Ship of Fools: Safe Children's Ministry

Thread: Safe Children's Ministry Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027695

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

A question about church attendance of those convicted of an offence against at child:

My view is that such people should attend a church where there are no children (this will be difficult in small towns), or as a minimum attend an evening service where they won't have ANY contact with children.

What is a reasonable expectation of child protection?

If such people aren't excluded from a church service that children attend, should parents be warned of any person with a conviction or accusation? What about children's ministry workers, should they know? As a minimum, should parents know that such people are in the congregation, even if they are not named?

Obviously it goes without saying somebody with an accusation or conviction shouldn't be involved in children's ministry and I'd say any official role in church but what about somebody, who has turned a blind eye to such offences in the past in a different place?

My feeling is they have been guilty of poor judgement if they knowingly allowed somebody with a prior conviction (that they must have known about), unsupervised access to a child, resulting in actual serious harm to that child and shouldn't be allowed to work with children, let alone have a leadership position in children's work.

Are my expectations of child protection unrealistic? Am I paranoid? I don't think so, would you let your child attend a children's program in a church in any of the above circumstances? If you're a Minister how would you address parental concerns in this circumstance?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
A question about church attendance of those convicted of an offence against at child:

My view is that such people should attend a church where there are no children (this will be difficult in small towns), or as a minimum attend an evening service where they won't have ANY contact with children.

What is a reasonable expectation of child protection?

If such people aren't excluded from a church service that children attend, should parents be warned of any person with a conviction or accusation? What about children's ministry workers, should they know? As a minimum, should parents know that such people are in the congregation, even if they are not named?

Obviously it goes without saying somebody with an accusation or conviction shouldn't be involved in children's ministry and I'd say any official role in church but what about somebody, who has turned a blind eye to such offences in the past in a different place?

My feeling is they have been guilty of poor judgement if they knowingly allowed somebody with a prior conviction (that they must have known about), unsupervised access to a child, resulting in actual serious harm to that child and shouldn't be allowed to work with children, let alone have a leadership position in children's work.

Are my expectations of child protection unrealistic? Am I paranoid? I don't think so, would you let your child attend a children's program in a church in any of the above circumstances? If you're a Minister how would you address parental concerns in this circumstance?

First of all, it assumes you know that the person has this conviction. Not always the case esp. if they want to leave the past behind (charitable thought) or if they want to hide it for a more sinister reason (ungracious thought). In any case make sure your Child Protection Procedures are robust in accordance with denominational policy.

If you know about it ... IME any such people will have a case worker allotted to them by the Prison or Probation Service. Liaise with them: find out what they consider appropriate.

Usual policy IME (and in churches I've been in) is to "appoint" a guard or minder in the congregation who will keep a look out for the person whenever they can and not let them get into any compromising situations. Make sure the church leaders know and the leaders of any children's groups. It means then that you have a wider base to monitor behaviour etc.

Talk to the person and discover what they are gifted at. Find the person something to do to affirm and occupy them that doesn't involve children. Tell the person what you're doing. Needless to say if they don't like it, then it's tough: you attend on these conditions or you don't attend at all.

It goes without saying any suspicious behaviour must be dealt with immediately in line with your denomination's policy. Failure to do so is probably a criminal offence in most countries but you don't want to take that risk anyway for any child's sake.

Of course all such offenders want to believe they are "cured" - but always assume they are one step away from re-offending and you won't go wrong. Some like to infiltrate and keep below the radar - perhaps for years but sooner or later their words or behaviour give them away.

Always make sure that everyone follows child protection policies even "trusted" members of many years' standing. It wouldn't be the first case I've come across where an older and so called trusted individual was allowed to operate outside the guidelines with disastrous result. The more robust your policy and the more determined you are to keep to it will keep problems to a minimum - most people will go elsewhere where it's not so robust and that nice man who wants to do kids work is welcomed with open arms.

You can never say it won't or can't happen - it might and it does - but you can take the right steps to minimise risk.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Usually but not easily a management plan can be put in place between the would-be worshipper, the church authorities, and law-enforcement authorities. These is not easy, but I suspect is the best way forward. The would-be worshipper of course has to acknowledge his or her culpability - if there is a police record this is hardly an optional extra, and if there isn't then, sadly, there is no basic under law to put a case management plan in place unless the would-be worshipper volunteers for it.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Thanks for the responses.

quote:
The more robust your policy and the more determined you are to keep to it will keep problems to a minimum

That's what I feel too, distressed to see this not happening and concerns about this not addressed. It's fine to take your own kids out and run away but how far does one push in order to protect others, even kids who may attend in the future?

[ 23. July 2014, 07:44: Message edited by: Evangeline ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I agree with EM and Zappa (we have had this situation). I don't think it's right to say that "they must go to a church where there are no children", but they should never have unsupervised access to them (and even supervised access might be iffy).

IME such people can be very lonely and introverted and becoming involved in a church can be very therapeutic for them. There will be people who "need to know" about their past, but the news should not be generally made known.

[ 23. July 2014, 07:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

My usual experience is that people on the sex offender register form a contract with the authorities and the church leadership to attend worship. They have not in my experience ever been given anymore access than that. Part of the contract is an understanding that a very small group of people in church will be made aware and will monitor their boundaries very carefully. where they sit and who they interact with for instance.

Most Christian Safe guarding officers I know argue for limited community because the dangers of isolation are worse. And we are a community who believes in redemption. (despite all the contra indications regarding re-offending we persists in this, to our credit I think)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
My usual experience is that people on the sex offender register form a contract with the authorities and the church leadership to attend worship. They have not in my experience ever been given anymore access than that. Part of the contract is an understanding that a very small group of people in church will be made aware and will monitor their boundaries very carefully. where they sit and who they interact with for instance.

Most Christian Safe guarding officers I know argue for limited community because the dangers of isolation are worse. And we are a community who believes in redemption. (despite all the contra indications regarding re-offending we persists in this, to our credit I think)

Agreed. We have a situation of this kind (the offence was very historic) and see the need for redemption and humanity, balanced by realism. I don't want to put temptation into anyone's way so there are guidelines.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Yup, that's been my experience too, and it worked very well.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

What EM and Pyx_e said.

The C of E has safeguarding guidelines (and General Synod last week voted last week to tighten them up so as to clear up any inconsistencies.

But it is worth pointing out that a lot of child abuse takes place in families and from those one would least expect so we cannot trust that we have ever 'got it right' merely through following polices.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

This assumes the presence of a conviction (i.e., a court record in which the person either plead guilty or was found guilty of an offense). In the absence of a conviction, things become quite a bit murkier for me.

In such a case, the cardinal rule will be no unsupervised contact with children. The person in question would have to agree to that condition, and I would then appoint someone I trusted from the congregation to keep an eye on the situation (an enforcer, if you will). Then we would see how it goes, giving the offender a chance to prove that they are trustworthy. If the person were still on some kind of court supervision (diversion, probation or parole) I would consult with the relevant authorities; if not, no need to involve them.

As to telling other persons in the congregation, I would not, at least not until I had any reason to do so. Convictions, of course, are public records; anyone can find them if they desire. But it isn't my place to bring it to their attention, and I won't have a situation in my parish where a person is being singled out and ostracized for something they haven't yet done.

That is mostly it, I suppose. I'd have to think more about what would happen if there were an arrest that did not result in a conviction; that would be a much more difficult situation for me.

[ 23. July 2014, 15:38: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...a lot of child abuse takes place in families and from those one would least expect so we cannot trust that we have ever 'got it right' merely through following polices.

I went to the half day training course so I'd catch up on current culture so *I* can avoid innocently doing anything that might lead others to think I was foolish or dangerous. I was startled at how planned the abuses can be, people plotting for years to get into a position of trust before they act.

What I got out of it is --

(a) No person should be considered "safe" in the sense of exempt from the child safety rules. Your biggest danger is not the known registered sex offenders but the unknown ones in your midst.

(b) No child should ever be alone with one adult; if you see an adult headed down a hall (taking a kid to a bathroom, for example), join them, and be grateful if another adult joins you. (It's protection for the adult against false accusation.)

(c) No private spaces. This means as much as possible no closed doors. And definitely no solid doors, all doors to interior rooms must have large clear glass windows in them. Even the clergy offices have large windows in the door or part of the wall. It can be a problem for historical churches that treasure their old look, maybe lots of security cameras? (Odd memory now, in my high school, teachers almost always had the classroom door to the hall open during the class. Closed it only if we were doing something unusually noisy.)

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks for the responses.

quote:
The more robust your policy and the more determined you are to keep to it will keep problems to a minimum
That's what I feel too, distressed to see this not happening and concerns about this not addressed. It's fine to take your own kids out and run away but how far does one push in order to protect others, even kids who may attend in the future?

Depending on where you are, following child protection rules could be a legal requirement. You could try (politely) reminding the leadership about that. And underline that by pointing out that if the unthinkable did happen, they and the church would be liable for any costs. (Not following local laws tends to invalidate your public liablity insurance!)

Tubbs

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks for the responses.

quote:
The more robust your policy and the more determined you are to keep to it will keep problems to a minimum
That's what I feel too, distressed to see this not happening and concerns about this not addressed. It's fine to take your own kids out and run away but how far does one push in order to protect others, even kids who may attend in the future?
Depending on where you are, following child protection rules could be a legal requirement. You could try (politely) reminding the leadership about that. And underline that by pointing out that if the unthinkable did happen, they and the church would be liable for any costs. (Not following local laws tends to invalidate your public liablity insurance!)

Tubbs

And I'm replying to my own post!!! [Hot and Hormonal]

The rules / best practices are there to protect everyone - the offender, potential victims and leadership. I would be wary of a leadership who didn't take those responsibilities seriously. I would also seriously consider reporting them to the relevant authorities.

Tubbs

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

IME, the CofE has clear and humane guidelines for situations like this for the protection of all parties (Sect 8 refers).

Bear in mind also, please, the feelings of victims of abuse in the following two regards:

- Your putative offender's victims may come to know what s/he is being permitted to do.

- Consideration must also be given to other people who may have been abused in the past.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks for the responses.

quote:
The more robust your policy and the more determined you are to keep to it will keep problems to a minimum
That's what I feel too, distressed to see this not happening and concerns about this not addressed. It's fine to take your own kids out and run away but how far does one push in order to protect others, even kids who may attend in the future?
Depending on where you are, following child protection rules could be a legal requirement. You could try (politely) reminding the leadership about that. And underline that by pointing out that if the unthinkable did happen, they and the church would be liable for any costs. (Not following local laws tends to invalidate your public liablity insurance!)

Tubbs
And I'm replying to my own post!!!

The rules / best practices are there to protect everyone - the offender, potential victims and leadership. I would be wary of a leadership who didn't take those responsibilities seriously. I would also seriously consider reporting them to the relevant authorities.

Tubbs

I'm with Tubbs on this one - whatever reasons the leadership may have for playing down this one ... don't play along. Remind them of their responsibilities to all involved. They may be naïve - in which case you are to be congratulated for educating them.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Thanks for the responses.

quote:
The more robust your policy and the more determined you are to keep to it will keep problems to a minimum
That's what I feel too, distressed to see this not happening and concerns about this not addressed. It's fine to take your own kids out and run away but how far does one push in order to protect others, even kids who may attend in the future?
Depending on where you are, following child protection rules could be a legal requirement. You could try (politely) reminding the leadership about that. And underline that by pointing out that if the unthinkable did happen, they and the church would be liable for any costs. (Not following local laws tends to invalidate your public liablity insurance!)

Tubbs
And I'm replying to my own post!!!

The rules / best practices are there to protect everyone - the offender, potential victims and leadership. I would be wary of a leadership who didn't take those responsibilities seriously. I would also seriously consider reporting them to the relevant authorities.

Tubbs
I'm with Tubbs on this one - whatever reasons the leadership may have for playing down this one ... don't play along. Remind them of their responsibilities to all involved. They may be naïve - in which case you are to be congratulated for educating them.

IME, people don't congratulate you for educating them. [Biased]

If you do decide to speak to the leadership, emphasis very strongly that your issue is that the appropriate safeguards aren't being followed - which creates a risk for everyone- rather than this person is there.

The other thing I forgot to add is that, as well as reporting it if you're still unhappy at the end of the conversation, is to seriously consider leaving. It's not ideal, but there are times when the only solution is remove yourself from a situation and pray for the best.

Tubbs

[ 25. July 2014, 15:40: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

If, after receiving no sensible reply to a genuine concern from a C of E church / PCC I would suggest you contact the Diocesan safeguarding officer. She/he has a duty and responsibility to ensure the best possible practise.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
IME, people don't congratulate you for educating them. Tubbs

Aaaah exactly my point: they'll be so annoyed by your presumption that they will have to do something. Or, if ignoring it will give you grounds for the action you mention

[code]

[ 26. July 2014, 06:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Thank-you all for your considered replies. They are very reassuring, whilst confirming that my unease (to say the least) is not unjustified.

Posted by Lynnk (# 16132) on :

It seems to me that no convicted pedophile should be given ANY chance to interact with children.
They made their choices.They set about damaging young children for their own disgusting lusts.
they thought it was ok to abuse young children.
If such people are given the opportunity to rejoin society then at very least parents of young children in the congregation should should be informed of their presents if not the whole congregation.
To late when the church leaders have to say"oops sorry,we got that wrong".And some innocent young child is scarred for life.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

I think you make a good point Lynnk. I think part of the issue is that the leadership have access to information, so they know who to watch and protect their children from and so they assess the risk in a particular way and I"m not saying that they are careless of the welfare of others' kids just that it looks very different when you know who and what versus being unaware.

I feel that if those with a record were suitably contrite, it is not that difficult in big cities to find church services that are not attended by children and this would avoid a lot of issues.

in any case, as others have pointed out there is never any excuse to be less than vigilant in taking the safety of everyone in the congregation seriously.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
It seems to me that no convicted pedophile should be given ANY chance to interact with children.
They made their choices.They set about damaging young children for their own disgusting lusts.
they thought it was ok to abuse young children.
If such people are given the opportunity to rejoin society then at very least parents of young children in the congregation should should be informed of their presents if not the whole congregation.
To late when the church leaders have to say"oops sorry,we got that wrong".And some innocent young child is scarred for life.

But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform? What does that say about the church's role in said redemption and reformation? It may be an uncomfortable thing to hear, but paedophiles have access to salvation too.

I would also be very very cautious about telling parents - mob justice is not real justice.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
It seems to me that no convicted pedophile should be given ANY chance to interact with children.
They made their choices.They set about damaging young children for their own disgusting lusts.
they thought it was ok to abuse young children.
If such people are given the opportunity to rejoin society then at very least parents of young children in the congregation should should be informed of their presents if not the whole congregation.
To late when the church leaders have to say"oops sorry,we got that wrong".And some innocent young child is scarred for life.
But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform? What does that say about the church's role in said redemption and reformation? It may be an uncomfortable thing to hear, but paedophiles have access to salvation too.

I would also be very very cautious about telling parents - mob justice is not real justice.

Couldn't disagree more.

Access to children is not essential to redemption & reform. We can worship with pedofiles, pray with and for them, share the good news of the Gospel with them-- and still protect our children. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There's no need to share the name or picture of a pedofile worshipping at your church. But parents have a right to know that there is a sex offender present, as well as a right to know what specific steps have been taken to insure their child's safety. Get that one wrong and they'll never trust you again. Nor should they.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform?

I don't believe we are promised anywhere that perfect reformation of character will be accomplished in this life.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Further, who will vouch for someone that they have attained perfect reformation of character, given that we know people re-offend?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Lynnk:
It seems to me that no convicted pedophile should be given ANY chance to interact with children.
They made their choices.They set about damaging young children for their own disgusting lusts.
they thought it was ok to abuse young children.
If such people are given the opportunity to rejoin society then at very least parents of young children in the congregation should should be informed of their presents if not the whole congregation.
To late when the church leaders have to say"oops sorry,we got that wrong".And some innocent young child is scarred for life.
But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform? What does that say about the church's role in said redemption and reformation? It may be an uncomfortable thing to hear, but paedophiles have access to salvation too.

I would also be very very cautious about telling parents - mob justice is not real justice.
Couldn't disagree more.

Access to children is not essential to redemption & reform. We can worship with pedofiles, pray with and for them, share the good news of the Gospel with them-- and still protect our children. The two are not mutually exclusive.

There's no need to share the name or picture of a pedofile worshipping at your church. But parents have a right to know that there is a sex offender present, as well as a right to know what specific steps have been taken to insure their child's safety. Get that one wrong and they'll never trust you again. Nor should they.

Firstly, sex offender does not equal paedophile, and certainly many on the sex offender's register don't need their status told to their church (eg someone who had sex with their partner at 16 when their partner was 15, or someone caught peeing in public when drunk).

Secondly, standard child protection procedures ie only those with clear criminal background checks allowed to be alone with children, nobody considered 'safe' etc should surely ensure children's safety? Anyone convicted of a sexual offence against a child would not pass the background checks that everyone gets. In any case, it's surely the paedophiles that haven't been caught that are the real worry? As has been already mentioned, the real risk to children are their immediate families.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform?
I don't believe we are promised anywhere that perfect reformation of character will be accomplished in this life.

Where did I mention perfect reformation of character? 'Not being a danger to children' is hardly 'perfect'. Anyway, my point was more that Christ's salvation isn't offered to 'everyone except paedophiles', it's everyone. Obviously, the ideal would be for someone convicted of a sexual offence against a child to worship at a church with no children, but it's not always possible.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

I suspect I personally would never permit a convicted sex offender to have any ministry / contact with children. I think the statistical lack of reformation of character and the risks outweigh any "benefit."

Having said that; it is unhelpful to point to the offender and scapegoat them. As has been noted every one in leadership and every parent should be interested in and confident in the child protection policies at church, which includes the vetting procedure. Everyone has a responsibility for safeguarding. All appropriate concerns need to be openly discussed.

And (one more time, with feeling) most offences against children happen in close family/social situations. The chances of offending in and around church do not compare to what happens at the child's home. If we are to create mature human beings they must become socialised, they must interact. We can not create perfect safety. Keeping them at home wrapped in cotton wool is worse.

In any other situation I would argue that trying to defend against every risk at every moment actually causes more harm. We need to instil into our children enough common sense to keep themselves out of risky situations. Of course I will not make that argument here as the "burn the offenders" cohort seem at times incapable of coherent discussion.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

We have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable and to listen to them. That's all of us. Woe betide us if we drop that guard at any time through expediency, assumptions of innocence or on the altar of correctness - or any reason.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

I can see the sense of what is being described above legally and also from a child protection pov, but also have some deep unease about it. If all adults are viewed at potenntial child molesters it

a) tars everyone with a guily until (never) proven innocent brush

b) the message to children is that adults cannot be trusted and that they are therefore surrounded by danger

c) the mesaage to adults is that children are dangerous to be around because if you do what should be a normal adult thing you might be accused of something you haven't done.

I think it's toxic. Maybe this is a transition phase we have to go through because of what has happened historically, but all these rules are NOT about proper adult-child relations.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The problem with informing the congregation that a registered sex offender attends a church means that everyone will immediately speculate and want to work out who. What are the chances that the slightly odd but perfectly harmless gentleman who takes himself to the 8am said service to avoid the noise of children will get targeted? Rather than the charming looking young man or woman (and women are sex offenders too) who has just stopped leading a scout troop "because they no longer have time"? And what are the chances that the charmer has told the church leaders they are on the register?

What about people who are placed on the sex offenders register for a limited time? (That happens too)

Surely it's better to tell everyone that it is an open church and all are welcome, saints and sinners all, and that the church needs to be scrupulous about safeguarding, so everyone who works with children needs to make sure that they are not with children alone, that they have the relevant DBS/CRB checks, that no-one takes children to the toilet alone unless it is the child's parent.

If the church leadership is aware of someone on the sex offenders register, then they should be putting the safeguards in place of course, signing the contracts that agree contact and which services can and can't be attended and the limits of what they are allowed to do, but I agree with Jade, the real danger is the undeclared, unrecognised sex offender in the midst.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

There is also the issue of “lead us not into temptation”. For someone with known paedophilic tendencies, even if they have every intention of controlling their urges and not re-offending, if they were to work with children the temptation would surely be unbearable.

To use a different scenario – if a church opened a bar selling alcoholic drinks, would it be sensible for a recovering alcoholic to be involved in the running of it? I would say no, because of the possibility of temptation.

We have a responsibility to the children in our fellowships to keep them safe, but let’s not forget we have a responsibility for everyone in our fellowships, including the paedophile.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

The whole issue is also confounded and confused by the use of a single word to cover multiple issues, which more or less reflect the ambiguity in our society. It is possible for a 20yo to get put on the sex offenders list (and therefore be labelled a paedophiole) for legitimately dating a 15yo in a truly mutual relationship, but a 60 yo who dates a 20yo is "doing well" and there is something wierd or gold-digging about the 20yo.

What is paedophilia? Is it a sex addiction? In which case, yes - the alcoholic and running the bar is a good analogy. But I don't think it is an addiction in many cases. How do you compare the 20/15 case with someone who abuses a toddler? Is it the same? No.

Also, the society we live in is grossly sexualised in the mainstream media, but that same media seems to have precious little to say about responsible adult relationships and how sex plays out in that. If the chgurch is not providing clear guidance as to respectful human relationships (which would make it clear to anyone - child and adult - that relationship is not about getting laid), then putting up internal procedures for dealing with paedophiles is just window dressing.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Of course I will not make that argument here as the "burn the offenders" cohort seem at times incapable of coherent discussion.

That's a bit hellish isn't it? I haven't seen a cohort, nor anybody incapable of coherent discussion. YMMV I suppose.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I can see the sense of what is being described above legally and also from a child protection pov, but also have some deep unease about it. If all adults are viewed at potenntial child molesters it

a) tars everyone with a guily until (never) proven innocent brush

b) the message to children is that adults cannot be trusted and that they are therefore surrounded by danger

c) the mesaage to adults is that children are dangerous to be around because if you do what should be a normal adult thing you might be accused of something you haven't done.

I think it's toxic. Maybe this is a transition phase we have to go through because of what has happened historically, but all these rules are NOT about proper adult-child relations.

I don't disagree with any of that. But (being in this exact scenario in my church) I just don't see any viable alternative. It does sound like the UK has better systems in place-- in the US it's really up to us to figure out how to handle this on our own, with very little help/resources.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

I only disagree that it will make children feel that all adults are dangerous. Our UMC church follows Safe Sanctuaries, but I am pretty sure my daughter (6yo) knows nothing about it, and feels neither protected or endangered. She may have noticed that two adults always do Sunday School if they do it out of the sanctuary, but I'm quite sure she doesn't suspect it's partially because of a policy to make sure no trouble-making adults do what they shouldn't. Considering what she knows, it would make eons more sense for to conclude it was so that the second adult could back up the teacher or do small group work. Practically that is what actually happens, after all.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform?
I don't believe we are promised anywhere that perfect reformation of character will be accomplished in this life.
Where did I mention perfect reformation of character? 'Not being a danger to children' is hardly 'perfect'. Anyway, my point was more that Christ's salvation isn't offered to 'everyone except paedophiles', it's everyone. Obviously, the ideal would be for someone convicted of a sexual offence against a child to worship at a church with no children, but it's not always possible.

Years ago I had this same conversation with my ex who was convicted of 14 felony counts of child molestation. When he was released from prison he asked for the same sort of access to our daughter (unsupervised overnight visitation) he had before his arrest, for the same reason-- "we're Christians and God is all about forgiveness and wiping the slate clean."

But no one is suggesting that salvation is not offered to pedophiles. We're not talking about barring them from attending church-- in fact, we're talking about going to extraordinary lengths/ expense to make it possible for them to do just that. But there is nothing about God's gift of salvation that requires them to have access to children. We can believe and trust that the omniscient God knows their hearts and intentions and offers grace and mercy while still acknowledging that we have that same level of omniscience.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
But then what does that say about Christ's power to redeem and reform?
I don't believe we are promised anywhere that perfect reformation of character will be accomplished in this life.
Where did I mention perfect reformation of character? 'Not being a danger to children' is hardly 'perfect'.

The exact same argument applies; simply insert "not a danger to children" where I had "perfectly reformed." Who can say person X is not a danger to children? We cannot. Nobody can. Therefore we must err on the side of caution, and gas about whether or not we believe Jesus forgives paedophiles is completely beside the point. We have a duty to protect our children. We do not have a duty to show we believe Christ forgives and heals by giving former offenders access to children.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with informing the congregation that a registered sex offender attends a church means that everyone will immediately speculate and want to work out who.

In CofE practice, it's clear that only those with a 'need to know' may be told. Typically this will be the incumbent, the Parish Safeguarding Officer and only one or two others. And the offender is aware who has been told.

quote:
Surely it's better to tell everyone that it is an open church and all are welcome, saints and sinners all, and that the church needs to be scrupulous about safeguarding

This.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with informing the congregation that a registered sex offender attends a church means that everyone will immediately speculate and want to work out who.
In CofE practice, it's clear that only those with a 'need to know' may be told. Typically this will be the incumbent, the Parish Safeguarding Officer and only one or two others. And the offender is aware who has been told.

Those need to know people are told the identity of the offender. But is there any specified guideline re who if anyone is told of the presence (not identified) of an offender?

Again, it sounds like the UK/CofE has a much better, well-thought out system for dealing with this, which would mean that parents could assume that
a. there may be pedophiles in the congregation
b. there will be a "safeguarding officer" (no such thing in US) and others with a plan for protecting their kids

We don't have those sorts of procedures or protections in the US. Paroled sex offenders will have a probation officer they check in with weekly, but no one who is available to work with churches or other organizations to develop safe practices. Which means we have an extra obligation to keep parents well-informed (w/o breaking confidence) about the practices we have put in place to protect their kids-- given that parents cannot assume that is the case.

[ 29. July 2014, 19:03: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Which means we have an extra obligation to keep parents well-informed (w/o breaking confidence) about the practices we have put in place to protect their kids-- given that parents cannot assume that is the case.

I think this is key. In Australia we have policies but I have seen non-adherence, so I guess the issue for us is that we need assurance that the policies are being followed and if there is some particular non-compliance that needs to be explained and the reasons and compensating strategy made clear. Communication and transparency is key IMO

Posted by womanspeak (# 15394) on :

I've spent much of the past ten years conducting "safe churches" (child protection) courses throughout my Australian diocese, up to thirty courses per year.

Amazingly the most reluctant to attend and to organise their parish leaders to attend, were a number of clergy heavies in the hierarchy below the Bishop.

Modelling of safe behaviour comes from the top. Without this our children and their families and their faith are at risk. When a large proportion of parishioners attend awareness training, reflection on past events can lead to the unearthing of historical abuse. This is very challenging for both the clergy and the parish, but a necessary part of ensuring safe ministry.

So don't just walk away when you suspect unsafe practices. When you witness at-risk abusers - boundary riders who keep stepping over the child safe boundary, speak up and keep on speaking. When integration plans for abusers are not in place, speak up. If necessary, if the sin of commision and omission aren't enough, use the threat of the voiding of insurance due to lack of due diligence. ( Note the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse)

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... I agree with Jade, the real danger is the undeclared, unrecognised sex offender in the midst.

Ditto. That's why we need robust guidelines and procedures in place and we take what children (and vulnerable people tell us), seriously.

Posted by Horatio Harumph (# 10855) on :

Interesting thread to read through - thank you.

A topic I've recently been discussing with my church. I've been at the church for just over a year and have recently become a member,

I don't believe that a sex offender should be expected to not worship at a church/service where there are no children present. But I do believe there should be strict restrictions and policies in place to ensure the person is monitored and has no access to young people.

The main reason I ended up in conversation with my church about this topic however is because, whilst I know they have strict and very stringent child protection policies in place, I wanted to know what else was in place to protect other adults from sex offenders/peadophiles.

It took a while to manage to get them to discuss with me what I actually wanted to talk about, because they automatically started talking child protection. Which I know is, and agree that it is, absolutely vital.

However, there is another element/group of people I think it is also vitally important to consider when talking about 'protection' especially when it comes down to having a sex offender worshipping in your congregation (I'm using the scenario that there is one, you (the leaders) know about it etc)) and thats survivors.

People like me, abused as a child significantly and then raped as an adult (in a separate non related to childhood abuse stranger attack).
What is the churches responsibility to me? To protect me?
Does it have one? Should it ...

Personally, my journey has taken me through many different places, but the one I am currently is one where I can believe and acknowledge that everyone can come to Christ. That He has an open table for anyone who wants to come to Him for forgiveness and redemption. That does not mean I have to.

It means I believe anyone can be in church, can be part of community, can be discipled. Can be loved. Granted, if that person was a known sex offender then monitored too.

But I perhaps don't want anything to do with it. With them.

So how would/does the church protect me?

Having discussed this over - I know that MY church has policies in place in how to manage a sex offender and that DOES include both in terms of child protection but also other adult protection, so for example if there was a person known to the leadership, and it looked like they were heading my way it would be diverted, they would be encourage/made to sit away from me etc - I wouldn't know about this. I don't want to. I just want to know that in a few months time, the guy I've sat next to in the service is not going to confess he is a sex offender to me. Or that I would inadvertently come into contact with someone the church knew was one.

I understand that this is not totally possible, but I expect it to be if the leadership KNOW of someone. I don't expect that person to be put into my home group for example ... and so on.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

Thanks for your post HH. I'm guessing that those protections for adults rely on disclosure of survivor status. That raises a whole lot more issues in my mind about policies for such disclosure and subsequent care/protection and how the church cares for its people.

I am glad to hear it sounds as though your new church is doing ok. [Votive]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

If a church is part of a wider religious group or denomination, then I should think that there are already extensive guidelines in place which should be followed as closely as possible. My church is currently updating theirs, over the summer holidays, in line with the Diocesan policy. These are available to download as PDF files (Google), which anyone can read - if your church or group doesn't have one, then reading those formulated by others would be a useful starting point. I particularly think the Diocesan guidelines are reassuring as they consider many kinds of abuse, including spiritual abuse, and also include guidelines for protecting vulnerable adults as well as children.

If there is a choir, there is an extra difficulty at saying someone should only attend church when there are only adults present - it is very rare for a child to be in the congregation at evensong, but children are still present in the same building if singing in the choir.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

If there is a choir, there is an extra difficulty at saying someone should only attend church when there are only adults present - it is very rare for a child to be in the congregation at evensong, but children are still present in the same building if singing in the choir.

A bit of a tangent, but we have the opposite situation - we have separate children's and adults' choirs, and a couple of children who are likely to be present at evening services etc.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a place that children don't go - there are places where children tend to congregate in numbers (schools, playground, church "family" service, Sunday school etc.), and there are places where there are typically fewer children. Places that are guaranteed child-free are pretty much non-existent.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
No child should ever be alone with one adult; if you see an adult headed down a hall (taking a kid to a bathroom, for example), join them, and be grateful if another adult joins you. (It's protection for the adult against false accusation.)

When the PCC I was on discussed this for the first time (over 10 years ago), it was made very clear that there were three reasons why the church needed a child protection policy:
1) to protect children
2) to protect those working with children from false accusation
3) to protect the Gospel's reputation in the world.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:

If there is a choir, there is an extra difficulty at saying someone should only attend church when there are only adults present - it is very rare for a child to be in the congregation at evensong, but children are still present in the same building if singing in the choir.
A bit of a tangent, but we have the opposite situation - we have separate children's and adults' choirs, and a couple of children who are likely to be present at evening services etc.

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a place that children don't go - there are places where children tend to congregate in numbers (schools, playground, church "family" service, Sunday school etc.), and there are places where there are typically fewer children. Places that are guaranteed child-free are pretty much non-existent.

Continuing on the tangent, apart from the Cathedral I don't know of any Anglican churches in Sydney that have choirs, certainly it's unheard of in the suburbs (perhaps a few singers might get together to sing a particular song/hymn for a special occasion but I don't count that as a choir and kids are never involved IME). The evening service of my local church (not the 1 I'm discussing in relation to its child protection policies) has an evening service where there are no children, attendees are young adults and older adults either with adult kids or no kids. The young adults tend to join the morning service when/if they have kids.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

HH thank you for your post. My question is about "protecting adults."

Firstly any child protection policy in church must have a vulnerable adults policy alongside it. Though what a "vulnerable adult" is cause much discussion in the diocese.

But my point / question is: why can't you protect yourself? You are an adult. Also you seem to imply adults need defending from paedophiles, is this what you are implying?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Originally posted by Evangeline:

Continuing on the tangent, apart from the Cathedral I don't know of any Anglican churches in Sydney that have choirs, certainly it's unheard of in the suburbs (perhaps a few singers might get together to sing a particular song/hymn for a special occasion but I don't count that as a choir and kids are never involved IME). The evening service of my local church (not the 1 I'm discussing in relation to its child protection policies) has an evening service where there are no children, attendees are young adults and older adults either with adult kids or no kids. The young adults tend to join the morning service when/if they have kids.

Evangeline, In Anglican churches near us, there are proper choirs (voluntary of course) at Turramurra, Pymble, Gordon, Killara (the 4 suburbs next along the line to the city from here), and Epping on the main Northern line. Others I can think of include CCSL and St James in the city,Burwood, Strathfield, Cremorne, Mosman, Dee Why,Ashfield, Balmain (Birchgrove) and from memory Lavender Bay. Not just a few voices put together to sing a special song, but in some of the instances I have noted supporting the congregation in a sung service. There are no doubt others. AFAIK, Epping has a separate children's choir as well as a general one. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're putting.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

GeeD, I obviously need to get out more, although I've been to services at a couple of those and don't recall a choir, maybe they weren't the right services.

I know Turramurra, Pymble, Gordon and Killara well GeeD although not so much their churches anymore, I imagined that except for Gordon they were typical SydAng.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I don't think you get to Sydney Anglican until Lindfield, or out to St Ives (not sure about St Peter's Hornsby these days). The others I've mentioned are either old fashioned prayer-book low church evangelical or (except for Dee Why) on the spectrum between liberal and liberal catholic.

All a bit of a tangent, and getting back to the OP, a parish needs to have someone outside the usual governance of clergy, wardens and parish council who is responsible for safe ministry. Ministry includes clergy and all others such as organists and other musicians, choir directors, Sunday School teachers and so forth, and any office staff as well. It's easy and cheap enough to get the clearance card from the police, but all that that is evidence of is that there has been no conviction. It does not catch those who have not been caught already and it would be very surprising if any such person would apply for anything.

The safe ministry officer needs to ensure that the diocesan guidelines are being followed to the letter and in the spirit as well; to be available as a confidential ear to hear of suspicions and complaints; to err on the side of investigating an probably vexatious complaint rather than sweep it aside; to keep an open eye on any suspicious behaviour; and to have a channel to the diocesan authorities outside the clergy (remember that there can be complaints about the clergy concerning behaviour with adults and children).

And to bounce back to Pyx_e's post, there are adults who cannot protect themselves, even though on the surface they may seem to be able to. There is also need to be able to protect adults against vexatious complaints, rare though that need may be.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0