IndyStar published the story here: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2023/01/11/jared-olivetti-former-pastor-at-immanuel-reformed-presbyterian-church-now-faces-lawsuit/69797923007/
This is really intriguing. It appears to be a lawsuit on behalf of a child who was molested by the perpetrator. The lawsuit alleges that the Olivettis knew the perpetrator was molesting children, but still allowed the two to play together without notifying the parents or supervising. They also allegedly failed to report to the police.
The IRPC link is pretty obvious as well. If IRPC had reported, the child would potentially have been protected. Also, according to the Presbytery commission report, IRPC agreed (decided in a Session meeting?) that the perpetrator should not be allowed around children unsupervised, but that the elders failed to implement that plan.
The Synod link is much more interesting, legally. From a money perspective, very little is held by the Olivettis and IRPC, unless they have insurance coverage. Synod, on the other hand, owns all of the church properties in the denomination, so they are an obvious target. The question, then, is whether Synod is legally liable. At first blush it would seem not, but, did Synod and the Presbytery create a culture where churches could cover up things like child abuse knowing there would be no oversight or repercussions. If that is the case, could they be held liable for allowing such a culture to pervade the church courts.
I have reason to believe that the RP "good ole' boy network" will come back to bite them. Cross-referencing the IRPC Session minutes with the Presbytery minutes, there might be good evidence that Presbytery did not exercise proper oversight - enough to make a case that they are financially liable for the costs to this family.
3 comments:
The "created a culture of enablement" approach is an interesting one, but the plaintiff's lawyers seem not to have gone for it in their first punch. The complaint as written only alleges negligence against Immanuel and against the Synod (2 counts out of a total of 5).
The main points of argument seem to be fairly standard for that sort of a case:
"32. [All defendants] knew for months and potentially years before January 2021...that [abuser] had committed acts of sexual abuse against [plaintiff]."
"34. [All defendants] had a duty to implement policies and procedures to keep children who were likely to be exposed to [abuser] safe and Defendants either failed to implement ... or ... failed to enforce any such policies and procedures."
"35. Pursuant to I.C. 31-33-5-1, each of these defendants also had a legal obligation to report the abuse to the authorities. Not only did they fail to do so in a timely manner, but they also never disclosed to parents of children who continued to play unsupervised with [abuser]."
"36. [All defendants'] failure to warn [plaintiff's parents] of [abuser's] proclivity to sexually abuse children was negligent and as a direct and proximate result of such negligence, [plaintiff] has suffered physical damage and severe emotional damages."
As written, it's hard to see how to make this case stick against the Synod. Even the policy-making argument is a stretch, and the policy-enforcing one seems very weak: the presbyterian court of first instance for shepherding and disciplining individual members is typically the session. I understand going for the cash source as a strategic move, but the Synod's very late awareness of the matter (unless as a result of willful ignorance, which doesn't seem to be the case) is extremely unhelpful to the plaintiff. Unless there's some quirk of Indiana law not mentioned in the suit, the defendants' duty to warn and report would only kick in when the defendants knew or should have known about the abuse. Naming the presbytery as a defendant might have been a stronger legal (though not necessarily financial) option, since it was seized of the matter long before the Synod was.
But either way, as you noted, this looks to make Immanuel's exposure markedly larger, even while their ability to pay is markedly smaller -- and the Olivettis' exposure larger still, which is presumably why they're named in all 5 counts.
Olivettis' current deadline for a response to the complaint is February 10. The Synod's is February 26. Immanuel doesn't currently have counsel listed, so they haven't asked for an extension like the other defendants did. Nor have they actually filed anything.
Also, came across a podcast episode of Shaunestte Terrell, one of the plaintiff's named counsel, interviewing/conversing with Boz Tchividjian.
https://www.cohenandmalad.com/podcast-sexual-abuse/sexual-abuse-within-faith-communities/
They start referring to the Immanuel case at 17:50 and discuss it in generalities for about 10 minutes or so.
(As always, if this was already published here and I've missed/forgotten it, apologies for the duplication.)
I'm wondering whether the Presbytery is separately incorporated or if it is legally part of the Synod. That would explain why the Presbytery wasn't named separately.
Post a Comment