The Catholic bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Bishop Robert Finn has been indicted by a Jackson County grand jury on a misdemeanor charge of failing to report child sexual abuse to law enforcement authorities.  In addition to Finn’s indictment, the grand jury also handed down a similar one-count indictment against the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph for failure to report the sexual abuse of a child.

Finn’s indictment marks the first time a Catholic bishop has been indicted for failure to report one of his Catholic priests who stands charged with the sexual abuse of a minor child.

The failure to report sexual abuse indictment stems from Fr. Shawn Ratigan’s arrest in May 2011 for the possession of computer child pornography.  Ratigan remains in jail and faces additional charges filed in August for the production of child pornography. 

According to media reports, the Diocese discovered the computer pornography in December 2010 but didn’t report it to the police until May 2011.  Approximately one year prior to Ratigan’s arrest, a Catholic school principal had written a letter to Bishop Finn outlining her concerns about Ratigan’s strange behavior and inappropriate interest in the minor children at St. Patrick Catholic school.  When questioned about the letter this summer, Bishop Finn admitted he never read the letter. 

Several civil sex abuse lawsuits have been filed against Fr. Ratigan, Bishop Finn and the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

Survivors of abuse and those who support them have for years wondered why, in the face of overwhelming evidence of child abuse cover up by bishops and other church officials, there has never been anyone from the church hierarchy ever indicted.  Well, it seems that day has finally arrived.  Of course, the bishop and diocese are presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it will be interesting to see what sort of defense they put up. 

This last week we filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon on behalf of a woman who was sexually abused by an archdiocesan priest, Fr. Edward Altstock, beginning in 1985.  The abuse occurred while she was a parishioner of St. John the Apostle Catholic parish in Reedsport Oregon.  The abuse lasted for at least 4 years from the time she was 14 years old.   The facts we believe we can prove are particularly egregious, since the priest allegedly told the girl that he would make sure they had a romantic future together; for a teenage girl who idolized her priest, this set her up for such devastation. 

According to archdiocesan officials, the sex abuse allegation against Fr. Altstock is the first one lodged against him.  He retired from active ministry in 2001.  The abuse in this case began during the last year Archbishop Cornelius Power led the Archdiocese of Portland and continued during the leadership of Archbishop William Levada, presently Cardinal and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

This week’s filing continues the now over 15 year history of Kelly Clark and O’Donnell, Clark and Crew of representing victims of priest abuse against the Archdiocese of Portland.  Links to past articles and presentations we have done on this topic can be found here.

MT Sex abuse case filed against Boy Scouts detailed

Posted: Sep 9, 2011 11:13 AM by Katy Harris (KAJ News)
Updated: Sep 9, 2011 1:42 PM

A press conference was held in Kalispell by the plaintiffs attorneys on Thursday. William Leininger was a prominent Kalispell business man and very active in the community.

He ran several boy scout troops, including an explorer post that was co-ed. The troop was supposed to be boys and girls ages 14 to 18 but Leininger allowed girls into the troop as young as age 11.

The attorneys believe Leininger set this troop up to take advantage of young girls.

"He set up this troop with girls so that he could meet girls in a role as a trusted leader, trusted boy scout leader and use his position as a boy scout leader to create relationships with them, relationships of trust with girls and their families so that he could build on that relationship and abuse the girls," attorney Gilion Dumas said.

Leininger was criminally convicted in Kalispell in 1972 for an abuse case and was later convicted in 1982 for a separate abuse case and died in prison custody in 2002.

Colick here to read the court papers (pdf.)

Big news was made this week in a Portland priest abuse case when a Vatican agency, the “Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life,”  in charge of all religious orders throughout the world, released documents concerning pedophile priest Rev. Andrew Ronan. This release followed an order by a federal judge in Portland in April that the Vatican release such documents, so that the parties could better understand what role, if any, the Vatican played in the transfer of Ronan to Portland in the 60’s, after which he abused the plaintiff in the current lawsuit.  The judicial order is unprecedented in that no US civil court has ever ordered a congregation within the Vatican, a sovereign state, to release documents related to a civil lawsuit in the United States.  Now that the documents have been released, the Vatican attorney, Jeffrey Lena,  is claiming victory because, according to him, the documents (which are in Latin and Italian) show no Vatican knowledge of the priest’s sexual abuse of the plaintiff John Doe.  Furthermore, Lena claims that the documents also prove the Vatican did not authorize the transfer of Rev. Andrew Ronan to Portland in the 1960’s. 

With all due respect to Mr Lena, who is a good attorney, there’s more to the legal and ecclesiastical stories than simply whether the documents show a “smoking gun” kind of knowledge by the Vatican of Ronan’s history of abuse.  The question is one of “principal-agency” under Oregon law.  This is something I know more than a little about, since it was one of my cases—Fearing v Bucher and the Archdiocese of Portland—in 1999 before the Oregon Supreme Court that shaped this law, especially when it comes to sexual abuse of children by trusted adults.  So let’s look more closely at the case, and at Lena’s claims.

While it seems plain that the Sacred Congregation for Religious (the former name of the Vatican agency) did not directly make the decision to transfer Rev. Ronan from Chicago to Portland, this fact alone does not answer the central legal question in the case: whether Ronan, under Oregon law, can be considered an “agent” of the Vatican.  If so, then the Vatican, like any “principal,” can be liable for the acts of its agent, even intentional wrongdoing, such as sexual abuse.  And the test for “agency” under Oregon law is whether the principal has the “right to control” the agent in the means and manner by which the agent carries out his duties.  And here, of course, it is plain to anyone who has ever spent five minutes thinking about it, that the Vatican Congregation for Religious of course would have had the right to control—and did in fact control—the means and manner of Ronan’s priestly duties, as it did for all priests:  requiring him, for example, to live a celibate life and not to marry; setting out in great detail how and what he was to teach his parishioners in terms of Catholic doctrine and catechism; when and under what conditions he could marry a young couple, and when and under what conditions he could not marry an older couple with previous marriages;  how and in what manner he would celebrate the Eucharist or conduct baptisms—the list goes on and on of how, under canon law, the Vatican, through its Congregation for Religious, had the right to control the details of Ronan’s work.   Perhaps the most important fact is that it was the Vatican Congregation, and no one else, who had the sole power to decide whether Ronan would even remain a priest.  Indeed, one of the undisputed points in the case is that Ronan himself petitioned the Sacred Congregation for Religious to leave the priesthood.  Obviously, Ronan, his superiors in the Servite Order, the bishop in Portland, and the Vatican all understood that the power to grant such a leave remained solely in the hands of the Vatican Sacred Congregation for Religious. 

So if the legal question in the Ronan case is “agency” as understood in Oregon law—and I think it is—then in my view as a sex abuse attorney for hundreds of men and women abused as children by Catholic priests, Boy Scout leaders, Mormon Church leaders, and other trusted adults, the Vatican could be lawfully held liable by a federal jury in Portland for the acts of Ronan. 

Nor should those who claim that the Church has come in for special or discriminatory treatment under the law be taken seriously.  The Church gets the same analysis under civil law as any business or nonprofit organization.  In any large organization, a mid-level manager has the authority to monitor and perhaps transfer agents and employees from one department to another.  However, hiring and firing policies, and orders about how to carry out the work,  come from a higher source, namely, the top level administration of the company—the principal. The analysis is no different for any nonprofit organization or church—including the Catholic Church.

The question before US District Judge Michael W. Mosman concerns this principal-agent relationship.  If Judge Mosman rules that the evidence presented to him is sufficient to show that the Vatican had the right to control Ronan in the means and manner of his priestly duties, then Judge Mosman would allow the case to proceed to a jury, which would ultimately be called upon to decide if Ronan was under the direction and control of the Vatican.  Stay tuned: the case could get very interesting.

Recently we filed nine cases on behalf of former students of residential schools for “troubled teens,” in which we alleged systematic mental and physical abuse, along with some sexual abuse.  Soon, we will be filing up to twenty more.  Because the cases were brought against Mount Bachelor Academy (MBA), which was closed by the State of Oregon in 2009 amidst allegations of widespread abuse, and because MBA was run by Aspen Education Group, one of the nation’s largest operators of such schools, the filings generated widespread public interest.

Since these cases were filed, I have talked to dozens of other students, residents of other schools around the country, and I have heard consistently similar stories. So I write now to consider some of the commonalities raised by these schools and their programs.

The “troubled teens” industry has long been controversial, with continuing concern that youngsters are often isolated at such schools and subjected to consistent and serious physical and emotional abuse.  Not just “tough love,” say the critics, but outright abuse.

Likewise, writer Maia Salavitz who often writes for Time Magazine, published a full expose of the principles and practices of these residential schools in Help At Any Cost. 

The situation has become serious enough that Congress commissioned the GAO to do a study of these schools, and significant legislation has been introduced in Congress more than once to try to regulate them, since too often, states have not been diligent enough in monitoring what goes on at such places.  

Likewise, litigation against residential schools for troubled teens is on the rise.

So what is it that is so troubling about the “troubled teen” industry that it has generated such comment, inquiry and revolt? 

Well, though I am far from being an expert, at least not yet, as a longtime attorney for victims of child sexual abuse— priest abuse, Boy Scout abuse, Mormon Church abuse, and foster care abuse—I have a sense about what happens in institutions where care for children is supposed to be the order of the day, but where other agendas take over.  As we have seen with the churches and other youth organizations, and even governmental “institutions of trust” to whom children are entrusted for guidance and care, often an agenda to protect the reputation of the institution can take precedence over a common sense agenda for the well-being of children.  I have written extensively about this on this blog and elsewhere.

In the residential school context, I see  dynamics both similar and different to what has happened in the child sex abuse cases.  One similar dynamic is that as in churches or other youth programs, often in these schools there is no place for children to go with genuine complaints.  The schools often co-opt parents by telling them, up front, that student complaints were just another way that the kids try to sabotage their stay at the school, and so the parents should steel themselves to ignore such complaints. So we hear about the hopelessness of kids being abused, trying to speak to their parents, and yet being shut down or ignored. (The question of parental responsibility for the children’s plight is a complicated one, and I will address that in a subsequent blog).  Also, as mentioned, often state child welfare agencies had no mandate to regulate or monitor these schools closely, and so kids had no outside resource to whom they could take their concerns.  So, literally, these kids, stuck in a hostile and abusive environment, had no place to turn.  They were quite literally incarcerated. In fact, attorney Phil Elberg, who has brought many of these cases in the Eastern US, has called residential schools for troubled teens “private jails.”  It seems not an exaggeration. 

So abuse in the residential schools context is similar to sexual abuse in institutions of trust because in both, too often, the children had no place to go, no one to tell, what they were experiencing.

But the two contexts are significantly different in one key way.  I have often argued in child sexual abuse cases with representatives and lawyers for the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts, the Mormon Church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church and others about whose ultimate responsibility it was that children were sexually abused in such places.  But the point is that whomever was at fault—the organizations, the perpetrators, parents—everyone agrees that child sexual abuse in such organizations was not supposed to happen. It was, these organizations say, the farthest thing from what was supposed to happen there.  In contrast, in the troubled teen residential schools, everyone agrees that much of what happened—we call it abuse, while they deny that—but much of what happened was part of the program; it was a fundamental aspect of the educational/mental health theory.  For example, the so-called “Lifesteps” of the Aspen model—in which kids were subject to systematic challenge and confrontation both emotional and physical, and which we claim were fundamentally abusive—were the heart of the program.  These Steps were, at least in some educational theorist’s mind, supposed to be a good thing for the kids.  This is the baffling aspect of these stories.  I cannot help but wondering, what were these people thinking?  How can it possibly be a good thing, for just one example, for a child sexual abuse survivor, in going through a Lifestep, to be forced to re-enact her abuse in front of her peers, or to be told that she was “dirty” and deserved what had happened to her as a child?  And yet, we have clients who will testify that this is exactly what happened to them.  There are other, similarly troubling incidents that occurred to students who were struggling with other problems—eating disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, bereavement at the death of parents—and who were subjected to the most bizarre kinds of “treatment” for their struggles.  Again, the question that screams to be answered is this: how was this supposed to work?  Help me understand how this was supposed to work?

I’m sure that in these cases we will see vigorous disputes about what actually happened at these schools—for example, in response to our suit, one lawyer for Mount Bachelor simply denied that any of it happened. 

But I expect there will be much about what happened there that will not be disputed.  We will be told that this was not abuse, no doubt, or that our students misunderstood the principles or practices of these programs.  But I expect we will also be told that much of what former residents of these schools complain about, was part and parcel of the program.  So I look forward to taking depositions and cross-examining witnesses in these “troubled teens” cases, to try to get some answers.  For now, all I can say is that the stories I am hearing and the questions that come to mind are, well, “troubling.”

My colleagues Steve Crew, Peter Janci and I filed a new Boy Scout sex abuse lawsuit in Bend Oregon today.  The Oregon Boy Scout lawsuit was filed against the Boy Scouts of America, and concerned deceased Scoutmaster Ed Dyer, who was one of Oregon’s most notorious sex abusers.  During a span of 28 years, Dyer admitted to molesting at least 15 young boys, and we believe there were many more.  Like most pedophiles and sexual abusers, Dyer used his position of authority to attract and groom young boys before sexually molesting them.  Dyer was shot and killed by one of his victims, Louis Conner, in 1986.

 It’s a sad reminder of the enormous harm done by the sexual abuse of minors.  Twenty-five years after Dyer’s death, there is still pain and suffering.  Hopefully, today’s lawsuit filing is the first step in the quest for justice and healing for one courageous young man.

Kristian Foden-Vencil | July 6, 2011 | Portland, OR OPB News

Nine former students of a boarding school near Prineville, filed suit in Multnomah County Wednesday.They claim physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their teachers.

Mt. Bachelor Academy was a school for teenagers who had either tangled with the law or had behavior problems at home.Parents paid more than $6000 a month to give their kids a ‘tough love’ education. But the school was closed by the state in 2009 — after the Department of Human Services found what it called "nine substantiated claims of abuse."

The school quickly fired back with a lawsuit.

That case was settled last year. The state withdrew its findings, but still claimed it had a "reasonable cause" to investigate.

The school has not reopened.

Now Kelly Clark, a lawyer for nine students, is going to court for $14 million dollars in damages. The lawsuit lists numerous abuses.

"Unnecessary physical restraint, denial of meals, sleep deprivation, light deprivation, sound torture. They would play the same song, over and over again. Strip searches, forced marches. Forcing the plaintiffs to beat on inanimate objects until their hands bled," Clark said.

Clark concedes that the military may use some similar techniques to break down and then build up new soldiers.

But he argues, these were children, not adults.

"There’s no 15-year-old marines. You at least theoretically signed your own name on the dotted line. And you’re there of your own volition. And I would suggest that even the most aggressive boot camp out there does not have some of the things that we’re alleging here," Clark said.

Clark says he doesn’t plan to rely on the state’s investigation for his lawsuit. He says he’ll build his own case, using the testimony of the students who are now in their 20s and 30s. The state chose not to comment on Wednesday’s lawsuit.

Mt. Bachelor Academy’s attorney issued a statement (see the complete statement below) saying the school never condoned or participated in the mistreatment or deprivation of any students.

It also says the program was specifically designed for troubled students who had failed to progress in other settings. The statement says the program aimed to help kids confront the worst of their behaviors and take ownership of them. The school says its approach proved successful at producing positive, life-changing — and, in some cases, life-saving — results.

While we have not yet had the opportunity to evaluate the allegations in the complaint filed today, we would like to go on record that Mount Bachelor Academy was successful in resolving the dispute with the Oregon Department of Human Services last fall after abundant evidence was collected that showed the allegations of abuse made to the Department were unfounded. DHS initially took action based on students’ allegations, but withdrew its orders, including the suspension of Mount Bachelor Academy’s license, after further information became available. Given the favorable terms of the settlement agreement, we agreed to dismiss our various legal proceedings against the state. We also independently decided to leave Mount Bachelor Academy closed due to the fact that the sudden and erroneous closure of the campus effectively shut the program down the year prior.

For over two decades, Mount Bachelor Academy (MBA) positively changed the lives of over 1,000 troubled young people. MBA was a program specifically designed for troubled students who had failed to progress in other settings. It was designed to help kids confront the worst of their behaviors and take ownership of them, whether that be substance abuse, sexual acting out or other issues. This approach proved successful at producing positive, life-changing – and, in some cases, life-saving – results. The numerous positive testimonials provided by families and students over the years further attest to the success of MBA.

MBA and its parent companies never condoned or participated in the mistreatment or deprivation of any students. As we understand, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit attended MBA prior to its acquisition by a nationally recognized network of therapeutic schools and programs that espouse comprehensive best practices and safety protocols. While we cannot comment on specific allegations from individual students due to HIPAA privacy regulations, we vigorously deny any and all charges of mistreatment. Greg Chaimov

POSTED: 1:42 pm PDT July 6, 2011

PORTLAND, Ore. — Nine former students of one of Oregon’s best known “tough love” boarding schools, a facility east of Prineville that was shut by the state two years ago, filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging emotional, physical and sexual abuse.The suit is being brought by attorneys Kelly Clark, Steve Crew, Gilion Dumas, Kristian Roggendorf, Peter Janci and the Portland law firm O’Donnell Clark and Crew, who often bring child abuse cases in Oregon and around the nation.The suit alleges claims of battery, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress against Mount Bachelor Academy and its parent companies, Aspen Education Group and CRC Health. The suit seeks more than $14 million in compensatory damages, and punitive damages will be sought as well.An attorney for the school’s operator later issued a statement denying the charges. That statement is in full below, after the rest of the release about the lawsuit’s allegations:Located 26 miles east of Prineville, the controversial “therapeutic boarding school” known as Mount Bachelor Academy was closed by the state of Oregon in November of 2009 based on the findings of an investigation related to charges of systemic abuse and neglect.According to a report by the Oregon Department of Human Services, Mount Bachelor Academy reportedly used “punitive, humiliating, degrading and traumatizing” tactics as “treatment” 00– an approach some say stems from the Synanon self-help group of the 1960′s, which was rejected as a cult by mainstream mental health community by the late 1970s. At the time of its closure in 2009, Mt. Bachelor Academy reportedly had more than 75 staff supervising approximately 90 students who were being charged a tuition of $6,400 per month.“The so-called ‘treatment’ that these children were forced to endure on a daily basis at Mt. Bachelor Academy is obscene. Not only did the program ‘break kids down’, it did nothing to build them back up,” said Kelly Clark, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “We intend to prove that this wasn’t education, it wasn’t treatment and it wasn’t ‘tough love’ – this was abuse.”The plaintiffs in Wednesday’s suit, who all attended Mount Bachelor Academy in the late 1990s, allege: that they were subjected to regular psychological abuse and shaming, including being required to reenact traumatic experiences (such as prior instances of child sexual abuse) in front of their peers; that they were subjected to extreme isolation and prolonged deprivations of food, water, shelter, and basic medical care; that students were required to go days with little or no sleep and were also regularly forced into “chain gang” style labor; that phone calls to their families were limited and were monitored by Mt. Bachelor Academy staff; and that parents were instructed by staff not to believe their children if they claimed malfeasance or abuse – i.e., the children will lie, it is all part of the treatment process, parents were told.The allegations in the lawsuit are consistent with the findings by the Oregon Department of Human Services. In late 2009, following a seven month investigation, DHS found multiple incidences of “abuse and neglect” and “serious violations of Oregon’s licensing standards.”The DHS report cited nine substantiated claims of abusive practices, including “punitive, humiliating, degrading and traumatizing” activities such as “sexualized role pay and reenactment of traumatic events, such as prior physical or sexual abuse.” The state also found that these were not isolated incidents; instead, “many of [the abusive] behaviors fell within the range of behavior expected, encouraged or condoned by the Mount Bachelor Academy program itself . . . .”DHS determined that “MBA poses a serious danger to public health or safety of children . . . [and] should not be permitted to continue operating as a therapeutic boarding school for children.” Thereafter, in November of 2009, the state gave Mt. Bachelor Academy 72 hours to shut down its program and remove students from its facility. The facility closed on November 3, 2009. Later, in October 2010, as part of a settlement of a suit by Mt. Bachelor against the state contesting the DHS findings of abuse, Aspen Education Group and CRC Health Group (the parent company’s of Mount Bachelor Academy) agreed that DHS had reasonable cause to believe that abuse or neglect had occurred at the school, and that DHS had a reasonable basis to investigate and to seek corrective actions.The lawsuit names Mount Bachelor Academy and its parent companies as defendants. Those include Aspen Education Group – a national conglomerate of therapeutic boarding schools which, at its peak had nearly 40 youth programs throughout the United States – as well as Aspen’s parent company, CRC Health Group. CRC Health Group is a large national healthcare corporation owned by Bain Capital, a private equity firm with $65 billion in assets.4Wednesday’s lawsuit is part of a larger response to decades of abuse and mistreatment in so-called “tough love” facilities – both inside and outside of the Aspen Education Group.According to previous news reports, at least four children have died in Aspen-owned facilities since 2004. One of those incidences occurred in Oregon in 2009 – the death of student Sergey Blashchishen during a wilderness hike in the Redmond-based Sagewalk Wilderness School.Blashchishen, a minor at the Sagewalk facility, collapsed in August of 2009 while hiking on his second day Aspen’s Sagewalk program. Staff had reportedly ignored repeated signs of a serious medical problem, and the boy died at the scene. The lead sherif’s investigator on the Sagewalk case recommended that the Lake County district attorney file homicide charges. Sagewalk had previously been the subject of the nationally broadcast ABC television series “Brat Camp” in 2005.As Peter Janci, one of the Plaintiffs’ attorneys explained,“Many ‘tough love’ schools have been a breeding ground for abuse – isolating vulnerable kids and subjecting them to debunked so-called ‘treatments’ by unqualified staff, while their parents are kept in the dark and bilked out of tens of thousands of dollars.”Problems of abuse, injury and even death are present throughout the “tough love” industry. Some reports indicate that more than two dozen teenagers died in such facilities between 1990 and 2001.The lawsuit is one in a growing number of actions by individuals who survived these facilities, only to be left with serious, long-term psychological injuries. Several weeks ago, a civil suit was filed against Silverado Academy in Utah for claims related to a staff member’s sexual abuse of at least 10 boys.Previously, in 2006, attorneys for another group of individuals filed a major lawsuit alleging neglect, fraud and abuse against the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools and related entities. That suit is still pending in federal court in Utah, and now includes 353 plaintiffs who allege they were wronged by therapeutic boarding schools and their related entities.“This is a watershed moment in exposing organizations that have profited from broken promises to desperate families,” said Clark. “We believe that institutions like Mount Bachelor Academy need to be exposed for what they are and held accountable for the permanent damage they have done to the lives of vulnerable teenagers entrusted to their care.”Clark and his firm are among the most prominent child sexual abuse attorneys in the nation, having brought over 300 claims against such organizations as the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, the Boy Scouts of America and dozens of other youth-serving organizations.Clark has twice won landmark child abuse cases at the Oregon Supreme Court, and last year was lead counsel in a six week sex abuse trial against the Boy Scouts of America resulting in a jury verdict of nearly $20 million.—A response from Greg Chaimov, a lawyer with Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, on behalf of client Mount Bachelor AcademyWhile we have not yet had the opportunity to evaluate the allegations in the complaint filed today, we would like to go on record that Mount Bachelor Academy was successful in resolving the dispute with the Oregon Department of Human Services last fall after abundant evidence was collected that showed the allegations of abuse made to the Department were unfounded.DHS initially took action based on students’ allegations, but withdrew its orders, including the suspension of Mount Bachelor Academy’s license, after further information became available. Given the favorable terms of the settlement agreement, we agreed to dismiss our various legal proceedings against the state. We also independently decided to leave Mount Bachelor Academy closed due to the fact that the sudden and erroneous closure of the campus effectively shut the program down the year prior.For over two decades, Mount Bachelor Academy (MBA) positively changed the lives of over 1,000 troubled young people. MBA was a program specifically designed for troubled students who had failed to progress in other settings. It was designed to help kids confront the worst of their behaviors and take ownership of them, whether that be substance abuse, sexual acting out or other issues. This approach proved successful at producing positive, life-changing – and, in some cases, life-saving – results. The numerous positive testimonials provided by families and students over the years further attest to the success of MBA.MBA and its parent companies never condoned or participated in the mistreatment or deprivation of any students. As we understand, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit attended MBA prior to its acquisition by a nationally recognized network of therapeutic schools and programs that espouse comprehensive best practices and safety protocols. While we cannot comment on specific allegations from individual students due to HIPAA privacy regulations, we vigorously deny any and all charges of mistreatment.

Nine ex-students sue, say they were mistreated at central Oregon school for troubled teens

Published: Wednesday, July 06, 2011, 3:02 PM     Updated: Wednesday, July 06, 2011, 8:16 PM

By Helen Jung, The Oregonian The Oregonian

Nine former students of a Prineville-area school for troubled teens are suing the now-defunct school’s parent company, saying teachers and staff humiliated, isolated and abused them as part of its curriculum.

The complaint, which was filed today in Multnomah County Circuit Court, detailed students’ accusations:

One teen, a girl who had suffered sexual abuse as a child, was forced to repeatedly engage in provocative role-playing with older males, the complaint states. Another student, who suffered from asthma, was forced to sleep outdoors in below-freezing temperatures. Staff members also denied him food, sleep and use of a restroom and withheld his asthma inhaler despite asthma attacks that were brought on by their tactics.

The suit seeks nearly $14.3 million from the Mount Bachelor Academy, its parent company Aspen Education Group, and Aspen’s parent company, CDC Health Group Inc.

The school shut down in December 2009, about a month after receiving an emergency suspension order from the state’s Department of Human Services, which had investigated the abuse allegations.

"The so-called treatment," said Kelly Clark, an attorney for the plaintiffs, "was not education, was not treatment and was not therapeutic. We intend to prove that it was abuse, pure and simple."

 The company issued a statement saying that it had not had the opportunity to review the claims. But it argued that it had resolved its dispute with the state and noted that the state withdrew its emergency order to close the school.

 That September 2010 settlement notes that the state agreed to withdraw its emergency suspension order because the school was already closed.

Clark and his law firm have pressed hundreds of claims against the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America. Clark last year won a nearly $20 million judgment from the Boy Scouts of America on behalf of a sex-abuse victim last year.

This story will be updated with more information.

– Helen Jung

In Part I of this series on apologies and forgiveness, I offered some thoughts on the nature of a genuine apology, as distinct from a pseudo-apology, or a non-apology.  In Part II I told a story of one of the most genuine and healing apologies I have ever seen.  In this meditation, Part III, I want to consider with you the place and power of forgiveness.

At the outset I should say by way of disclaimer and disclosure, again, that I have several reasons for having thought so much and read so widely on these matters. First, I am a broken man, a not very virtuous Christian in recovery from many addictions, who has badly hurt, and been hurt by, those I have loved deeply.  Some of this pain has been very private, but some of it– because much of my professional life in law and politics has been somewhat high profile– some of it has not.  Either way, for many years now I have been keenly aware that I am a man who stands in need of both receiving and giving forgiveness.  Second, as a child sex abuse lawyer for those who are victims of Catholic priest abuse, Mormon abuse, and Boy Scout abuse, among other contexts, I have seen firsthand the struggles of survivors of child sex abuse to obtain apologies from those who wronged them, and, sometimes, to find in their own souls the power to forgive those who harmed them.   So I have thought a lot about all this.

Often I am asked, by a client survivor of child abuse, or by, say a younger man in recovery, about forgiveness. Usually the question is whether I think it is incumbent upon them to forgive those who have hurt them.  This is a difficult and delicate question, and I am always quick to say so to those who ask.  Some people—many of my colleagues in the child abuse healing field, for example—will discourage you from even considering this.  But, I suggest to my questioner, no one can presume to tell another whether he or she must, or even should, forgive someone who has wronged him or her.  I have not lived your life, I have never been an abuse survivor, I have not walked in your shoes. Recovering—from addiction or from child abuse—is about learning to take back your power and live your own life, and so only you can decide whether to forgive. 

But, even being reluctant to give advice about whether another should forgive, I will sometimes  offer a few observations. 

First, I have observed that it is very difficult—although not impossible–  for a person who has been hurt to forgive someone who has not asked for forgiveness, who has not shown remorse, who has not tried to make amends, who has shown no willingness to change and go in a new direction.  So one consideration is whether the hurtful person has asked for forgiveness.   If not, then offering forgiveness is more difficult and it is perfectly appropriate to acknowledge that.

Second, I have noticed that coming to a place where one can offer forgiveness to another for a wrong done can take a long, long time—and that is understandable. Deeply wounded people must first become whole, become strong, become able to care for themselves and their needs, to stand up for themselves and hold their boundaries.  Too often, a perpetrator of abuse or pain has conditioned the other to give up his or her own power habitually and automatically, or quickly to drop emotional boundaries in relation to the perpetrator.  Do not confuse damaged self-esteem or fragile boundaries with true forgiveness, I will say.  Only a whole and healed person can forgive, and if one tries too soon, or pronounces forgiveness out of compulsion, it can become a re-enactment of the abuse dynamic—even from a distance, even without any actual or ongoing interaction between the wrongdoer and the wronged.  “I really feel like I should forgive him,” some of my clients will say.   But this is just another way in which a harmful person continues to steal power from the one he has harmed.  

This dynamic is true even—maybe even especially—if the compulsion to forgive comes from a place of early or old religious dogma or training.  Remember that many survivors were abused by figures of religious or spiritual authority, which means often that many of these survivors carry the remnants of religious training, and so can easily feel compelled “to forgive” as a result of childhood guilt.  But as we can easily see, a coerced or compulsive religious scruple is not the same thing as a mature and strong spiritual decision: especially when it comes to the very weighty decision to forgive one who has done harm.  Now I want to be careful here, lest I be misunderstood. I am not rejecting the ancient and powerful spiritual wisdom of Christianity, of Judaism, of Islam, of the Eastern spiritual systems—all of which, in various ways, teach the cleansing power of forgiving those who have hurt us.  But I am saying that the truth in these traditions about forgiveness must be discovered by each wounded person in his or her own time, in wholeness and in freedom.  It is no good to forgive because I think I “must,” or “should.”  Forgiveness is a gift—perhaps the greatest gift known to humankind—but in order to be authentic, to be healing, it must be freely offered by one who has the emotional and spiritual power to choose to do so.  So forgive when you are able to do so freely: which is, ironically, about the same time that you are also able to choose not to forgive. In other words, forgive if you choose, as you choose.

Then, once I have tried to make sure I am clear on these two observations, I offer a third.  And that is this: that once in a great while—and it is a mysterious and beautiful thing– I have seen wounded people become strong, become clear, become free in their healing and new power, and then choose to forgive those who have hurt them.  And what I then see in these people is a release, a new level of freedom from the toxic hold that the hurtful person once held over them.  “He/She has held me and my emotions captive long enough,” they say. “I’m done.  I release it, I release him.  I’m no longer willing to carry the burden of this anger, this hurt, this resentment.  I choose to forgive, and I am free.  I do not hate him; I do not wish him ill.  I want to be at peace, with myself, with him, with the universe.  Knowing I could choose not to do so, and that I would be justified in doing so, I nonetheless think it is best– for me –to choose to forgive.”  When these incredible people come to this place, as I have observed, they become some of the freest, most peaceful, powerful and loving people I have ever known.   And so it is that, in response to the question of “should I forgive?” I say to my inquirer, if you decide you want to go to that place, if you decide, in freedom, to choose to forgive, then I will fully support you and walk with you along the way. Because I want to watch the miracle.  Perhaps I might learn from you, and draw from your good spirit and energy. That would be a great privilege, indeed.

Reading about a recent criminal sex abuse trial in Medford, Oregon recently, I was stunned at what I learned.  A child was asked to "demonstrate" how she was abused by her stepfather, complete with a mattress being brought into the courtroom.  Now, of course, I have no right to an opinion about whether the man is guilty or not.  But, as this well-written Mail Tribune editorial points out, assuming that the child was abused– which is what any judge must do in such a situation– did no one in the courtroom, judge, prosecutor, victim’s advocate, see what this was likely to do to a child who has been abused?  It is the worst kind of re-creation of trauma: done in public with hostile adults standing by ready to shame the child!  I don’t of course question the motive of the judge or prosecutor: I do question their judgment.   It tells me how far we still have to go in helping even the legal profession understand the life-scarring impact of abuse.

As a child sex abuse attorney who has represented many, many victims of priest sexual abuse, Boy Scout sexual abuse, Mormon sexual abuse, and child sexual abuse in a variety of other contexts, I have seen firsthand the deep need that survivors have for a genuine apology from those who harmed them—the perpetrators of the abuse and those in institutional positions of responsibility who failed to protect children from abuse. In my last blog, I posted on the nature of a true apology, and examined some pseudo-apologies, explaining why such half measures do not achieve any healing or forgiveness.  In this post, I want to tell a story of one of the very few true apologies I have ever seen in doing this work, and one of the most genuine apologies I have ever seen in any context.

A number of years ago, the parents of a four year-old little girl came to me deeply distraught at having learned that their daughter, along with several other children, had been repeatedly molested by an employee of a large athletic club, part of a national chain company. This 22 year-old man, who was soon after convicted of multiple counts of child sexual abuse, would often worm his way into the child care area of the club, and was allowed by unsuspecting childcare workers to play with the children.  During this play, he would frequently abuse these small children, as a hidden video camera later showed.  As the situation became clear during the criminal investigation, the parents became convinced that the club had been badly negligent, both in failing to do a full background check on this man, but also in failing to supervise the child care area, as the videos made plain.  The parents wanted accountability and they wanted change, so that this did not happen to anyone else, but they did not want to file a lawsuit if they could avoid it. So we made an out of court claim against the athletic club and they offered to mediate the claim. 

A few months later, after a day with a skillful mediator, we settled the claim—for a confidential amount of money for the future needs of the child. We also secured an agreement that the organization would do a comprehensive review of their child safety policies, bring in outside experts to assist with this project, and include my clients in the process every step of the way, allowing them to have input and to make suggestions.  And—most important of all to the parents—we negotiated that an executive of the company would come to Portland and meet with them face to face, to make a personal apology for the company’s mistakes. “An apology,” I said to the mediator, “not some meely-mouthed statement of regret.” I was thinking of all the half and pseudo apologies I had heard from so many people in positions of responsibility for the safety of children at the end of cases, so many bishops and bureaucrats and insurance executives.

So it was that a few weeks later we had a meeting in my office—the parents, me, two lawyers for the company and the executive.  I must admit, when I was first introduced to the executive, I was disappointed.  I guess I had expected some silver-haired CEO with an air of “top guy”—but instead here was a young woman, not much older than my clients, perhaps in her mid-thirties.  She introduced herself as the “Vice President for Human Resources”—meaning she was in charge of writing policies regarding the supervision of employees.  So, clearly she was the one who would head up the “policy review” process outlined in our settlement.  But who was going to make the apology? I wondered.  It didn’t take long to find out.

(Now, I should say at this point that I recreate this conversation from memory, not notes, which I did not keep, and so I might not have all the dialogue just right. But I remember it like it was yesterday, such an impact it had on me.)

”I’m so glad you agreed to meet with me,” started the young woman, clearly nervous and unsure of herself, “for I am absolutely committed to changing our policies so that nothing like this ever happens again, and we will do whatever it takes to make sure of that.”  Hmmm.  A little blunt, I thought, but so far, so good. 

She was then silent for a long time and looked down.  Her voice changed, she shook her head and looked directly at the parents.  “No, wait…Before we start that process,” said she, “I want to say something first.  I want you to know that I’m a parent, too. I have a five year old, a beautiful five year- old little boy”—at this her eyes started to well with tears– “and I just want you to know that, if this ever happened to my child, I would be so upset, so angry, so enraged, I don’t know what I would do.  I cannot even imagine what your life has been like for the last several months.  So I am here to say how very sorry I am at what happened to your daughter.  I just cannot imagine your pain and anger….”  Now, at this point I expected her to stop, as I had seen happen with so many other organizations, after a representative had given some version of “I’m sorry this happened to you.”   After all, though this young woman was obviously sincere, so far all she had really done was to show deep empathy for what had happened to this family. Now, don’t get me wrong– deep empathy is great, and I wish more organizations would practice it as genuinely as did this executive.  But so far, it wasn’t an apology. It was just an expression of empathy. 

But not for long.

“And I want you to know that I know, and my company knows, that we completely failed you here,  and we failed your daughter”— by now, real tears flowing down her face and her voice breaking—“ and I am so, so sorry. I would give anything if we could go back and prevent what happened to your little girl.  I know that we can’t do that, and so all I can offer you, on my own behalf and on behalf of my company, is a genuine, deep, unconditional apology.  I am and we are very sorry and apologize to you and your daughter.”

You could hear a pin drop. The parents were still. The mother slowly started to speak.  “You know,” she said, “that is all I really wanted to hear.  What you said really matters to me, and I believe you that you and your company are sorry….Thank you.”  “Yeah,” echoed the father softly, “I appreciate your kind words, and I accept your apology.  Now we can all go to work to change things so that this doesn’t happen to anyone else.”   And so we did, and the organization is now significantly safer for children than it was before.

The power of an apology is an amazing thing, if it is given sincerely and without equivocation, as this story shows.

I get asked quite often by people what is the role of apology and forgiveness in the work that I do. Well, the short answer is: not much. As a child sex abuse attorney having represented over over 300 men, women and children who suffered child sexual abuse, I can count on one hand the number of times that I have witnessed a genuine apology and a request for forgiveness.  Whether from those responsible for Catholic priest abuse, Boy Scout abuse, Mormon abuse, or any of the other contexts in which these crimes occur– families, schools, athletic leagues–  I just haven’t seen it, with but a few exceptions.

But as one who has made serious mistakes in my own life deeply hurting those I have loved, as a (not very virtuous) man of Christian faith, as a recovering alcoholic who has done his best to make amends to those I have harmed in my life, and as a human being who observes the human condition, I have read and thought a lot about apologies and forgiveness.  So, in this and forthcoming blogs, I plan to reflect with you on the nature of apology and forgiveness.

We have all seen the pseudo-apology:  "I’m sorry this happened to you."  "I regret that you feel something I did– or did not do–caused you pain."  "We regret your experience."  These are not apologies and requests for forgiveness.  These are words written by lawyers and publicists so their clients can get out of a legal scrape or a public embarrassment and yet not acknowledge wrongdoing.  The Catholic Church is the most notorious user of this kind of pseudo apology.   If you really read what the Church heirarchy has written, even the comments of the Popes, they do not amount to real apologies.  The closest they have come is to "apologize for the heinous actions of some priests."  But, of course, coming from the Church heirarchy– which, all too often, played a crucial role in allowing child sex abuse to occur– this rings hollow.  It fails to acknowledge the role of the bishops and cardinals in transferring abusive priests, in covering up the problem, in denying the extent of it.  It pretends that the problem of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church began and ended with a few errant priests.  It ignores the culture of secrecy and denial that was so prevalent in the Church leadership structure during the last fifty years.

Not not only the Catholic Church, but also the Boy Scouts, the Mormon Church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, governments and schools: I have seen all of them give short shrift to the apology and request for forgiveness that is so crucial to healing for survivors of child abuse.

A true apology and request for forgiveness starts with an unconditional acknowledgment– yes, even confession– of wrongdoing.  "I was, we were,  wrong. Our actions were selfish and wrong. There is no excuse. We are deeply sorry and offer our sincere and unconditional apology. We humbly ask your forgiveness."  This kind of genuine apology takes its lead from the great spiritual traditions of the West:  the biblical stories of the Old Testament, the ancient Greeks and Romans, the  New Testament’s idea of "metanoia"– repentance– which literally means to stop, turn around and go a different direction.  The genuine apology has as its goal the deep and beautiful idea of reconciliation, that the purpose of life is to be in harmony with those around me, those I love, even those I have hurt or who have hurt me.  It understands that, as long as you are diminished by my actions, I am diminished.  I cannot be whole until you are whole.  And so, the giver of a genuine apology yearns more than anything else to be restored to the one he has hurt.  Anything less has some other purpose, and is not an apology. It cannot rightly ask forgiveness and it can never reach the goal of reconciliation and restoration.

Those who have harmed children, and those in whose names others have harmed children– churches, Scouts, youth organizations– have such an opportunity to foster healing for survivors of abuse.  It is a shame– literally, a shame– that they do not more often practice the grace of genuine apology.

In the next post, I will write about some of the genuine apologies I have seen, and about the miraculous healing that they have brought about.

The news that the John Jay College has determined that the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church had as its cause under-trained and under-supported priests, coupled with the turmoil of the 1960′s–and not celibacy or homosexuality as its cause– has generated all sorts of comments and criticisms. Many of these comments are accurate, like the criticism from SNAP– Survivors’ Network of Abuse by Priests– that the report is wholly silent about the role that the bishops and their naivete, denial and cover ups played.

Now, it may come as a surprise, but I do not think the study is wholly wrong in its basic conclusion– that the pedophilia problem was not "caused" by celibacy or homosexuality. I have written on this very topic before. To state the obvious, the modern problem of abuse of children by priests was caused by extraordinary high numbers of pedophiles in the priesthood– either drawn to the priesthood because of their pedophilia or as "products of the system." Less obvious, the problem was made worse by the Church’s abysmal system for selecting, training and monitoring priests; by a systematic failure of the Church to educate priests about how to live a celibate life and yet still be balanced and whole persons; and by bishops who made the problem worse by recirculating dangerous priests. My friend Richard Sipe, a former priest who has studied and written about the abuse problem in the Church for forty years, and who has testified on behalf of victims in hundreds of cases, has written about all of this extensively– most interestingly that the "cause" is not celibacy.

But the question that the John Jay Study does not answer– indeed the question that John Jay was not apparently asked– is how did the pedophilia "problem" become a full on "scandal," one that not only devastated thousands of innocent children, but also deeply, irrevocably scarred the image and credibility of the Catholic Church? For I take it as a given that society would not have been wholly shocked over the last ten or fifteen years by revelations that the Catholic Church had an active pedophilia problem. Indeed, similar revelations have come out about the Boy Scouts of America, the LDS (Mormon) Church, and other such organizations, and as of yet no great national scandal has resulted. I say this because, as of yet, the public has not yet been saturated with story after story of how the hierarchies of these organizations engaged in a systematic and calculated cover up of the problem. But the "problem" of abuse in the Catholic Church became a worldwide "scandal" once it began to become clear that this was not just a problem of the actions of a number of sick and twisted priests, but was fundamentally a problem of disintegrating spiritual integrity, and the actions of too many bishops, cardinals and others in high places who, over and over again, here, there, and seemingly everywhere, refused to act in the Spirit of Christ and do the right thing. This is the "cause" of the scandal.

And it is truly tragic: not only did it visit unfathomable suffering upon the most vulnerable and innocent members of the Church, the children, but it scarred, perhaps permanently, the respect that society once bestowed upon the Catholic Church. As a Christian, when I hear radical secularists ridiculing Christianity, especially Catholicism, because of the child abuse scandals, I cringe at the knowledge that it was the actions of the Church leadership– at least if not moreso than the actions of the pedophiles themselves– that provided the ammunition for the Church’s enemies to use against it.

So the John Jay study is perhaps not so flawed, at least as far as it goes. The problem is that it does not go far enough. It does not ask the biggest question– not what caused the "pedophilia problem," but rather, what caused the "pedophilia scandal?" It is not John Jay’s fault that they did not answer this question; after all, they were not asked.

Here is an interesting piece exploring the various rationales that churches sometimes use to avoid reporting suspected child abuse. While the author concludes that these cases should be reported, it is remarkable the mental gyrations he has to go through to reach that conclusion. 

"Whether the Church is subject to the laws of civil government" is a strange question as phrased. Granted, there may be a fair question about the extent to which the Church–or any private organization of goodwill– is subject to an unjust law of civil government. But that is not one that can be fairly applied to child abuse reporting laws. No serious thinker would claim that child abuse reporting laws are unjust; and the author certainly does not so suggest.

 All in all, I wish more pastors, priests and bishops thought this way. At least they would get to the right result: suspected abuse would be reported to civil authorities.

News reports that a woman in Arizona had been known to officials in the Mormon Church to have been having a sexual relationship with a teenage boy have come to light, and have caused quite a stir, given that the woman is married to a prominent local politician.  This week it appeared from a story in the New York Times that denials from LDS (Mormon Church) officials about what they knew of this matter may have been untruthful.  Whatever the facts of this particular situation may be, they raise some good questions concerning sexual abuse in the Mormon Church—has the Church had a significant problem with child abuse, when did the Church realize that it had such a problem, and what did Mormon Church officials do once they did realized it? As an attorney who has handled over a dozen sexual abuse claims against the Mormon Church, and hundreds against other institutions of trust such as the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts and other similar organizations, I have some thoughts on these questions. 

It is my view that the child sexual abuse problem in the Mormon Church, broadly defined to include inter-family abuse, has been persistent and substantial for a long, long, time. Perhaps if we recall that in its early decades the Church condoned polygamy, coupled with the fact that historically girls far younger than 18 were considered appropriate for one of these multiple marriages, then we can see at least some reasons why the LDS Church has historically had blurred boundaries around what is, and is not, appropriate sexual behavior involving minors.  

One other source of the problem, however, is, to my mind also responsible for the kind of situation reported in Arizona.  And that is the extent to which members of the LDS Church have been taught to “go to the Bishop” with almost any kind of problem, including some kinds of problems that should not “go to the Bishop,” but instead should go to law enforcement—like problems with child sexual abuse. In fact, I think it is still the formal policy of the LDS Church that not all credible allegations of child abuse in an LDS Ward must be reported to law enforcement; rather, only if the recipient of the information is legally required to report to law enforcement are they to do so, under LDS policy. In other words, the policy of the LDS Church is still not to require that all allegations of child abuse always be reported to law enforcement.  Now, it is all well and good for church members to have the support of a church leader at times of life crisis. But that does not mean that going to the bishop is the only thing to do at times like these: indeed church members and leaders, including bishops,  should be required and trained by the LDS Church  to report every credible allegation of child abuse to law enforcement. In other words, they should be trained to act as “mandatory reporters” – even if, under their state’s laws, they are not.  Churches should be on the leading edge of child abuse prevention, not reluctantly doing the minimum that they are required to do under the law.

Whatever the particulars are of the Arizona situation, and whatever LDS Church officials knew about this particular situation of child sexual abuse, the larger lessons are about the practices and policies of the Mormon Church, now and in the past, when it comes to child sexual abuse.  It is not enough to “go to the Bishop.”

By KATU.com Staff and News Sources

Video

PORTLAND, Ore. – The attorney at the center of a number of high-profile cases against the Mormon church plans to file another round of lawsuits Monday.

A case against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – also known as the Mormon church – will be filed in Portland’s Multnomah County Circuit Court Nov. 16, according to Rebecca Tweed, who handles media relations for the Portland law firm O’Donnell Clark & Crew. The attorney representing this civil case is Kelly Clark with O’Donnell Clark & Crew.

The suit is being filed on behalf of an Oregon man. The man alleges sexual abuse as a child at the hands of a Mormon church youth leader. 

This is one of a handful of related abuse lawsuits Tweed tells KATU that Clark will file in San Francisco, Seattle and other West Coast towns Monday against the Mormon Church. Four of the suits also name the Boy Scouts as defendants.

In 2007, Clark represented six Portland men who filed a lawsuit against the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America seeking $25 million in damages for alleged sexual abuse in the 1980s. Clark reportedly obtained several trial court rulings and a state Supreme Court win in that suit.

Other cases represented by Portland attorney Kelly Clark.

San Francisco Appeal

Three former Sunnyvale residents announced today they have sued the Mormon church, the Boy Scouts of America and their stepfather in San Francisco Superior Court for alleged childhood sexual abuse.

The three men, who are brothers now aged 39, 41 and 43, claim that William E. Knox, 65, a Mormon church and Boy Scouts leader, molested them repeatedly in Sunnyvale between 1977 and 1987.

A brother identified as John Doe 2, who now lives in Georgia, said, "I’m a victim and a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. It was devastating to me. I’ve been abused hundreds of times over several years."

The brother alleged, "During the abuse, I told the church leadership responsible to protect me and they did nothing to protect me."

Knox married the brothers’ mother in 1979 and remains married to her, but the brothers are now estranged from Knox and their mother, according to Kelly Clark, a lawyer for the men.

The lawsuit alleges that before the marriage, Knox used his position as a church elder and youth leader to begin abusing them when they were members of a church-chartered Boy Scouts troop for which he was assistant leader. The molestation began during individual sleepovers at Knox’s Sunnyvale apartment, according to the lawsuit.

After the marriage, the sexual assaults allegedly continued at the family’s Sunnyvale home, in Knox’s car on trips to church and Boy Scouts activities, and during Scouts camping trips, according to the lawsuit.

The alleged abuse included fondling, child masturbation and oral copulation, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit was filed about two weeks ago, but under state law the identity of the defendants could not be revealed publicly until a Superior Court judge ruled last week that the plaintiffs had provided enough corroborating evidence to allow disclosure of the defendants.

Two of the brothers now live in Georgia and the third in Colorado. They announced the lawsuit at a news conference at the Civic Center Plaza near the Superior Court courthouse.

They said they filed their lawsuit now because they became aware of the psychological effects of the abuse after they learned last December that Knox and their mother had moved to the same Georgia town where two of them live.

They said that caused them to begin for the first time to connect the psychological and emotional problems they suffered as adults to the alleged childhood abuse.

John Doe 1 said, "When I saw him in a car as he drove by, I literally began shaking."

Allen Ruby, a San Jose lawyer representing the church, said, "Any allegation of childhood abuse is a serious matter," but said, "The church will defend itself."

Ruby said, "The law does not make a church responsible for the conduct of a stepfather toward his children."

Deron Smith, a spokesman for Boy Scouts of America, said, "We’ve not seen the lawsuit and there is not a whole lot we can say at this point."

The lawsuit contends that the Mormon church and the Boy Scouts are liable because Knox was acting as an agent of both. It says the boys told local church officials and the Boy Scouts of the alleged abuse in 1984 and informed a church counselor in 1985 but alleges that the molestation was never reported to law enforcement authorities.

The suit also alleges the church and Boy Scouts were aware that Knox had shown a propensity to abuse boys when he lived in San Diego before moving to Sunnyvale in the early 1970s.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of financial compensation. Clark said the men filed a civil lawsuit because the statute of limitations for a criminal prosecution has passed.
The brothers said they are seeking to hold the institutions accountable and to prevent molestation of other children.

John Doe 2 said, "I stand here today for children who will lay their head on their pillows tonight, shedding tears, knowing they will wake up to face their abusers again and again. If I can save just one child from childhood sexual abuse, I will have succeeded."

The lawsuit alleges that John Doe 1 was sexually abused from 1977 to 1982, John Doe 2 from 1977 to 1986 and John Doe 3 from 1977 to 1987.

It says that a high school friend who was a fellow Mormon and Scout member told John Doe 2 in 1983 that he had allegedly been abused by Knox.

The brothers said that Knox and their mother operated a now-defunct day care center at their home in Sunnyvale, known as Little Angel Day Care and Creative Play, for about 15 years, including during years when brothers were allegedly abused.

Clark said the lawsuit was filed in San Francisco because state law allows lawsuits to be filed in any county in which the defendants due business.