Will making clergy mandated reporters curb child abuse? It doesn't have a prayer
(Photo by Getty Images)
Late last year, the Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families said it had made a startling change to its training for mandatory reporters of child abuse. They said they've changed their training to emphasize that reporters should stop confusing poverty with 'neglect.'
Substantively, this will change little, since professionals still will be afraid not to report anything and everything. But the statement is a tacit admission of what research has shown about laws put in place decades ago with no studies to see if they would work: Mandatory reporting backfires. It drives families away from seeking help, and overloads the system with false reports, making it harder to find the relatively few children in real danger. Many one-time proponents have had second thoughts.
But instead of heeding the research and replacing mandatory reporting with permissive reporting, in which professionals are free to exercise their professional judgment, many Washington state lawmakers want to careen full-speed backward. They want to expand mandatory reporting even further, to one of the few fields where it doesn't apply now: the clergy, including anything heard in confession. Legislation to do this has passed the state Senate and emerged from committee in the House.
But that, too, would backfire.
The reason expanding mandatory reporting to clergy has support in some quarters is obvious: What comes to mind when you hear the words clergy and child abuse? Likely, the sprawling sexual abuse scandal and cover-up within the Catholic Church. But with expanded mandatory reporting, pedophile priests either will stop confessing or go to a church where their voices won't be recognized.
It can also harm survivors, who sometimes first disclose their abuse in confession.
'The Seal offers victims a safe, secure and watertight place where they can be listened to without cost, where they can remain anonymous, and can decide what they're ready, and not ready, to share – and all of this in complete confidence,' said a spokesman for a group representing survivors of abuse in Australia, where there've been similar campaigns to end the exemption for the confessional.'The Confessional Seal as it presently stands literally saves lives and offers every abuse victim the chance to begin to heal.'
Now consider some hypotheticals about others who might be affected.
A mother is terrified. She's being beaten by her husband. But when she threatened to go to the police, he said: 'Go ahead, call the cops! They'll just call DCYF, and they'll take away the kids.' She turns to her priest/minister/rabbi/imam and says: 'Please help me to escape. Where can I turn to protect myself and my children?' The clergyman replies: 'I'm so sorry. I'm now a mandated reporter, and you may have allowed your child to 'witness domestic violence' if he saw or heard you being beaten. So I have to call DCYF.'
A single mother enters the confessional: 'Forgive me, father, for I have sinned,' she says. She says she's guilt-ridden for having left her child home alone when she went to work and her regular child care arrangement fell through. She didn't know what else to do. Her boss said he'd fire her if she didn't show up; then she wouldn't be able to afford the rent and the family would be evicted. After the priest prescribes the appropriate acts of contrition, the mother asks a question: Might the priest know someone in the congregation who could volunteer to provide child care if this ever happened again? 'As a matter of fact, I do,' the priest replies. 'But it's too late to do only that. You see, I am now a mandated reporter of child abuse. What you did can be considered 'lack of supervision.' So I have to report you to DCYF.'
The fact that the current Washington state bill doesn't require priests to say who confessed changes none of this.
As it stands now, clergy are among the only helpers to whom impoverished families can turn with less fear that they will be turned in to DCYF. Once the word gets around that even the confessional isn't safe, you can bet that parents like those in the hypotheticals above won't come forward and ask for help. Children at risk from pedophile clergy won't get any safer, and children whose families' 'crime' is poverty will be cut off from a potential source of support.
Of course, it's not a crime for lawmakers to rush into endorsing bad policy that doesn't have a prayer of stopping actual child abuse because it sounds good in a press release. But it sure seems like a sin.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
4 killed in Kyiv after a Russian missile and drone attack across Ukraine, mayor says
A Russian missile and drone attack on Kyiv early Friday killed at least four people and injured 20 others, city mayor Vitali Klitschko said, as air raid sirens rang out during a wider combined attack across Ukraine. Klitschko said search and rescue operations were underway at several locations. Multiple explosions were heard in the capital, Kyiv, where falling debris sparked fires across several districts as air defense systems attempted to intercept incoming targets, said Tymur Tkachenko, head of the Kyiv City Administration. 4 The destruction inside a home after a Russian missile strike on Kyiv on June 6, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 'Our air defense crews are doing everything possible. But we must protect one another — stay safe,' Tkachenko wrote on Telegram. Authorities reported damage in several districts, and rescue workers were responding at multiple locations. They urged residents to seek shelter. In Solomyanskyi district, a fire broke out on the 11th floor of a 16-story residential building. Emergency services evacuated three people from the apartment, and rescue operations were ongoing. Another fire broke out in a metal warehouse. 4 Firefighters douse water on a building struck by a Russian drone attack in Kyiv. REUTERS 4 Police officers inspect the damage to a residential building targeted by the attack. AFP via Getty Images Tkachenko said the metro tracks between two stations in Kyiv were damaged in the attack, but no fire or injuries occurred. In northern Chernihiv region, a Shahed drone exploded near an apartment building, shattering windows and doors, according to regional military administration chief Dmytro Bryzhynskyi. He added that explosions from ballistic missiles were also recorded on the outskirts of the city. 4 A large hole was left in an apartment building during the early Friday attack. AFP via Getty Images The nighttime attack came hours after US President Donald Trump said it might be better to let Ukraine and Russia 'fight for a while' before pulling them apart and pursuing peace, in comments that were a remarkable detour from Trump's often-stated appeals to stop the three-year war. Trump spoke as he met with Germany's new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who appealed to him as the 'key person in the world' who could halt the bloodshed by pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
‘Ghost Adventures' star confronts murder-plotting wife in court as she gives groveling apology: report
'Ghost Adventures' star Aaron Goodwin faced off against his wife Victoria in court Thursday as she was sentenced for concocting a murder-for-hire plot to kill her husband, according to a report. Goodwin, 49, issued a scathing rebuke of his estranged wife Victoria who was arrested in Nevada in March for attempting to organize the murder of her husband with the help of her paramour, US Weekly reported. 3 Aaron Goodwin, 49, broke down in court as he confronted estranged wife Victoria who attempted to concoct a murder-for-hire plot targeting the Discovery Channel star. Getty Images Advertisement The ghost hunter revealed in the statement that Victoria was sleeping with 'multiple men' in the months leading up to the plot — including convicted killer Grant Amato — but he tried to work things out due to a sense of loving commitment. 'She made me feel so special and she was very — she was so sorry. At least that's what you told me,' Aaron said, speaking directly to his wife in court. 'Now, discovering she put a hit out to kill me more than once, got blackmailed and spent almost all of our savings to keep it quiet and fell more in love with Amato. They even got spiritual married and now I was called the first husband. They talked until she was arrested, and she sought out his help to kill me,' the 49-year-old revealed. Advertisement The Discovery Channel star said he was completely in the dark regarding the murder plot and the blackmail until he was told by detectives after Victoria's arrest. The 32-year-old's lover Grant Amato was convicted of massacring his mother, father, and brothers and was serving a life sentence in a Florida prison when Victoria reached out as a pen pal following his starring role in documentary 'Ctrl+Alt+Desire.' 3 Victoria Goodwin, 32, issued an apology to her estranged husband, who said he did not recognize her as the person he married. Getty Images 'This person over here, I don't know at all. Not one bit,' he said in direct address to the judge, adding, 'I feel like this deserves prison time.' Advertisement Victoria Goodwin, 32, had her chance to address her estranged spirit-seeing hubby — uttering a groveling apology for attempting to organize his murder with her felonious lover, US Magazine reported. 'Firstly, and most importantly, I would like to apologize to Aaron. I'm so immensely sorry for the pain and anxiety I've caused you and the betrayal you undoubtedly and rightfully feel by my actions,' Victoria said through tears, according to the outlet. 3 The 32-year-old was sentenced to a maximum of 90 months in prison. Getty Images 'I need you to know that I will always hold love for you. I genuinely pray you find your joy and peace again, and I will bow out of your life forever to hopefully ease that process,' she continued. Advertisement 'I'm sorry I broke us, and I'm consumed with regret every day. My absolute promise to you is that you'll never see or hear from me,' she said. The 32-year-old went on to issue apologies to her parents and to the Florida court, which handed her down a steep sentence for the attempt at organizing a violent betrayal. Victoria was sentenced to a minimum of 36 months to a maximum of 90 months on Thursday, according to the report.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appellate court judges show skepticism of Trump's birthright citizenship arguments
Photo by Getty Images A federal appellate court is weighing whether to allow President Donald Trump to end the 157-year-old constitutional guarantee that every child born in the country is a U.S. citizen. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in a lawsuit launched in January by Arizona, Washington, Illinois and Oregon against the federal government. The Democratic-led states took the federal government to court just a day after Trump issued an executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children born in the country after Feb. 19, 2025 if the child's parents are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. A district court judge in Seattle has since temporarily blocked the executive order from going into effect, calling it 'blatantly unconstitutional'. The Trump administration is hoping to convince the appellate court to reverse that ruling, arguing that the benefits of the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to people born on U.S. soil, was never meant to apply to the children of undocumented immigrants. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Eric McArthur, a deputy assistant attorney general, defended Trump's executive order by pointing to the writings and debates of congressmen involved in the crafting of the Fourteenth Amendment that he claimed showed a clear intent to reserve birthright citizenship for people whose parents have a history of living in the country and have some degree of civic rights. 'The principal purpose of the citizenship clause was to repudiate Dred Scott,' McArthur said, referring to an 1857 U.S. Supreme Court case that concluded African Americans could never be citizens. 'To guarantee citizenship for the freed slaves and their children. The question presented here is whether it also extended birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of transient visitors and illegal aliens — a class that did not even exist at the time.' Excluding the children of undocumented immigrants from the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment would leave hundreds of thousands of children born in the country every year in legal limbo, and likely at risk of deportation. According to the lawsuit brought by the Democratic states, both parents of as many as 3,400 children born in Arizona in 2022 lacked legal status. The Trump administration's key argument turns on a phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment that has long been interpreted as excluding solely the children of foreign diplomats. It guarantees citizenship to people born or naturalized in the country who are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. That language replaced a similar phrase in a previous iteration, called the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which also explicitly left out the children of Native Americans who were part of tribes that didn't pay taxes to the U.S. government. Native Americans weren't granted U.S. citizenship until decades later, in 1924. McArthur argued that Congress could similarly choose to pass laws that protect the access to birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. But, he said, for now the shortened phrase clearly implies that the children of people who are citizens of other countries should be denied U.S. citizenship, even if they are born in the United States. And for U.S. born children to be eligible for U.S. citizenship, their parents must have lived in the United States long enough to have a 'mutual relationship of allegiance on the part of the individual and protection on the part of the government,' McArthur said. They can't be newly arrived or in the country on a temporary visa. 'The logic of the argument is: Step one is that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the United States, not simply the regulatory jurisdiction where you have a duty to obey U.S. law,' McArthur said. 'Then step number two of the argument is that in order for foreigners who are coming from abroad to become subject to the complete political jurisdiction of the United States, they have to be domiciled here.' McArthur's argument that the parents of a child born in the U.S. must be 'domiciled' in the country rests on the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark case. That case centered around the U.S. born son of Chinese immigrants, Wong Kim Ark, who was denied reentry into the country following a trip abroad while the Chinese Exclusion Act was in effect. The ruling in the case, which ultimately found that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen by birth despite his parent's lack of legal status, noted that his parents had a 'permanent domicile' in the country, diminishing any allegiance they may have had to the 'Emperor of China'. The judges appeared skeptical of McArthur's claim that parental residency in the country is a prerequisite of birthright citizenship. 'I'm looking at the language of the citizenship clause. I don't see any language there, textually, that says they have to be domiciled,' Judge Ronald Gould pointed out. McArthur replied that living in the United States is a logical precursor to acquiring a 'political jurisdiction' in the country, which the courts have interpreted as separate from a surface-level obedience to the country's criminal and civil laws known as 'regulatory jurisdiction'. Undocumented immigrants, he argued, don't have that level of allegiance and are not integrated enough into the country to merit the benefits of the Fourteenth Amendment for their children — they lack the quality of being completely 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Judge Michael Hawkins questioned whether undocumented immigrants could, under that logic, contest the government's lack of jurisdiction over them during criminal proceedings. McArthur disagreed, saying everyone must still obey the country's laws and that the jurisdiction referred to in the Fourteenth Amendment simply sets a higher standard for birthright citizenship to be granted. '(Political jurisdiction) is the most encompassing form of jurisdiction that a nation can have over an individual, where you not only have the duty to obey U.S. law while you are present in the country, but it's the sort of jurisdiction that can get you convicted of treason if you leave the country and go abroad and take up arms against the United States,' he said. 'It's the sort of jurisdiction that, if you are in trouble in a foreign nation, the United States will intervene diplomatically on your behalf to protect you.' Hawkins pressed McArthur on his interpretation of political jurisdiction, asking whether the children of asylum seekers whose cases have been granted and are effectively being protected from another country would then be considered U.S. citizens at birth, despite their parents' limited legal status. Trump's executive order doesn't address asylum seekers. McArthur said the lawsuit and subsequent court ruling blocking its enforcement prevented the federal government from working that out, or developing any policies that could explain how the order would be implemented. Gould and Hawkins seemed unimpressed with McArthur's reliance on previous court opinions and statements from the authors of the Constitution, grilling him on why they should look beyond the plain text of the amendment, which makes no mention of residency or allegiance. McArthur replied that the language had an underlying significance for the framers that is critical to understanding what the Fourteenth Amendment actually means. 'The key point here that you need to understand is that jurisdiction, just like allegiance, comes in degrees,' he said. 'What the Framers explained, and what the Supreme Court explained, is in the Fourteenth Amendment we are not looking at that lesser form of jurisdiction, we're looking at a higher more encompassing form of jurisdiction that is the same type of jurisdiction in quality and extent that applies to U.S. citizens.' Noah Purcell, the solicitor general for the state of Washington, urged the judges to keep the executive order blocked, warning that lifting the injunction against it would harm the states involved in the lawsuit and fly in the face of nearly two centuries of case law. 'The Trump administration's position is that for that entire time, everyone was wrong,' he said. 'If you accept that view, it would also mean that millions of babies born during that time who got the benefit of birthright citizenship never actually should have been treated as citizens. They never should have been allowed to serve on juries, or vote, to hold various government jobs, or receive government benefits. They could have been deported and that would include millions of Americans alive today who have always thought that they were citizens.' While the executive order was set to go into effect in February, the district court's ruling put it on hold indefinitely while litigation continues. The judges appeared split on whether the order could ever be made retroactive, with Hawkins and Judge Patrick Bumatay dismissing the concern and saying that even children born beyond the February deadline are still benefiting from birthright citizenship. But Gould wasn't so sure. 'If the government's position is accepted would that mean that if a mother of a child did not meet the government's current definition that (her) child — even if they lived in the United States for 40 years thereafter paying taxes, working, making a life here, that they could be deported now?' he asked Purcell. Purcell agreed, saying that accepting the federal government's premise could have retroactive consequences because it overrides how the Fourteenth Amendment has long been understood. The more looming issue, Purcell said, is the administrative burdens that enforcing the executive order could incur for hospital and government workers who have few systems in place to identify who would qualify for birthright citizenship. 'You would have to question the parents of every newborn in this country: 'Do you intend to stay here? What is your allegiance?' Purcell said it's also unclear how the children of dual citizens fit into the new understanding. He posited that dual citizenship could be considered 'allegiance' to another country. Bumatay waved away that concern, saying it was yet another point in favor of the federal government's argument that the injunction was awarded too prematurely and the White House was never given the opportunity to work out the kinks in the policy change. 'We don't know how unworkable it is because they were not given the chance to implement it,' he said. Purcell disagreed, saying that the injunction prevents the federal government from enforcing the executive order, not developing policy on how it could be implemented or resolving the problems that the states have raised. The judges quizzed Purcell on his response to McArthur's insistence that the parents of children born in the United States must have both a 'domicile' in the country and a political allegiance to it. Purcell said that the courts have never interpreted either requirement as being a part of the guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1982 case of Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the immigration status of a child's parents doesn't preclude them from enjoying the constitutional protections they are entitled to by being born in the country. Even in the Wong Kim Ark case, Purcell pointed out, the justices found that the nonexistent citizenship status of the parents doesn't impact the right of their child born in the U.S. to be granted citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment, Purcell said, was never intended to exclude anyone but a limited number of people. The children of Chinese immigrants and Roma people, in fact, were also a source of friction among the framers, but they weren't among the groups who were written out in the end. 'The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment in using the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was to exclude by the fewest and fittest words possible, the children of Indians and the two classes of cases — the children of invading armies and the children of diplomats,' Purcell said. 'To exclude only those cases that had been recognized as exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship.' The lawsuit from the four Western states isn't the only one aimed at nullifying Trump's bid to gut birthright citizenship. Two other legal challenges, including one launched on the same day as the one heard by the appellate court on Wednesday in a two-pronged strategy devised by Democratic elected officials, are also aimed at preserving birthright citizenship. The trio of cases were consolidated by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Trump administration petitioned the high court to consider whether to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions. In each case, three separate federal district court judges blocked Trump's executive order from being implemented anywhere in the country. The country's highest court held oral arguments in the case last month, but has yet to issue a ruling. If the justices choose to roll back the ability of federal judges to issue decisions that affect the entire country, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals may be forced to limit the injunction or remand the lawsuit brought by the four Western states down to the lower court for reconsideration. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
