Category: Child safety

  • California outlaws secret abuse settlements, hidden evidence

    California outlaws secret abuse settlements, hidden evidence

    The era of secret child sex abuse settlements in California is over.

    I am usually quick to beat up on California Governor Jerry Brown for his poor record on protecting institutions who cover-up child sex abuse. But a new law enacted January 1, 2017, slipped under my radar— and organizations who harbor men and women who prey on children should be on notice.

    Assembly Bill 1682, introduced by Mark Stone and approved by Jerry Brown on September 30, 2016, says:

    SECTION 1.

    Section 1002 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to read:

     (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to the action is prohibited in any civil action the factual foundation for which establishes a cause of action for civil damages for any of the following:
    (1) An act that may be prosecuted as a felony sex offense.
    (2) An act of childhood sexual abuse, as defined in Section 340.1.
    (3) An act of sexual exploitation of a minor, as defined in Section 11165.1 of the Penal Code, or conduct prohibited with respect to a minor pursuant to Section 311.1, 311.5, or 311.6 of the Penal Code.
    (4) An act of sexual assault, as defined in paragraphs (1) to (9), inclusive, of subdivision (e) of Section 15610.63 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, against an elder or dependent adult, as defined in Sections 15610.23 and 15610.7 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
    (b) Notwithstanding any other law, in a civil action described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a), a court shall not enter, by stipulation or otherwise, an order that restricts the disclosure of information in a manner that conflicts with subdivision (a).
    (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not preclude an agreement preventing the disclosure of any medical information or personal identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 530.55 of the Penal Code, regarding the victim of the offense listed in subdivision (a) or of any information revealing the nature of the relationship between the victim and the defendant. This subdivision shall not be construed to limit the right of a crime victim to disclose this information.
    (d) Except as authorized by subdivision (c), a provision within a settlement agreement that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to the action described in subdivision (a) that is entered into on or after January 1, 2017, is void as a matter of law and against public policy.

    (e) An attorney’s failure to comply with the requirements of this section by demanding that a provision be included in a settlement agreement that prevents the disclosure of factual information related to the action described in subdivision (a) that is not otherwise authorized by subdivision (c) as a condition of settlement, or advising a client to sign an agreement that includes such a provision, may be grounds for professional discipline and the State Bar of California shall investigate and take appropriate action in any such case brought to its attention.

     

    In other words, if there are damaging documents (with the victims’ and innocent parties’ names redacted) about the guilt/liability of the perpetrator entered into evidence, they must be made public upon settlement.

    If there is damaging or embarrassing evidence about the cover-up – all evidence must be made public upon settlement. No more secret settlement documents.

    This is huge. One example: the six+ year fight that victims in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had with church lawyers to get secret abuse evidence made public would never have had to happen had this law been in effect in 2007 when their original settlement was reached.

    Who Will Feel the Pain?

    The scope of this new law is far greater than just clergy abuse (hooray!). Who will be affected the most? People like the Michael Jackson estate, who was able to pay large settlements to child victims in return for keeping evidence secret.

    Or the Boy Scouts, who have thousands of pages of perversion files—outlining decades of abuse—that the public has yet to see (and victims they are still fighting in the courts).

    Charles T. Ritz III, La Habra High School Teacher accused of abuse

    Who else? Public schools and teachers’ unions, who have created layers of regulations that protect offending teachers at the risk of vulnerable students—Teachers like alleged offender Charles Ritz who, after being accused of abuse by students in Illinois, was reportedly allowed to resign in the mid 1980s. By 1986, he was teaching in Fullerton, California, where he has now been accused of abuse by more than ten students.

    Why should teachers’ unions be on alert? Well, the California unions have regulations that expunge teachers’ personnel records of allegations of child sexual abuse or other criminal behavior after three years.

    And Ritz? He was the president of the local Fullerton teachers’ union.

    Here’s the kicker, from The Orange County Register:

    Although Ritz resigned from La Habra High in May, he renewed his California teaching credential in July.

    I’m sure he did.

    But as soon as his first victim uses the civil courts to expose him, we are going to learn a whole lot more.

     

  • San Diego parishioners kept in the dark about sexual assault

    San Diego parishioners kept in the dark about sexual assault

    For the second time in four years, a San Diego priest credibly accused (and later criminally charged) with sexual assault was allowed to stay in a parish while parishioners were kept in the dark.

    Apparently, Bishop Robert McElroy doesn’t think that’s a big deal. He’s wrong.

    Priest charged under Minnesota Law

    Fr. Jacob Andrew Bertrand is facing sexual assault charges in Minnesota.

    From NBC San Diego:

    A San Diego priest is facing charges for having sex with a woman in Minnesota while religiously advising her, allegedly paying her to keep quiet about their relationship.

    Jacob Andrew Bertrand, 32, a priest at the Diocese of San Diego, was charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the 3rd degree for having sex with the woman in 2010, according to a complaint filed in the County of Dakota in Minnesota.

    In Minnesota, it’s a felony for a member of the clergy to have sex with anyone who is “not their spouse, during the course of a meeting in which religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort is given, or while ongoing religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort is occurring.”

    Now here’s the rub: the alleged victim reported the 2010 assault to church officials in 2012 and 2014. But a spokesperson for the Diocese of San Diego said that Bertrand asked for a leave of absence in 2016 when he learned that criminal charges were going to be filed.

    Accused priest Jacob Bertrand
    Accused priest Jacob Bertrand

    San Diego knew about allegations, did nothing for four years

    If the victim reported to church officials in 2012, we can be assured that San Diego was informed of the fact that a woman was alleging that Bertrand had used his position of religious power to groom her, had sex with her during Mass, and paid her to keep quiet.

    But were parishioners informed? No. In fact, Bertrand was allowed to keep his job at St. Rose of Lima in Chula Vista and was even transferred to Santa Sophia in Spring Valley.

    Remember: the victim’s initial report came at the same time that San Diego priest Jose Alexis Davila was criminally charged for sexually assaulting an adult woman. He pled guilty. Even after that, Davila was quietly put back into a parish.

    McElroy has some explaining to do. Did Bertrand just “fall through the cracks” after the retirement of Robert Brom and the death of former Bishop Cirillo Flores?

    Should accused sex offenders EVER fall through the cracks?

  • The Devil is in the Details

    The Devil is in the Details

    Yesterday, NY Cardinal Timothy Dolan announced the The Independent Reconciliation and Compensation Program, a plan to compensate victims of child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of New York.

    There are great articles discussing the neutral and negative aspects of the plan, but before any survivor begins the process of working with the committee, there are a few details that I want to point out.

    Many Archdiocese victims excluded

    According to the FAQ:

    A claim may be made only against a priest or deacon of the Archdiocese of New York and no other diocese or religious order.

    So, if you were sexually abused by a teacher in the employ of the Archdiocese of NY  – like the teacher at Loyola School who molested seven girls – you’re out of luck.

    If you were abused by a member of a religious order (like the Christian Brothers) who are only allowed to work in the Archdiocese if they have the explicit permission of the Archbishop – you’re out of luck, too.

    Archdiocese allowed to hide “proof” that victims need for healing

    The FAQ goes on to state

    [Y]ou will be required to submit documentation to show evidence of the nature, frequency, location and time of the alleged sexual abuse.

    Why do you think that victims use civil law to seek justice? Because the proof LIVES IN THE SECRET FILES.

    For example, in my own case, I received more than 200 pages of secret personnel files—including the signed confession of my abuser. The Diocese of Orange (where my abuse occurred) had the proof all along.

    Most children who are sexually abused don’t have the wherewithal to collect signed affidavits to prove their abuse. That’s why they use the courts later on—to find out what the church knew and when they knew it.

    The Archdiocese has decades of proof and evidence of abuse. And church officials don’t have to reveal any of it.

    Victims must have come forward previously

    The FAQ states:

    In this initial phase, you must have previously notified the Archdiocese of an allegation of such abuse.

    So even if the Archdiocese knows full well that you are a victim, they can shut you out because you did not follow their exact protocol before yesterday.

    There is no guarantee that abusers will be exposed or removed

    This is the kicker. We will never get to know who the predators are and/or if they are still working with children and communities inside or outside the Archdiocese.

    What happens to the victim who gets compensation, only to learn that the man who abused him or her is hiding in plain site with access to children?

    There is no healing in that.

     

  • Why is Hon so scared?

    Why is Hon so scared?

    There is a huge chance that the history of the Catholic Church on Guam will be rewritten … by Catholics. And it’s pretty awesome.

    All it will take is a small change in the law that will give victims of sexual abuse the opportunity to use the civil courts to expose their abusers and the men and women who covered up the abuse.

    From the Pacific Daily News:

    Gov. Eddie Calvo is weighing the concerns of the Catholic church and the community as he decides what to do with a bill that would allow victims of child sexual abuse to sue their abusers, according to the governor’s office.

    Today is the governor’s last day to sign or veto Bill 326-33, or the bill lapses into law without his signature. Senators on Sept. 12 approved the bill 13-0. If it becomes law, it could make the Catholic church on Guam open to lawsuits by those who, in recent months, have publicly accused priests of raping or molesting them.

    In the past few days, Archbishop Savio Tai Fai Hon, the current apostolic administrator of the Catholic archdiocese, has collected signatures and spoken out against the bill. He says (like many of his brother bishops) that the bill will force them to close churches and end many needed services on the island.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The real fear is that this bill, if made law, will expose DOZENS of sex-abusing clerics on Guam. Worse (for him) still, victims will have the opportunity to find out WHAT church officials knew and WHEN they knew it.

    The law will also most likely expose clerics who molested kids and are STILL WORKING IN CHURCHES. Priests like Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who *ahem* is still the Archbishop. (Note: The Vatican has done NOTHING to help Guam’s victims, properly punish Apuron, or end abuse. NOTHING.)

    Since Apuron has now been accused of sexual abuse numerous times, Hon’s real problem isn’t money. His real problem is the exposure of an archdiocese that knew about abuse and abusers for DECADES.

    Instead of calling the police, archdiocese officials silenced victims, promoted abusers, and conned every single Catholic on the island into believing that their churches were safe.

    Catholics want the bill signed. In fact, Guam’s Catholics have been the driving force behind helping victims, exposing Apuron, and finding justice.

    Hopefully, Calvo agrees.