Failures in Mandatory Reporting: A Case Study From the UMD
This article addresses a specific case of mandatory reporting failure in the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), which eventually led to the formation of ACNAtoo. Below, we spotlight church leaders’ ongoing refusal to acknowledge their failures, 3.5 years later. Additionally, we offer this analysis to educate all churchgoers on child abuse mandatory reporting requirements, because the Church across denominations has too frequently failed to protect the vulnerable.
In May 2019, Christ Our Light (COLA), a now-defunct ACNA church in the Diocese of the Upper Midwest (UMD) received a disclosure of child sexual abuse allegations against lay catechist Mark Rivera. There is no indication that church or diocesan leaders ever reported these allegations to DCFS. You can read a summary of the UMD abuse mishandling, a timeline of events, or survivor stories here.
Church of the Resurrection (Rez) is the cathedral church of the UMD and the second church to which the mother reported her daughter’s allegations, as well as her serious concerns about additional children who, unlike her daughter, were in ongoing contact with Mark Rivera. To this day, UMD leaders assert that there were “no mandatory reporting failures” in this situation, something they claim to have verified with three unnamed lawyers.
During a November 10, 2022 closed-door “family meeting” at Rez, Alec Smith, Advising Chancellor for the UMD and husband of Rez Sr. Warden Jill Smith, justified church leaders’ failure to report child sexual abuse by positing that Rivera was “not in a caregiver position,” that “the abuse claim was hearsay since it was reported by the mother," and that “allowing” the mother to report the abuse instead of church leaders doing so actually represented “victim-centered” best practice.
Let’s examine each of these justifications closely.
Justification 1
UMD’s Argument:
Rivera was not in a caregiver position, so this was “not a DCFS matter.” As such, no clergy or church leaders were required to report.
Analysis:
Illinois state law requires mandated reporters to make a report within 48 hours of becoming aware of suspected child abuse or neglect.
It is never the function of a mandated reporter to decide whose jurisdiction a report falls under or to in any way attempt to evaluate or investigate the abuse claims. It is their legal requirement to make a report, full stop. That report is always first made to the DCFS hotline, as their operators are the ones trained specifically in child protection and therefore best equipped to decide whether a report warrants follow up. If COLA/Rez/UMD leaders/clergy had called the hotline to report within 48 hours, as required by law, and had been told by DCFS that it was not a DCFS matter but a police matter, DCFS would also then have informed the police.
This is what happened when Cherin, the child’s mother, called an abuse hotline two days after informing church leaders of her daughter’s allegations. She wanted advice on how to report her daughter’s abuse to the authorities. She was directed to contact the police instead of DCFS, since Mark Rivera did not have ongoing access to her child as a primary caregiver. When she did so, the police were immediately compelled to contact DCFS on behalf of Mark Rivera’s minor children, meaning it became a DCFS matter within a few hours of Cherin’s report to law enforcement.
It is worth considering the practical implications of UMD leaders’ excuse that because it was not a DCFS matter, they weren’t required to report. If mandated reporters are only required to report abuse by primary caregivers, what does that look like in practice?
A child tells their teacher that their 50-year-old uncle is touching them inappropriately.
Not a caregiver; not a DCFS matter, so no need to report?A 14-year-old tells a youth volunteer that she’s in a sexual relationship with the 27-year-old youth pastor.
Not a caregiver; not a DCFS matter, so no need to report?A 10-year-old, in the vocabulary available to her, tells her sister that she was raped by their 19-year-old neighbor, and the sister tells her therapist.
Not a caregiver; not a DCFS matter, so no need to report?
One reason DCFS exists is to safeguard the wellbeing of children and families. In a reporting scenario, DCFS provides a first line of defense to intervene and protect a child. DCFS assesses the report and will contact the police if they believe this is warranted. If a child is not deemed to be in danger from their primary caregivers and their caregivers do not need to be immediately investigated, supervised, or have arrangements made for the child to be removed from their care, DCFS may not become involved and will instead pass the report on to law enforcement. The only reason ever to delay mandatory reporting would be if the child was in immediate danger and needed to be removed to safety before making a report, something that was not the case here.
Conclusion:
As mandated reporters, Illinois clergy are required to immediately report all suspected child abuse or neglect. While the Illinois Manual for Mandated Reporters states that the abuser could be someone in a caregiver position, they could also be a person who “came to know the child through an official capacity or position of trust,” which includes “members of the clergy” as well as “volunteers or support personnel” (page 2).
If the abuser’s position fits one of those categories, mandated reporters must report. The fact remains that multiple UMD mandated reporters failed to report child sexual abuse allegations and continue to assert 3.5 years later that there were no mandatory reporting failures. Furthermore, if they decided not to report Mark Rivera’s abuse to DCFS because he was not the child’s primary caregiver, then why did these leaders not immediately report the child abuse allegations directly to the police?
Justification 2
UMD’s Argument:
The report was “hearsay,” since the mother told the priest, Rev. Rand York, about her child’s abuse, rather than the child telling the priest directly. Therefore Rev. York and other leaders did not have enough information to make a report.
Analysis:
The ONLY information a mandated reporter needs to make a report is “reasonable cause to believe a child is being abused.” The state of Illinois, in its case against Mark Rivera, found a child’s self-report of abuse to be reasonable and grounds for conviction. Studies have found over 96% of children who self-report sexual abuse are truthful.
It is never the function of a mandated reporter to wait to receive detailed allegations directly from the minor victim before reporting alleged abuse. If a mandated reporter doesn’t have the full name of the abused or the perpetrator, it might not be possible for authorities to take action on that report. Nonetheless, mandated reporters are required to report suspected child abuse. If a reporter knows full names, but this identifying information isn’t specific enough, law enforcement may need to determine if the severity of the allegations warrants investigating multiple “John Smiths.” Nonetheless, mandated reporters are required to report all suspected child abuse.
If a mandated reporter has full names and the name of a school, church, or general living vicinity, but no specific knowledge of the nature of the abuse, DCFS might follow up with the individual to confirm the validity and nature of the claims. Maybe something comes of it; maybe it doesn’t. Nonetheless, mandated reporters are required to report suspected child abuse. In every abuse reporting scenario, while the unique circumstances may often result in incomplete information, this doesn’t change the reality that mandated reporters are required to report all suspected child abuse or neglect.
In the case of Mark Rivera’s abuse, Rev. York and COLA leaders knew the full names and full addresses of both the perpetrator and the victim, and they had enough information to call the abuse “something men go to jail for” (the language used by Rev. York according to the Husch Blackwell investigation report, p. 17). They were most certainly required to make the report. This requirement doesn’t change based on how a mandated reporter receives the information or how much information is available to them.
It is worth considering the practical implications of UMD leaders’ claims that they are absolved from reporting allegations of abuse, because they deemed the allegations to be hearsay. If mandated reporters are not required to report secondhand disclosures, what does that look like in practice?
A 16-year-old tells their friends they were raped at a frat party and those friends relay this to school counselors.
Hearsay, so no need to report?A 7-year-old girl tells her brother that their dad has been abusing her, and he asks his favorite teacher what to do.
Hearsay, so no need to report?A child feels safe telling their parent they have been molested by a church leader, and that parent brings this information to their priest.
Hearsay, so no need to report?
A child’s first disclosure is not always going to be made to authority figures who are mandated reporters. Many initial disclosures are made to friends, siblings, or parents, none of whom necessarily have the training to know what to do with an abuse disclosure. If someone else reporting on behalf of a victim, particularly a minor child, is, as UMD leaders claim, hearsay not worthy of reporting, that would mean that, in order to receive help, every abused child must be able to first identify that they were abused and then go directly to trained authority figures and tell them themselves.
By downplaying serious allegations as “hearsay,” UMD can also conveniently ignore the fact that Cherin met with Rez leaders Dcn. Valerie McIntyre and Meghan Robins in June 2019 and shared her belief and detailed concerns that suggested three additional minors may have been abused by Mark Rivera (all of whom were potentially in danger due to ongoing contact with Mark). This is the very definition of having reasonable cause to believe a child has been abused, yet no reports were made by the church on behalf of these children. Cherin later shared these concerns with the authorities.
Late the following year, after two additional victims of Mark Rivera came forward in November 2020, Cherin reminded Dcn. Valerie McIntyre of her concerns about these three children, but still no action was taken by the church to protect them. In fact, Dcn. McIntyre responded that, while she believed it was likely Mark Rivera may have abused one or all of them, unless the children reported abuse themselves, there was nothing the church could do. It was not until Joanna Rudenborg detailed some of these concerns in a January 2021 email to Bishop Stewart Ruch that a report was finally made to DCFS by the church (over a year and a half after church leaders had first been informed).
Conclusion:
As mandated reporters, clergy are required to immediately report all suspected child abuse or neglect. It is not the job of a mandated reporter to judge whether information constitutes “hearsay;” it is simply their duty to report. The fact remains that multiple UMD leaders failed to report child sexual abuse allegations and continue to assert that there were no mandatory reporting failures.
Justification 3
UMD’s Argument:
“Allowing” Cherin to report her daughter’s abuse, rather than the priest reporting it, was the most victim-centered thing to do. Because of this, it was acceptable that church leaders stepped aside and did not report the abuse themselves.
Analysis:
A mandated reporter is required to report suspected child abuse within 48 hours, regardless of their personal (and in this case, unfounded) speculations on the victim’s (or their family’s) preferences.
It is never the function of a mandated reporter to place their own legal responsibility on the shoulders of the victim’s family, much less to defend this action by claiming it is best for the victim. There can certainly be cases where it centers the victim to empower them to make a report themselves, but specific purposes and parameters apply.
A victim-centered approach means that the victim (or for a minor victim, their primary caretaker) is given the option to report the abuse first themselves with the full and unconditional support of the mandated reporter. In this case, a church leader still needs to clearly explain to the victim, or the person speaking for the victim, that the disclosure is a mandatory reportable offense, and that if the victim chooses not to report, the church leader is still required to do so.
If the disclosure is made by a parent, the mandated reporter should also make it clear to the parent that if the parent fails to report on behalf of their child they could be charged with child neglect and endangerment. The mandated reporter must guarantee that a report has been made by either witnessing the parent make the report or explaining to the parent that they will also report the disclosure within 48 hours. Doing this either corroborates the original report or ensures that the report is made should the parent fail to do so.
It is worth considering the practical implications of UMD leaders’ claims that leaving the victim’s family to report abuse is a victim-centered response. If mandated reporters shift the responsibility to report to the family member who received the abuse disclosure, what does that look like in practice?
A 12-year-old boy tells his mom that his stepdad has been touching him sexually for years, and the grieving mother makes the most difficult phone call of her life to her best friend, who is a licensed counselor.
Should the mother be told, “If you believe a crime has occurred, you should call the police yourself”?A 15-year-old girl tells her parents that a well-respected basketball coach has initiated sexual contact with her, and the dad, amidst overwhelming shock and betrayal, goes to the school principal for help.
Should the dad be told, “If you believe a crime has occurred, you should call the police yourself”?A 9-year-old child discloses to her mother that a beloved church leader has been serially molesting her, and the devastated and disoriented mother asks her spiritual authority figures for guidance.
Should the mother be told, “If you believe a crime has occurred, you should call the police yourself”?
In the case of Mark Rivera’s abuse, the Husch Blackwell report reveals that UMD Diocesan Chancellor Charlie Philbrick advised COLA leaders Rev. Rand York and Sr. Warden Chris Lapeyre that they were not required to report the abuse to the authorities. Chris Lapeyre, in turn, ignored his legal duty as a licensed teacher, and therefore mandated reporter, and told Cherin that he and Rev. York did not intend to report her daughter’s abuse and said that she did not need to report it either. Far from fulfilling their legal obligation to report reasonable allegations of child sexual abuse, Rev. York and Chris Lapeyre discouraged the child’s mother from reporting it and then asked her, in front of her daughter’s abuser, whether she planned to contact law enforcement. (Read Cherin's account of this meeting here.)
In fact, only one Rez leader (Dcn. Margie Fawcett) firmly told Cherin that she should report her daughter’s abuse, and this response came after COLA leaders had already discouraged Cherin from reporting it. In no case is it victim-centered for a friend, let alone an authority figure and mandated reporter, to leave a victim’s family member – who is still inevitably reeling from the abuse disclosure – to make this excruciatingly difficult phone call on their own. The family member is a secondary victim of their loved one’s abuse and needs all the emotional and practical support they can get at that vulnerable moment. That is, in fact, why they have gone to an authority figure in the first place.
As the parent of a child who had just disclosed sexual abuse by a close family friend and core community member, Cherin needed her church leaders to offer clear instruction that a reporting call was necessary, to give her unwavering support, and to give her daughter protection. Instead, Cherin was left to make this difficult decision alone, resisting pressure from various COLA members not to report, and later faced anger and backlash from COLA leaders and members and some Rez parishioners for contacting the authorities without first warning Mark Rivera’s family.
When Cherin later spoke publicly about these mandatory reporting failures, Rev. Rand York falsely claimed that Cherin had asked church leaders not to report her daughter’s abuse and that he was simply following her wishes by not contacting the authorities. These lies have further compounded the pain and trauma of being left to report her daughter’s abuse without the help and support of her church. The actions of Rev. York and Sr. Warden Chris Lapeyre were the opposite of “victim-centered,” and learning how Alec Smith and UMD church leaders defended and justified this mishandling, mere months ago, is devastating to Cherin’s family. To suggest that the actions Cherin’s family experienced as harmful were actually right and caring significantly compounds that harm. Continuing to deny both the original harm and how it has since been compounded is not what learning and repentance look like.
Conclusion:
In church abuse response, as with any victim-centered practice, it is not the leaders’ own assessment of how well they centered and cared for the victim that matters. The way an organization knows if they have responded in ways that center victims is when the victims themselves state they have been empowered, supported, and cared for. ACNAtoo has documented that, from nearly the beginning, UMD leaders did not center Cherin, her daughter, and many other reported victims of Mark Rivera. If the UMD chooses to use terms like “victim-centered,” they should not exclude and silence the victims for whom they claim to speak. If the UMD truly wants to center victims, they must intentionally listen to stories like Cherin’s, then acknowledge and repent of the ways they failed to center the profound suffering of Cherin’s family and many other victims of Mark Rivera.
United States readers: If you suspect a child is being abused or neglected, refer to this list to find the phone number for the relevant reporting agency in your state.