Author: Joelle Casteix

  • What if Rosa didn’t take a stand?

    In 1955, a woman named Rosa Parks refused to give up her Montgomery, Alabama bus seat to a white man.

    But on that day, she did not stand up and shout, “If ALL African Americans can’t have complete and equal rights and access, then NO ONE should get anything!”

    Why? Because civil rights movements are intellectual, emotional and legislative wars, fought battle by battle. Rosa Parks could not win the war in one fell swoop. But she could win a battle.

    Which brings us to California’s SB 131, the Child Victims’ Act. SB 131 opens a one-year civil window for victims to come forward in the civil courts to expose their abuser, get justice, and punish wrongdoers. The state had a similar bill in 2003, but because of last year’s California Supreme Court decision in the Quarry case, many victims were excluded, even if they had mountains of evidence. This bill fixes that.

    According to today’s editorial in the San Jose Mercury News:

    Why should [a civil window] ever end? Why should those responsible for abuse get a pass if enough time goes by?

    Yet opponents of the bill, including the California Catholic Conference, US Swimming, and CAPSO call the bill a “mockery of legal protection.” They claim that the bill creates two classes of victims, those abused in public institutions and those abused in private schools. And they are terribly wrong.

    If we don’t take a stand against abuse where we can RIGHT NOW, how can we fight for other victims next week, next month or next year? Public school victims don’t look at us with envy, they look at us for HOPE. They know that this civil window WILL expose perpetrators in public schools—men like Joseph Pina who worked in the LAUSD, even though district officials knew Pina had been accused of abuse while a priest in the Archdiocese.

    Public school victims know that by exposing as many perpetrators and as much cover-up as we can, we can help build public outrage and help defeat sovereign immunity, the law that currently protects public entities from any civil lawsuit.

    Portraying victims as petulant children with a “How about me?” mentality is shameful and insulting to the victims’ movement. When victims won rights in Delaware, Hawaii and Minnesota, victims in other states didn’t say, “That’s not fair!” Instead they cheered—because a win for one victim is a win for all victims. It’s one more victory in battle that helps us all win the war. Any time a child is protected, a survivor gets strength, healing and hope.

    If SB 131 is killed, we will NEVER be able to expose abuse in public schools, because we won’t have the evidence, support and wins necessary to take on a much larger opponent. SB 131 is a strategic necessity in defeating sovereign immunity and exposing organizations that spend millions to protect abusers in public schools.

    If you want to expose abuse in public schools, you MUST support California’s SB 131. If the bill dies, public school victims will never have a fighting chance.

    Just like Rosa Parks, we have to start small. But our goals include victory and healing for all. One battle at a time.

  • Institutions need to get out of the sex abuse investigation business

    Your question of the day:

    You see a child being sexually abused and beaten on a street corner. Whom do you call? Answer: The local university, your bishop, your commander or the leader of the closest nonprofit.

    Ridiculous? Of course it is. Utterly absurd? Yes. Child endangerment? You bet. So let’s try again with the correct answer: You call law enforcement. Why? Because law enforcement is in the investigation business. Universities, churches, corporate entities and other nonprofits are NOT.

    So why do we act so absurdly when we witness abuse on the Penn State campus, at the local parish, or a college campus? Because we were (wrongly) told and convinced it is the right thing to do.

    We need to re-calibrate our thinking: institutions should never be in the sex abuse investigation business. When it comes to crime, our loyalty is to justice and accountability, not institutions.

    images

    We don’t ask the police to engineer technological innovation, make money for investors, create jobs, help make the US a leader in international business, or work towards nonprofit social good. We ask them to solve crimes. So why do we ask corporations to investigate sexual abuse?

    The Corporate Model

    Institutions are corporations FIRST – whether the corporation be the Catholic Church, Penn State, or the Boy Scouts. Victims and the public must understand that the loyalties of the officers of the corporations legally reside with the institution. That is the primary obligation of corporate officers. This is good thing – until it comes to self-policing and sexual abuse. Investigating sexual abuse by an agent of the corporation or by someone over whom the corporation has control is in direct contradiction to this obligation – especially if the results are harmful to the corporation.

    Maliciously or not, these corporations have set up internal reporting and investigation systems to protect themselves and remain in business – protecting jobs, innovation and investors.

    The military has a term for why internal investigations protect the institution – unlawful command influence, or UCI. Often called the “mortal enemy of military justice,” UCI happens when people in positions of power exert undue and wrongful influence (sometimes even accidentally) that affects the investigation and outcome of military trials. Most recently, the term has been used to describe the problem with sexual assault in the military, whether the influence keeps victims from getting justice, or impedes the ability of the accused to get a fair hearing, internal review, or in some cases, court martial.

    In the case of corporate entities, it’s about protecting the institution.

    Case in point: Jerry Sandusky. Penn State officials did not report to law enforcement because they felt that the adverse publicity would hurt both Penn State and the football program. Instead, they pretended to follow an internal reporting structure that broke down.

    Had someone just picked up the phone and called the cops, who knows how many victims could have been spared?

    Protections Against Civil Liability

    Another duty of corporate officers is to protect the corporation against civil liability. In general business, this usually forces a corporate entity to buy insurance, obey the law, and oversee processes. But in the case of sexual abuse investigation, this means the entity doesn’t wants victims coming back and suing the corporation for wrong doing. For example, in the Catholic Church, documents released in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles showed how Cardinal Mahony and others high ranking officials consciously moved to ensure that civil and criminal statutes of limitations would expire before victims sought help and justice.

    In the Diocese of Orange, church officials lied to parishioners about accusations against priests such as Michael Pecharich and others, in the hopes that victims would not come forward during a 2003 civil window in the statute of limitations. In this case, diocese officials allowed Pecharich to tell parishioners there was one “boundary violation” with a teen. Yet all along, the diocese was in possession of serious sexual abuse complaints against Pecharich. They hoped that by creating a ruse, they would protect the corporate church, mitigate liability, and get parishioners on their side.

    And guess what? These actions were all under the auspices of internal review boards.

    UCI in the Catholic Church

    There is no institution in the United States to whom we give more deference than the Catholic Church. Presidents sit next to high ranking bishops at the Al Smith Dinner, begging for the photo op that will give them boosts in the polls. Bishops exert great influence over state legislatures and have the instant capability to call lawmakers on their personal cell phones. They use the Bully Pulpit and the flock to try and kill victim-friendly laws, while also spending millions on lobbyists to ensure that victims of abuse are denied access to the courts. They use their implied moral superiority and “access to God” to scare and shame Catholics from coming forward about abuse and evidence.

    That’s some pretty scary stuff. It makes the military look like kindergarten.

    There is also no corporation who relies so heavily upon internal investigations of sexual abuse.

    Case in point: Kansas City Bishop Robert Flynn was convicted of criminal child endangerment last year because he protected the corporation, shielded a sex offender, and forced others to obey his “internal investigation structure.” Yet, he is still the leader of the area’s Catholics, even though he could not pass his own background check. As bishop, Flynn is still the moral and religious leader of the area’s Catholics, who, by church law, must obey him completely. He can deny Catholics communion and access to heaven. He can excommunicate those who disagree with him. Simply put, he holds compete power over Kansas City’s Catholics’ access to God.

    We know where Flynn’s true loyalty is, and it ain’t with the flock, kids or God.

    The Accused Are Thrown Under the Bus, Too

    Internal investigations of sexual abuse cases hurt more than just victims. At West Point, an internal investigation and UCI intervention (after a court marital found a cadet not guilty of assault) is threatening to destroy a young cadet’s future. The inability of bishops worldwide to come clean on sexual abuse by priests has cast a shadow of guilt on every man wearing a clerical collar.

    When you deny victims access to criminal and civil justice, you deny EVERYONE access to justice. Even the accused.

    So Now What?

    Who suffers when corporations internally investigate sexual abuse by agents, employees and other stakeholders? Everyone. Victims are disenfranchised and denied justice, wrong-doers go free, other accused are denied access to defense, and cover-up becomes the order of the day.

    If you have been abused, or have seen or suspected abuse, call law enforcement, no matter how long ago the abuse occurred. Investigate your rights in the civil justice system. Refuse to report to internal review systems in churches, schools and other institutions.

    Our justice system isn’t perfect. But at least its priorities are to protect the rights of both crime victims and those accused of crime, justice, transparency and accountability. The justice system IS in the investigation business.

    And there is no for- or nonprofit corporate body that can say that same.

     

     

  • Two colleges. Two sets of allegations. Two results.

    Yes, it’s personal.

    While UConn grabs headlines, will a Michigan college finally remove the admitted child molester on its own music faculty?

    The Associated Press reports today that UConn music professor Robert Miller has been put on administrative leave for the alleged sexual abuse of five boys from 1989 to 1992. What’s worse? School employees have known about the allegations for years.

    University employees were notified several times between 2006 and 2011 of allegations that Miller had sexual contact with children, but it wasn’t until February of this year that school administrators were told of the claims, according to UConn officials and the state attorney general’s office.

    Miller was finally placed on leave last month when higher-ups were told of the claims. Miller has also been accused of providing drugs and having sex with college students.

    Yet, in Adrian, Michigan, Adrian College officials have known since 2003 that music professor Thomas Hodgman was the subject of a $1.6 million child molestation lawsuit. As a part of the settlement, Hodgman’s secret personnel documents were made public—including Hodgman’s signed confession saying that he molested the victim in the case, as well as another girl.

    Ironically, the settlement was discussed in today’s Los Angeles Times.

    Thomas Hodgman sexual abuse victim Joelle Casteix speaks out at a press conference as Bishop Todd Brown from the Orange Diocese looks on.
    Thomas Hodgman sexual abuse victim Joelle Casteix speaks out at a press conference as Bishop Todd Brown from the Orange Diocese looks on.

    So why does UConn get all of the bad press? I believe that a closer look at Adrian College is far overdue.

  • What will Francis do?

    A United Nations’ committee has asked the Vatican to turn over documents pertaining to child sex abuse and cover up.

    According to The Tablet:

    The UN’s Geneva-based Committee on the Rights of the Child on Tuesday issued a list of demands for detailed information from the Holy See regarding all cases of child sexual abuse committed by clergy and Religious.

    The Vatican has until January to compile the information, in time for a meeting of the UN committee at which Vatican officials will be questioned.

    The Vatican is asked about the steps it has taken to prevent accused clergy from having access to children, about bishops who have failed to report allegations to the police, about what investigations the Church has run and what compensation or counselling [sic] the Church has offered victims, and about the safeguarding measures the Church has put in place to prevent future abuse.

    The real story will be in Francis’ response. The UN has no real authority over Vatican sovereignty  – in fact, Vatican officials have been giving this committee the run-around for years. The only consequences for noncompliance are sanctions. For a nation-state eye-deep in wealth and with a constant income stream from faithful Catholics worldwide, I am sure the Curia could not care less.

    So Francis has three choices:

    1. Pony up the documents,
    2. Tell the committee to go pound sand, or
    3. Stall

    Considering that the Vatican refuses to remove a bishop who pled guilty to child endangerment and that recent document dumps in LA and Milwaukee were embarrassing and exposed criminal activity, we can assume that Option 1 is off the table.

    So Francis is left with Option 2 and Option 3. Will he rise to the occasion (in the tradition of his namesake)?

    We shall see …