|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 10:52:49 GMT -5
Sorry, I'm on my phone and can't reference the original thread easily. However, I would offer this independently of the situation which CD referenced. The friends would be within their rights to transfer a convicted offender to a childless meeting even if NO indications of re-offence were presented. This is common in other churches - e.g. conditions placed on a convicted offender who wishes to attend church. I find the idea that a church can only act on reportable incidents and only by involving the authorities, preposterous. So did Clearday. I do differ slightly with him or just have a sharper view on how grooming behaviours are to be prevented - but the authorities have no role in this whatsoever. It's the responsibility of the church, and to do nothing to prevent CSA is an abdication of parental responsibility. On that I agree with Clearday, and I make no apologies for that point of view. First of all, you need not apologize for what you believe. The way it was worded led me to believe that there was some grooming going on that concerned them so they moved him to another meeting. Now I have absolutely no problem with that. I think it was a good thing to do as a temporary solution. However, because it sounded like he was paying too much attention to the children that it was possible it also should be reported to the authorities. I felt that if he was a known offender that it would be a violation of his parole and authorities should be notified as well as getting him away from the meeting children. I do think that the protection of a child is everyone's responsibility. We all should have a responsibility to protect if we see something happening that is harmful. So my thoughts were, yes move him, but also report him. I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't have been reported, but that's just me I guess. Certainly the position and argument that lead to CD's statement was the position that under no circumstances should friends move someone to another meeting without reporting to the authorities. Now, it's easy to contrive circumstances where they should contact the authorities but there are other circumstances in which they should not and action should be taken unilaterally. That such circumstances do or do not exist was the point of contention.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 11:00:29 GMT -5
First of all, you need not apologize for what you believe. The way it was worded led me to believe that there was some grooming going on that concerned them so they moved him to another meeting. Now I have absolutely no problem with that. I think it was a good thing to do as a temporary solution. However, because it sounded like he was paying too much attention to the children that it was possible it also should be reported to the authorities. I felt that if he was a known offender that it would be a violation of his parole and authorities should be notified as well as getting him away from the meeting children. I do think that the protection of a child is everyone's responsibility. We all should have a responsibility to protect if we see something happening that is harmful. So my thoughts were, yes move him, but also report him. I couldn't understand why reporting him wasn't an option until CD explained it further. I'm still not convinced it shouldn't have been reported, but that's just me I guess. I must have missed CD's explanation of why reporting was not an option. I do not disagree with the meeting move, but I do agree with DMG that it only protects a small group of children. His community at large might not be alert to the possible grooming behavior. Quite a number of CD's posts leading to the controversial one were about the hypothetical of taking action where the authorities could not be involved. For example, grooming behaviour, by its nature can not be reported. This is why churches and professionals need guidelines to control interactions with minors - it is to prevent grooming behaviours. If the guidelines are not followed then censure is possible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 11:13:20 GMT -5
I must have missed CD's explanation of why reporting was not an option. I do not disagree with the meeting move, but I do agree with DMG that it only protects a small group of children. His community at large might not be alert to the possible grooming behavior. Quite a number of CD's posts leading to the controversial one were about the hypothetical of taking action where the authorities could not be involved. For example, grooming behaviour, by its nature can not be reported. This is why churches and professionals need guidelines to control interactions with minors - it is to prevent grooming behaviours. If the guidelines are not followed then censure is possible. This is something I don't understand. If someone has been convicted of CSA and he is grooming children, that certainly can be reported to the authorities. Once someone becomes a registered sex offender, they have different conditions. Especially if someone is on day parole or even full parole, there are conditions and any suspicion of a possibility that this person could reoffend, that there are signs of that happening, can be and should be reported to his parole officer, or in the case of full parole, the police. It is breaking a condition of their parole then they can have it revoked and they would go back to jail. In Canada there are those that were under the Lieutenant Governors warrant and they would have conditions for life. Any of those conditions suspected of being broken would put them back in jail. I imagine a registered sex offender has conditions for life also and if they break any of them, that would warrant incarceration again.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 12:06:48 GMT -5
Quite a number of CD's posts leading to the controversial one were about the hypothetical of taking action where the authorities could not be involved. For example, grooming behaviour, by its nature can not be reported. This is why churches and professionals need guidelines to control interactions with minors - it is to prevent grooming behaviours. If the guidelines are not followed then censure is possible. This is something I don't understand. If someone has been convicted of CSA and he is grooming children, that certainly can be reported to the authorities. Once someone becomes a registered sex offender, they have different conditions. Especially if someone is on day parole or even full parole, there are conditions and any suspicion of a possibility that this person could reoffend, that there are signs of that happening, can be and should be reported to his parole officer, or in the case of full parole, the police. It is breaking a condition of their parole then they can have it revoked and they would go back to jail. In Canada there are those that were under the Lieutenant Governors warrant and they would have conditions for life. Any of those conditions suspected of being broken would put them back in jail. I imagine a registered sex offender has conditions for life also and if they break any of them, that would warrant incarceration again. If the court decides the offender is a danger then conditions may be placed on the offender. Those conditions in themselves may be sufficient to protect the church membership. In fact, we had one case here where a schoolteacher, one of the friends, was ordered to keep away from minors, and continued to teach piano lessons to the friends' children. But it may well be that no conditions are imposed, or conditions are not sufficient to assuage the friends. You can NOT report grooming behaviours, per se. Add to that known offenders who can't be brought to trial, and parents conceivably might have to take action on their own. I know of some actions of that kind that happened in this part of Canada, and this is what CD was talking about. For my part I'm not greatly in favour of parents taking ad hoc measures. I believe the best preventive measures are anti-grooming guidelines for clergy and church laity. And that is based on speaking with a wide range of church officials and attending a 'safe church' seminar, as well as taking a course. I welcome challenges to my views.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 13:52:45 GMT -5
This is something I don't understand. If someone has been convicted of CSA and he is grooming children, that certainly can be reported to the authorities. Once someone becomes a registered sex offender, they have different conditions. Especially if someone is on day parole or even full parole, there are conditions and any suspicion of a possibility that this person could reoffend, that there are signs of that happening, can be and should be reported to his parole officer, or in the case of full parole, the police. It is breaking a condition of their parole then they can have it revoked and they would go back to jail. In Canada there are those that were under the Lieutenant Governors warrant and they would have conditions for life. Any of those conditions suspected of being broken would put them back in jail. I imagine a registered sex offender has conditions for life also and if they break any of them, that would warrant incarceration again. If the court decides the offender is a danger then conditions may be placed on the offender. Those conditions in themselves may be sufficient to protect the church membership. In fact, we had one case here where a schoolteacher, one of the friends, was ordered to keep away from minors, and continued to teach piano lessons to the friends' children. But it may well be that no conditions are imposed, or conditions are not sufficient to assuage the friends. You can NOT report grooming behaviours, per se. Add to that known offenders who can't be brought to trial, and parents conceivably might have to take action on their own. I know of some actions of that kind that happened in this part of Canada, and this is what CD was talking about. For my part I'm not greatly in favour of parents taking ad hoc measures. I believe the best preventive measures are anti-grooming guidelines for clergy and church laity. And that is based on speaking with a wide range of church officials and attending a 'safe church' seminar, as well as taking a course. I welcome challenges to my views. I think the thing to keep in mind is that there are all kinds of circumstances. If someone has been charged and convicted of CSA usually, not always, there is a life long condition that they stay away from minors or maybe stay away from unchaperoned minors. People all have their own levels of comfort around these offenders and if the meeting people were very uncomfortable with them it is likely a good idea to move the person to a child free meeting. This move without reporting it also, would be only if the person was not doing anything suspicious. If they have the first condition on their release, then they had no business putting the person in a meeting with children in the first place. If the second was the case, then there is no problem with them being in the meeting because minors are presumably chaperoned. I think if there is enough suspicion that the children are being groomed, then I think both things should have been done. The person moved as a proactive move and also a call to the authorities to at least see if there is anything that can be done. This does two things. It allows the group to know exactly what they can work with and what is reportable and two it alerts the authorities that there may be a problem or an escalation of behavior. Both are good to know in any case.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2014 13:59:19 GMT -5
Anybody who has committed CSA in the past can be assumed to present a threat to children in general. I do not believe you can find data to support this claim. While it is believed by many the data does not support this contention.Unless you suspected they were going to harm the children in the meeting why would you move the person to a different meeting location? I am trying to get to the root reason why the suggestion to move the person was made if there was no suspicion he was a threat to the children. I keep reading he was being moved to protect the children. While people who suffer from a psychiatric disorder are much more prone to recidivism, this is not the situation in most child abuse cases. It is like moving someone who was convicted of burglary to a meeting where the valuables were better protected and saying that you do not suspect the person but just want to protect the valuables in the first meeting location.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 14:29:45 GMT -5
If the court decides the offender is a danger then conditions may be placed on the offender. Those conditions in themselves may be sufficient to protect the church membership. In fact, we had one case here where a schoolteacher, one of the friends, was ordered to keep away from minors, and continued to teach piano lessons to the friends' children. But it may well be that no conditions are imposed, or conditions are not sufficient to assuage the friends. You can NOT report grooming behaviours, per se. Add to that known offenders who can't be brought to trial, and parents conceivably might have to take action on their own. I know of some actions of that kind that happened in this part of Canada, and this is what CD was talking about. For my part I'm not greatly in favour of parents taking ad hoc measures. I believe the best preventive measures are anti-grooming guidelines for clergy and church laity. And that is based on speaking with a wide range of church officials and attending a 'safe church' seminar, as well as taking a course. I welcome challenges to my views. I think the thing to keep in mind is that there are all kinds of circumstances. If someone has been charged and convicted of CSA usually, not always, there is a life long condition that they stay away from minors or maybe stay away from unchaperoned minors. People all have their own levels of comfort around these offenders and if the meeting people were very uncomfortable with them it is likely a good idea to move the person to a child free meeting. This move without reporting it also, would be only if the person was not doing anything suspicious. If they have the first condition on their release, then they had no business putting the person in a meeting with children in the first place. If the second was the case, then there is no problem with them being in the meeting because minors are presumably chaperoned. I think if there is enough suspicion that the children are being groomed, then I think both things should have been done. The person moved as a proactive move and also a call to the authorities to at least see if there is anything that can be done. This does two things. It allows the group to know exactly what they can work with and what is reportable and two it alerts the authorities that there may be a problem or an escalation of behavior. Both are good to know in any case. It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. Without guidelines in place you can't easily distinguish grooming behaviour from innocent child-adult interaction. A worker could simply be counselling a teenage boy, or he could be grooming him - on the surface you just can't tell. Proper guidelines establish no go activity that remove the ambiguity. Essentially, no solitary '1 on 1' adult-minor interaction is allowed. If such guidelines were in place, I know there would be much less parental anxiety and unwarranted paranoia. And potentially fewer 'ad hoc' measures such as moving a perceived threat to another meeting. Examples - a mother pulls her boys from the sleeping quarters because Mr. X is there. So, sleeping quarters should be arranged in a way that absolutely prevents minor-adult interaction. That's just one example.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 27, 2014 14:42:57 GMT -5
Anybody who has committed CSA in the past can be assumed to present a threat to children in general. I do not believe you can find data to support this claim. While it is believed by many the data does not support this contention.Unless you suspected they were going to harm the children in the meeting why would you move the person to a different meeting location? I am trying to get to the root reason why the suggestion to move the person was made if there was no suspicion he was a threat to the children. I keep reading he was being moved to protect the children. While people who suffer from a psychiatric disorder are much more prone to recidivism, this is not the situation in most child abuse cases. It is like moving someone who was convicted of burglary to a meeting where the valuables were better protected and saying that you do not suspect the person but just want to protect the valuables in the first meeting location. It seems that the point of contention is whether the parents or a church have the right to take any measures available to prevent potential abuse of their children without removing a person who is a known/convicted offender completely from their church? I personally want those measures of protection in the church I am part of, and it's not hard to find churches that provide that environment. Apparently, most people agree with that. You can debate who is right, but I am happy that most churches have guidelines to provide as much protection and abuse prevention as possible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 14:49:20 GMT -5
I think the thing to keep in mind is that there are all kinds of circumstances. If someone has been charged and convicted of CSA usually, not always, there is a life long condition that they stay away from minors or maybe stay away from unchaperoned minors. People all have their own levels of comfort around these offenders and if the meeting people were very uncomfortable with them it is likely a good idea to move the person to a child free meeting. This move without reporting it also, would be only if the person was not doing anything suspicious. If they have the first condition on their release, then they had no business putting the person in a meeting with children in the first place. If the second was the case, then there is no problem with them being in the meeting because minors are presumably chaperoned. I think if there is enough suspicion that the children are being groomed, then I think both things should have been done. The person moved as a proactive move and also a call to the authorities to at least see if there is anything that can be done. This does two things. It allows the group to know exactly what they can work with and what is reportable and two it alerts the authorities that there may be a problem or an escalation of behavior. Both are good to know in any case. It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. Without guidelines in place you can't easily distinguish grooming behaviour from innocent child-adult interaction. A worker could simply be counselling a teenage boy, or he could be grooming him - on the surface you just can't tell. Proper guidelines establish no go activity that remove the ambiguity. Essentially, no solitary '1 on 1' adult-minor interaction is allowed. If such guidelines were in place, I know there would be much less parental anxiety and unwarranted paranoia. And potentially fewer 'ad hoc' measures such as moving a perceived threat to another meeting. Examples - a mother pulls her boys from the sleeping quarters because Mr. X is there. So, sleeping quarters should be arranged in a way that absolutely prevents minor-adult interaction. That's just one example. Yes, I think that's a good point. Guidelines in place would give a better idea of what is acceptable behavior. But only if people are aware of what is acceptable. Education would be necessary and I'm sure you have already thought of that. On the other hand, no amount of rules is going to prevent a predator from doing what they want. It will make it more difficult and but never will it completely protect. So that is why parents still need to be proactive in the protection of their kids. I think what happens often is that parents have a blind trust in the workers or elders because they have a trusted place in their community. Then they don't bother to make sure they are not left alone with a minor because they can't believe anything would happen with those people. I think this is becoming more and more scarce and people are truly beginning to realize their children may not be safe with these people and they have started doing more to make sure it doesn't happen. Educating the children about what is appropriate is one good way of giving the child some guidelines. When I was growing up in the Truth, we were told to respect the workers completely. They were men of God and they would never do anything wrong. This sets a child up for a possible assault and then probably a huge guilt because they would feel it must be something they did. I don't think there are as many parents willing to teach their children that anymore. If the child is taught important boundaries that should not be crossed when they are with an adult, they have a better chance of doing something about it like screaming or at least telling someone if it does happen. I have heard of kids that were assaulted sexually with other people laying in a bunk next to them. Their confusion over what was happening and the teaching that they have to trust these adults, made it so they didn't know what to do or that it was alright to do something to get help. So I believe it isn't just one thing that will help, it is a whole bunch of different things put in place that will make children safer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 27, 2014 16:37:39 GMT -5
It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. If this is the case the guidelines are favoring the abuser much more than the victim. Less suspicious parents and parents who worry less are a dream come true for the abuser. I wonder how many of the posters have ever actually worked with offenders and seen just how effective they can be in eluding the suspicion of the victims and the children.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 27, 2014 17:17:33 GMT -5
It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. If this is the case the guidelines are favoring the abuser much more than the victim. Less suspicious parents and parents who worry less are a dream come true for the abuser. I wonder how many of the posters have ever actually worked with offenders and seen just how effective they can be in eluding the suspicion of the victims and the children. Rational ~ I agree that it's not always wise to grow complacent due to guidelines being in place regarding sex offenders, since they are usually very effective in eluding the suspicion of parents and victims and often come across as being above reproach and very righteous before others. However, that's just a protective shield they put up to hide their true intentions and avoid suspicion. Therefore, being vigilant about your children's safety and the company they keep should always be a priority with parents, IMHO?
Oprah Winfrey did a special once on Child Sexual Abuse ~ Six Stages of Grooming, which was quite interesting and is shown below:
www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Child-Sexual-Abuse-6-Stages-of-Grooming
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2014 17:49:53 GMT -5
Are children safer in an organization where there are guidelines?
I believe so.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 18:25:50 GMT -5
Are children safer in an organization where there are guidelines? I believe so. I believe they are, as long as parents understand that they are not fool proof. All the guidelines in the world will not protect your child, but they can make it harder for the abuser to get to the child. I have worked with offenders in two different capacities over the years. They are very good at making you think they've changed. Many of these offenders are very personable and charming. They are very aware of how the system works and the smarter ones really do know how to work it. I remember one specifically while I worked for The John Howard Society in a half way house. He was a smooth as can be. Everyone really thought he was going to be safe to let out. He got his day parole and that's why he was with us. His parole officer watched him like a hawk when he first got out. Over his time with us, he was such a model inmate that even his parole officer became complacent. He had a way of getting you to trust him, believe he was very remorseful but it all ended up as a con. He ended up offending again, after leaving the house and heading to another province. So even those who work with them, are not very trusting of them can be fooled sometimes. How much more can an innocent child or an unaware parent be conned?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 20:18:31 GMT -5
Anybody who has committed CSA in the past can be assumed to present a threat to children in general. I do not believe you can find data to support this claim. While it is believed by many the data does not support this contention.Unless you suspected they were going to harm the children in the meeting why would you move the person to a different meeting location? I am trying to get to the root reason why the suggestion to move the person was made if there was no suspicion he was a threat to the children. I keep reading he was being moved to protect the children. While people who suffer from a psychiatric disorder are much more prone to recidivism, this is not the situation in most child abuse cases. It is like moving someone who was convicted of burglary to a meeting where the valuables were better protected and saying that you do not suspect the person but just want to protect the valuables in the first meeting location. I think your mantra of reporting to the authorities to the exclusion of all else is too simplistic. First of all, many, many cases are never reported. But the church still has to deal with them. Second, you can't report most grooming behaviours. Let's look at some examples within the friends involving workers - Man always beds out in convention shed near a minor, but no victim has reported an issue. Young worker takes photos of young children in every home in which he stays. Older worker likes to walk with teens at convention. Worker likes to say evening prayers with children in their bedroom. Older visiting worker approaches young people to engage them in letter writing. Young worker likes to wrestle with lads in the home, but nothing unusual happens. Can you report these? No. Do parents compare notes and talk about these kinds of incidents? Yes. Conceivably, could the grapevine recommend action or censure for a worker in these situations. Yes. Guidelines adopted by workers and circulated to all friends would prevent ALL these situations from occurring.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 20:22:56 GMT -5
Anybody who has committed CSA in the past can be assumed to present a threat to children in general. I do not believe you can find data to support this claim. While it is believed by many the data does not support this contention.Unless you suspected they were going to harm the children in the meeting why would you move the person to a different meeting location? I am trying to get to the root reason why the suggestion to move the person was made if there was no suspicion he was a threat to the children. I keep reading he was being moved to protect the children. While people who suffer from a psychiatric disorder are much more prone to recidivism, this is not the situation in most child abuse cases. It is like moving someone who was convicted of burglary to a meeting where the valuables were better protected and saying that you do not suspect the person but just want to protect the valuables in the first meeting location. If you have a strong interest in this, why don't you research this, and let us know what you found out. It has no relevance, certainly, to anything I've said.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 20:35:25 GMT -5
It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. Without guidelines in place you can't easily distinguish grooming behaviour from innocent child-adult interaction. A worker could simply be counselling a teenage boy, or he could be grooming him - on the surface you just can't tell. Proper guidelines establish no go activity that remove the ambiguity. Essentially, no solitary '1 on 1' adult-minor interaction is allowed. If such guidelines were in place, I know there would be much less parental anxiety and unwarranted paranoia. And potentially fewer 'ad hoc' measures such as moving a perceived threat to another meeting. Examples - a mother pulls her boys from the sleeping quarters because Mr. X is there. So, sleeping quarters should be arranged in a way that absolutely prevents minor-adult interaction. That's just one example. Yes, I think that's a good point. Guidelines in place would give a better idea of what is acceptable behavior. But only if people are aware of what is acceptable. Education would be necessary and I'm sure you have already thought of that. On the other hand, no amount of rules is going to prevent a predator from doing what they want. It will make it more difficult and but never will it completely protect. So that is why parents still need to be proactive in the protection of their kids. I think what happens often is that parents have a blind trust in the workers or elders because they have a trusted place in their community. Then they don't bother to make sure they are not left alone with a minor because they can't believe anything would happen with those people. I think this is becoming more and more scarce and people are truly beginning to realize their children may not be safe with these people and they have started doing more to make sure it doesn't happen. Educating the children about what is appropriate is one good way of giving the child some guidelines. When I was growing up in the Truth, we were told to respect the workers completely. They were men of God and they would never do anything wrong. This sets a child up for a possible assault and then probably a huge guilt because they would feel it must be something they did. I don't think there are as many parents willing to teach their children that anymore. If the child is taught important boundaries that should not be crossed when they are with an adult, they have a better chance of doing something about it like screaming or at least telling someone if it does happen. I have heard of kids that were assaulted sexually with other people laying in a bunk next to them. Their confusion over what was happening and the teaching that they have to trust these adults, made it so they didn't know what to do or that it was alright to do something to get help. So I believe it isn't just one thing that will help, it is a whole bunch of different things put in place that will make children safer. I agree with most of this, and it's a good commentary except "no amount of rules is going to prevent a predator from doing what they want". Okay ... you need a few things. 1) Guidelines. 2) Awareness of the problem. 3) A sexual abuse co-ordinator. 4) Locally adapted and implemented guidelines. 4) Parental involvement. 5) Expert staff to support local churches. That's off the top of my head; there may be other points. All these things have to work in concert in order to have a successful program. The workers have had training on conduct to prevent sexual abuse from some of the head workers. This does no good if parents are not also informed on what the code of conduct is to be. However, it is progress. I take your comment to mean that "rules on their own" are not effective. And that is true. I attended a seminar put on by my extended family's church (Christian Reformed Church) which involved 'safe church' committee members at a lot of churches. Many of them became involved in this .. guess why ... their children or a relative had been a victim. In one of the break-out groups I asked if they had seen a reduction in abuse as a result of the program, which began 20 years ago, in the early 1990s. The surprising answer was, very little or no reduction in the number of cases, at this point. Yet everyone believes in their 'safe church' program, and so do I. It is a very long road.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 20:45:49 GMT -5
Yes, I think that's a good point. Guidelines in place would give a better idea of what is acceptable behavior. But only if people are aware of what is acceptable. Education would be necessary and I'm sure you have already thought of that. On the other hand, no amount of rules is going to prevent a predator from doing what they want. It will make it more difficult and but never will it completely protect. So that is why parents still need to be proactive in the protection of their kids. I think what happens often is that parents have a blind trust in the workers or elders because they have a trusted place in their community. Then they don't bother to make sure they are not left alone with a minor because they can't believe anything would happen with those people. I think this is becoming more and more scarce and people are truly beginning to realize their children may not be safe with these people and they have started doing more to make sure it doesn't happen. Educating the children about what is appropriate is one good way of giving the child some guidelines. When I was growing up in the Truth, we were told to respect the workers completely. They were men of God and they would never do anything wrong. This sets a child up for a possible assault and then probably a huge guilt because they would feel it must be something they did. I don't think there are as many parents willing to teach their children that anymore. If the child is taught important boundaries that should not be crossed when they are with an adult, they have a better chance of doing something about it like screaming or at least telling someone if it does happen. I have heard of kids that were assaulted sexually with other people laying in a bunk next to them. Their confusion over what was happening and the teaching that they have to trust these adults, made it so they didn't know what to do or that it was alright to do something to get help. So I believe it isn't just one thing that will help, it is a whole bunch of different things put in place that will make children safer. I agree with most of this, and it's a good commentary except "no amount of rules is going to prevent a predator from doing what they want". Okay ... you need a few things. 1) Guidelines. 2) Awareness of the problem. 3) A sexual abuse co-ordinator. 4) Locally adapted and implemented guidelines. 4) Parental involvement. 5) Expert staff to support local churches. That's off the top of my head; there may be other points. All these things have to work in concert in order to have a successful program. The workers have had training on conduct to prevent sexual abuse from some of the head workers. This does no good if parents are not also informed on what the code of conduct is to be. However, it is progress. I take your comment to mean that "rules on their own" are not effective. And that is true. I attended a seminar put on by my extended family's church (Christian Reformed Church) which involved 'safe church' committee members at a lot of churches. Many of them became involved in this .. guess why ... their children or a relative had been a victim. In one of the break-out groups I asked if they had seen a reduction in abuse as a result of the program, which began 20 years ago, in the early 1990s. The surprising answer was, very little or no reduction in the number of cases, at this point. Yet everyone believes in their 'safe church' program, and so do I. It is a very long road. Yes, you're right. That is what I meant. It takes more than rules to make it work and you have a good list started. We all know that even with the best efforts it doesn't always work, but it works a lot more of the time and that's important. What works best in the long run is reporting it when something is suspicious or something happens. But putting guidelines into place to help prevent it and educating all the people instead of just the workers, are part of the whole picture.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 20:51:49 GMT -5
It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. If this is the case the guidelines are favoring the abuser much more than the victim. Less suspicious parents and parents who worry less are a dream come true for the abuser. I wonder how many of the posters have ever actually worked with offenders and seen just how effective they can be in eluding the suspicion of the victims and the children. Don't be silly. Do you really think that parents and people who run 'safe church' programs don't know this? The idea is to make people *more* aware of the very thing you're talking about. What I meant is less un-necessary suspicion elicited by what is essentially "noise" as far as detecting grooming behaviours. Here's a simple example. If everyone knows that workers don't do evening prayers in a child's bedroom, then all those non-perverted workers who stop doing this will no longer arouse need-less suspicion. And a worker who persists in the face of common and widespread knowledge that you don't do this, will arouse suspicion, but now it is suspicion with grounds. And someone with pedophilic desires and a brain will often be intelligent enough to turn their desires off, because they no longer are invincible because of the level of trust they engender. The key concept here is to build a safety zone around children, and the result is much less of an atmosphere poisoned by suspicion. Here's a good resource on the subject. Please read it, and then challenge 'safe church' policies. www.crcna.org/SafeChurch
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 21:03:53 GMT -5
I just want to mention that an abuser would likely go along with those rules just fine. They would find another way of doing it and it might be easier (as Rational) pointed out because the suspicion would be off them because they are going along with the guidelines. So it is a challenge for sure and we must remember we can't completely trust, which I find extremely sad.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 21:07:46 GMT -5
I agree with most of this, and it's a good commentary except "no amount of rules is going to prevent a predator from doing what they want". Okay ... you need a few things. 1) Guidelines. 2) Awareness of the problem. 3) A sexual abuse co-ordinator. 4) Locally adapted and implemented guidelines. 4) Parental involvement. 5) Expert staff to support local churches. That's off the top of my head; there may be other points. All these things have to work in concert in order to have a successful program. The workers have had training on conduct to prevent sexual abuse from some of the head workers. This does no good if parents are not also informed on what the code of conduct is to be. However, it is progress. I take your comment to mean that "rules on their own" are not effective. And that is true. I attended a seminar put on by my extended family's church (Christian Reformed Church) which involved 'safe church' committee members at a lot of churches. Many of them became involved in this .. guess why ... their children or a relative had been a victim. In one of the break-out groups I asked if they had seen a reduction in abuse as a result of the program, which began 20 years ago, in the early 1990s. The surprising answer was, very little or no reduction in the number of cases, at this point. Yet everyone believes in their 'safe church' program, and so do I. It is a very long road. Yes, you're right. That is what I meant. It takes more than rules to make it work and you have a good list started. We all know that even with the best efforts it doesn't always work, but it works a lot more of the time and that's important. What works best in the long run is reporting it when something is suspicious or something happens. But putting guidelines into place to help prevent it and educating all the people instead of just the workers, are part of the whole picture. Thanks for the clarification. It seems we're in complete agreement. I've not had any exposure from the enforcement side of things, but have talked to many individuals from the church/ victim side of things. I felt it important to ask you about that point because one of the resistance factors among the friends is that guidelines don't do anything. But that's no reason not to get started with them. One of my friends, an elder, told me no way would he ever hand out CSA guidelines to his church members, not that he was ever given any, because they're not an organization. The friends also are quite in the dark about convictions that we all know on TMB, and that is readily available on the WINGS site. However, young parents do know that sexual offences can occur, also with workers, and they're aware of the possibility of child sexual abuse and they re-act fairly spuriously through the grapevine and other means. I do know one alleged offender who was charged and ultimately cleared by the authorities who was shunned at convention as a result. That is, young people were told not to go near him. This is not the way to do things, far too random. So I would describe this more or less vigilante program as follows - - parents left to fend for themselves to react to false or genuine rumours and suspicions by those in the know, - no reaction at all by those who don't know, the unwary, - parents given no information on known offenders and offences, even charged and convicted ones.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 21:20:05 GMT -5
I just want to mention that an abuser would likely go along with those rules just fine. They would find another way of doing it and it might be easier (as Rational) pointed out because the suspicion would be off them because they are going along with the guidelines. So it is a challenge for sure and we must remember we can't completely trust, which I find extremely sad. If the guidelines are properly thought out and implemented, there is no "other way of doing it". The guidelines are aimed at preventing the abuser from gaining trust with a young person. Generally speaking, and there are exceptions, sexual offences don't occur when the offender and victim first meet. Usually the offender has gained trust over a period of time. (Which is why 'worker' is such a great occupation for a pedophile; and so are other jobs that involve working with young people.) The key principle is 'no one on one' interaction between the church worker and young people. You ensure that interactions are 'two on one'. In church buildings, all rooms have doors with windows. Anyone involved with a youth program must take training on the correct conduct. One sermon every quarter is set aside for preaching on abuse awareness, so that everyone in the congregation understands the expected conduct, but also the impact on victims. Criminal background checks are run on anyone that volunteers or works with youth. But yeah, there are all kinds of probable breaches as you can't completely remove every form of intimacy from a child. How do you reduce incestuous relationships, for example? Another issue is that some people will ignore the guidelines no matter what ... actually an issue in all safety programs .. it's a long uphill battle. This is why victim impact and general awareness are so important. I think it's a bit akin to teaching children (and parents) road safety. Children continue to be killed and injured in road accidents, but we do everything possible to prevent that occurring. This is very much a similar problem. The measures of a 'safe church' program are mostly just common sense, in the face of knowing that this danger exists. Decades ago, parents did not know the danger, and incidents of abuse were routinely swept under the carpet. Reputation was considered more important than prevention and victim impact.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2014 21:20:22 GMT -5
One of my friends, an elder, told me no way would he ever hand out CSA guidelines to his church members, not that he was ever given any, because they're not an organization. For the same reason, we shouldn't use meeting lists, speakers lists, workers lists etc. We're not an organization, so we should be able to figure it all out without anything written down.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 21:27:13 GMT -5
Yes, you're right. That is what I meant. It takes more than rules to make it work and you have a good list started. We all know that even with the best efforts it doesn't always work, but it works a lot more of the time and that's important. What works best in the long run is reporting it when something is suspicious or something happens. But putting guidelines into place to help prevent it and educating all the people instead of just the workers, are part of the whole picture. Thanks for the clarification. It seems we're in complete agreement. I've not had any exposure from the enforcement side of things, but have talked to many individuals from the church/ victim side of things. I felt it important to ask you about that point because one of the resistance factors among the friends is that guidelines don't do anything. But that's no reason not to get started with them. One of my friends, an elder, told me no way would he ever hand out CSA guidelines to his church members, not that he was ever given any, because they're not an organization. The friends also are quite in the dark about convictions that we all know on TMB, and that is readily available on the WINGS site. However, young parents do know that sexual offences can occur, also with workers, and they're aware of the possibility of child sexual abuse and they re-act fairly spuriously through the grapevine and other means. I do know one alleged offender who was charged and ultimately cleared by the authorities who was shunned at convention as a result. That is, young people were told not to go near him. This is not the way to do things, far too random. So I would describe this more or less vigilante program as follows - - parents left to fend for themselves to react to false or genuine rumours and suspicions by those in the know, - no reaction at all by those who don't know, the unwary, - parents given no information on known offenders and offences, even charged and convicted ones. That's the other side of it all isn't it. Someone who has been charged and found not guilty, but still shunned. Since these things do happen, some people are reluctant to report suspicions because they want to be 'sure'. I understand that, but I think it still needs to be done. I don't know how this can be addressed because people have different levels of comfort or knowledge. I guess the best way would be to educate all the members, but when you have elders that won't even pass around CSA guidelines (if there were any), well that tells me the level of disconnect or denial that still is in the group. I'm sure not all are like that, but there will always be some I imagine. Because it is such an emotional subject, people react emotionally rather than logically sometimes. You can't really blame them but it does make it more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 21:31:14 GMT -5
One of my friends, an elder, told me no way would he ever hand out CSA guidelines to his church members, not that he was ever given any, because they're not an organization. For the same reason, we shouldn't use meeting lists, speakers lists, workers lists etc. We're not an organization, so we should be able to figure it all out without anything written down. I was told that special meeting rounds at one time were entirely spontaneous, led by the Spirit. A dozen workers would show up in town; they'd all get meals and beds and the Spirit would take care of everything. But as the years went on, there were more workers, and friends moved off the farm and became more mobile, and spread out, and the result for a while was chaos. However, they sorted it out, and these days special meeting rounds tend to be highly planned affairs. In time, I'm sure the friends will come around on the CSA issue, but there are sure a large number of resistance factors.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 21:33:37 GMT -5
I just want to mention that an abuser would likely go along with those rules just fine. They would find another way of doing it and it might be easier (as Rational) pointed out because the suspicion would be off them because they are going along with the guidelines. So it is a challenge for sure and we must remember we can't completely trust, which I find extremely sad. If the guidelines are properly thought out and implemented, there is no "other way of doing it". The guidelines are aimed at preventing the abuser from gaining trust with a young person. Generally speaking, and there are exceptions, sexual offences don't occur when the offender and victim first meet. Usually the offender has gained trust over a period of time. (Which is why 'worker' is such a great occupation for a pedophile; and so are other jobs that involve working with young people.) The key principle is 'no one on one' interaction between the church worker and young people. You ensure that interactions are 'two on one'. In church buildings, all rooms have doors with windows. Anyone involved with a youth program must take training on the correct conduct. One sermon every quarter is set aside for preaching on abuse awareness, so that everyone in the congregation understands the expected conduct, but also the impact on victims. Criminal background checks are run on anyone that volunteers or works with youth. But yeah, there are all kinds of probable breaches as you can't completely remove every form of intimacy from a child. How do you reduce incestuous relationships, for example? Another issue is that some people will ignore the guidelines no matter what ... actually an issue in all safety programs .. it's a long uphill battle. This is why victim impact and general awareness are so important. I think it's a bit akin to teaching children (and parents) road safety. Children continue to be killed and injured in road accidents, but we do everything possible to prevent that occurring. This is very much a similar problem. The measures of a 'safe church' program are mostly just common sense, in the face of knowing that this danger exists. Decades ago, parents did not know the danger, and incidents of abuse were routinely swept under the carpet. Reputation was considered more important than prevention and victim impact. Yes, bottom line, stuff happens. But all we can do is make sure we are doing everything we possibly can to make it safe. The above mentioned guidelines and how they are delivered is at least doing something.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 27, 2014 21:37:01 GMT -5
It may be worth commenting on grooming behaviours. With good 'safe church' guidelines in place there is less cause for suspicion in the first place. And less worry with adults around children. Without guidelines in place you can't easily distinguish grooming behaviour from innocent child-adult interaction. A worker could simply be counselling a teenage boy, or he could be grooming him - on the surface you just can't tell. Proper guidelines establish no go activity that remove the ambiguity. Essentially, no solitary '1 on 1' adult-minor interaction is allowed. If such guidelines were in place, I know there would be much less parental anxiety and unwarranted paranoia. And potentially fewer 'ad hoc' measures such as moving a perceived threat to another meeting. Examples - a mother pulls her boys from the sleeping quarters because Mr. X is there. So, sleeping quarters should be arranged in a way that absolutely prevents minor-adult interaction. That's just one example. Part of the "church safe" guidelines is likely to share your education with others, so can you tell how to differentiate between a possible grooming session vs a counseling session? A hypothetical situation: A teenager comes to a male worker he has come to trust and asks for some help with a life situation (no sex involved - or maybe there is?). Should the worker tell him, "Oh I cannot have a personal conversation with you alone. Please come back and bring someone with you." What are the chances a teeneager will return? Now about non-minor/adult sleeping quarters... that is arranged how??? EDIT: Or the worker must say, "Oh I can't have a private conversation with you. Wait until tonight (tomorrow morning, after convention breakfast, etc.) and I will ask ******** to be with us."
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 21:39:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification. It seems we're in complete agreement. I've not had any exposure from the enforcement side of things, but have talked to many individuals from the church/ victim side of things. I felt it important to ask you about that point because one of the resistance factors among the friends is that guidelines don't do anything. But that's no reason not to get started with them. One of my friends, an elder, told me no way would he ever hand out CSA guidelines to his church members, not that he was ever given any, because they're not an organization. The friends also are quite in the dark about convictions that we all know on TMB, and that is readily available on the WINGS site. However, young parents do know that sexual offences can occur, also with workers, and they're aware of the possibility of child sexual abuse and they re-act fairly spuriously through the grapevine and other means. I do know one alleged offender who was charged and ultimately cleared by the authorities who was shunned at convention as a result. That is, young people were told not to go near him. This is not the way to do things, far too random. So I would describe this more or less vigilante program as follows - - parents left to fend for themselves to react to false or genuine rumours and suspicions by those in the know, - no reaction at all by those who don't know, the unwary, - parents given no information on known offenders and offences, even charged and convicted ones. That's the other side of it all isn't it. Someone who has been charged and found not guilty, but still shunned. Since these things do happen, some people are reluctant to report suspicions because they want to be 'sure'. I understand that, but I think it still needs to be done. I don't know how this can be addressed because people have different levels of comfort or knowledge. I guess the best way would be to educate all the members, but when you have elders that won't even pass around CSA guidelines (if there were any), well that tells me the level of disconnect or denial that still is in the group. I'm sure not all are like that, but there will always be some I imagine. Because it is such an emotional subject, people react emotionally rather than logically sometimes. You can't really blame them but it does make it more difficult. And once you do something about child sexual abuse, the next step is spousal abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, and so on. I have to say I was very impressed by the CRC program, because if you are going to promote Christian ideals, to me, a program like that speaks volumes, much, much more than a finely crafted sermon on Sunday. But even there, I noted that one new 'safe church' co-ordinator was highly resistant to much of what was presented in the break out sessions, and went through all the old saws about false memories, children can't be trusted, and so on. There's a lot of poisoning of the well going on, on 'safe church' programs, I believe. In the context of this seminar though it worked to positive effect because of the discussion his resistance engendered.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 21:46:28 GMT -5
That's the other side of it all isn't it. Someone who has been charged and found not guilty, but still shunned. Since these things do happen, some people are reluctant to report suspicions because they want to be 'sure'. I understand that, but I think it still needs to be done. I don't know how this can be addressed because people have different levels of comfort or knowledge. I guess the best way would be to educate all the members, but when you have elders that won't even pass around CSA guidelines (if there were any), well that tells me the level of disconnect or denial that still is in the group. I'm sure not all are like that, but there will always be some I imagine. Because it is such an emotional subject, people react emotionally rather than logically sometimes. You can't really blame them but it does make it more difficult. And once you do something about child sexual abuse, the next step is spousal abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, and so on. I have to say I was very impressed by the CRC program, because if you are going to promote Christian ideals, to me, a program like that speaks volumes, much, much more than a finely crafted sermon on Sunday. But even there, I noted that one new 'safe church' co-ordinator was highly resistant to much of what was presented in the break out sessions, and went through all the old saws about false memories, children can't be trusted, and so on. There's a lot of poisoning of the well going on, on 'safe church' programs, I believe. In the context of this seminar though it worked to positive effect because of the discussion his resistance engendered. Old ways and old beliefs don't die quickly. There are a number of reasons for this I suppose. These are the people that are opposed to reporting too sometimes. In any case it is an uphill battle but one very worth implementing.
|
|