The legal dispute concerning an alleged multi-state child sex abuse cover-up intensified this past Friday, as attorneys representing the plaintiff delivered a detailed rebuttal to the LDS Church’s claim that it bore no legal obligation to step in and safeguard a teenage girl from her abusive adoptive father.
A 14-page reply filed in federal court seeks to persuade the judge to deny the Church’s motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff, known in court records as “Julie Doe,” contends the institution misread controlling precedent and downplayed the proactive involvement of its clergy in facilitating her continued exposure to harm.
The civil suit focuses on the conduct of LDS leadership, even as Craig Ford—the victim’s adoptive father—was sentenced in 2021 and 2022 following convictions on multiple counts of incest and rape.
In its April 3 motion, the Church maintained that because the abuse unfolded within the home and stemmed from a parent, not a Church-affiliated individual, institutional liability should be limited. The plaintiff’s latest submission pushes back against that framework.
Clarifying the Scope of Reporting Obligations
One of the Church’s key legal arguments rests on the Oregon Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in *E.J.T. v. Jefferson County*, which it cites as conclusive that Oregon’s mandatory reporting law for clergy applies only in criminal, not civil, contexts.
The plaintiff’s legal representatives argue this reading oversimplifies the decision. According to the reply, *E.J.T.* primarily insulates government agencies from liability arising from their own investigative choices, while explicitly preserving room for negligence claims against individuals—including clergy—who, under statute, are obligated to report suspected abuse but do not act.
From Advisory Input to Active Intervention
A critical element in the dispute involves a Washington-based LDS bishop’s intervention with Julie’s mother. Records indicate the bishop advised her against escalating concerns to law enforcement, a suggestion the Church previously framed as well-intentioned but nonbinding counsel.
The plaintiff’s filing challenges that framing, portraying the bishop’s conduct as deliberate and consequential. Rather than passive input, the legal team describes it as an intentional effort to shape the family’s response—reducing perceived urgency and enabling Julie to relocate from Washington to Oregon, where she lived with her father with minimal oversight.
Attorneys for Julie further argue that this guidance directly contradicted the Church’s own internal protocols on abuse response, thereby narrowing the scope of First Amendment protections the Church seeks to invoke.
Policy Alignment and Institutional Actions
The reply also draws attention to inconsistencies between the Church’s public-facing stance on abuse prevention and its legal posture in court. While the institution has maintained that its reporting directives for leaders are voluntary in nature, the plaintiff’s filing notes concrete steps taken by Church headquarters after receiving a report in December 2016.
Those steps included attaching a formal annotation to the father’s membership file and alerting a local bishop in Albany, Oregon, about Julie’s residence with him—actions suggesting a level of institutional engagement beyond internal recommendation.
The plaintiff’s legal representatives contend that by undertaking specific administrative actions, the organization voluntarily accepted a responsibility to safeguard the individual involved. They allege, however, that this obligation was subsequently neglected through delayed disciplinary measures, a failure to alert Oregon officials, and a lack of support or warnings provided to the victim.
According to the filing, the combination of these details provides sufficient special circumstances to establish a duty on the part of the defendant toward the plaintiff.
The federal court in Eugene is now scheduled to review the opposing briefs to decide whether the case can move forward or if the organization's defense regarding the lack of a duty will result in a dismissal.