By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

On September 5, 2001, The Oregonian reported a settlement deal between the LDS Church and Jeremiah Scott, the victim of child sexual abuse:

The Mormon church on Tuesday announced the $3 million settlement of a sex-abuse case brought by a Portland-area man abused by a high priest as a boy, as both sides raced to declare victory. . . .

Alleging negligence and emotional distress, Scott’s lawsuit accuses the church of knowingly allowing a child molester to have access to children. . . .

The church admits no wrongdoing and settled the case Friday to avoid the cost of continued litigation, lawyers said Tuesday. . . .

Most cases similar to this one involve confidential settlements. Trial had been set for August, with the plaintiff seeking $1.5 billion in punitive damages.

In his 1998 lawsuit filed in Multnomah County, Scott accused the church of hiding the fact that Curtis, one of its high priests, was a pedophile. Curtis was excommunicated from the church in 1983 in Pennsylvania but was rebaptized in 1984 in Michigan. In 1988, he joined the Brentwood Ward in Portland.

Curtis lived with the Scott family twice, in 1990 and 1991, at Scott’s parents’ invitation. He repeatedly abused Scott on the second stay, when the two shared a bed because of lack of space in the Scott home. At the time, Curtis was 87 and Scott was 11. Curtis was later convicted of sex abuse. . . .

Scott’s mother, Sandra Scott, had consulted her bishop, Gregory Lee Foster, about taking in Curtis to live out his years in the family’s home. Foster advised her that she shouldn’t because of his advanced age but said nothing about pedophilia, although he knew of complaints about Curtis, the plaintiff said in his suit.

Foster, in a deposition, said he didn’t remember the complaints at the time of his conversation with Sandra Scott. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, pp. B1, 9)

However, according to Sandra Scott, Foster knew Curtis was a pedophile and yet did nothing to protect her son:

The lawsuit claims that Curtis sexually abused at least five children in the Rocky Butte Ward in Portland, where he became a member. A bishop confronted Curtis and he admitted the molestation.

Curtis joined another ward, where he told then Bishop Gregory Lee Foster that he had abused in the past. Foster didn’t report him because Curtis said he had repented, the lawsuit states. (Salt Lake Tribune, February 10, 2001, p. A5)

Sandra Scott says she called her former LDS bishop in 1993 to warn him that her son had been sexually abused by an aging Sunday school teacher her family had taken into their home.

She said she was “dumbfounded” when the bishop told her he had known the late Frank Curtis was a pedophile, but that he did not tell the Scotts because Curtis had repented. . . .

The LDS Church maintains Scott misunderstood the bishop, who was only trying to tell her he had heard about what had happened to her son and express his sympathies. (Salt Lake Tribune, September 6, 2001, p. B1)

After the victim reported the crime, Curtis was charged with sexual abuse and plead no contest to the felony, but died a year later in 1995. Foster, the victims former bishop, was dropped as a defendant in the lawsuit, leaving the LDS Church to defend against accusations of knowingly allowing a pedophile to have access to children.

“It’s not about the mistakes of an individual,” said David Slader, Scott’s lawyer, of Portland. “It’s about the policy of the Mormon church to intentionally conceal and cover up its knowledge that one of its high priests is a child molester.”

A church lawyer told a Salt Lake City newspaper Tuesday that “No church, including this one, had the ability to track all its members and inform every bishop in the country about the members’ past history.”

But internal Mormon documents, which The Oregonian obtained Aug. 17 from a public court file, memorialize both a 1982 disciplining of Curtis for, in the words of the church documents, “homosexual actions” and the 1983 excommunication for “homosexuality/ child molesting.” The words “child molesting” had been crossed out with a pen. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)

The courtroom battle over what the LDS Church knew and when it knew it escalated when the plaintiff’s attorneys demanded that the Church turn over documents it keeps on sexual predators and their victims. The LDS Church fought vigorously to prevent access to the records:

Portland, Ore.—Hoping to uncover what the Mormon church knew about a high priest convicted of sexually abusing an 11-year-old boy, a Multnomah County judge ordered the church to release internal records of sexabuse complaints and discipline actions. The church has filed an emergency appeal with the Oregon Supreme Court. (Salt Lake Tribune, February 10, 2001, p. A5)

And The Oregonian reported:

The settlement comes after Multnomah County Circuit Judge Ellen F. Rosenblum ordered, in January, the church to turn over all its internal records of sex-abuse complaints in the Portland area, regardless of the subject. Mormon attorney Von Keetch said the records involved a dozen Mormon sex offenders. . . .

“No religious institution in the history of the world is as diligent in keeping records as the Mormon church,” Slader said. “The Mormon church knew Curtis was abusing children. The Mormon church knew exactly where Curtis was, and the Mormon church did absolutely nothing to protect the children of the Brentwood Ward in Portland.” (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)

The records were sought due to the fact that child molesters tend to have a long history of abuse, often times involving multiple victims. Unfortunately, this case proved no different.

Curtis first served the church in Portland in 1978 and 1979, in the Linwood Ward, where he taught young children, and abused boys, according to depositions taken from victims and their parents.

One woman was briefly married to Curtis during that time. . . . In 1979, she walked in on him in the bathroom with a young boy, she wrote in an affidavit. “I was shocked and disgusted.” She wrote her bishop but said she never heard back from him or any other church official.

Slader said the plaintiff’s lawyers know of 20 other Curtis victims and expect lawsuits from at least a halfdozen of them. (The Oregonian, September 5, 2001, p. B9)

Sandra Scott made the following statement:

“We cannot put our children at the mercy of the church’s sense of judgment,” Scott said at a news conference. “People need to know when there are severe criminals in their church—that’s not something you conceal.” (Salt Lake Tribune, September 6, 2001, p. B1)

The Toombs Case

Another case brought to light recently with disturbing allegations of silence and non-reporting involved the sexual predator, Jay Toombs.

LOGAN—A 43-year old Benson man accused of fondling a boy three times in the early 1990s now faces another charge and growing evidence that victims have been many and his obstacles few. . . . Yet [Logan Police Detective Rod] Peterson and Cache County Prosecutor Scott Wyatt say one of the most disturbing facts of all is that so many people knew of the alleged abuse and did not tell police. . . .

“He [Jay Toombs] expressed to people that found out that, in a very convincing way, that he was truly sorry for what he’d done and it wouldn’t happen again,” says Peterson. “They’ve forgiven him. They believe him, that he’s repented.”

Forgiveness is fine, says Wyatt, but it doesn’t stop an abuser. . . .

Wyatt was so agitated upon learning there was widespread knowledge— but only one report—of abuse, that he considered bringing failure-to-report charges against a West Valley City counselor and two LDS bishops. “Everyone in our community is obligated to report it. They have not only a legal obligation, but a moral obligation,” Wyatt says. . . .

The mother, who is not being identified to protect her son’s identity, says she spoke of Toombs’ misbehavior with boys from 1991 through 1999 with Cooper, two LDS bishops and Toombs’ family, including his brother, an LDS stake president. . . .

“I was always told to be patient with Jay, he was a good man. That’s what I was told again and again and again. I was even given priesthood blessings that I had been chosen to help him,” she says.

The bishops were inclined each time to tell police, the woman says, but later told her they had checked with church officials and learned they did not have to report Toombs as long as he was repentant and getting professional help.

Both bishops deferred questions to church attorneys. . . . Says Von Keetch, a Salt Lake City attorney who represents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “Our investigation indicates that these leaders acted appropriately.”. . .

Neither bishop called police. But Keetch says one, Robert Owens, knew the Cache County Sheriff’s Office investigated Toombs in 1989 and the second, Brent Bryner, made sure that law enforcement authorities were notified by a counselor of an alleged victim’s mother shortly after Bryner learned of alleged abuse in 1997

The mother says she first told Bryner of abuse four years earlier . . .

Jerry Toombs, an LDS stake president in Benson and Jay Toombs’ older brother, says it is not true that he and his father had been warned for years about Jay Toombs’ alleged abuse.

Keetch says Jerry Toombs, like the bishops, acted appropriately. When he was told of suspicions of child abuse, he learned that law enforcement authorities had investigated, say the attorney. He did not become his brother’s stake president until last year.

Jerry Toombs was in the spotlight last year when he recommended a convicted child abuser, Shonn M. Ricks of Benson, for a mission after the 23-year-old had served a 14-month sentence at the Utah State Prison. The mission call was withdrawn after the victim’s outraged father complained. . . .

The . . . mother says she was baffled when the case was dropped with no criminal charge.

“It was really, really hard. We were always the one made to feel like the bad people,” she says. “Everybody was always defending Jay. Everybody. So we just kind of dropped it.”

Robb Parrish, chief child abuse counsel in the Utah Attorney General’s Office, says charm is a hallmark of most pedophiles. It allows a pedophile to get victim’s— and their parents’—trust and is a main reason that many are never reported, he says. . . .

The urge to have sex with children, pedophilia, is a deep-seated aberration, he says.

“It doesn’t just go away. They are not just in need of a little counseling,” Parrish adds. “They’ve got to have intensive intervention, with the threat of prosecution held over their heads. The confessional situation is not enough.” (Salt Lake Tribune, March 26, 2000)

Utah State Law on Reporting

Utah, like many other states, does have a law on mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse:

State law requires a person with knowledge of child sexual abuse to report the crime, and provides a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for those that do not. Clergy are exempt from the law only if their sole source of knowledge of the abuse comes from a perpetrator’s own confession. (Salt Lake Tribune, July 8, 2000, p. B2)

Utah’s law, while supported by those in law enforcement, has been repeatedly attacked by the LDS Church. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on a panel discussion dealing with this topic:

David McConkie, an attorney who represents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called Utah’s reporting law vague and ambiguous. . . .

But police argue Utah’s law is clear. A panel moderator Marilyn Sandberg, executive director of the Utah Chapter of the Child Abuse Prevention Center, said many clergy want to believe abuse will somehow stop spontaneously—an erroneous conclusion.

“The legal system needs to be involved,” Sandberg insisted.

Conference speaker Mike Johnson, a Texas police detective who has spent his career investigating child abuse, said it made his “soul hurt” to hear panelists talk about protecting the confidences of child abusers.

“I don’t believe God condones anyone standing by,” Johnson said. “Kids lack the ability to protect themselves. They will continue to be abused under this veil of protection.”. . .

McConkie pointed to pamphlets, videos and training sessions for LDS Church leaders—as well as a 24-hour hot line that offers legal advice to bishops. (Salt Lake Tribune, August 3, 2000, pp. A1, A6)

Law enforcement in Utah has given clergy simple advice to follow:

Police and prosecutors, noting the secrecy that often surround child sexual abuse, contend clergy members and others can avoid trouble by reporting anything suspicious and allowing authorities to investigate. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 3, 2000)

Yet Mormon clergy have repeatedly ignored the mandatory reporting law:

Declaring himself innocent of wrongdoing, LDS Bishop Bruce Christensen plans to challenge the constitutionality of a Utah law that sometimes forces clergy to inform on members of their own flock. . . .

Christensen is the third Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bishop charged this year with failing to report.

Bishop David Maxwell . . . allegedly failed to report an alleged rape of a 16-year-old girl by a 15-year-old boy. . . .

Also this year, a Washington County LDS bishop Brent Atkinson, was charged with failing to report a suspected case of child sex abuse. Atkinson last month entered into a diversion agreement that calls for dismissal of the charge if he completes 100 hours of community service, pays $250 in court costs and commits no new violations. (Salt Lake Tribune, August 15, 2000)

However, despite the charges brought against a few Mormon bishops, little has resulted:

Charges accusing a Mormon bishop [Christensen] of failing to report an alleged case of child sexual abuse were dismissed Monday in 3rd District Court. . . .

. . . prosecutors said the woman recently changed her story and now says she spoke to Christensen only in hypothetical terms, . . .

“The police reports were very specific, [but] now she’s saying something different,” said Salt Lake District Attorney David Yocom. “It’s not a prosecutable case now.”. . .

But defense attorney Bradley Rich did not mention any hypothetical scenarios to reporters Monday after the case was dismissed by Judge Roger Livingston.

Rich said Christensen believed any touching between the father and child was inadvertent and, therefore, not child sexual abuse.

The father, 43-year-old Hassane Adib, remains charged with misdemeanor lewdness with a child, . . .

Adib’s charges are based upon information from the child’s mother, who allegedly observed Adib allowing the baby to fondle him in July 1999.

The woman came to Christensen in January to discuss conflicts with her estranged husband. Rich has said that the woman mentioned the fondling incident almost as an aside, and that Christensen’s priority was getting the woman to a shelter and finding her a divorce attorney. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 3, 2000)

Close on the heels of that dismissal:

For the second time in a week, a controversial criminal case involving a Mormon bishop has quietly evaporated.

Bishop David West Maxwell . . . entered into an agreement with prosecutors in which the charge will be dismissed in 90 days. Meanwhile, Maxwell, 35, is required to admit no guilt, pay no court costs and perform no community service. . . .

Maxwell said he called the help line and talked to a stake president but was told he was not obligated to report the alleged rape, according to police reports. The alleged rape was ultimately reported to police by the girl’s seminary teacher. The boy was charged with first-degree felony rape in 3rd District Juvenile Court and is scheduled for trial next week. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 5, 2000, pp. C1, C3)

LDS Church Warned of Problems

The lack of reporting and the disgraceful treatment of victims of child abuse has plagued the Mormon Church for years. A study done in 1995 by Karen E. Gerdes and Martha N. Beck sought to find answers on how victims within the LDS Church were being treated. However, when the results were revealed it was met with open hostility from the LDS Church:

. . . It [the sex-abuse study] was denounced or worst of all, largely ignored by church officials who still dismiss it four years later.

The study, which Mormon leaders condemned as flawed, found that more than two-thirds of the women interviewed said they had bad experiences when they turned to Mormon clergymen for comfort and counsel.

For a church that in recent years has faced numerous lawsuits accusing it of harboring, or at least failing to stop, pedophiles in its midst, Gerdes said she believed she and her colleagues were providing some helpful insights. . . .

“It’s like it was bad news they didn’t want to hear,” she said. “Our only agenda was to help the church help victims. I was excited because I thought the church was going to be pleased to get this information so they could put it to good use. It was quite a letdown.”. . .

The researchers reported that, out of 71 Mormon women who had suffered childhood sexual abuse, 49 told of having “negative interactions” with the bishops in whom they had confided. . . .

The women who reported the negative encounters described the bishops as “judgmental” in some cases, “unbelieving” in others and “protective of the perpetrators” in still other cases. Twelve of the women reported positive interactions while the other 10 chose not to confide in local church leaders. . . .

“(Church officials) can criticize our methodology all they want, but it was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Brigham Young,” Gerdes said. “It was scrutinized by a panel of scholars at the very reputable journal (Affilia) that published our article about it. It was rigorously evaluated—and approved—by both Mormon and non-Mormon professional researchers.”

In addition, Gerdes, who has a Ph.D. in social work, pointed out that the research was supported by a grant from the Eccles Foundation, —a Mormon entity—and administered by the Women’s Research Institute at Brigham Young. . . .

According to the article in Affilia, the scholarly journal for social workers, the research found that 50 of the 71 victims felt guilt or frustration for being admonished by “the highest church authorities or local leaders to forgive their perpetrators.” It noted that “the majority of women reported feeling neither protected not helped in their recovery process” by church officials. . . .

The study has been used as legal ammunition by plaintiffs’ attorneys who have sued the church in courts across the country, alleging a widespread pattern of failures by bishops or other ecclesiastical leaders to report abuses to proper authorities or to obtain proper professional counseling for victims. (Houston Chronicle, May 10, 1999, pp. 1A, 11A)

A professional psychologist and member of the LDS Church, Arleen Cromwell, also sought to help the church with its sexual abuse problems. However, after a bizarre turn-around and recanting by the psychologist, it left many people questioning whether the LDS Church was engaging in a deliberate cover-up in order to protect itself from litigation:

In a sworn affidavit she signed in February 1996— but later recanted—the Salt Lake City therapist detailed what she called a pattern in which sexually abused children had been shunned or generally mishandled by bishops, who in the Mormon faith are local congregational leaders.

Cromwell noted in the affidavit, given for a lawsuit in which she agreed to testify against the church, that families of the abuse victims often sought help from bishops, who failed to get them the professional treatment they needed.

She said bishops often made “little effort to ensure the safety of victims or failed to report abuses to appropriate state authorities.”

“In many cases, the Bishop is ignorant of the needs of the victim, and does not act to ensure that the victim is not further abused,” said Cromwell, who had been involved in treating abuse patients in about 300 cases in Utah. . . .

The therapist went on to note that in March 1992, she “became so concerned with the disturbing pattern I had seen emerging among the clergy of my own Church” that she wrote a letter to her stake president. . . .

“It seemed Bishops had a distrust of therapists which made them reluctant to refer victims to therapy,” she said in her first affidavit. “This antagonism further injured the victim of the abuse by preventing the assistance with treatment that counseling provides.”. . .

“Since March 1992, I have noticed no significant change in the number or severity of child sexual abuse cases among members of the church and I have noted no change in the pattern which I found so disturbing and which compelled to write to my Stake President,”

Cromwell stated in the 1996 affidavit. Cromwell, however, backed off the statement last June as the lawsuit pending in Beckley, W.Va.—where Mormon officials are accused of liability for failing to report a case of child sexual abuse to authorities . . . [See Salt Lake City Messenger No. 91, November 1996]

Cromwell said she told the plaintiff’s attorneys that she did not want to be involved in the lawsuit and asked them not to use her 1996 affidavit.

Von Keetch, a Salt Lake City attorney representing the church in that case and similar lawsuits, said Cromwell’s recanting of her original affidavit is evidence that the experienced therapist is impressed with the church’s turnaround in training its bishops in a concerted effort that began in 1995.

Sullivan [plaintiff’s attorney in the Beckley case] said he suspects that Cromwell was pressured to recant, but by whom, he doesn’t know.

“Recanting doesn’t change what she swore as being her experience with bishops,” he said. “She either observed this pattern by bishops, and experienced the antagonism from them and saw firsthand how terrible they were treating victims, or she didn’t.”

“You have to wonder why a women who is a credible psychologist with impeccable credentials . . . would turn right around and say, ‘Never mind. I didn’t mean it. King’s X. Black is white,’ ” Sullivan said.

“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see from looking at both affidavits that somebody from the church got to her.” (Houston Chronicle, May 10, 1999, p. 11A)

Help Line for Victims or Mormon Clergy?

In 1995 the LDS Church started a help line for bishops and other Mormon clergy reportedly to help deal with child abuse cases within the church.

The Salt Lake Tribune reported in 1995, when the hot line was first put in place:

A May 10 internal memorandum from the church’s Presiding Bishopric mandates that local ecclesiastical leaders in America and Canada who become aware of abuse involving church members are to call the toll-free help line. . . .

Counselors and attorneys who deal with child sexual abuse cases unanimously praised the idea of a hotline, although some characterize it as belated and merely an attempt to ward off legal liability.

Others believe the church should insist its leaders immediately call the proper police or social agency as required in the child abuse laws of most states. . . .

It [the memorandum] instructs bishops and counselors in stake presidencies to consult with their stake president . . . about “incidents of abuse that come to their attention.” Published reports indicate the 9 million-member church has been forced to settle several lawsuits involving cases of abuse.

For example, Jefferson County, Texas, court records show the church in January settled for an undisclosed amount a lawsuit filed by the parents of an 8-year-old girl who was repeatedly molested at a Mormon chapel by a member of the congregation. The member, Ralph Neeley, was sentenced to life in prison.

The lawsuit names as co-defendants the church and Neeley’s bishop, who apparently knew about the allegation but failed to report it. (Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 1995 pp. D1, D3)

The question of whether the hot line is for the victims of child sexual abuse or merely to help protect the LDS Church from litigation has been inadvertently answered by David McConkie, the LDS Church’s own attorney:

McConkie pointed to pamphlets, videos and training sessions for LDS Church leaders—as well as a 24-hour hot line that offers legal advice to bishops. (Salt Lake Tribune, August 3, 2000, p. A6)

Also the Salt Lake City Weekly reported:

According to Lavina Fielding Anderson, co-editor of the 1996 volume Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, which covered child sexual abuse in the Mormon church, the help line is more self-serving than victim-friendly. “I was told by one bishop who called the help line that they walked him through procedure on how to get a commitment from the parents of the victim not to sue the church,” she says. (Salt Lake City Weekly, March 8, 2001, p. 23)

Many believe the LDS Church is out to protect its image more than protecting the victims of child sexual abuse:

The church that is known for placing a spiritual premium on family values is under increasing attack for an alleged failure to protect its children from pedophiles.

Therein lies the irony of a barrage of lawsuits and general complaints alleging that—in an effort to protect its wholesome image—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the Mormon church, has failed to root out child molesters in its midst. . . .

Last year in Montgomery County, a jury found the national church liable in a $4 million verdict—$1 million more than the plaintiff had sought—for failing to protect an 8-year-old boy who was sexually assaulted in 1993. . . .

“The church will go to great lengths to protect its image and reputation,” said Clay Dugas, a lawyer in Orange who has sued the church on behalf of numerous child-abuse victims and their families in Texas and Mississippi.

Dugas, who led a team of lawyers in winning the $4 million verdict in the Montgomery County case, said he believes that pedophiles are attracted to the Mormon church because of its structure. . . .

“The church is very patriarchal, very secretive. Why would you preach not to discuss a case of child abuse when it becomes known? They do that. The whole belief is that the men, the leaders who are all men, can take care of everything. If someone in a family is abused, the family won’t go to the police. They’ll go to the bishop.” (Houston Chronicle, May 9, 1999, p. 18A)

The Franco Case and the Utah Supreme Court Decision

Another case of child sexual abuse broke new ground in Utah’s highest court and ended in a decision giving the LDS Church and other clergy far reaching protection from litigation:

The Utah Supreme Court on Friday banned lawsuits over allegations of clergy malpractice, a landmark ruling that grants broad protections to church leaders when they counsel members of their flocks.

Citing First Amendment safeguards against government intrusion in to the practice of religion, the high court unanimously upheld a trial judge’s decision to dismiss a child rape victim’s lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The alleged victim, Lynette Franco, claimed her LDS bishop and stake president were negligent by mishandling her plea for help after she claimed to have been sexually abused by a teen-age church member. . . .

LDS Church spokesman Dale Bills said in a news release the church was satisfied with the ruling. . . .

Franco’s attorney, Ed Montgomery, said the ruling by the five justices—all of whom are Mormon—means the LDS Church is “completely immune from anything they do behind closed doors. It’s chilling, is what it is,” Montgomery said. “You have the most powerful organization in this state doing what it will, without any government regulation at all and without any redress being available.”. . .

The events at the heart of the Franco case allegedly occurred in 1986, when the girl was 7 years old. Franco claims she was sexually assaulted by Jason Strong, a 14-year-old neighbor boy and fellow LDS ward member. The abuse was “so extreme” that Franco repressed the memory for eight years, the justices wrote.

By the time Franco reported the abuse, Strong was preparing to serve a church mission. Montgomery claims church leaders decided to defend the young male member of the priesthood at the girl’s expense. “They used my client to help them protect the very person who molested her,” Montgomery said.

Franco claims her bishop, Dennis Casaday, and stake president David Christensen counseled her to “forgive, forget and seek atonement.”

Later, the two clergymen referred the girl to a purportedly qualified counselor at a Bountiful mental health center, who, it turned out, was not licensed to practice in Utah. The counselor, Paul Browning, also advised the girl to forgive her attacker and forget the incident, rather than inform police, the girl claims.

Franco’s parents finally took the girl to another counselor, who reported the sexual abuse to police. Investigators, however, said too much time had passed to pursue charges. . . .

Despite $70,000 worth of counseling, Montgomery said Franco, now in her early 20s, may never completely recover from being sexually abused. (Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 2001, pp. A1, A9)

For more information on the Franco abuse case, see the article “Crisis of Confidentiality” which appeared in the Salt Lake City Weekly, March 8, 2001.

---

---