Recent Blog Posts

Local Parallels Between Penn State And Priest Sex Scandals

Zalkin Law Firm — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 00:22:00 GMT

Check out this interesting USA Today article on the parallels between the institutional responses to the recent Penn St. sexual abuse scandal, and the Catholic Church’s ongoing Priest Abuse Scandal.

The Need For Transparency

Zalkin Law Firm — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:18:00 GMT

The following is the first entry in a three part series discussing the disclosure of documents during and after litigation, and the legal arguments invoked by religious institutions to protect themselves from producing such documents. Today's post will discuss the Free Exercise Clause, with follow up posts next week discussing the Establishment Clause, and the Priest Penitent Privilege.

An often overlooked element of resolving cases that deal with clergy sexual abuse is the need for institutional transparency. For many victims, it is hard to find some measure of closure knowing that an institution that harbored pedophiles will never be forced to disclose the nature and extent of their complicity in the problem. This issue generally comes up when the parties are required to exchange documents and other information relating to the case at issue, called discovery. Currently, our firm is engaged in litigation to compel the Diocese of San Diego to produce documents that they agreed to produce, but haven't as of yet, relating to their cover-up of the priest abuse scandal.

Generally, religious institutions invoke three doctrines of law to protect them from disclosing relevant documents, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, and the evidentiary Priest Penitent privilege.

The idea behind the Free Exercise Clause is that individuals should be free to practice their religion without any government interference. As it relates to the issue of disclosing documents, institutions such as the Diocese of San Diego, argue that the Free Exercise Clause allows them to determine, based on their religious laws and practices, which documents to disclose and which to keep confidential.

However, the United States Supreme Court, in Employment Division v. Smith, made clear that the Free Exercise Clause does not give an individual or religious institution the ability to make such a determination. Instead, so long as a law is valid, neutral, and applies to everybody equally, individuals and religious institutions must abide by the law, even if their own religious laws or practices say otherwise. In Roman Catholic Bishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal clarified that the rule outlined in Employment Division applies to all laws, criminal or civil.

Our requests for religious institutions to disclose documents fall under laws that are valid, neutral, and apply to everybody. The fact that their religious practices may prohibit such disclosure is irrelevant under the law.

Check back next week for parts two and three of the series, discussing the Establishment Clause as well as the Priest Penitent Privilege

Bishops’ Report is More Public Relations than Scholarship

Zalkin Law Firm — Fri, 20 May 2011 17:58:00 GMT

The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in America are at it again, attempting to defend the indefensible – the sexual abuse of children by their priests. In a report recently commissioned, financed, copy written, and published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), the bishops attempt to minimize the collective wrongdoing of the Hierarchy from 1950 through 2010. Through their report, released yesterday, the bishops attempt what nearly every child educated in a parochial school has been taught not to do – make excuses. Enough!

The bishops want everyone to know that sexual victimization of children is a serious and pervasive issue in society. Agreed! They also want us all to know that such victimization is present in families, other religions, and institutions where adults form mentoring relationships with children, such as schools, sports, and social organizations. Again, agreed! But let’s be clear, Children were abused by Roman Catholic priests because bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in America allowed men in their service to sexually abuse children. When faced with the knowledge that priests were abusing children, bishops allowed the abusers to continue on in ministries that provided access to children.

When the abuse of children by Roman Catholic priests began making headlines across the nation, the president of the USCCB stated what was obvious to all: The bishops were the ones responsible for bringing about the scourge of abuse within the Church. In his presidential address of June 13, 2002, Bishop Wilton Gregory stated:

"The Penance that is necessary here is not the obligation of the Church at large in the United States, but the responsibility of the Bishops ourselves. Both "what we have done" and "what we have failed to do" contributed to the sexual abuse of children and young people by clergy and Church personnel. Moreover, our God-given duty as shepherds of the Lord's people holds us responsible and accountable to God and to the Church for the spiritual and moral health of all of God's children, especially those who are weak and most vulnerable. It is we who need to confess; and so we do.

We are the ones, whether through ignorance or lack of vigilance, or – God forbid – with knowledge, who allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassigned them to communities where they continued to abuse.

We are the ones who chose not to report the criminal actions of priests to the authorities, because the law did not require this.

We are the ones who worried more about the possibility of scandal than in bringing about the kind of openness that helps prevent abuse.

And we are the ones who, at times, responded to victims and their families as adversaries and not as suffering members of the Church."

Now, in their report, the bishops want to place the scourge within a larger social context, seeking comfort in casting stones at others and blaming the social mores of the 60s and 70s as substantial factors in bringing about the abuse of children by their priests. They attempt to create the impression that they have behaved responsibly and followed best practices as they, and society, learned more and more both about the propensity for children to be abused and the harm caused by that abuse. In sum and substance they try to grab the high ground, wanting to appear as the vanguard in child protection. Nonsense!

An entity that as part of its standard operating procedure has covered up, and destroyed records of, childhood sexual abuse cannot reasonably expect the public to trust anything it has to say about the historical phenomena of childhood abuse. Yet the bishops collectively hold onto the belief that they somehow have any authority to speak on the issue.

The truth is that the Universal Roman Catholic Church has been aware for centuries that its priests commit acts of sexual misconduct. Long before the dawn of the 1960s, a special order of priests, Servants of the Paraclete, was created within the United States to provide assistance to troubled priests. In 1952, Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, the leader of that order, was already writing to bishops across the United States warning against allowing priests who abused young boys to be left “on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese.” In 1957, he wrote the Bishop of Santa Fe New Mexico, that: “If I were a bishop, I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary laicization. Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and the neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here....They should ipso facto be reduced to lay men when they act thus.”

Rather than rely upon the bishops, or the recipients of their patronage, for an assessment of the causes of sexual abuse of children by priests, one should take a hard look at the grand jury reports on the topic issued in various jurisdictions across the country. Time and again, district attorneys and the juries have pointed out that it is bishops and their closest advisors that allowed priests to abuse children. And it appears that the scourge is not yet over. A grand jury report from Philadelphia issued February of this year asserts that such wrongful action is continuing. That report identified 37 priests within the local archdiocese who despite substantial evidence of abuse remained at that time of the report in roles that brought them into contact with children.

It’s time: No more excuses! Rather than throw stones at others and blame forces larger than itself, the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in America needs meaningful reform. Create a zero tolerance policy, not just for outted abusers, but for the suffering caused by the childhood sexual abuse it allowed.

ALMOST 10,000 PAGES OF SAN DIEGO CATHOLIC DIOCESE’S BAD PRIESTS’ FILES MADE PUBLIC: SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Zalkin Law Firm — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:29:00 GMT

News of what may be the largest public disclosure of previously secret or confidential documents maintained by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego relating to known pedophile priests has gone viral. Many members of the media have asked us: "Why has it taken so long for these documents to be released to the public? What should we expect to find in these documents? What does this mean?" I will attempt to answer these questions to the best of my knowledge since I was involved in the negotiations with lawyers for the San Diego Diocese resulting in the settlement of 144 cases on behalf of childhood sexual abuse survivors in September 2007. This settlement included the terms and conditions for the release of these documents.

One hundred and forty four survivors (144) of sexual abuse by priests and other religious members associated with the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego filed lawsuits in 2003. During that year, the California Legislature opened a one-year window allowing victims to sue - victims who had previously been barred by prior statutes of limitations to take legal action. After almost four years of litigation and a "disingenuous" [1]bankruptcy filing by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, a global settlement was reached which included two major conditions: First, the SD Diocese, the Diocese of San Bernardino and their insurer, Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America, were to pay $198,000,000 to the victims which would be allocated by California Superior Court Judge Peter D. Lichtman among the 144 plaintiffs; Second, these dioceses and certain Catholic religious Orders agreed to the public release of the personnel files of priests for whom 1) they had determined there were credible allegations of sexual abuse, 2) were named or identified in the lawsuits filed by the plaintiffs, and 3) had been criminally convicted. The parties agreed to the appointment of retired San Diego Superior Court Judge William C. Pate to act as a referee to resolve disputes over which documents could be made public. The negotiations over the second condition of the settlement - the release of the documents - were extremely difficult and emotional. Even though an agreement was reached on the dollar amount, lawyers for the victims refused to settle the cases unless the Dioceses and the Orders would agree to the public release of the bad priests' files.

During the last three years, there have been legal challenges by living priests to the release of their files, and objections raised by the Dioceses to a full release of all of the documents. After surviving court battles and convincing the Dioceses that most, if not all, of their objections were not defensible, they agreed to the release of what we estimate to be about 80% of the files which amount to about 10,000 pages. They continue to object to the release of the remaining documents and we will be working with Judge Pate to resolve those objections.

The importance to the hundreds of victims of child sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego and San Bernardino regarding the release of these documents cannot be overemphasized. For decades, these Dioceses have known of the abuse of children by their priests and have looked the other way. Worse, they have actively engaged in a cover-up to protect their avoidance of scandal over the interest of the children. They have denied and minimized the degree of this scourge of sexual abuse, and they have called victims and their lawyers liars, moneygrubbers and anti-Catholic. Now, the truth - in the words of the Bishops and other officials of the Dioceses - has come out. This is a vindication and affirmation of the claims made by survivors.

Most of what is contained in the released documents is mundane administrative communications which is typical of a large Catholic Diocese operation. And, unfortunately, in the early 1990's, Chancellor Fr. Steve Callahan [2] took it upon himself at one time to shred confidential files of certain priests and all seminary records for their transcripts. Many of the incriminating documents have likely been purged from these files. Several thousand pages have still not been disclosed. Even with the purging and non-disclosure of records, there are many documents that reflect a pattern and practice of moving bad priests from parish to parish, or even attempting to assist them out of the country to avoid scandal. The reader will note that rarely, if ever, will there be a reference to "sexual abuse", "sexual molestation" or "pedophile". Instead, officials of the dioceses used a practice known as "vive voce" by voice only, or code words when dealing with problem priests. They would often refer to an "issue with moral character", "immaturity problems", or problems with "alcohol" . Priests were sent to insular Catholic treatment facilities such as The House of Affirmation in Massachusetts, or Villa Cieli, a facility in Jemez Springs, New Mexico, run by the Servants of the Paracletes (a Catholic religious Order that ministers to problem priests). They were often put back in ministry after their return despite warnings against doing so.

The exposure of this scandal and the release of these documents are critically important to the public in general and to those who are concerned about the safety of children. This evidence proves what can happen when an institution with access to children is allowed to operate without scrutiny - with impunity and with a reckless disregard for the safety of children. The real question is whether things have changed. Only time will tell.

[1] Bankruptcy Judge Louis De Carl Adler who presided over the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing by the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego referred to that filing as disingenuous when she dismissed the bankruptcy in November of 2007.

[2] Msgr. Steve Callahan is now Vicar General of the San Diego Diocese

Growing Awareness of Sexual Abuse Among Foreign Exchange Students

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:45:00 GMT

In order to develop and promote mutual understanding between the people of the United States and other countries around the world, federal law provides foreign nationals with opportunities to participate in educational and cultural programs in the United States and then return home to share their experiences. [1]These "educational and cultural exchanges are the cornerstone of U.S. public diplomacy and an integral component of American foreign policy." [2] The Exchange Visitor program is largely conducted by non-government private sector program sponsors "who are responsible for the recruitment, placement, and supervision of exchange participants. [3]… as a program and an extension of U.S. foreign policy a degree of accountability is required." [4] The United States State Department is responsible for the enforcement of very detailed regulations which govern the administration of the Exchange Visitor Program, and in particular, the exchange of secondary [high school] students. [5]

In addition to the federal regulations which establish standards of care required of sponsors who host foreign exchange students, the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel ("CSIET") exists to set forth guidelines that govern organizations who conduct educational and international travel and exchanges. CSIET evaluates such organizations seeking CSIET endorsement on the basis of their compliance with nine performance standards. Many student exchange sponsors promote public awareness of their CSIET endorsement through the use of the CSIET logo on their websites, and in other material.

Unfortunately, and despite these very strict standards, foreign exchange students are at risk in this country for suffering sexual and other types of abuse at the hands of skillful predators and U.S. sponsor agencies who are more concerned about the money than the welfare of the children they are legally responsible for. The Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students, www.csfes.org, has done an excellent job of raising awareness of this problem in the foreign exchange community of the Untied States and elsewhere. The reader is encouraged to read the information on the www.csfes.org.

The circumstances of the secondary student exchange program and the lack of serious oversight has given rise to the perfect storm for the abuse of foreign students. Students are oriented and encouraged to be open to cultural practices which may be different from their home experience. They are also encouraged to minimize communication with their parents. This sets up their vulnerability and the opportunity for predator sex offenders to groom these children into believing that this kind of sexual behavior is a cultural norm in the U.S. Since there is a huge demand by foreign students to come to the United States that often exceeds the supply of host families, regulations and background checks are often ignored by U.S. sponsor agencies in order to place as many students as they can, and of course reap the financial benefit. If the student complains or makes waives, excuses for repatriation are often trumped up to send the student back without a refund of the thousands of dollars his or her family has spent.

Foreign exchange students and their families who are contemplating coming to the United States should conduct as complete a due diligence as possible. Research the internet, contact the State Department and CSIET, and check with the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students before making a final decision. Parents should also stay in close communication with their children. There is no valid reason that students and parents should be encouraged not to communicate frequently. If the student and the parents are not getting cooperation, or worse, are receiving resistance from the sponsor agency, then they should immediately seek help from the State Department or a lawyer familiar with these issues.

[1] 22 Code of Federal Regulations ("CFR") 62 et seq, 62.1 (2004)

[2] Secondary School Student Sponsor on-Site Reviews, Notice, 75 FR 5637 (February 3, 2010)

[3] 58 FR 15180

[4] 58 FR 15184

[5] 22 CFR 62 et seq (formerly, 58 FR 15180 et seq)

SEXUAL ABUSE OF BOYS IS UNDERREPORTED

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:27:00 GMT

While there are many studies of the risk factors and consequences of sexual abuse of girls, we lack the same comprehensive data when it comes to the sexual abuse of boys.[1] One of the main reasons that boys are less likely to report sexual abuse is because of the social stigma against homosexuality. Boys are taught to be tough and self reliant. Admitting to having been sexually abused in the mind of a young boy might be viewed as a confession of weakness. Based upon the experience of our law firm, we would suggest that the statistical reports of the number of boys who are, or will be sexually abused before the age of 18, are significantly understated. As a result, we have failed to adequately respond to the needs of the abuse victims.

Some current studies suggest that one in six boys has or will be abused by the time they are a teenager. [2] Because boys are less likely to report abuse, these numbers are skewed down. From our own experience, the ratio of sexually abused boys to girls is significantly higher for boys. One might argue that this is more a reflection of the experience within institutions our firm has or is suing on behalf of sexual abuse survivors than what is occurring in the general population. We would disagree. In our experience, in cases involving religious institutions (Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist or Jewish), the overwhelming number of victims are boys. Members of the Catholic Hierarchy, and indeed the Holy itself have attributed this statistic to a problem with "homosexual" priests. Yet the same statistic holds true in the other Christian denominations and in some Orthodox Jewish communities where the perpetrator is married and there is no evidence that he has engaged in homosexual behavior with anyone other than the boy child. Certainly, cases involving the Boy Scouts are almost exclusively male with male scoutmasters who are often family men from the local neighborhood, church or school. Clearly then, this is not a "homosexual" response.

Why then, one must ask, would the experience in the general population be so different? We would suggest that the experience may not be so different at all. The disparity may lie in the reporting. In general, most sexual abuse of children is inflicted by someone the child knows, like a family member or close family friend. Over the past decades, sexual abuse of girls has been widely studied. Some suggest because of this, we as a society are more aware of the risk factors and the prevalence of sexual abuse of girls.[3] This may tend to skew the statistics more towards girls than boys. Indeed, some statistics suggest that one in four girls is or will be sexually abused before the age of 18.[4] Most of these studies are more than a decade old and do not account for the exposure within the past decade of the depth and breadth of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church of the United States, and other institutions where the overwhelmingly number of victims are male. Once we add this data to the mix, we believe that the relative number of boys to girls who have been sexually abused will be much closer than most currently believe to be the case.

The significance of this discussion is to ultimately suggest that we as a society need to do a better job of focusing attention on the risk factors to boys and our response. Parents, teachers and mental health providers need to become more attuned to the post-abuse behaviors exhibited by boys who have been abused. Boys are not as likely to report, and need someone to help them realize that it's not their fault, it does not mean that they are homosexual, and it's ok to get help.

[1] www.preventchildabuse.org , Fact Sheet: Sexual Abuse of Boys

[2] Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics". Chicago, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse (1998)

[3] Ibid www.preventchildabuse.org , Fact Sheet: Sexual Abuse of Boys

[4] http://www.darkness2light.org/knowabout/statistics_2.asp

Talking About Childhood Sexual Abuse: CNN Anchor Don Lemon Discloses Past Abuse

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:01:00 GMT

Childhood Sexual Abuse needs to be talked about. It happens, over and over again. One quarter of our daughters are abused before they turn eighteen. A slightly smaller percentage of our sons are subject to the same type of abuse before reaching adulthood. It usually happens in secret, and more likely than not, inflicted by someone our children know and trust. It is an uncomfortable topic to discuss. Therein lies part of the problem. (For a more complete statistical overview go to TAALK.)

We don’t talk about it enough. That point was made evident recently on the news channel CNN. Young members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia, appearing on the program were shown a recording of an attorney leveling allegations against their minister, Bishop Eddie Long. The attorney set forth her allegations that one child was moved into a house where the bishop began spending casual time with the child watching television. Gradually, it is alleged, the bishop began placing his legs across the child’s body, massaging the child, and telling the child that it was special for the bishop to be spending so much time with the child. These allegations are of a course of conduct that is frequently described as “grooming” a child for sexual abuse. (Bishop Long’s attorney has stated that the pastor categorically denies the allegations. This blog entry does not take a position on the veracity of the allegations the bishop is facing).

After the allegations were broadcast, the anchor, Don Lemon, asked the young members of the church for their reactions. The response – silence. Lemon prompted one of the young people to speak. The young man tried to explain that the bishop is known as a mentor to young men, and that he did not believe there was anything negative about the bishop’s conduct. Then it happened – Lemon spoke up – disclosing on television that he was a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. Lemon explained to the young people that the allegations “are the things that they [pedophiles] do.”

After Lemon’s explanation, another of the young people responded that the bishop does not fit the profile of a pedophile. She explained that he does lots of good things for the community and young people in general. She said that “none of it boils down to him looking like a pedophile.”

Make no mistake, these were bright and articulate young people. They just have not heard enough of the conversation. Pedophiles can and do look like trusted members of society. Pedophiles can and do spend time in the role of a mentor going about doing good works for the community. This is something that needs to be talked about. Lemon stated that he did not disclose the abuse to his mother until he was thirty years old. He explained that childhood sexual abuse is something that men do not want to talk about or admit to having experienced. He should be thanked for having the courage to share his experience with CNN’s worldwide audience.

If you are looking for ways to address the epidemic of childhood sexual abuse, a good starting point is talking. Talk with your children, your friends, and your community. Excellent support and resources for those conversations can be found with an organization known as TAALK. The acronym stands for Talk About Abuse to Liberate Kids. It can be found on the web at www.taalk.org.

POPE’S RECENT APOLOGY TO CATHOLIC SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS IS FORM OVER SUBSTANCE

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:17:00 GMT

Note to Pope Benedict: Actions speak louder than words.

Last week, at Westminster Cathedral in Great Britain, the Pope expressed shame and humiliation for the sin of childhood sexual abuse committed by ministers of the Church. This is yet another of many apologies by members of the Catholic Clergy. While a sincere apology offers some solace to victims, the Catholic Church needs to do more.

Pope Benedict hoped that his chastisement of those acts would contribute to the healing of the victims and the purification of the Church. What the Pope did not do last week was put forth the resources necessary to meet the medical and psychological needs of those who survived the abuse these ministers inflicted. At a minimum, the Church needs to make a substantial financial investment in helping victims obtain real and meaningful psychological counseling.

I first met Bishop Robert Brom, the Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego, in 2002 when a meeting had been arranged for him, my client and me to discuss the history and consequences of sexual abuse suffered by my client and his three brothers at the hands of a Roman Catholic Priest within the Diocese of San Diego. Bishop Brom listened to my client's story and that of his brothers, one of whom had been institutionalized for most of his life. Bishop Brom's response was sympathetic, and he offered the pastoral advice that my client and his brothers should forgive as the first step toward healing. We talked a little about pastoral support and a financial settlement, but he deferred those issues to his "lawyers". What became clear to me in that conversation, and in many since then, is that members of the Catholic Church hierarchy simply do not, for whatever reason, really understand the depth and breadth of the damage that is done to a child who is sexually abused. They do not appreciate the amount of professional intervention that is needed to try to right the wrong that was done to the victim. Bishop Brom's policy for pastoral outreach was to offer 52 sessions of counseling to a victim, irrespective of whether that victim needed more help. This is the typical "pastoral response" among many of the Catholic Dioceses our firm has dealt with over the past decade.

Childhood sexual abuse is expensive; it causes physical and emotional damage to those who survive. It is a traumatic event that shatters childhood. But it does even more. Adverse childhood experiences - such as rape by your priest - have a meaningful relationship to physical diseases that manifest in adulthood. If you look at the research, you will find that such experiences increase the risk of heart disease, chronic lung disease, HIV and STDs, depression, suicide, and other leading causes of death. (For more information go to: http://www.acestudy.org/aboutus.html). Apologies and chastisement decades after the fact do little to nothing to respond to those conditions.

This last week members of our law firm attended a major conference in San Diego of medical professionals, law enforcement, educators, organizations, attorneys and individuals concerned with the problem of child trauma, including child sexual abuse and its consequences hosted by the Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma ("IVAT"). We did not meet or become aware of a single victim's assistance coordinator from a Catholic Diocese in attendance. The Boy Scouts were there, but not the Catholic Church.

This scourge of childhood sexual abuse came about because of the actions of members of the Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. What they did, and what they failed to do, brought about this pain and the accompanying costs. It is time for the Universal Church to respond to the global crisis it has created, to put forth the resources necessary for both healing what is possible to heal, and to care for the chronic conditions it has created.

For victims, an apology may provide some benefit, but the Church needs to put its vast wealth where its mouth is. It's easy to tell someone to forgive, but it's quite another challenge to lay out some meaningful capital to help them obtain the optimum medical and psychological care they deserve. Until that happens, their apologies will continue to ring hollow with survivors.

San Diego Gathering Focused on Serious Public Health Issues

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:23:00 GMT

More than one thousand people from around the globe have gathered this week in San Diego to focus on the serious public health issues of violence, abuse, and trauma. Survivors, advocates, lawyers and organizers, mental health professionals, service providers, law enforcement, government officials, and academics have come together for two events, a meeting of The National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan (NPEIV) and the 15^th International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma (IVAT).

NPEIV's stated vision is to end all types of interpersonal violence; for all people, in all communities, at all stages of life. They are on a mission to make the prevention of interpersonal violence a national priority and to encourage healthy relationships by linking science, practice, policy, and advocacy. The Zalkin Law Firm, P.C, sponsored this year's NPEIV Think Tank meeting, where participants developed and pursued a meaningful agenda focused on ending violence. More information about NPEIV can be found on its website: http://www.uncg.edu/psy/npeiv/index.html.

If you are serious about ending abuse, including childhood sexual abuse and elder abuse, NPEIV is an important organization where you will find people who understand your efforts and are working aggressively for change.

The NPEIV Think Tank was held in conjunction with Alliant International University's International Conference on Violence, Abuse and Trauma. The theme of this year's conference is Uniting for Peace: Linking Research, Policy and Practice to End Violence and Abuse in Homes and Communities Worldwide. A world-class series of trainings, lectures, forums and networking opportunities are provided at the conference, and provided an educational opportunity to develop skills and gain inspiration in the struggle against violence, abuse and trauma. More information about the conference can be found at: http://www.ivatcenters.org/.

A key lecture, presented on the first day of the conference was Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) & Effects on Children and Adults. The ACE Study focuses on the relationship between ten categories of common adverse childhood experiences and adult mental health, disease, and social function a half-century later. Without a doubt, the ACE study demonstrates the substantial effect that adverse childhood experiences have on adult health and the strains that abuse puts on the health system decades later. More information about the ACE Study can be found at: http://www.acestudy.org/.

Universal Scandal Reaches the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium

Zalkin Law Firm — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:04:00 GMT

More than 500 witnesses of child molestation inflicted at the hands of Roman Catholic Clergymen have come forward in Belgium according to a report issued today, September 10th, 2010. As noted by the head of the commission issuing the report: "Reality is worse than what we present here today because not everyone shares such things automatically in a first contact with the commission."

Despite the under reporting, the Belgium commission was able to identify 476 instances of child abuse involving hundreds of abuse survivors from the 1960s and 70s who endured acts such as mutual masturbation, forced masturbation, and oral and anal abuse. Those abused include children from the age of two on up to those in teenage years. The commission received evidence from the families of 13 suicide victims and from six other people who attempted suicide, all of which was related to abuse by clergy.

Catholics understand the term “Catholic” to mean universal. That is exactly what this scandal has become – universal. All across the globe, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy made irresponsible decisions when it came to the well being of children. These men allowed priest abusers to remain in ministry and reassigned them to communities where they continued to abuse. These men chose not to report the criminal actions of priests to the authorities. These men cared more about the possibility of scandal than in protecting the vulnerable. These men failed to respond as Christ would to the suffering members of the Church.

The Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Belgium has been led for decades by a man, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who when it came to abuse issues was committed to the culture of secrecy. Last month an abuse survivor released tape recordings of the Cardinal seeking to keep abuse allegations quiet against a Belgium Bishop. A universal response in the Universal Church.

This is not an indictment of the whole body. Within the Roman Catholic Church there are dedicated priests, nuns, and other religious and lay people who love God with all their hearts and live their lives as an expression of that love. The problem lies not at the feet of those good people. Instead, it is found within a Hierarchy that holds complete power over church affairs, in every diocese the executive, legislative, and judicial power are held by the local bishop. That absolute power has corrupted absolutely – it is a universal truth – and children pay the price.

YOUNG SURVIVORS SHOULDN'T WAIT TO TAKE ACTION

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:31:00 GMT

Often, young survivors of abuse struggle the hardest with making a decision to proactively begin the healing process. Whether because of fear that their friends and family may view them differently, or the hopeful thought that if the abuse is out of sight and out of mind they will not be affected by it; young survivors tend to be reluctant to seek help.

This is unfortunate because in many instances, young survivors may be the ones with the most to gain by confronting their past victimization. Unlike older abuse survivors who may have lived through years or decades of painful hardships caused by the abuse, a young survivor has the opportunity to seek help and begin the healing process before many damages caused by the abuse have a chance to surface. A young survivor can avoid or minimize years of struggles with the after-affects of abuse by proactively seeking help.

Whether a survivor confronts their past abuse by treating with a psychologist or psychiatrist, pursuing legal action against those responsible for the abuse, or all of the above, it is important not to wait to begin the healing process. The earlier someone begins to address the damage caused by the abuse, the earlier they can begin making strides to correct that damage and prevent later complications from arising.

Another reason to take action quickly is to allow the legal system, both criminal and civil, to move in a timely way to protect others from potential abuse. There are very strict and usually short statutes of limitation that may prevent law enforcement from doing its job, or may forever bar a survivor from obtaining money damages from a perpetrator or responsible employer.

If you are a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, no matter your age, get help. Find someone you can confide in. Consult a doctor. Make an appointment with a psychologist. Contact an experienced lawyer. No matter what you do, don't wait. The sooner you take action, the sooner you can begin to heal.

CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IS NOT LIMITED TO “BAD TOUCHING”

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:17:00 GMT

Parents and others responsible for the safety of children are often left uncertain when asking the question, was my child sexually abused? While they suspect that a child has been sexually abused, when they ask the question "Did so and so touch you?", they often hear a resounding "no." That should not end the discussion.

Non-touching child sexual abuse takes on many different forms and can be just as traumatic as inappropriate touching. A few common examples of sexually abusive, non-touching behavior are:

An adult exposing him or herself to a child
Showing a child pornographic photographs and videos
Watching a child undress in an inappropriate manner or place
Performing sexual acts in front of a child
Grooming a child by talking about sex in an inappropriate way

This non-touching behavior is often the precursor to more aggressive sexual-touching behavior. Frequently, the non-touching sexual behavior is accompanied by the use of alcohol or drugs to lower any inhibitions the child may have. The concerned parent or responsible adult should ask the child, in addition to the questions surrounding non-touching type behavior, if he or she was given any alcohol or other substance by the suspected perpetrator that made them feel "funny" or "different."
It may be difficult for a younger child or even a teenager to reveal that these types of abuse happened to them. As a parent or responsible adult, you should pay attention to the alarm in your head. Obviously something about the child has made you suspicious. Drill down on that suspicion. What about the child is different? Since when has there been a noticeable change in behavior? Does the child resist being around a certain adult or seek to avoid circumstances where that person is around?

The most important thing an adult should do who suspects that their child has been sexually abused, including inappropriate non-touching abuse, is to trust their instinct. Don't be afraid to ask questions, and ask the right questions. Get help. Talk to a professional counselor or law enforcement.

There are several resources for more information on how to detect child sexual abuse. Some suggestions are:

• www.taalk.org

• www.stopitnow.org

• www.childabusepreventioncenter.org

Danger Inherent in Cultural Exchange Programs: Foreign Exchange Students in the United States are the Targets of Sexual Abuse

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:16:00 GMT

Imagine children all across the globe with a dream to study in America.

The cornerstone of our nation's foreign policy is to facilitate that dream through a program of cultural exchange that allows students, scholars, and others with unique skills to travel into the United States. The concept is, at first blush, simple: get to know us, we are good people. Unfortunately, the situation can, and sometimes does, become complicated. Children from the ages of 15 to 18 travel unaccompanied into the United States and into programs that attract sexual predators.

It is the "perfect storm" for the predator. The child is living thousands of miles from home without their parents. Adult supervision is conducted by people who have no experience reading the subtle signs the child exhibits when under stress or in crisis. There is no network of trusted friends or proven adult mentors in whom the child can confide. In many cases, the child lacks meaningful language skills, or the cultural and life experiences necessary to interpret the predators' grooming behavior as dangerous acts. The child can feel so alone that they become willing to please newly found adult figures, and in doing so, cross emotional and physical barriers that would have been insurmountable prior to leaving their home country.

This summer, the Washington Post published the results of a four- month long investigation into the admitted ephebophile, Kevin Ricks. Ricks reportedly worked for fifteen years as an area coordinator and host parent for two foreign exchange programs, Education First Foundation and American Scandinavian Student Exchange. As explained in the Post article, "Law enforcement officials said the foreign exchange program appears to have been a way for Ricks to import vulnerable teenage boys into his home. The students he handpicked were unfamiliar with American customs, spoke a non-native language, and were reliant on Ricks for food and shelter. And he would ultimately be able to send them back overseas." You can find the Post's series on Ricks here.

Exchange students have an advocate in the not-for-profit Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES). Founded by a former exchange program worker, Danielle Grijalva, CSFES advocates for the safety, protection and well being of exchange students around the world. The committee's website is: http://www.csfes.org. In my practice of law at the Zalkin Law Firm, P.C., I work as part of a team of attorneys who have substantial experience representing survivors of childhood abuse, including becoming experts in the laws regarding foreign exchange programs in the United States.

EXTENSION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DEFROCKING A PRIEST HAS NO IMPACT ON SURVIVORS OF ABUSE BY CATHOLIC CLERGY

Zalkin Law Firm — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:22:00 GMT

It is more than ironic that Pope Benedict and his public relations advisors have opted to respond to the worldwide sexual abuse crisis within the Catholic Church by extending the time within which action may be taken by Church officials to defrock a priest. The irony is that this serves only to make the Church "look" good, but does absolutely nothing to respond to the damage suffered by a sexual abuse victim. Again, it's all about perception and avoidance of scandal, and little to do with helping victims.

The fact that the Catholic Church would attach any limitation period to the internal process for defrocking a priest who is guilty of molesting a child, in itself speaks volumes of the lack of understanding of the issue. These perpetrators are dangerous and do not change who they are over the passage of time. If the Church knows it has a problem predator on its hands, how could it possibly justify allowing a priest to continue with faculties (even if he is removed from ministry) just because ten or twenty years has lapsed from the time a particular victim was assaulted.

The Vatican's announcement of its response to the scourge of child sex abuse by its clergy and other religious institutions is woefully inadequate and puts mere window dressing on a very deep and insidious problem. It reflects a complete lack of understanding of the disease of pedophilia and ephebophilia. The passage of time does not "cure" these incurable impulses. People inflicted with these diseases have no business working in environments where they have access to children or teenagers. Further, once a child has been sexually abused, their psychosocial development is derailed and they even suffer from measurable cognitive damage. The symptoms often do not emerge until adulthood and they certainly lack the maturity to grapple with these problems until much later in their adult lives.

Statutes of limitations, whether civil, criminal or church made, that do not account for the longevity of the injuries suffered by the innocent child victims, and the incurable nature of the disease of the abuser, ignore reality and serve only one purpose: to protect the abuser and those who protect him/her.