|
Post by What Hat on Jul 27, 2014 21:52:47 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??? You can't really tell the difference between a counseling session and a grooming session. This is what I meant when I stated that suspicious grooming behaviours cannot be reported. At this point it's only about prevention and minimizing risk. Worker interactions with minors should be 2 on 1. If there is a prior intimate relationship, ie. the worker is a relative, or the conversation needs to be confidential for some reason, then the worker should notify his partner before the session takes place, and it should occur in a public place, e.g. a coffee shop. I just made that up, by thinking creatively, and it vaguely alludes to some measures I read once. I'm not sure how the WINGS proposed guidelines actually address the situation, but you could also look there. We never stayed in sleeping quarters, nor did our children. I can't advise all that well, but definitely you don't want minors sleeping beside adults, with the possible exception of young children near their parents. As I recall though, young parents never stayed in quarters in any case.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2014 22:13:14 GMT -5
When I stayed at convention my parents went back home to do chores. I was there alone but was supposed to be watched by a couple of older girls that I knew pretty well. We all slept in the woman's quarters and there were no rules to who had which spot. We would just throw our sleeping bag down on an empty tick and hope that you didn't get by an old lady that would tell you shush all night... I remember enjoying that a lot sleeping in the barn. You'd be giggling with your friends and then there would be a rap on the board that separated the bunks. It was someone mad because they couldn't sleep and we were supposed to be quiet. However, I suppose if that happened in the woman's quarters it likely was the same in the men's. I can see how that could have led to problems.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 27, 2014 23:38:05 GMT -5
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." You've just shown the need for written guidelines. Telling the teenager to come back with someone else would be silly. If it was at convention they could go for a walk together, sit in the meeting shed together, sit in a car together provided it was in public view. WH gave an example of how the two could meet in a coffee shop. They could sit on a park bench. They could sit in someone's garden. They could go for a walk together in a public place. Under NO circumstances should a worker be alone with a minor in a bedroom, or in a house with no adult there. Emy, workers have had sex with minors in the past and will continue to do so unless action is taken.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 3:32:26 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? In my mind, guidelines have more than one purpose: one purpose is to put in place measures that would minimize potential for abuse; another purpose is to alert parents and everybody else that there is a potential that children may be abused. In churches like 2x2 where the community is close-nit and there is a high level of trust already developed and promoted, people can let their guard down and assume their kids are safe when they may not be. (Been there, done that!) Guidelines not just prevent abuse to a certain degree, but also acknowledge there is a problem and potential danger and can bring about a higher degree of awareness and alertness to potential problems. Snow, the second paragraph seems to indicate that those of us who want to put restrictions on previous offenders' involvement with children are justified?
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 4:04:13 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. Guidelines teach us to not trust, so as a result parents and church workers are less likely to put children in situations where abuse can happen. Guidelines should even specifically prevent such situations. How would guidelines make things easier for a potential abuser to abuse if guidelines are followed? Let's not forget that the main "ingredient" in guidelines is that a church worker should never be alone with a child - 2 adults have to always be present. Also, if parents are aware of potential danger (because of guidelines or otherwise), they are more likely to teach their children about abuse prevention, so even if guidelines fail or the abuser works around them, the child may be better equipped to deal with potential danger. Based on the above premisses, I don't see a reason for why guidelines should be viewed as a potential danger in dealing with abuse prevention. There is difference between trusting potential abusers because of guidelines (who would do that, anyway?) and trusting an organization because they take children's safety issue seriously (not in a way that reduces our own vigilance, of course). I apologize if this has already been stated, I'm just now picking up the thread where I left of yesterday...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 6:11:26 GMT -5
I think your mantra of reporting to the authorities to the exclusion of all else is too simplistic. I have never said that I think reporting to the exclusion of all else is the solution. This is a distortion. If the church has to deal with them they are known and should be reported. Has there been an issue? Are the photos appropriate? Where are the parents during these 'photo-shoots'? Have the parents talked to their children about situations like this? Have the parents set up guidelines with their children? You could go on here forever. Are these things done with the parent's approval? If the parents are not on board all of the guidelines in the world amount to nothing. This implies that the parents know but elect not to act. But people just keep talking about it and do nothing? You have indicated that the parents already know these things are going on through the 'grapevine' and do nothing. The guidelines will suddenly give them the will to act? Maybe so. Maybe it will serve as an educational/informative piece. If you want to keep moving forward with this issue you will have to stop posting things like: I think your mantra of reporting to the authorities to the exclusion of all else is too simplistic.I have never said reporting was an exclusive solution/activity. Reporting only serves to stop the criminal from continuing to harm children. The protection of children is the responsibility of their parents/guardians. Suspecting that someone may be a threat to a child in a Sunday morning meeting and moving them to a different meeting location is not, in my understanding, an effective way to protect children other than the limited set of children in the original meeting.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 6:13:55 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." I see no mention of the parents having any role in these hypothetical situations at all.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 28, 2014 7:46:07 GMT -5
Did you suspect that this individual might abuse children? Were you acting on that suspicion or simply because you did not want to be in the same meeting? So you do think the individual presented a threat to the children. Yet this threat was not worth reporting? I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you suspected the person was a threat or the decision to move him to a different meeting location was based on something else. I did not suspect anyone of abusing children. I was not in that story - have never met the man, was never been in the meeting mentioned. Anybody who has committed CSA in the past can be assumed to present a threat to children in general. You can not report someone for having been sentenced for CSA. But you can limit his involvement with children. Maja! It seems to me that Rat nor Dmg can picture that the workers and or elders would allow a ex-convicted C SA perp in a mtg. with children...simply because the parole requires that they not be allowed within so many feet of where children routinely are found. They are NOT taking into consideration that the workers feel that a person who has served their time and has "repented" are justified to be allowed to go to mtgs, etc And it never seems to register with Rat or Dmg that the workers and some elders do not feel they must continue to isolate or punish said CSA perp! As I was told about IH, that he'd repented and that he had every right to be in the mtg. with us that he was in. And that we had no rights to determine our own desire to be in said mtg. with him! So naturally when parents ARE IN said like mtgs. they are going to watch for every "little" thing and what they feel is the beginning of something they don't want to wait upon to finish, they want the man out of their mtg. so naturally they WILL seek a mtg. within distance where there are no children! IH again was in like manner...before he and his bride moved to MO. he had to drive 50 mi. to a mtg. that had no young children in it. and that would have made them have to make a 100 mile journey for any mtg. But that was the demand that those who had children in the other mtgs. made of their overseer! He pretty well had to go along with them! Since then it seems that those guidelines do not follow IH anymore as he's been to convs. and has even had a testimony in one or more!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 7:53:52 GMT -5
I think your mantra of reporting to the authorities to the exclusion of all else is too simplistic. I have never said that I think reporting to the exclusion of all else is the solution. This is a distortion. If the church has to deal with them they are known and should be reported. You can't live in a world of "should". You might as well say that the perpetrators "shouldn't" molest children. Only a given percentage of cases are reported, and if you understand the situations involved, you'll realize that's not going to greatly change.Possibly an unreported one. Parents notice the unusual behaviour over a period of time. The man may just like the company of children, or have some other innocent motive. Or maybe not. This was an actual situation. There was nothing wrong with the photos, but people were wondering and gossiping about this. As you know, grooming behaviours cannot be distinguished from non-grooming behaviours, so you create, in effect, a new social etiquette with lines that you do not cross. This crosses that line.This is somewhat a hypothetical. Do you think you can leave it to parents on an individual basis to deal adequately with the situation? It could be quite innocent. It possibly won't happen now that workers have their own guidelines, but at the same time, you DO still want workers talking and interacting with young people. The idea of implementing guidelines is to think collectively and constructively about situations like this, and how they should be handled.
Of course, I agree with the last statement completely. Unfortunately, as one parent told me, on this subject I've heard "boo".You're missing the concept .. the objective is to limit interactions that could be used to mask grooming behaviours. Doing so requires a concerted, consistent and unified effort. It requires guidelines in order to determine how to limit interactions, parent education on the guidelines, a reporting mechanism for breaches, and general education on awareness. Without the guidelines and the awareness education, some parents will act, and some won't, but a common understanding is required.
Think of traffic safety. There's a common set of rules and practices on how to keep children safe in an urban area. We don't leave it to parents to figure this out, but give the parents a pamphlet, training at school, and Elmer, of course. But more important, the traffic system itself has safeguards to keep children safe, school crossing guards, crosswalks, stops at intersections, and so on.
In adult-minor social interaction you also need a system so that children can navigate meetings, conventions, social outings with the friends, and worker interactions safely. We know there are pedophiles around, so the systems, i.e. guidelines, are designed to prevent them from beginning grooming behaviour. Granted, but your solution of leaving everything to individual parent action is too simplistic.Of course, but it's not the sole responsibility of parents acting individually. The church owes them support in this; it's a moral obligation. In the courts churches are now susceptible to vicarious liability if they do not provide this support. I have been told that insurance companies will with-hold liability insurance if a church has not performed due diligence in the area of child sexual abuse and awareness.I don't think it's all that effective either, but in the absence of an effective child safety program, I can see parents requesting it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 8:08:27 GMT -5
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." I see no mention of the parents having any role in these hypothetical situations at all. Typically, a CRC church congregation, which would be roughly equivalent to 4 or 5 fields, i.e. a convention area, would have a 'safe church' committee consisting of parents, and also a lead parent who has had more specialized training. That committee would develop guidelines and procedures suitable for the local church using a general denominational set of guidelines as a basis. In addition, the committee will decide upon changes that may be required to buildings and halls. In a church with an extensive set of programs (choir, camping expeditions, hockey league, Catechism classes, "out of the cold", meals for the homeless) there's quite a bit to think about. The CRC denomination headquarters also has a small complement of full time staff who hold seminars and provide support for all 'safe church' programs, including the web site. So, by analogy, the friends could do something similar, and yes, parents are central to the entire process.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 8:49:11 GMT -5
Maja! It seems to me that Rat nor Dmg can picture that the workers and or elders would allow a ex-convicted C SA perp in a mtg. with children...simply because the parole requires that they not be allowed within so many feet of where children routinely are found. They are NOT taking into consideration that the workers feel that a person who has served their time and has "repented" are justified to be allowed to go to mtgs, etc And it never seems to register with Rat or Dmg that the workers and some elders do not feel they must continue to isolate or punish said CSA perp! As I was told about IH, that he'd repented and that he had every right to be in the mtg. with us that he was in. And that we had no rights to determine our own desire to be in said mtg. with him! So naturally when parents ARE IN said like mtgs. they are going to watch for every "little" thing and what they feel is the beginning of something they don't want to wait upon to finish, they want the man out of their mtg. so naturally they WILL seek a mtg. within distance where there are no children! IH again was in like manner...before he and his bride moved to MO. he had to drive 50 mi. to a mtg. that had no young children in it. and that would have made them have to make a 100 mile journey for any mtg. But that was the demand that those who had children in the other mtgs. made of their overseer! He pretty well had to go along with them! Since then it seems that those guidelines do not follow IH anymore as he's been to convs. and has even had a testimony in one or more! Because of the lack of guidelines, what happens is left at the discretion of an overseer. Another overseer had recommended that IH not be allowed to conventions, but the overseer of the state IH resides in didn't go along with the recommendation. If there was a set of official guidelines for dealing with known/convicted offenders, such decisions would not be left at the discretion of a local overseer. On the other hand, one stated reason for not having guidelines is that they would be obligated to follow them in every case. Catch-22?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 8:54:17 GMT -5
Maja! It seems to me that Rat nor Dmg can picture that the workers and or elders would allow a ex-convicted C SA perp in a mtg. with children...simply because the parole requires that they not be allowed within so many feet of where children routinely are found. Yes, the fact that from a legal standpoint he is allowed and so far no one had said they suspect he is a danger to children.What the workers think has no bearing on the case.Why should a person who committed a crime, was tried and convicted, served the sentence imposed by the court, be isolated and continue to be punished? Is this christian/theistic idea that I have missed out on?This is very different than being charged, tried, and convicted. You are using spiritual terms in an attempt to explain criminal behavior.You can be in a meeting with him or not as you wish. No one is forcing you to attend. You have rights but those rights extend to other people as well unless there is some legal restriction. The word paranoia springs to mind.Comparing IH to a convicted criminal who has served his sentence is not a fair comparison.So the solution imposed was useless and has become a moot point. More to the question at hand - have any additional children been harmed by him since he attended conventions?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 9:39:22 GMT -5
Maja! It seems to me that Rat nor Dmg can picture that the workers and or elders would allow a ex-convicted C SA perp in a mtg. with children...simply because the parole requires that they not be allowed within so many feet of where children routinely are found. Yes, the fact that from a legal standpoint he is allowed and so far no one had said they suspect he is a danger to children.What the workers think has no bearing on the case.Why should a person who committed a crime, was tried and convicted, served the sentence imposed by the court, be isolated and continue to be punished? Is this christian/theistic idea that I have missed out on?This is very different than being charged, tried, and convicted. You are using spiritual terms in an attempt to explain criminal behavior.You can be in a meeting with him or not as you wish. No one is forcing you to attend. You have rights but those rights extend to other people as well unless there is some legal restriction. The word paranoia springs to mind.Comparing IH to a convicted criminal who has served his sentence is not a fair comparison.So the solution imposed was useless and has become a moot point. More to the question at hand - have any additional children been harmed by him since he attended conventions? A program of effective guidelines is also meant to offset some of that paranoia, and replace a range of 'ad hoc', inept and ineffective parental response with a concerted, methodical, rational (I know you'll like that word) approach. The main 'red flag' I see in sharonw's post is that the meeting was not consulted before moving IH there. If nothing else, the workers should have consulted with a social worker or someone in rehabilitation and with the members of the meeting to discuss what was planned, and to address any specific concerns.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 10:03:21 GMT -5
I have never said that I think reporting to the exclusion of all else is the solution. This is a distortion. If the church has to deal with them they are known and should be reported. You can't live in a world of "should". You might as well say that the perpetrators "shouldn't" molest children. Only a given percentage of cases are reported, and if you understand the situations involved, you'll realize that's not going to greatly change.Yet it is believed that the guidelines should be followed. Possibly an unreported one. Parents notice the unusual behaviour over a period of time. The man may just like the company of children, or have some other innocent motive. Or maybe not. This was an actual situation. There was nothing wrong with the photos, but people were wondering and gossiping about this. As you know, grooming behaviours cannot be distinguished from non-grooming behaviours, so you create, in effect, a new social etiquette with lines that you do not cross. This crosses that line.This is somewhat a hypothetical. Do you think you can leave it to parents on an individual basis to deal adequately with the situation? It could be quite innocent. It possibly won't happen now that workers have their own guidelines, but at the same time, you DO still want workers talking and interacting with young people. The idea of implementing guidelines is to think collectively and constructively about situations like this, and how they should be handled.
Of course, I agree with the last statement completely. Unfortunately, as one parent told me, on this subject I've heard "boo".You're missing the concept .. the objective is to limit interactions that could be used to mask grooming behaviours. Doing so requires a concerted, consistent and unified effort. It requires guidelines in order to determine how to limit interactions, parent education on the guidelines, a reporting mechanism for breaches, and general education on awareness. Without the guidelines and the awareness education, some parents will act, and some won't, but a common understanding is required.
Think of traffic safety. There's a common set of rules and practices on how to keep children safe in an urban area. We don't leave it to parents to figure this out, but give the parents a pamphlet, training at school, and Elmer, of course. But more important, the traffic system itself has safeguards to keep children safe, school crossing guards, crosswalks, stops at intersections, and so on.
In adult-minor social interaction you also need a system so that children can navigate meetings, conventions, social outings with the friends, and worker interactions safely. We know there are pedophiles around, so the systems, i.e. guidelines, are designed to prevent them from beginning grooming behaviour. Granted, but your solution of leaving everything to individual parent action is too simplistic.Of course, but it's not the sole responsibility of parents acting individually. The church owes them support in this; it's a moral obligation. In the courts churches are now susceptible to vicarious liability if they do not provide this support. I have been told that insurance companies will with-hold liability insurance if a church has not performed due diligence in the area of child sexual abuse and awareness.I don't think it's all that effective either, but in the absence of an effective child safety program, I can see parents requesting it. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 10:25:29 GMT -5
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? In my mind, guidelines have more than one purpose: one purpose is to put in place measures that would minimize potential for abuse; another purpose is to alert parents and everybody else that there is a potential that children may be abused. In churches like 2x2 where the community is close-nit and there is a high level of trust already developed and promoted, people can let their guard down and assume their kids are safe when they may not be. (Been there, done that!) Guidelines not just prevent abuse to a certain degree, but also acknowledge there is a problem and potential danger and can bring about a higher degree of awareness and alertness to potential problems. Snow, the second paragraph seems to indicate that those of us who want to put restrictions on previous offenders' involvement with children are justified? I agree that guidelines serve another purpose and that is to give parents a heads up that there is a problem they need to pay attention to. Awareness is a huge part of keeping them safe. Denying anything happens is why kids can be more vulnerable. I would say people should always be aware of the potential. Previous offenders can re-offend (obviously), though not at the rate that many people believe. Are they justified in putting restrictions on previous offenders? I can see why they would want to. Many are not comfortable and to give them peace of mind I suppose it's something that can be done for that reason. However, we always need to remember that there are usually already restrictions put on them by the authorities. Conditions of their release into the public again. Educating parents about what these conditions are is a good start. Putting further restrictions on them is not always needed. Most already have a condition that they cannot be around minor children without another adult being present. If that condition is enforced by the church then you already have a good protection in place. I think further restrictions are likely more for the peace of mind of the parents. They are not wrong to want them. And, in most cases an offender that has learned from their mistake will make sure they follow these restrictions so they don't give the people around them cause for suspicion. But bottom line is that if someone wants to molest a minor, they will work pretty hard to make it happen. In the case of a worker, they don't even have to groom the child in order to intimidate enough to abuse them. If the child has been indoctrinated enough to believe that everything the workers do is right, that they can't be questioned, then that child is in danger no matter what. Guidelines while important shouldn't lead to complacency by parents.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 10:27:42 GMT -5
I have never said that I think reporting to the exclusion of all else is the solution. This is a distortion. If the church has to deal with them they are known and should be reported. You can't live in a world of "should". You might as well say that the perpetrators "shouldn't" molest children. Only a given percentage of cases are reported, and if you understand the situations involved, you'll realize that's not going to greatly change.Yet it is believed that the guidelines should be followed. This is always the case. "There may have been unreported cases to that methodology won't work". Taking appropriate photos of children crosses the line? The thing to include in the guidelines is the prohibition of gossip and unfounded rumors. Yes, I think that the parents should have to tape the responsibility for the safety of their children. It could have been quite innocent, and it was, so all the parents had to be was involved and those gossiping and spreading the rumors should be reprimanded. Group-think has always been shown to be so much more effective than people making their own decisions regarding their children. Sorry - I do not believe that a group of people acting on guidelines are more effective that parents. Of course, there is the obvious question - why do you think an offender will adhere to the guidelines? I understand the goals. I have read the guidelines. Since that seems to be the way people feel their children will be protected I do hope it works. Right but there are not skillful people working to get around the system and harm a child. I believe that with the exception of abuse by family members, the majority of child abuse is because the parents trusted their children to the care of an organization. Parents need to fully accept that responsibility. Ultimately, yes it is.[/b] I have been told that insurance companies will with-hold liability insurance if a church has not performed due diligence in the area of child sexual abuse and awareness.[/quote]The church ows me nothing. Why? Because I would not turn over the safety of my family to that organization without personally being closely involved with the operation. After reading the thread about ways to deal with accused child abusers I can believe that the parents might ask for his castration and exile to the Outer Hebrides.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 10:43:07 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. Guidelines teach us to not trust, so as a result parents and church workers are less likely to put children in situations where abuse can happen. Guidelines should even specifically prevent such situations. How would guidelines make things easier for a potential abuser to abuse if guidelines are followed? Let's not forget that the main "ingredient" in guidelines is that a church worker should never be alone with a child - 2 adults have to always be present. Also, if parents are aware of potential danger (because of guidelines or otherwise), they are more likely to teach their children about abuse prevention, so even if guidelines fail or the abuser works around them, the child may be better equipped to deal with potential danger. Based on the above premisses, I don't see a reason for why guidelines should be viewed as a potential danger in dealing with abuse prevention. There is difference between trusting potential abusers because of guidelines (who would do that, anyway?) and trusting an organization because they take children's safety issue seriously (not in a way that reduces our own vigilance, of course). I apologize if this has already been stated, I'm just now picking up the thread where I left of yesterday... I was responding to What Hat when he said that if the workers were adhering to the guideline of not saying prayers in the child's room, that it narrowed down the amount of people you needed to be suspicious of. Maybe that's not what he meant, and if so then I'm wrong. But if he did mean that, that is what I was referring to as dangerous. They will likely adhere to all the guidelines while in the public eye. That would be smart. Take the suspicion off themselves. But then find another way to make the abuse happen. Hope that explains my view a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 11:03:57 GMT -5
You can't live in a world of "should". You might as well say that the perpetrators "shouldn't" molest children. Only a given percentage of cases are reported, and if you understand the situations involved, you'll realize that's not going to greatly change. Yet it is believed that the guidelines should be followed. ... ET CETERA The church is not a separate organization apart from the parents. The church is the parents, and the parents in the church work together to solve the problem. A careful reading of my posts and those of others should make that clear to you. You also exhibit some confusion of the kinds of behaviours that are prohibited by the guidelines. The guidelines are not trying to merely prevent only explicit abuse, or to have people watch for signs of explicit abuse. That simply won't work, because perps are highly manipulative and slippery, and because grooming behaviours leading up to the abuse are indistinguishable from non-malevolent behaviours. The guidelines seek to prevent or alter, all behaviours, innocent and otherwise, which might potentially involve grooming. What we used to call 'street proofing' is not enough. So a worker should NOT be routinely taking pictures of young children in various domestic situations, because he could be trying to gain the children's trust, and this behaviour could lead to worse, if indeed the worker was a pervert. It's really important that you get this principle, before you disagree with it. Of course, such an action by a worker is going to upset parents. Of course, they're going to gossip and get up their hackles. No apology for that is necessary by the parents, ever. Guidelines should deal with this kind of behaviour, whether the worker meant harm or not. And in the event the guidelines did not anticipate a behavior such as this one, it should be discussed in committee with parents, and also reported to a co-ordinator who would coach or reprimand the worker in question. Rational, this is way below your usual grade of critique, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 11:04:26 GMT -5
In my mind, guidelines have more than one purpose: one purpose is to put in place measures that would minimize potential for abuse; another purpose is to alert parents and everybody else that there is a potential that children may be abused. In churches like 2x2 where the community is close-nit and there is a high level of trust already developed and promoted, people can let their guard down and assume their kids are safe when they may not be. (Been there, done that!) Guidelines not just prevent abuse to a certain degree, but also acknowledge there is a problem and potential danger and can bring about a higher degree of awareness and alertness to potential problems. Snow, the second paragraph seems to indicate that those of us who want to put restrictions on previous offenders' involvement with children are justified? I agree that guidelines serve another purpose and that is to give parents a heads up that there is a problem they need to pay attention to. Awareness is a huge part of keeping them safe. Denying anything happens is why kids can be more vulnerable. I would say people should always be aware of the potential. Previous offenders can re-offend (obviously), though not at the rate that many people believe. Are they justified in putting restrictions on previous offenders? I can see why they would want to. Many are not comfortable and to give them peace of mind I suppose it's something that can be done for that reason. However, we always need to remember that there are usually already restrictions put on them by the authorities. Conditions of their release into the public again. Educating parents about what these conditions are is a good start. Putting further restrictions on them is not always needed. Most already have a condition that they cannot be around minor children without another adult being present. If that condition is enforced by the church then you already have a good protection in place. I think further restrictions are likely more for the peace of mind of the parents. They are not wrong to want them. And, in most cases an offender that has learned from their mistake will make sure they follow these restrictions so they don't give the people around them cause for suspicion. But bottom line is that if someone wants to molest a minor, they will work pretty hard to make it happen. In the case of a worker, they don't even have to groom the child in order to intimidate enough to abuse them. If the child has been indoctrinated enough to believe that everything the workers do is right, that they can't be questioned, then that child is in danger no matter what. Guidelines while important shouldn't lead to complacency by parents. Amen No parent that understands the need for guidelines would relax and be complacent because of guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 28, 2014 12:09:06 GMT -5
Guidelines teach us to not trust, so as a result parents and church workers are less likely to put children in situations where abuse can happen. Guidelines should even specifically prevent such situations. How would guidelines make things easier for a potential abuser to abuse if guidelines are followed? Let's not forget that the main "ingredient" in guidelines is that a church worker should never be alone with a child - 2 adults have to always be present. Also, if parents are aware of potential danger (because of guidelines or otherwise), they are more likely to teach their children about abuse prevention, so even if guidelines fail or the abuser works around them, the child may be better equipped to deal with potential danger. Based on the above premisses, I don't see a reason for why guidelines should be viewed as a potential danger in dealing with abuse prevention. There is difference between trusting potential abusers because of guidelines (who would do that, anyway?) and trusting an organization because they take children's safety issue seriously (not in a way that reduces our own vigilance, of course). I apologize if this has already been stated, I'm just now picking up the thread where I left of yesterday... I was responding to What Hat when he said that if the workers were adhering to the guideline of not saying prayers in the child's room, that it narrowed down the amount of people you needed to be suspicious of. Maybe that's not what he meant, and if so then I'm wrong. But if he did mean that, that is what I was referring to as dangerous. They will likely adhere to all the guidelines while in the public eye. That would be smart. Take the suspicion off themselves. But then find another way to make the abuse happen. Hope that explains my view a bit better. The purpose of the guidelines is also to give parents some teeth in regulating worker behaviour in their home. Right now, if a worker wanted to say evening prayers with a child in their bedroom, what's a parent going to say? Three possibilities. Parent 1) No. Parent 2) Yes, but with reservations. Parent 3) Yes. Parent 1. Without the guidelines, the parent who says 'no' is in the difficult position of going against a worker. Not a nice place to be. The guidelines affirm that this activity is not allowed. Parent 2. The parent is put in an anxious state by the situation, and while the parent may be vigilant, a guideline will prevent the anxiety. With the guidelines, the parent and the worker knows this is not allowed. Parent 3. This parent it too trusting and needs to be educated about the possibilities, in addition to needing some teeth. If the guidelines are done properly a perpetrator is going to have difficulty getting and gaining the trust of a child. There is no reason the worker can't interact with children while parents are present. But the guidelines establish off-limits areas for the worker, basically no 1-on-1 interaction with children. The guidelines will protect the parents who follow them; to those who don't - they remain vulnerable. In some respects, and it seems callous to say but it is true, it's like the two guys running from an attacking bear, knowing the bear is faster than both of them. They can't outrun the bear, but they just have to outrun the other guy. Implement a safe zone for children in your home, and the perp is going to practice his wiles somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 14:01:10 GMT -5
I was responding to What Hat when he said that if the workers were adhering to the guideline of not saying prayers in the child's room, that it narrowed down the amount of people you needed to be suspicious of. Maybe that's not what he meant, and if so then I'm wrong. But if he did mean that, that is what I was referring to as dangerous. They will likely adhere to all the guidelines while in the public eye. That would be smart. Take the suspicion off themselves. But then find another way to make the abuse happen. Hope that explains my view a bit better. The purpose of the guidelines is also to give parents some teeth in regulating worker behaviour in their home. Right now, if a worker wanted to say evening prayers with a child in their bedroom, what's a parent going to say? Three possibilities. Parent 1) No. Parent 2) Yes, but with reservations. Parent 3) Yes. Parent 1. Without the guidelines, the parent who says 'no' is in the difficult position of going against a worker. Not a nice place to be. The guidelines affirm that this activity is not allowed. Parent 2. The parent is put in an anxious state by the situation, and while the parent may be vigilant, a guideline will prevent the anxiety. With the guidelines, the parent and the worker knows this is not allowed. Parent 3. This parent it too trusting and needs to be educated about the possibilities, in addition to needing some teeth. If the guidelines are done properly a perpetrator is going to have difficulty getting and gaining the trust of a child. There is no reason the worker can't interact with children while parents are present. But the guidelines establish off-limits areas for the worker, basically no 1-on-1 interaction with children. The guidelines will protect the parents who follow them; to those who don't - they remain vulnerable. In some respects, and it seems callous to say but it is true, it's like the two guys running from an attacking bear, knowing the bear is faster than both of them. They can't outrun the bear, but they just have to outrun the other guy. Implement a safe zone for children in your home, and the perp is going to practice his wiles somewhere else. Yes guidelines do give the parent grounds to say no when they might feel bad about doing so otherwise. A very good point. My concern was that they should never be seen as fool proof, marking a worker off the suspect list just because he appears to be following all the rules 'in public'. I agree it does give kids a larger safe zone. Every little thing put in place is one more obstacle for the abuser. That is always a good thing. As Maja pointed out, parents that are aware enough to know there are guidelines are also parents that are aware there is a problem and that will make them more vigilant than those who don't. I agree with that also.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 14:07:06 GMT -5
The protection of children is the responsibility of their parents/guardians. And the rest of the children's community.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 14:15:35 GMT -5
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. Has there been an issue? Here's a case study you might consider: wingsbts.proboards.com/thread/249/bob-2
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 14:19:42 GMT -5
It possibly won't happen now that workers have their own guidelines, but at the same time, you DO still want workers talking and interacting with young people. The idea of implementing guidelines is to think collectively and constructively about situations like this, and how they should be handled. How do we know that workers have their own guidelines?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 28, 2014 14:32:17 GMT -5
The protection of children is the responsibility of their parents/guardians. Of course, but it's not the sole responsibility of parents acting individually. The church owes them support in this; it's a moral obligation. In the courts churches are now susceptible to vicarious liability if they do not provide this support. I have been told that insurance companies will with-hold liability insurance if a church has not performed due diligence in the area of child sexual abuse and awareness. True. It's a moral obligation - not to mention a spiritual obligation. When the church fails to protect its own children from sex abuse, clearly there is something wrong. Even worse - when the church tries to weasel out of its responsibility to protect its own children, and secular authorities have to step in, then as a church we should hang our heads in shame. (added commas for readability)
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 14:32:58 GMT -5
It possibly won't happen now that workers have their own guidelines, but at the same time, you DO still want workers talking and interacting with young people. The idea of implementing guidelines is to think collectively and constructively about situations like this, and how they should be handled. How do we know that workers have their own guidelines? A European worker told us that it's not even safe to talk about these issues with other workers... never mind guidelines... And, we know that Eastern US area has no guidelines. But, I know that doesn't answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 15:11:10 GMT -5
Yet it is believed that the guidelines should be followed. ... ET CETERA The church is not a separate organization apart from the parents. The church is the parents, and the parents in the church work together to solve the problem. A careful reading of my posts and those of others should make that clear to you. But that is not the situation for all people who have their children in a church, even the F&W church. The church is an organization that is apart from the parents unless the parents choose to make that organization as responsible for the care of their children. I actually fully understand this. I think it is sad and probably not a very effective way to accomplish the end goal, the abuse of children. It is the equivalent of wrapping your children in bubble-wrap to prevent any damage. It is easy, the bubble-wrap does the work and the children are, for the most part, safe. But at what cost? Did it really work ever work? And if he gets up to get a drink he should not offer to get a drink for a child in the room because he could be trying to gain the children's trust, and this behaviour could lead to worse, if indeed the worker was a pervert. I have disagreed with it since the idea was introduced.Of course not - they are being irrational, gossiping about the behavior of another individual, spreading rumors - but it concerns someone who could be a pervert so that behavior is all OK.There are so many things wrong with this approach - from the parents of the child not addressing the situation directly with the child and the worker, to getting other parents involved, to discussing the issue with a co-ordinator, who is a member of the organization, and allowing him to deal with the suspect. Let's give the parents some credit. If they think that a worker is photographing their children and that this activity has the potential to lead to abuse then there is enough suspicion to report it. If it is simply taking photographs and there is nothing to indicate a problem, monitor it closely and make sure the child is safe. All the grooming in the world leads to nothing if the parents are protecting their children. Perhaps because you are vested in group guidelines, an organization sharing the responsibility of protecting children with the parents, and a group response when there is suspicious activity. Of course, all of this assumes that the greatest source of child abuse, the parents and family, are not the offenders.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 15:14:53 GMT -5
True. It's a moral obligation It is a moral obligation for everyone.Probably best not to mention this. The church doesn't have any children of its own. The parents have children. And if they are being abused in church - where were the parents? Now you have drifted to criminal matters.
|
|