Responding to allegations
of abuse
4.1 In this report we use the term "disclosure"
to describe the situation where a specific allegation
of abuse is made against a named individual, and "suspicion"
for the situation where there is no disclosure but there
is concern that abuse may have taken place or be in prospect.
4.2 As noted above, the 1994 Guidelines
were written specifically to address situations where
there were disclosures or suspicions of abuse. We have
reviewed the arrangements and this chapter sets out our
thinking about the essential elements of good procedure.
Many of them are covered in the 1994 Guidelines and others
are already the rule in many dioceses. The 1994 Guidelines
do, however, need revision and we recommend that this
should be undertaken immediately, possibly by the National
Child Protection Unit.
4.3 The 1994 Guidelines require bishops
to appoint a "delegate" to take the lead for
the Church in responding to allegations. These "delegates"
have come to be known as diocesan Child Protection Co-ordinators
(CPCs). We have already recommended (para 3.4) that every
diocese and religious order should have a CPC and have
more to say about their role and responsibilities in Chapter
Five. In relation to responding to allegations,
their role must be to ensure that arrangements and trained
personnel are in place to respond to allegations.
4.4 In order to respond effectively to
allegations every diocese and religious order
must have a properly composed Child Protection Management
Team (CPMT) to deal effectively with any reports or incidents.
The CPMT should work closely with the statutory agencies
(social services and the police). We believe that the
CPC would normally chair this Team and that it should
include child care professionals, a lawyer, a communications
officer, a lay person and a priest. Other expert members
may be appropriate in particular circumstances.
In addition it will be necessary to undertake assessments
of the immediate danger to children and young people and
to recommend appropriate action. The CPMT will need to
ensure that this is done to a high standard. (A sketch
of a possible diocesan organisation for child protection,
including the Child Protection Management Team is at
Annex Three.)
Receipt of
an allegation
4.5 An allegation is most likely to surface
either through a victim making a disclosure or a third
party reporting a suspicion. Such disclosures or suspicions
may be made to a priest or other member of the Church,
to an "independent person" (see para 3.8 above),
or to a helpline, the local social services or police.
The following points seem to us important:
(a) disclosures and suspicions
should always be investigated and acted on swiftly.
The Paramountcy Principle (that the welfare of the child
is the paramount consideration in proceedings concerning
children) applies;
(b) anybody who receives a
disclosure should advise the maker of it to share it
with the statutory agencies (i.e. the local social services
and the police) and the CPC and be ready to support
him or her in doing so; suspicions should at the least
be shared with the CPC who will initiate a risk assessment
and bring in the statutory agencies as necessary. If
in any doubt, recipients should take such action themselves.
Either they or the CPC should write to the person who
has made the disclosure setting out the advice they
gave and providing information about contact addresses,
etc. In this way any uncertainty about the
advice or how to proceed is avoided.
(c) any information offered
"in confidence" (unless it is the confidentiality
of the confessional, which is absolute) should be received
on the basis that it will be shared with the CPC and,
if appropriate, the statutory agencies;
(d) otherwise careful confidentiality
should be observed and information only be shared on
the basis of a strict "need to know".
It is particularly important that the
alleged abuser is not alerted at this stage.
4.6 We know that many cases do not present
themselves straightforwardly. For example, a recipient
might be told that the victim only wants a personal apology
and does not want the statutory agencies to be informed.
The recipient, however, must consider that other children
may be at risk, and this may be so even if the disclosure
is of abuse that took place some years before. In such
a case we believe that the statutory agencies must be
informed.
4.7 Or the approach may be through a
third party in which case every effort should be made
to establish dialogue directly between the victim and
a trained professional.
4.8 Or the person bringing an allegation
forward may insist on absolute confidentiality as a condition
of sharing information. There are considerable risks involved
in receiving information on this basis, both to individuals
who may be exposed to abuse so long as the information
cannot be shared and to the recipient of the information
who may be put in an impossible position. For these reasons
we believe that the recipient should make every effort
to convince the bringer of the information that such absolute
confidentiality is in no one's best interests. But if
they cannot so convince them then we believe that the
confidentiality must be refused.
Risk assessment
4.9 Where there is suspicion
but no disclosure of actual abuse, the CPC will arrange
for an initial risk assessment and advise, with the CPMT
on what action, if any, should be taken. Where there is
disclosure there will be consultation between social services,
the police and the CPMT about appropriate action.
4.10 Further assessments may be necessary
as matters go forward. In particular they may be called
for if the statutory agencies decide not to prosecute
or if a conviction is not obtained. The difficulty of
undertaking these assessments and making appropriate judgements
must not be underestimated. Assessments will also be needed
in relation to historical allegations and cases (see paras
4.14 and 4.15 below) and perhaps in other circumstances.
We hope to give further advice on the conduct of these
assessments in our final report. So far as possible
the subject of the assessment should normally be informed
of its outcome face to face.
Suspension
4.11 Following the initial risk assessment
the person against whom allegations have been made may
need to be withdrawn from any contact with the child(ren)
concerned or possibly any other child or young person.
This removes risk to the child, allows the investigation
to proceed and safeguards the rights of the alleged abuser.
The initiative within the Church should lie with the CPC
and his/her team. We recommend that where judged
necessary by the police, social services, or the CPC and
his/her Team
- volunteers should be required
to withdraw from any church situation involving children
and young people until investigations are complete;
- any person employed by the
Church should be required to take leave from their duties
on full pay until investigations are complete.
Administrative
leave for clergy
4.12 We can see no grounds for treating
clergy differently from lay people in this respect. The
importance of removing risk to the child, allowing the
investigation to proceed and safeguarding the rights of
the clergy is just as great. Our clear view is therefore
that, on the recommendation of the CPC and his/her
Team following consultation with social services and the
police, any priest or deacon should be required to take
administrative leave at a location to be determined by
the bishop. We are aware that such action does
not sit easily with the present provisions of canon law.
Allegations
against a bishop
4.13 If the concerns or allegations
are about the bishop himself, similar procedures should
be followed. The CPC will need to keep the Papal
Nuncio closely informed. The CPC may also like to request
support from the National Child Protection Unit (see 5.10)
or from the CPC of another diocese. If administrative
leave is appropriate, we believe that it must apply to
a bishop as to any other priest. We invite bishops
to signify their consent to such arrangements.
Historical
allegations
4.14 It is sometimes suggested that cases
where the allegation is of abuse that took place some
years ago can be handled differently, and by implication
with less urgency or rigour, from those that are current.
We do not take this view. The evidence is that those who
have abused in the past may still represent considerable
risks in the present. It is for this reason important
to treat such disclosures in the same way as current allegations.
4.15 By extension, it is our view that
there may be current risks arising from cases in the past
that are known to the Church but, in the then state of
knowledge about child abuse, were not acted on at the
time. We conclude that bishops and religious superiors
should ensure that all such cases are the subject of a
risk assessment as soon as possible, and that there is
appropriate follow-up action including possibly regular
risk assessment review.
Help for the victim
4.16 A number of the responses to our
consultation have suggested that the Church could do more,
following an allegation of abuse, to give support to the
victim and his/her family. Clearly an event of abuse or
a decision to disclose one is a very difficult time for
victims and their families. We have no doubt, having regard
to the Church's mission, that it would want to provide
all available help.
4.17 We believe the most helpful approach
would be to make a "support person"
available to those who have, or may have, suffered abuse
and their families. Such a person would be, first
and foremost, a focal point for the victim and his/her
family to turn to for help and advice. They could
assist those wishing to make a complaint, facilitate them
in gaining access to information and other more specialised
help, and represent their concerns on an ongoing basis.
(The family liaison officers now being trialled by the
Metropolitan Police may be a helpful parallel.) They must,
above all, be acceptable to the victim and his/her family
while also, once appointed, being completely independent
of the CPC and his/her Team. It may be that they would
often not be called on (because victims may prefer to
turn to others outside the Church to take on this role).
Nonetheless it seems desirable that such a person
should be available if wanted and we so recommend.
The CPC should be responsible for ensuring that they are
available, and for appropriate training.
Support for the
parish
4.18 The parish where allegations arise
can also need special support. Obviously if the alleged
abuser is a worker for the Church the priest will be able
to support his congregation though he may possibly need
special help in doing so. But if the priest is himself
the accused, then quite apart from whatever interim arrangements
are made for the ministry of the Church in the parish,
it seems sensible that the bishop should also
make arrangements to help the parish cope with the situation
in which they find themselves. This has happened
in some recent cases and we recommend that it should become
the general practice.
Advice
for the alleged abuser
4.19 It does not in any way detract from
the general principles set out in this report to bear
in mind that the alleged abuser is also entitled to proper
support and advice. The Paramountcy Principle requires
that the welfare of the child must be the first priority.
For that very reason someone who may not have been charged
with, and certainly has not been convicted of, any offence,
may find themselves suspended from their job and, in the
case of a priest, quite possibly removed from their home
and any kind of support. The Church is fundamentally concerned
to seek justice for all and we are clear that in these
circumstances it would be good practice to appoint
an "Advisor" to be available to those (whether
priest, paid staff or volunteer) against whom allegations
are made, to provide advice, to ensure legal representation
if necessary and to look to any accommodation or other
needs. As with the victim support, though for
different reasons, such a person, once appointed, must
be completely separate from the CPC and his/her Team.
The CPC should, however, be responsible for ensuring that
people are available to fulfil this role and that they
too receive appropriate training.
4.20 While the Church has responsibilities
towards its members, clerical or lay, who may be accused
of abuse which has led to the recommendation in the previous
paragraph, we do consider it most important that the Church
neither acts nor appears to act on their behalf. It
would, for example, be completely inappropriate if the
solicitor acting for the alleged abuser was also acting
for the diocese or religious order.
Abusers who have
been convicted or cautioned
4.21 The Committee is aware that some
other Churches and many secular organisations have adopted
the principle that a person who has been cautioned or
convicted of a serious offence against children should
no longer be allowed to hold any position that could possibly
put children at risk again. The Committee believes,
in accordance with the Paramountcy Principle, that the
Church should adopt a similar principle and that it should
be implemented in the way that best accords with the structures
and processes of the Church. So far as lay workers are
concerned the position of the Church is not significantly
different to that of many other organisations.
But the position of clergy is particularly difficult.
Most posts to which priests might be appointed are likely
to involve some contact with children and young people.
On the other hand, laicisation (dismissal from the clerical
state) is the most serious perpetual penalty which can
be imposed by the Church. Normally it can be imposed only
after a formal judicial process involving a collegiate
tribunal of three judges. Furthermore it can be argued
that clergy can be much better supervised if they remain
as clergy than if they are laicised (because in the latter
case the Church will have no further relationship with
them, and no role in their supervision).
4.22 Our view is that laicisation is
an extreme step which should only be taken in the most
serious circumstances. There is a concept of a "serious
criminal offence" but the definitions of this in
statute law are not helpful in the circumstances we are
considering. We believe that the principle to be applied
is that laicisation should be considered appropriate where
(in the words of a comparable decided case) "all
right thinking members of the public, knowing all the
facts, would feel that justice has not been done by any
other course". We suggest, therefore, that
if a priest or deacon is convicted of a criminal offence
against children and is sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment
of more than 12 months, then it would normally be right
to initiate the process of laicisation.
4.23 The Church can also "suspend"
a priest or deacon, or declare him "impeded",
from the exercise of his ministry. These penalties can
only be applied for a period of time and whilst the underlying
reason for imposing the penalty continues to exist. We
believe these are certainly appropriate penalties for
any conviction or caution for a child abuse offence, particularly
in less serious cases.
|
