The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a 26-page opposition brief this month contesting an amended lawsuit that alleges a coordinated interstate cover-up of child sexual abuse involving Ridgefield, Washington and Albany, Oregon.
The defense argues that the institution had no legal obligation to halt the abuse, rather than claiming ignorance of the situation. The filing outlines the organization's stance on its moral and legal responsibilities toward minors in its congregations.
The Abuse Defense
The core of the defense rests on the assertion that the institution bears no responsibility because the perpetrator was the victim's own father. The filing acknowledges allegations that local clergy and Salt Lake City headquarters were informed the victim, identified as "Julie Doe," was being abused by her adoptive father.
Attorneys for the church argue that religious institutions have no legal duty to intervene to stop a father from harming his own child. The brief asserts that because the abuse occurred within the home rather than during a specific church activity, the organization would have neither the ability nor responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent the assaults, even if prior knowledge existed.
The document states plainly that the absence of a duty to prevent intrafamily abuse is a deficiency that cannot be cured by the lawsuit. Consequently, local bishops and stake presidents can be informed that a congregant is being abused by a parent and remain legally free to take no action.
The First Amendment and “Bad Advice”
The lawsuit alleges that Washington Stake President Wade Pickett not only failed to report the abuse but discouraged the victim's mother from contacting civil authorities.
The defense characterizes these actions as mere "bad advice," arguing that such counsel is not actionable and does not create a new risk of harm. The attorneys further contend that evaluating a clergyman's advice would violate the First Amendment. Citing court rejections of clergy malpractice claims, the church asserts a constitutionally protected right for its clergy to advise a parent against reporting abuse.
Mandatory Reporting: A Criminal Loophole
The filing addresses the transfer of the abuser and victim to a congregation in Albany, Oregon, a state with strict mandatory reporting laws. Plaintiffs allege Oregon agents were informed of ongoing abuse but failed to contact police, violating state statutes.
The church does not claim its clergy followed the law. Instead, the defense argues that Oregon's abuse-reporting statute is criminal in nature and does not create civil liability.
The religious organization’s legal position asserts that while its clergy may have violated state laws intended to protect minors from abuse, the affected individual lacks the right to file a civil suit for the emotional distress caused by that failure.
The Policy Paradox
A central element of the legal dispute involves the church’s internal guidelines regarding the handling of abuse cases. The complainant highlighted that the institution maintains written rules explicitly instructing leaders to notify civil authorities and declaring that abuse is unacceptable in any form.
Legal representatives for the church, however, contested the weight of these internal documents. They contended that the existence of a prohibition against abuse does not automatically create a legal obligation to enforce those standards.
The defense further cautioned the judge that requiring adherence to internal rules could penalize organizations for attempting to mitigate harm they are not legally required to prevent. This argument suggests that the church’s internal codes function primarily as aspirational guidelines rather than binding promises of safety for its youngest members.
Judicial proceedings are expected to determine whether the plaintiff’s request to modify the complaint will be approved, or if the church’s assertion that it bears no responsibility for abuse inflicted by a child’s parents will once again protect it from liability.