This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
Insights Insights
| 2 minutes read

When a Lawyer's Toolbox Has the Wrong Tools

The sentencing of a former child care worker on federal child pornography charges last week was the occasion for an advocacy group to express concerns about the original investigation. The part that struck me was the claim that the school responded in litigation defense mode rather than full transparency.

At this point, it is impossible to know what actually happened. The church has denied the claim, the preschool has closed for lack of insurance, and the assistant director lost her subsequent job because of the media furor. The advocacy group was formed in California in 2020, more than a year after law enforcement began its investigation. The group does not seem to have been assisting parents from the start of the investigation, although the executive director has been a prevention advocate in California for many years. Other reports state that parents felt the need to create a website to communicate their concerns to each other. 

There are several lessons from this incident.  First, lawyers who volunteer with the church may not have the right tools to handle a high-emotion situation. It is natural for institutions to turn to people they know, but few lawyers have experience in guiding groups through high-emotion situations. Our normal skill sets are good for legal issues and litigation, but most of us don't know how to help in the aftermath of a devastating allegation.

The next lesson is that we need to be as hyper-transparent as possible. There is too much potential for our normal responses ("no comment") to come across as bullying or hiding information. Parents are understandably concerned, sensitive, and frightened for their children. Of course, we need to not put the organization at greater risk or undermine its legal defense, and those concerns will set the outer boundaries of transparency. Within those bounds, however, we need to fulfill our responsibility to the parents of the children we serve.

Finally, we may need to bring in someone who is not an employee to communicate with parents. Even though that person will be working for the organization temporarily, they will bring a level of objectivity that employees (and potential witnesses) do not have. A trained professional also can reassure parents in ways that lawyers and organization employees simply cannot.

If disaster strikes your organization, reach out for experienced help.  You do not have to work through this alone.

Taylor English Duma LLP has a team of experienced lawyers, counselors, and mental health professionals who can help you respond to claims of abuse in your organization. Let us know how we can help.

[The advocacy group claims] the school did not bring in a local child advocacy team after the incident and instead responded to concerned parents with a full litigation prevention strategy, brought on in part by a lawyer who was also a church elder.

Tags

child abuse, youth serving organizations