|
|
Post by spiders on Oct 18, 2010 17:53:01 GMT -5
I agree ram. Many people who have been abused are afraid to go to the authorities, but would feel more comfortable dealing with someone who they know and trust within the church environment. Perhaps the overseer who has been assigned. Or the local priest who has been designated to monitor these things. If people are afraid to go to the authorities is the reason usually because it will name the church members responsible as a criminal? This is certainly what the party line in the past has been. Why do you think going to the very organization that people are worried about hurting is going to be any easier than going to the authorities? Could it be because the victims feel that going to the authorities will certainly result in investigation but going to a gatekeeper they will have informed but the investigation may remain internal? Why do you think people are afraid to go to the authorities? You have got to remember that we are dealing with young children being abused who will be feeling hurt, confused, embarrassed etc. They will not be thinking rationally and certainly not likely to take themselves off down to the local police station and report what has happened to them. In most cases they will not even tell their parents for a whole range of reasons, including protecting the ministry. However if the church had a qualified Child Protection Officer with whom they were confident in approaching, this would enable the abused child to talk with someone who understands the situation in a less confronting manner that might be the case with the police and other authorities. The church would need to mandate the CPO with the responsibility of dealing with the abused child in the most appropriate manner, realising that they would report it to the authorities and not cover it up internally as has been the case over many years in Vic/Tas. The CPO will also have the experience and ability to recognise symptoms of abuse in a child and to approach them in a sensitive way, thus preventing further abuse from occuring. This would require a huge change in mindset for the F&W group, but one that is necessary if they are going to take CSA seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 18, 2010 19:57:16 GMT -5
Perhaps the overseer who has been assigned. Or the local priest who has been designated to monitor these things. If people are afraid to go to the authorities is the reason usually because it will name the church members responsible as a criminal? This is certainly what the party line in the past has been. Why do you think going to the very organization that people are worried about hurting is going to be any easier than going to the authorities? Could it be because the victims feel that going to the authorities will certainly result in investigation but going to a gatekeeper they will have informed but the investigation may remain internal? Why do you think people are afraid to go to the authorities? You have got to remember that we are dealing with young children being abused who will be feeling hurt, confused, embarrassed etc. They will not be thinking rationally and certainly not likely to take themselves off down to the local police station and report what has happened to them. In most cases they will not even tell their parents for a whole range of reasons, including protecting the ministry. However if the church had a qualified Child Protection Officer with whom they were confident in approaching, this would enable the abused child to talk with someone who understands the situation in a less confronting manner that might be the case with the police and other authorities. The church would need to mandate the CPO with the responsibility of dealing with the abused child in the most appropriate manner, realising that they would report it to the authorities and not cover it up internally as has been the case over many years in Vic/Tas. The CPO will also have the experience and ability to recognise symptoms of abuse in a child and to approach them in a sensitive way, thus preventing further abuse from occuring. This would require a huge change in mindset for the F&W group, but one that is necessary if they are going to take CSA seriously. Give me an example of how this would actually proceed. The f&w don't have Sunday school teachers who might get confided in and don't have youth groups and youth leaders, etc. So who is the child going to talk to, if not the parents? Grandparents? Workers?? (They will hardly know them because they will only be occasional dinner guests.  ) Parents or grandparents would be as likely to go to authorities as to a liaison, not wanting to disturb the child's privacy any more than necessary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 20:12:43 GMT -5
Child consults CPO because child already knows CPO will know what to do.
Child tells parent or sibling, parent or sibling consults CPO for how to proceed.
Child tells elder of meeting who consults CPO for how to proceed.
Child tells worker who consults CPO for how to proceed.
Child tells..........and so on.
With a CPO, you can be more confident that things will proceed properly, with the needs of the victim paramount and the alleged offended being treated properly too.
Expecting a child to go directly to the authorities is not reasonable although that is to be encouraged too. The important thing is that the knowledge resource is right at hand, and that it will be a child-centered approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Oct 18, 2010 20:27:32 GMT -5
Child consults CPO because child already knows CPO will know what to do. Child tells parent or sibling, parent or sibling consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells elder of meeting who consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells worker who consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells..........and so on. With a CPO, you can be more confident that things will proceed properly, with the needs of the victim paramount and the alleged offended being treated properly too. Expecting a child to go directly to the authorities is not reasonable although that is to be encouraged too. The important thing is that the knowledge resource is right at hand, and that it will be a child-centered approach. Exactly Clearday...thanks Operating in this way is foreign to the F&W who don't have any organisational structure. I realise it is going to take a huge change of mindset and changes to the system before something like this could work. However with commitment from those at the top and properly resourced it can be done. Positive action is required....the future of our children is paramount. There has to be zero tolerance on child abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 18, 2010 20:31:36 GMT -5
The church would need to mandate the CPO with the responsibility of dealing with the abused child in the most appropriate manner, realising that they would report it to the authorities and not cover it up internally as has been the case over many years in Vic/Tas. This is a huge paradigm shift because the church currently mandates the ministry for practically everything. That's why the friends feel so betrayed - the ones who the friends have been taught to trust without question have proven unworthy of that trust. The typical attitude of workers is that when it comes to authority, "the church" is the ministry. So if a CPO is mandated by "the church" it will be the ministry that does the mandating. And the ministry can't even own up to its own history, let alone own up to CSA and immorality within its ranks. With God's help these challenges can be resolved but a band aid approach will not work. This is serious stuff folks, and it won't happen without a major paradigm shift. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 18, 2010 21:17:17 GMT -5
*Voting 'no' on increasing organization.*
JMO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 21:19:10 GMT -5
Child consults CPO because child already knows CPO will know what to do. Child tells parent or sibling, parent or sibling consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells elder of meeting who consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells worker who consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells..........and so on. With a CPO, you can be more confident that things will proceed properly, with the needs of the victim paramount and the alleged offended being treated properly too. Expecting a child to go directly to the authorities is not reasonable although that is to be encouraged too. The important thing is that the knowledge resource is right at hand, and that it will be a child-centered approach. Exactly Clearday...thanks Operating in this way is foreign to the F&W who don't have any organisational structure. I realise it is going to take a huge change of mindset and changes to the system before something like this could work. However with commitment from those at the top and properly resourced it can be done. Positive action is required....the future of our children is paramount. There has to be zero tolerance on child abuse. It would be a lot like the designated bible and hymn book seller in the field. I don't know if these persons still exist in each field but it was once quite common. There would a be designated person who would inventory some bibles and hymnbooks plus have access to special orders. This person had to be trained in what was available, able to carry the cost of inventory,and be trustworthy with money. The CPO system could be very similar so it isn't without precedence in the fellowship. There would be little more involved than with the hymnbook seller. The CPO would need to have some good personal characteristics, some complex training, and should be communicative enough to go around to the parents in each field and explain their role, even give the parents information and resources....and generally just raise awareness of the issue. The CPO could be a great resource for not only dealing with offenses, but more importantly, for prevention by raising awareness and knowledge levels. They could be a resource not just for in-church offenses, but for prevention and offenses which occur in school or elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 21:44:10 GMT -5
Oh my goodness. And what do you think forms the major part of the enquiry.? It is the criminal investigation! Now who deals with that! Of course the police. They are brought in by child protective services when appropriate. t doesn't really matter which agency you start with. They will contact the appropriate service. In the US 42 U.S.C. § 5101 deals with this. Every state has a toll free hot line set up for the very purpose of reporting abuse. Who mans that phone line varies from state to state. But in every case, the files report is acted on. OK The police publication says report first to the authorities. The social agencies say report it directly to the police. Other than the publication from the church I do not see anyone suggesting to report it to a designated member of the organization that the criminal was a member of. If you re-read the document, the advice gives three options of reporting matters, i.e, the police, social services or to the CCPAS themselves. All will ensure the correct action is taken.[/quote]The CoE publication advices to report it first to the designated church member. Then they report it if they feel it is appropriate. Reporting directly to the police, except in the excerpt copied from the police publication, is very low (usually last) on the list. Why are you so vested in inserting a potential weak link into the reporting chain? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 22:01:06 GMT -5
You have got to remember that we are dealing with young children being abused who will be feeling hurt, confused, embarrassed etc. They will not be thinking rationally and certainly not likely to take themselves off down to the local police station and report what has happened to them. In most cases they will not even tell their parents for a whole range of reasons, including protecting the ministry. Some older children will contact the police. The hot lines have been used extensively in the US. They receive millions of calls. The problem is that the church has wanted to keep it all internal. Ahh. A church member that they can trust. One who is more trust worthy that say, the overseer. I see. Make it illegal to cover it up. And you fail to see the flaw in this plan. Right. Hopefully you just forgot the part about reporting to the authorities. Or you could just tell people to report abuse to the authorities. First. Before anyone decides it is not 'appropriate'. This too would be a huge change in mindset. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 22:17:11 GMT -5
Child consults CPO because child already knows CPO will know what to do. Perhaps teach the child what to do. Report the crime. CPO decides that it is not really serious enough to report. Decided to table the report. CPO does not want the worker to be implicated so the advice is to wait to see if it happens again or if it was just a case of mistaken intent. CPO does not think there is any evidence of abuse so does not report it. CPO thinks the child is making it up.... and so on. With a CPO you have introduced a filter between the victim and the authorities. The 800 hot lines set up for children in the US get millions of calls. In any state you can file via a 800 number. By a church member. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 18, 2010 22:20:57 GMT -5
The CPO could be a great resource for not only dealing with offenses, but more importantly, for prevention by raising awareness and knowledge levels. They could be a resource not just for in-church offenses, but for prevention and offenses which occur in school or elsewhere. A great idea for setting up training and awareness of the problem and the actions that should be taken if there is a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 18, 2010 22:32:45 GMT -5
*Voting 'no' on increasing organization.* JMO I can understand where you're coming from Emy. The church takes no responsibility for officiating marriages, chosing rather to leave it in secular hands. Perhaps in the same way the church could make a clear stand that CSA is entirely a secular responsibility? This would need to be communicated clearly though so that everyone understands that the ministry is not immune to CSA in its ranks. Any concerns should be immediately reported to the police. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2010 22:47:07 GMT -5
Child consults CPO because child already knows CPO will know what to do. Perhaps teach the child what to do. Report the crime. Good, but not good enough. Most 7 year old children won't walk down to the police station and file reports. They will walk over to the PS3 and let the wound fester. CPO is trained to do the right thing. They are mandated to report. CPO is trained to do the right thing. They are mandated to report. No. You have introduced a conduit. Good, but not good enough. [/quote] By a trained individual mandated to report, knowledgeable in prevention. |
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Oct 18, 2010 23:23:13 GMT -5
Or you could just tell people to report abuse to the authorities. First. Before anyone decides it is not 'appropriate'. This too would be a huge change in mindset. In Vic/Tas there is not a good track record of victims of CSA reporting their abuse to the authorities. The current perpetrator who is being investigated by the police has been abusing children for 30 yrs and God only knows how many victims have been suffering. How many of these victims reported the abuse to the authorities? A big fat zero! It took one brave victim to tell her story many years later, not to the authorities, but to someone she trusted in the church. Action was then taken to report the case to the police. There has to be a better way of getting abuse cases reported to the authorities and it seems to me that the role of a CPO can be a positive one to ensure that this happens in a timely way. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Oct 18, 2010 23:28:55 GMT -5
*Voting 'no' on increasing organization.* JMO I can understand where you're coming from Emy. The church takes no responsibility for officiating marriages, chosing rather to leave it in secular hands. Perhaps in the same way the church could make a clear stand that CSA is entirely a secular responsibility?This would need to be communicated clearly though so that everyone understands that the ministry is not immune to CSA in its ranks. Any concerns should be immediately reported to the police. THANK YOU!!! |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Oct 19, 2010 0:13:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2010 2:21:45 GMT -5
Perhaps teach the child what to do. Report the crime. Good, but not good enough. Most 7 year old children won't walk down to the police station and file reports. They will walk over to the PS3 and let the wound fester. Be realistic. A 7 year old child will not report to anyone. It will be the parents of guardians. Some older people will walk to the police station but many more will use the phone or Internet for reporting. Ministers are mandated. Child care workers are mandated. In Texas all people are mandated. Priests were trained to do the right thing. Doctors are trained to do the right thing and are mandated. If you are abusing children do you really think being mandated to report is going to make a difference? Is this the new mantra? Let's see. A minor comes to the designated church member and says they have been abused. They can be directed to the toll free number or assisted in filing the necessary forms or: The minor can report it to the designated church member and give them time to decide if the report seems accurate. If it seems accurate the CPO passes along second hand information in the initial report. Or, they decide the report was probably not a case of abuse and counsel the victim to think about it because making a false claim could get a lot of people into trouble. Why are you are ram so against doing what the police in two countries say is the best approach - report abuse directly to the police? Why do you want a gatekeeper? You seem to be putting a lot of stock in this mandate. Priests and bishops in the RCC were mandated reporters. They still are. Why do you think criminals are going to obey the law? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 19, 2010 2:35:50 GMT -5
In Vic/Tas there is not a good track record of victims of CSA reporting their abuse to the authorities. The current perpetrator who is being investigated by the police has been abusing children for 30 yrs and God only knows how many victims have been suffering. How many of these victims reported the abuse to the authorities? A big fat zero! Of course none reported. If they told anyone it was handled within the church. Think of the difference if the parents and/or children had been educated regarding CSA and what to do? If the first victim went to the police, instead of a church member, think how different things would be. Someone in authority? Or just another person who happened to be a member of the same denomination? Since this is not a religious issue why should anything other than perhaps the training, be controlled by the church? As we have seen for 100s of years the church has been the problem - not the solution. Everyone needs to start looking at religious leaders as what they are - people. Or you can continue to let the church be the gatekeepers for the reporting of crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by fred on Oct 19, 2010 4:07:13 GMT -5
Good, but not good enough. Most 7 year old children won't walk down to the police station and file reports. They will walk over to the PS3 and let the wound fester. Be realistic. A 7 year old child will not report to anyone. It will be the parents of guardians. Here's how it works in reality at the chalkface. A child usually discloses to someone they trust and feel at ease with - oddly enough this is mostly not the parents. Quite often a disclosure can be quite oblique and teachers are trained to pick up on pointers that might indicate abuse is happening. Occasionally a disclosure comes through one of their friends as all children are now run through programmes where go tell an adult is emphasised. At this point a teacher must not question the child but make notes of the disclosure, must report it immediately to the principal who must report it immediately to DOCS (community services). Mandated reporting. Now here's where it all falls down. Docs have trained counsellors whose job it is to investigate and who are able to come into cshools and interview the child (without parent consent). Unfortunately, the system is under-resourced and counsellors talk about a pile of referrals that they try to prioritise and so some may take a time to get to - some are never investigated if they are deemed minor abuses (non sexual or non life threatening). How much of what children are taught at school will be transferred to the church setting? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 5:10:22 GMT -5
Rational, the design of a CCPO is to strengthen the numbers of abuse cases that are reported to the police. It is not a weak link as you continue to perceive.
You fail to recognise that in many cases of CSA it takes a long time for signs to be seen in abused children. The police are not sitting in these communities. CCPO's act as an early warning sign also, for people to discuss things with, so that children can be put on the radar, long before there are sufficient suspicions to contact the police.
Emy, regarding your "no" for increased organisation. Between mandated reporting in some countries and the tightening of the legal noose around groups working with and having contact with children, you will find before long you will be dragged screaming and shouting down the aisle of instigating proper procedures.
All the mainstream churches and more are now governed by the increasing legislation in respect of CSA and other abuses and take their responsibilities seriously. Interesting too that if you read their procedures, you usually find they are not justifying themselves through having to follow the laws of the land which they are having to comply with, but through God's love and the moral, social and Christian responsibilities which should govern us all.
Isn't it interesting how the one and only true church of God on Earth wishes to shirk its responsibilities towards the children of its members, yet craves to stay in their homes at night grooming them into professing and going into the work?
Child protection first. Robust measures to support education and reduce opportunities.
How can you trust those who take upon themselves the title of true servants of God when they are negligent in their service towards your children?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 5:37:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 5:44:07 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 5:56:27 GMT -5
Not to be outdone by the Catholics, here is the Church of England's Child Protection policy. Of course the Catholics can rightly take some credit since the CoE broke away from them during a bout of domestic abuse (Henry VIII). In reading the document expect to have your Christian conscience pricked with regards to child protection responsibilities. www.peterborough-diocese.org.uk/downloads/childprotectionpolicy.pdf |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 6:45:32 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2010 6:56:30 GMT -5
And even the good old Texan Bappies have similar guidelines to the Brits! And that's even with a law of mandatory reporting of CSA to the authorities by the person who discovers it! There is clergy privilege though for these persons. They are allowed to discuss the matter with their pastor before notifying the authorities. It is an accepted practice written into the guidelines. images.acswebnetworks.com/1/41/ChildProtectionPolicies.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 19, 2010 6:56:58 GMT -5
Perhaps the overseer who has been assigned. Or the local priest who has been designated to monitor these things. If people are afraid to go to the authorities is the reason usually because it will name the church members responsible as a criminal? This is certainly what the party line in the past has been. Why do you think going to the very organization that people are worried about hurting is going to be any easier than going to the authorities? Could it be because the victims feel that going to the authorities will certainly result in investigation but going to a gatekeeper they will have informed but the investigation may remain internal? Why do you think people are afraid to go to the authorities? You have got to remember that we are dealing with young children being abused who will be feeling hurt, confused, embarrassed etc. They will not be thinking rationally and certainly not likely to take themselves off down to the local police station and report what has happened to them. In most cases they will not even tell their parents for a whole range of reasons, including protecting the ministry. However if the church had a qualified Child Protection Officer with whom they were confident in approaching, this would enable the abused child to talk with someone who understands the situation in a less confronting manner that might be the case with the police and other authorities. The church would need to mandate the CPO with the responsibility of dealing with the abused child in the most appropriate manner, realising that they would report it to the authorities and not cover it up internally as has been the case over many years in Vic/Tas. The CPO will also have the experience and ability to recognise symptoms of abuse in a child and to approach them in a sensitive way, thus preventing further abuse from occuring. This would require a huge change in mindset for the F&W group, but one that is necessary if they are going to take CSA seriously. Wouldn't it be necessary to have a CPO for nearly every state, district or even meeting? |
|
|
|
Post by spiders on Oct 19, 2010 6:58:52 GMT -5
And here is one put out by the Anglican Church in Australia They are all at it...........what about the F&W?  www.psu.anglican.asn.au/ |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Oct 19, 2010 7:01:17 GMT -5
Child consults CPO because child already knows CPO will know what to do. Child tells parent or sibling, parent or sibling consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells elder of meeting who consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells worker who consults CPO for how to proceed. Child tells..........and so on. With a CPO, you can be more confident that things will proceed properly, with the needs of the victim paramount and the alleged offended being treated properly too. Expecting a child to go directly to the authorities is not reasonable although that is to be encouraged too. The important thing is that the knowledge resource is right at hand, and that it will be a child-centered approach. Preschool children really have a limited source and way and that usually would be their mother, sometimes their father UNLESS they were especially close to a grandparent. School age children could and some would apt to tell their teacher or school counselor. I think that a majority of child molestations ARE discovered by teachers simply because they are quick to see abnormal behaviour on the child. |
|
) Parents or grandparents would be as likely to go to authorities as to a liaison, not wanting to disturb the child's privacy any more than necessary. 
