Further Work
Since our First Report (continued)
Responding to allegations
2.10.1 In our First Report we
used the term 'disclosure' to describe a situation where
a specific allegation of abuse is made against a named
individual, and 'suspicion' to describe a situation where
there is no disclosure but there is a concern that abuse
may have taken place. (See First Report, Glossary.)
There is, therefore, no presumption on our part that abuse
has in fact taken place when we talk of a disclosure being
made or a suspicion raised. We want to emphasise this
because we are aware that the words, particularly 'disclosure',
can carry such a connotation. We believe, however, that
it would be too unwieldy to be constantly using the phrases
'alleged disclosure' and 'alleged suspicion' and we do
not propose to do so. The same applies to 'victim' and
'survivor'.
2.10.2 Some have also been concerned
that some of the language in our First Report
might imply that some incidents of abuse are not 'serious'
or, at the least, that some are 'less serious' than others.
We need to make it clear here that our terms of reference
and, therefore, our reports cover the whole range of child
abuse including physical and emotional as well as sexual
abuse. Our position is that all child abuse is serious
but, within the broad range of categories of abuse, some
cases of abuse are more serious than others.
The Child Protection Management Team
2.10.3 Our First Report (para
4.4 and Recommendations 30 and 31) describes the Child
Protection Management Team (CPMT), which we recommend
each diocese and religious order should have. As stated
there, it is essential that suitably trained child care
professionals are included in this team. (We also note
that if the communications officer on the Team is not
the Diocesan Communications Officer then the latter should
be kept informed of the CPMT's business.)
2.10.4 We believe that the Child Protection
Management Team needs to meet at least quarterly so that
its members can speak with confidence and monitor the
overall diocesan or religious order strategy in respect
of child protection issues. The task of the Team needs
to be clearly defined and care taken to ensure that it
does not usurp the work of strategy meetings which are
normally convened and chaired by statutory workers. The
CPMT's tasks include
- advising and supporting the CPC,
- assisting with decision making,
- hearing what action has been taken in response to
disclosures or suspicions,
- ensuring that the statutory agencies are involved
with appropriate speed,
- receiving information on steps taken to remove paid
or lay workers, or a priest, from post while enquiries
are made, and
- satisfying themselves that arrangements are made to
safeguard the interests of children.
They have a particularly important role
when concerns are expressed but no court proceedings are
likely and may advise on the steps to be taken in order
to assess risk and the subsequent management of the person
accused. Even in these cases, the advice and involvement
of the statutory services should always be considered.
Disclosures and suspicions: false or
malicious allegations
2.10.5 Our belief is that most concerns
are raised in good faith and have some foundation. This
is well supported by the evidence concerning cases in
the Church. Nonetheless it is also important to recognise
that false, even malicious, allegations of abuse are sometimes
made and that they can have very destructive effects on
those concerned. This makes it important both that alleged
abusers are given proper support while an initial process
of discernment is taking place, and that appropriate action
is taken to reinstate individuals quickly when allegations
are found to be false. Appropriate action should be taken
to hold the makers of malicious allegations to account.
Disclosures and suspicions: whistle
blowing
2.10.6 A 'whistle blower' might be defined
in the context of the Church as a priest, lay worker or
volunteer who has and reports concerns about another member
of the organisation. Our First Report perhaps
made too little of the anxieties that such people are
likely to feel in raising and reporting concerns. These
anxieties are likely to be greater if they believe that
people of high standing in the Church are involved, or
that their concern may not be acted on or their own position
may be put at risk. They need to have confidence that
their concerns will be taken seriously and acted on appropriately.
2.10.7 We intended that the procedures
set out in the First Report for making and handling
allegations should be capable of use by members of the
Church and that they should be reassured that no blame
or suspicion of having 'let the side down' will be attached
to them. Rather the contrary. This is therefore a cultural
issue for the Church: to make it clear in all work on
training and awareness in this field that members of the
Church who bring forward concerns are acting in the interests
of the Church (and should be so regarded by all other
members of the Church, not just the authorities), that
they will be treated with respect, have their concerns
taken seriously and have absolutely nothing to fear in
regard to their own position. In particular, there should
be reassurance that taking concerns directly to the statutory
authorities is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
2.10.8 This is easier said than done.
Our proposals for responding to allegations of abuse are,
in management speak, 'off-line', i.e. they do not assume
that the priest or bishop, or a lay manager if there is
one, should be the first port of call. Concerned individuals
can go to the 'independent person' for the diocese or
parish, to the CPC or, indeed, to any individual they
trust. We can see, however, that in some circumstances
those with concerns may still be anxious. So we recommend
that in addition, they should be able to approach the
Head of the NCPU or named members of the NCPU's advisory
group (see Recommendation 20). We also recommend that
the NCPU should draw up a policy on whistle blowing in
the context of concerns about child abuse.
Disclosures and suspicions: other
2.10.9 Our First Report (Recommendation
33) said that anyone reporting an allegation or concern
should be informed in writing of the advice they were
given. We also recommend that, once the information is
received by the CPC, he/she should write to indicate how
the matter will be dealt with and to give an estimate
of how long it may take. Generally, the person who raised
the concern should be kept informed subsequently of any
steps that have been taken, subject to legal constraints
and appropriate confidentiality. We note that where there
is a disclosure, the lead in all matters, including this
issue of keeping people informed, will be taken by the
statutory agencies. Where the person who raised the concern
is him/herself the alleged victim or survivor, it is all
the more important that he/she is treated with consideration
and kept well informed of what is happening. On the other
hand, in those cases where this person is a child or vulnerable
adult, particular care will be needed about how, and sometimes
about whether, this is done, in order to protect their
position.
Risk assessment
2.10.10 Comments on the First Report
suggest that it is not as clear as we would have wished
about who is or should be doing what assessments and when.
This is our fault for using the term 'risk assessment'
to cover both an initial process of discernment about
whether there is cause for concern and a thorough technical
assessment of the risk posed by a person to children now
and in the future. The links that we have recommended
CPCs and Child Protection Teams should establish with
the local statutory Area Child Protection Committees are
important here. They should enable protocols to be established
in this area and ensure regular co-operation and exchange
of views. We would expect that:
(a) when there is a disclosure, the
statutory authorities should be brought in straight
away, without any process of filtering, to take the
lead in investigating and assessing the situation. There
is no need in these circumstances for an assessment
to be initiated by the CPMT. However, it is important
that the CPMT maintains constructive dialogue with the
statutory agencies to apprise itself of any immediate
issues of risk of which the Church needs to be aware.
(b) where there is only a suspicion,
there is a need for an initial assessment to discern
simply whether there are concerns that should be acted
upon. (We emphasise the wide spectrum of cases that
may arise, such as abusive language, a person behaving
inappropriately with young people, a veiled accusation
half-hinted at and then denied.) If there are any concerns,
then the statutory authorities should be brought in
as in (a). They will then be able to make a considered
assessment based on all the relevant information that
they have (and which might include information about
the alleged victim, about the discloser, if it was someone
other than the victim, and about the alleged perpetrator).
(c) later, after an allegation has
been investigated, the case may be dropped or the alleged
perpetrator found not guilty even though concerns remain.
In these circumstances, a thorough risk assessment should
be made. Desirably this assessment will be undertaken
with the statutory authorities, or at least with the
benefit of relevant evidence collected by them in the
course of their investigations. The outcome of this
risk assessment should always be acted on to ensure
that a person is not placed in any role that might put
children at risk.
Administrative leave
2.10.11 Since our First Report
we have been able to consider further the relationship
between the provisions of canon law and our recommendation
that priests and deacons should be put on administrative
leave in those circumstances where lay personnel would
be suspended while allegations were investigated. We underline
the importance of the Church having satisfactory procedures
to achieve the withdrawal of the priest or deacon from
contact with children in these circumstances. It is well
understood in professions such as teaching that suspension
in these circumstances does not imply guilt.
Allegations against a Child Protection Co-ordinator
2.10.12 The First Report dealt with the general
handling of allegations and then with the special case
of allegations against a bishop. The Child Protection
Co-ordinator's central position in the arrangements for
handling allegations means that we should also have dealt
with the handling of cases where she/he is her/himself
the subject of allegations. And by extension we should
say something about the handling of cases concerning anyone
who has a role in the child protection arrangements.
2.10.13 The fundamental principle is
that no-one should have any part in the handling of allegations
concerning themselves, and every effort should be made
to ensure that they do not even hear of any such allegations
prematurely.
2.10.14 We recommend that the maker/recipient
of any allegations concerning a CPC should refer the case
to the bishop or religious superior (rather than to the
CPC) who will arrange for it to be handled by the CPC
and team of another diocese or order.
2.10.15 Similarly there may be an allegation
against a member of the Child Protection Policy or Management
Team. Of course the person making/reporting the allegation
will not necessarily know who these people are. What we
suggest in this case is that the CPC should be informed
of the allegation (as we have suggested for the general
case) and then for her/him to ensure that it is assessed
and handled by the CPC and team of another diocese or
order.
Help and support
2.10.16 It has been suggested that the
different terms we use in our First Report to
describe the arrangements for victims, parishes and alleged
abusers ('Help for the victim', 'Support for the parish',
'Advice for the alleged abuser') are not very helpful
as they can be taken to suggest that victims do not need
advice and alleged abusers do not need help. On reflection,
we agree with this comment and in this report use the
word 'support' to cover all three situations.
2.10.17 One further and substantial point
has been made to us about support. The need for victims/survivors
to be given support may last for very many years and is
not simply something for the weeks or months after disclosure.
We agree with this and believe the Church should do whatever
it can to support and foster the development of support
services to meet the needs, including the spiritual needs,
of survivors and their families. The National Unit should
compile and maintain a database of such services.
Laicisation
2.10.18 Our recommendation (First
Report, Recommendation 49) about laicisation of priests
and deacons has proved to be among the most controversial.
Some believe that any caution or conviction for a child
abuse offence should automatically result in laicisation
(comparably, it is said, with the position for those,
such as teachers, who work with children professionally).
We do not agree. Our report covers the whole range of
child abuse, not only sexual abuse, and laicisation will
not be a proportionate response in every case. We do,
however recommend that, as a general rule, clergy and
lay workers who have been cautioned or convicted of an
offence against children should not be allowed to hold
any position that could possibly put children at risk
again. The bishop or religious superior should justify
publicly any exceptions to this approach (for example,
by means of a letter to be read out in churches at Mass).
2.10.19 Secondly, in our recommendation
we were concerned to make plain that there is a level
of seriousness, as demonstrated by the criminal courts,
at which we would expect the process of laicisation always
to be begun. We did not mean to imply by this, however,
that laicisation was never appropriate for a lesser sentence.
For example, an abuser may have a number of shorter sentences
or cautions and laicisation may be appropriate in such
cases. The judgement about initiating laicisation must
turn on the facts of particular cases.
2.10.20 Thirdly, there was concern from
some canon lawyers that we should understand that laicisation
(except by consent) is the decision of a tribunal at the
end of a legal process. We do understand this; what we
recommend is that the process should be initiated. We
also appreciate that in cases where the events took place
some years ago the normal canon law process would not
be available because of the statute of limitations. However,
we understand that even such cases can be taken forward
by reference to the Holy See.
2.10.21 In reviewing our recommendations
here, we have revised the criterion for initiating laicisation
from 'more than 12 months' to '12 months or more'. This
brings it into alignment with the level at which, under
English law, adult offenders are statutorily disqualified
from working with children.
2.10.22 We should add that laicisation
does not mean that the Church has no further part to play
in relation to the abuser. As with lay worker abusers
who are no longer employed by the Church, the Church may
nonetheless be able to assist with the rehabilitation
and pastoral needs of the individual.
Records
2.10.23 We discussed record keeping
generally at 2.9.14. What we wish to emphasise here is
the importance of keeping good records, made at the time,
on all disclosures and suspicions. As already noted, allegations
can surface long after the event and it is most important
that accurate, contemporary records are available. It
is an important responsibility of the CPC to ensure that
this is done.
Other points
Mistakes and lapses
2.11.1 Even with a culture of vigilance,
mistakes will be made. Examples might include a failure
to take up references correctly, being alone with a child
when this should not have occurred or failure to report/pursue
an allegation. It is important that mistakes are not ignored
or covered up. They should be corrected wherever possible
and lessons learnt. We therefore recommend that mistakes
should be acknowledged (publicly if necessary), recorded,
reported (as appropriate) and rectified wherever possible.
If the mistake indicates that systems need to be changed,
then that should be done.
2.11.2 In this connection it is important
that the culture should be one which encourages people
to admit mistakes, so that someone who has made a mistake
will not feel inhibited from acknowledging it and handling
it in the right way. Training will undoubtedly have a
significant part to play. So will good supervision and
mentoring. Inevitably, consistently making mistakes will
suggest that an individual cannot cope with their responsibilities;
these may need to be changed to ensure that children are
adequately protected.
Child abusers in the congregation
2.11.3 It has been pointed out to us
that comprehensive proposals for child protection in the
Church need to include policies with respect to child
abusers who are intent on not re-offending and are present
in the congregation but not in positions of responsibility.
The Church will want to minister to such individuals but
it will also be necessary to establish clear boundaries
for the protection of the young and to lessen the possibility
of the adult being wrongly accused of abuse. Some other
churches address this issue by drawing up a form of agreement
with the involvement of the abuser, key personnel in the
parish and statutory workers (including the probation
officer, if any). We recommend this for the Catholic Church.
Such an agreement could cover
- the risks posed to the Church and young people and
how they should be managed;
- how those in the parish who 'need to know' can best
respond in order to help the abuser in their efforts
not to repeat their abusive behaviour;
- the level and kind of involvement in parish activities
that is considered safe and acceptable, and how to monitor
it;
- what to do if the agreement is not adhered to.
We suggest that the NCPU should prepare
and issue further guidance on arrangements to be put in
place to enable the safe participation of former child
abusers in the life of the Church.
|
