". In other words, you cannot have a policy that will somehow exclude reporting. The law is quite simple: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS).
Michigan law has a specific guideline for clergy reporting. Here is some of it: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Clergy became mandated reporters when the CPL was amended effective March 1, 2003. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to file a report. However, there are no penalties for reports made in good faith. What must you report? Physical abuse = non-accidental injury to a child by a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare. Actions that may constitute physical abuse include but are not limited to burning, beating, kicking, or punching. If a child has injury (burns, bruises, broken bones, welts, etc.) as a result of any of these actions, this constitutes physical abuse. Spanking is not physical abuse unless the child suffers welts, marks or bruises as a result. Neglect = harm or threatened harm by the child’s parent, legal guardian or caretaker where this individual fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care. If the child is suffering or is negatively affected by as a result of these basic needs not being met, this constitutes neglect. Neglect also occurs if a caretaker places a child at risk or fails to protect a child from known or potential risk of harm. As long as the caretaker intervened to protect the child or eliminate the risk, neglect has not occurred. Sexual abuse = engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of 18. Sexual exploitation is also sexual abuse and occurs when a caretaker allows, permits or encourages a child to engage in prostitution or in the photography, filming, or depicting of a child engaged in a sex act. Maltreatment = treating a child in a way that is cruel or makes the child suffer in ways that a reasonable person would consider excessive (such as: a child who is afraid of the dark being locked in a dark closet, forcing a child to eat animal food, teaching a child to engage in criminal activity such as drug sales or shoplifting, public humiliation by making the child wear a sign that he/she wets the bed). What if the legal duty to report conflicts with the church safety policy?The CPL does not prevent clergy from supporting a family when CPS or law enforcement is investigating allegations of abuse or neglect as long as you do not interfere with the investigations. However, there are no exceptions in the CPL that permit a church safety policy to circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report; therefore, church safety policies must conform to the law. The second post above, was not related to the first post regarding the breadth of reporting levels for mandated reporters. I agree that the law states there should be no policies within an organization which would prevent the reporting of abuses. You could be right that, for instance, as mandated reporters in Michigan, workers are now required to report all their suspicions of abuses in all churches and all social circumstances, not just those within their work professional capacity. The reason I state otherwise though is that the MI law requires the clergy to first report immediately verbally, then file a written report, then report to their supervisor in the hierarchy. That implies to me that the intention of the law is to deal with suspected abuses within the professional capacity of the clergy. It wouldn't make much sense for a worker to report to authorities the suspected abuse by a Catholic priest then report it to his/her overseer. Just my reading of the MI law. If you read the transcript carefully, you will see that this case hinged on whether or not Briggs was a clergy member in this church. That's what twigged my thinking in that direction.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2012 8:28:09 GMT -5
Michigan law has a specific guideline for clergy reporting. Here is some of it: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Clergy became mandated reporters when the CPL was amended effective March 1, 2003. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to file a report. However, there are no penalties for reports made in good faith. What must you report? Physical abuse = non-accidental injury to a child by a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare. Actions that may constitute physical abuse include but are not limited to burning, beating, kicking, or punching. If a child has injury (burns, bruises, broken bones, welts, etc.) as a result of any of these actions, this constitutes physical abuse. Spanking is not physical abuse unless the child suffers welts, marks or bruises as a result. Neglect = harm or threatened harm by the child’s parent, legal guardian or caretaker where this individual fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care. If the child is suffering or is negatively affected by as a result of these basic needs not being met, this constitutes neglect. Neglect also occurs if a caretaker places a child at risk or fails to protect a child from known or potential risk of harm. As long as the caretaker intervened to protect the child or eliminate the risk, neglect has not occurred. Sexual abuse = engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of 18. Sexual exploitation is also sexual abuse and occurs when a caretaker allows, permits or encourages a child to engage in prostitution or in the photography, filming, or depicting of a child engaged in a sex act. Maltreatment = treating a child in a way that is cruel or makes the child suffer in ways that a reasonable person would consider excessive (such as: a child who is afraid of the dark being locked in a dark closet, forcing a child to eat animal food, teaching a child to engage in criminal activity such as drug sales or shoplifting, public humiliation by making the child wear a sign that he/she wets the bed). What if the legal duty to report conflicts with the church safety policy?The CPL does not prevent clergy from supporting a family when CPS or law enforcement is investigating allegations of abuse or neglect as long as you do not interfere with the investigations. However, there are no exceptions in the CPL that permit a church safety policy to circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report; therefore, church safety policies must conform to the law. This is really ambiguous about the circumstances in which sexual abuse must be reported. By contrast, reporting of physical abuse is very clear. A mandated reporter must report "a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare". So by your example, Jerome would not have to report on a Nazarene elder's physical abuse of a child. But I don't see that kind of limitation expressed in the sexual abuse section.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2012 8:35:00 GMT -5
I believe you have this wrong, CD. The MI law is clear. Members of the clergy are mandated reporters and must report known or suspected cases of abuse. The same was true, for example, when I was teaching. It was not just cases of abuse that I might suspect within the school but any known or suspected cases. The part you put in bold is simply stating that the clergy may provide comfort to the victims/actors of cases of abuse that are currently being investigated as long as that aid does not hinder the investigation. It also states that the abuse 'regulations' or safety policy of an organization cannot "...circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report...". In other words, you cannot have a policy that will somehow exclude reporting. The law is quite simple: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS).
The second post above, was not related to the first post regarding the breadth of reporting levels for mandated reporters. I agree that the law states there should be no policies within an organization which would prevent the reporting of abuses. You could be right that, for instance, as mandated reporters in Michigan, workers are now required to report all their suspicions of abuses in all churches and all social circumstances, not just those within their work professional capacity. The reason I state otherwise though is that the MI law requires the clergy to first report immediately verbally, then file a written report, then report to their supervisor in the hierarchy. That implies to me that the intention of the law is to deal with suspected abuses within the professional capacity of the clergy. It wouldn't make much sense for a worker to report to authorities the suspected abuse by a Catholic priest then report it to his/her overseer. Just my reading of the MI law. If you read the transcript carefully, you will see that this case hinged on whether or not Briggs was a clergy member in this church. That's what twigged my thinking in that direction. The statute itself is much more spare in its language than the various guidelines. For example, the guidelines I read (here - www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,4562,7-124-7119_44443-157836--,00.html -) are aimed toward professionals who deal with children. But that aim is not clear from the statute. The statutes seem quite nonspecific, compared to those we have in Ontario, but perhaps I've already said that. Regarding the importance of Briggs as clergy. The statute is quite clear in listing whose abuse has to be reported. It isn't abuse by just anyone that has to be reported ... (f) "Child abuse" means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare that occurs through nonaccidental physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or maltreatment, by a parent, a legal guardian, or any other person responsible for the child's health or welfare or by a teacher, a teacher's aide, or a member of the clergy.From - www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28lpdnf0uzc3bbden0utej0zuc%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-722-623
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 17, 2012 8:58:42 GMT -5
The reason I state otherwise though is that the MI law requires the clergy to first report immediately verbally, then file a written report, then report to their supervisor in the hierarchy. That implies to me that the intention of the law is to deal with suspected abuses within the professional capacity of the clergy. It wouldn't make much sense for a worker to report to authorities the suspected abuse by a Catholic priest then report it to his/her overseer. Just my reading of the MI law. I think that this sequence was stated so people would report quickly and to the proper authorities and not go to the church, or any organizational 'point person' with the initial claim. This is an attempt to remove the possibility of the organization from protecting its own. The message is - Authorities first, organization afterwards. I think the question about Briggs was whether or not he was needed as a witness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 9:06:29 GMT -5
Michigan law has a specific guideline for clergy reporting. Here is some of it: The Michigan Child Protection Law (CPL) requires that mandated reporters report suspected child abuse and neglect to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Clergy became mandated reporters when the CPL was amended effective March 1, 2003. There are civil and criminal penalties for failing to file a report. However, there are no penalties for reports made in good faith. What must you report? Physical abuse = non-accidental injury to a child by a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare. Actions that may constitute physical abuse include but are not limited to burning, beating, kicking, or punching. If a child has injury (burns, bruises, broken bones, welts, etc.) as a result of any of these actions, this constitutes physical abuse. Spanking is not physical abuse unless the child suffers welts, marks or bruises as a result. Neglect = harm or threatened harm by the child’s parent, legal guardian or caretaker where this individual fails to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical care. If the child is suffering or is negatively affected by as a result of these basic needs not being met, this constitutes neglect. Neglect also occurs if a caretaker places a child at risk or fails to protect a child from known or potential risk of harm. As long as the caretaker intervened to protect the child or eliminate the risk, neglect has not occurred. Sexual abuse = engaging in sexual contact with a child under the age of 18. Sexual exploitation is also sexual abuse and occurs when a caretaker allows, permits or encourages a child to engage in prostitution or in the photography, filming, or depicting of a child engaged in a sex act. Maltreatment = treating a child in a way that is cruel or makes the child suffer in ways that a reasonable person would consider excessive (such as: a child who is afraid of the dark being locked in a dark closet, forcing a child to eat animal food, teaching a child to engage in criminal activity such as drug sales or shoplifting, public humiliation by making the child wear a sign that he/she wets the bed). What if the legal duty to report conflicts with the church safety policy?The CPL does not prevent clergy from supporting a family when CPS or law enforcement is investigating allegations of abuse or neglect as long as you do not interfere with the investigations. However, there are no exceptions in the CPL that permit a church safety policy to circumvent or otherwise conflict with the duty to report; therefore, church safety policies must conform to the law. This is really ambiguous about the circumstances in which sexual abuse must be reported. By contrast, reporting of physical abuse is very clear. A mandated reporter must report "a parent, legal guardian, or any other adult responsible for the child’s health or welfare". So by your example, Jerome would not have to report on a Nazarene elder's physical abuse of a child. But I don't see that kind of limitation expressed in the sexual abuse section. It is limited here, but this clergy document refers the clergy readers to the main MI Guidelines for more information regarding the reporting of offenses and a detailed description of them. They provide much more detail elsewhere, including what the standards should be for reporting a "dirty house" as suspicion of child abuse/neglect. They even mention some things which should not be reported. I think anyone reading the full Guidelines would have a really good idea as to what is expected by the MI government for reporting purposes. They also state that if you are in doubt, report anyway, there is no penalty for reporting something that is not considered abuse/neglect or subject to further investigation.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 9:20:42 GMT -5
Maybe this continued "innocent" tactic of Jerome's may be the reason it is said a worker filed the complaint against him? I think Jerome is going with innocent because he thinks he is innocent. On the arrest warrant the victim/claimant is a trooper and the complaining witness is a det sgt. Who are the Burton's? Where did I mention "the Burton's" I don't know the Burton's, at least by that name!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 9:22:10 GMT -5
And the law says clergy are mandated reporters does it not? I've wondered exactly why it has to go to trial as the judge has already ruled that JF is "clergy" for his religion but maybe it will have to be debated whether his religion is a recognized religious organizationj... The judge has only ruled that the motion to dismiss was denied (page 55 - line 10). Millions?? The population of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metro area is less than 900,000. The largest newspaper has a circulation of less than 70,000. So maybe thousands read about the conventions. I think MORE then the local citizens read about that conv. expose', Rat....those newspaper clipping made its' way all the way down to here and as far as CO, that I do know....
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 9:23:47 GMT -5
The judge has only ruled that the motion to dismiss was denied (page 55 - line 10). A court "finding" is synonymous to a "ruling". A finding is specifically "the result reached by a judge or a jury". You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. Exactly the point I asked of the why it had to go on to jury...the written law had been held to by the judge....I'm not certain what he thought a jury would have to determine?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 17, 2012 9:27:52 GMT -5
Again, it is my understanding that in many states, the clergy were added to the list of mandatory reports because of the abuses in the Catholic Church where pedophile priests were moved from one state to another to hide them from prosecution AND to protect the church from scandal. Can you provide references? The mandated reporting laws were being enacted in the mid 1070s and the first Catholic case to gain widespread attention was 1985.Really? Was it because they were preaching in front of a gathered crowd? Or perhaps because they had access to children in a way that the auto mechanic next to the church did not have? The trial is not about any coverup. It is about failure to report. Two very different charges. Hi Rational, did I write that clergy were added as mandatory reporters in all states BECAUSE of the scandal of the Catholic Church? Nope. Of course clergy were on the books as mandatory reporters in some states before the Catholic Church scandals. Just as in some states, everyone is a mandatory reporter, and they were even before the Catholic Church scandals. However, that does not invalidate what I wrote- that laws adding clergy as mandatory reporters were put into place in some cases BECAUSE of the Catholic Church scandals and the coverups. You asked for a source(s): The recent scandal within the American Catholic Church caused the Massachusetts legislature to rush to consider amending the child abuse reporting law in that state to include members of the clergy as "mandatory reporters" who must report to the police any suspicions of child sexual abuse committed by any person.' The Connecticut legislature - which has included members of the clergy as mandatory reporters in their child sexual abuse reporting law for many years is now considering removing the exception for statements made during confessions, angering Catholics in the state. These latest reactions to the child abuse scandals in the Catholic Church highlight the tendency legislators have shown to respond to such crises by requiring people in certain professions to report suspicions of criminality to the police. They have made the failure to report criminally punishable and, in some instances, allow for civil liability as 'well.scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=wmborjHere is a LexisNexis article as well- but I didn't want to pay $12.95 on it. But it describes why Maryland needs to included clergy as mandatory reporters- the reasoning- because religious institutions FAIL TO REPORT THEIR OWN. The title of the journal article: " COMMENT: HOLDING CLERGY ACCOUNTABLE: MARYLAND SHOULD REQUIRE CLERGY TO REPORT SUSPECTED CHILD ABUSE" " I. INTRODUCTION In the Catholic Church alone, 700 clergy have been removed from ministry since June 2002 due to the surfacing of child sexual abuse claims. 1 Cardinal William Keeler disclosed in 2002 that allegedly more than eighty priests in the Baltimore Archdiocese have sexually abused minors in the past. 2 Reports of sexual abuse have been uncovered outside the Catholic Church as well. A Presbyterian missionary is suspected of abusing twenty-two women and girls, 3 while an Orthodox Jewish youth leader is accused of dozens of cases of molestation of teenage girls and boys. 4
In many instances, colleagues of abusive clergy fail to report suspected abuse to the appropriate authorities. 5 Some claim that religious organizations conspire to keep the abuse secret. In Boston, Catholic priest John J. Geoghan allegedly sexually abused 130 children. 6 The Boston Archdiocese, aware of the abuse, chose to keep the matter within the Church. 7 Cardinals and bishops merely moved Geoghan from parish to parish for thirty-four years, while he continued to molest children. 8 These same leaders also discouraged victims of the abuse from reporting it to authorities. 9
Similar collusion has occurred elsewhere. In Jehovah's Witness churches, leaders handle complaints of sexual abuse solely within the church. 10 An all-male group of elders meets to decide how to proceed with each complaint, and refuses to pursue the matter unless a witness can corroborate the victim's story. 11 Victims are threatened with "disfellowshiping," or expulsion from the church ..."litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=34+U.+Balt.+L.+Rev.+337&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=efad3eaf2682dc70d9267c9cfaf12042
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 9:29:05 GMT -5
I have a ex-professing friend who is a lawyer for the State government in Oregon. He says that since JF has been declared clergy--that as a clergy, he is by statute a mandated reporter in Mi. The question at trial will be if he was THE mandated reporter who should have reported in this particular instance. I don't know. I am still struggling to make heads or tails out of some of what is going on in this case. Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial...like he was giving the defense another avenue to bring evidence contrary to the judge's ruling...as the judge's ruling actually came from the extensive questioning of Bonnie Konning....I think the judge did not want the case to stop there on just one person's testimony...and I think the judge AND the prosecutor are holding back the "key witness" which is likely Bill Denk...and maybe they ARE looking for more evidence to increase the charges! But since this charge leveled out to be a misdeamor charge, the court may well be wanting to increase the charges above the misdeamor level and that has been brought on by JF's excessive attorney hiring and firing over a misdeamor charge...the court may well feel that JF IS hiding something and they're going to get that out by the juried trial! Wouldn't surpise me....the prosecution may well take on a "hostile witness" in the juried trial to prove whether there is "more" to the story then is known at this point!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 9:36:58 GMT -5
A court "finding" is synonymous to a "ruling". A finding is specifically "the result reached by a judge or a jury". You may want to check the transcript for the Court's findings, there were at least a couple of findings: 1.The Court found that Mr.Frandle was a member of the clergy. 2.It also found that his activities were part of an "religious organization", and more specifically, that Mr.Frandle belongs to a "recognized religious body or organization". Those findings are on Page 54. This is further underlined (p.56-57) by the Judge stating he has found Mr Frandle to be a member of the clergy under the statute.This automatically makes him a mandated reporter as a member of the clergy. This is not a matter for the Jury to decide. What is up to the Jury to decide is whether or not JF was the person who was legally bound to report it. This will be drawn from the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to report. If JF is found not guilty on this charge it will not be because he is not a mandated reporter, it will be because the Jury has decided in the circumstances that he was not the person who was duty bound to report on this occasion, or the evidence falls short on some other requirement, eg (hypothetically) he did not have knowledge of the incident. In MI workers belong to a recognised religious organisation and the workers are members of the clergy, just like any other ministers of religion. Of course there may be an option for the defence to appeal as the defence stated they had witnesses to counter Ms Konings testimony upon which the decisions were made. However, they were not prepared (as they should have been). Nevertheless was there anything that Ms Koning said that was untrue? I think the judge was being cautious on ruling only on ONE witness's testimony which had literally been cross-examined by the defense as well as the judge asked pertinent questions....Bonnie's testimony is held to be true, but the defense really didn't KNOW for sure that there would be some witness that could shoot down her testimony.....but I'm sure the defense would have tried if the judge would have held out for that.....and since THAT attorney has been fired, we can hardly know what the new one will go for.....if s(he) is smart they'll encourage JF to take it as it stands and not go for jury because of the potential to show that there was and has always been a "cover-up" to the CSA perps in the workership......some how that will be brought out....and then the prosecutor can file another charge against JF and no telling who else of the workers....the workers are playing with fire pushing this fighting the misdeamor charge. Just like PM still has some accounts to answer for, JF may well find himself in the same boat with a charge of covering up a crime. The courts surely are asking themselves the "reason" DB was taken home and PM was just moved around.....that is a puzzle in itself, as if JF couldn't stand the thought of male with male CSA issues but he tolerated the male-female CSA with PM....I question that myself....JF's action with the 2 workers are NOT the same....so that has to be a question the court has on their mind and may well be able to pull that out of the whole thing....and I think then that in DB's case the court WILL charge JF with intent to coverup a crime.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 17, 2012 9:40:06 GMT -5
Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial...like he was giving the defense another avenue to bring evidence contrary to the judge's ruling...as the judge's ruling actually came from the extensive questioning of Bonnie Konning....I think the judge did not want the case to stop there on just one person's testimony...and I think the judge AND the prosecutor are holding back the "key witness" which is likely Bill Denk...and maybe they ARE looking for more evidence to increase the charges! But since this charge leveled out to be a misdeamor charge, the court may well be wanting to increase the charges above the misdeamor level and that has been brought on by JF's excessive attorney hiring and firing over a misdeamor charge...the court may well feel that JF IS hiding something and they're going to get that out by the juried trial! Wouldn't surpise me....the prosecution may well take on a "hostile witness" in the juried trial to prove whether there is "more" to the story then is known at this point! The Motion to Dismiss was simply a motion to dismiss. The Judge could go no further than what was brought before The Court. And what was brought before the court was a Motion to Dismiss by The Defense. The guilt of The Defense can be admitted by The Defense probaby at anytime. Or at least offer a plea. The finding of guilt or innocence by others, The Jury, cannot be done until the entire Court procedings have finished and then the case is given to the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Apr 17, 2012 9:44:13 GMT -5
I think Jerome is going with innocent because he thinks he is innocent. On the arrest warrant the victim/claimant is a trooper and the complaining witness is a det sgt. Who are the Burton's? Where did I mention "the Burton's" I don't know the Burton's, at least by that name! Sorry, my first sentence addressed what I quoted. The next two sentences were about bringing of complaint and about who certain people were that are listed on (I think) the Pre-trial information.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 17, 2012 9:46:27 GMT -5
The key words are "reasonable cause" to suspect. You must have that. There's still a concern about outright false or nuisance reports.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 17, 2012 9:48:03 GMT -5
Actually, it seemed to me that the judge was actually passing the buck of declaration that JF was guilty per se to the juried trial...like he was giving the defense another avenue to bring evidence contrary to the judge's ruling...as the judge's ruling actually came from the extensive questioning of Bonnie Konning....I think the judge did not want the case to stop there on just one person's testimony...and I think the judge AND the prosecutor are holding back the "key witness" which is likely Bill Denk...and maybe they ARE looking for more evidence to increase the charges! But since this charge leveled out to be a misdeamor charge, the court may well be wanting to increase the charges above the misdeamor level and that has been brought on by JF's excessive attorney hiring and firing over a misdeamor charge...the court may well feel that JF IS hiding something and they're going to get that out by the juried trial! Wouldn't surpise me....the prosecution may well take on a "hostile witness" in the juried trial to prove whether there is "more" to the story then is known at this point! The Motion to Dismiss was simply a motion to dismiss. The Judge could go no further than what was brought before The Court. And what was brought before the court was a Motion to Dismiss by The Defense. The guilt of The Defense can be admitted by The Defense probaby at anytime. Or at least offer a plea. The finding of guilt or innocence by others, The Jury, cannot be done until the entire Court procedings have finished and then the case is given to the jury. Duhh, Greg...I think most of us already know that! That wasn't the question!
|
|