Key People involved in the Bisbee, Arizona sexual abuse case

Timeline of the Bisbee, Arizona sexual abuse case

Did a bishop in Bisbee, Arizona fail to report the sexual abuse of children in his ward?

Yes. Two bishops, Bishop John Herrod[BIO] and Bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy failed to report the abuse of Paul and Leizza Adams's children to the police between 2010 and 2017.[48]

Have the bishops made any statement about why they didn't report the abuse to the police?

Yes. Bishop Herrod stated that Paul confessed the abuse to have been a "one-time incident that had not reoccurred" and that his understanding was that he was legally obligated to not report.[49]

Bishop Mauzy stated, "I did not know that Paul Adams was abusing his children while I was Bishop until he was arrested in 2017," and noted that his understanding was that he was legally obligated to not report the past abuse, which he understood to be a "one-time incident."[50]

Did the bishops understand the extent of the abuse?

No, not according to their testimony. They both stated that they were unaware that the abuse was ongoing past a "one-time incident."[51]

A Church spokesperson said in a 2020 statement that it wasn't until after the arrest of Paul Adams that "the bishop learned of the scope and magnitude of the abuse that far exceeded anything he had heard or suspected."[52]

But didn't DHS Agent Edwards testify that Bishop Herrod was aware of multiple incidents and video recordings?

Yes, Agent Edwards said that Bishop Herrod was aware of repeated sexual abuse and of Paul Adams's recording of the abuse.[53] Edwards also said his testimony was based on the June 12, 2018 interview Edwards had with Herrod, though the transcript of that interview is less clear about what Herrod recalled.[54]

However, in a 2021 sworn declaration, Bishop Herrod stated that until Paul was arrested in 2017, he "had no knowledge that [Paul] had viewed or disseminated photos or videos containing child pornography, including related to the abuse of his own children."[55]

Wasn't Paul excommunicated in 2013? Shouldn't they have known the extent of the abuse because of the disciplinary process?

Possibly. Bishop Mauzy stated that the excommunication was because of "a past one-time incident (and other conduct by Paul Adams that gave rise to his excommunication)."[56] The disciplinary records are unavailable.

Did they fail to report because the Church told them not to?

Yes, possibly. There are conflicting accounts. DHS Agent Edwards said that Bishop Herrod was told "there's no duty to report" due to Arizona law,[57] whereas Bishop Herrod stated that he was required by Arizona law to not report.[58]

In the 2020 civil lawsuit complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that Bishop Herrod and Bishop Mauzy were told to not report by the Church helpline.[59]

The Church's legal response to the civil lawsuit maintains that the bishop was legally constrained from reporting the abuse.[60]

The Associated Press reported that Utah Republican State Rep. Merrill F. Nelson worked on the Church helpline and told Bishop Herrod to not report the abuse.[61] Is this true?

According to a sworn deposition by Church helpline employee Roger W. Van Komen, Merrill Nelson worked on the helpline and spoke with Bishop Herrod.[62] However, there is no record of what Merrill Nelson advised Bishop Herrod.

What is the purpose of the Church abuse helpline?

The Church established the helpline in 1995.[63] On the Church website, it states that when "bishops or stake presidents call the helpline, legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions about how to assist victims, comply with local laws and requirements for reporting abuse, and protect against further abuse."[64]

And in a 2022 statement, the Church clarified that the "helpline is instrumental in ensuring that all legal requirements for reporting are met. It provides a place for local leaders, who serve voluntarily, to receive direction from experts to determine who should make a report and whether they (local leaders) should play a role in that reporting."[65]

So is the helpline just run by lawyers?

It is run by a "specialized group of attorneys and mental health professionals."[66][67] Kate Taylor Lauck, a survivor of child sexual abuse and an attorney who worked for the Church abuse helpline, described the purpose of the helpline as "assisting victims and survivors of abuse to get the help they need and also reporting abuse to law enforcement."[68][69]

However, the Associated Press story reported that an attorney that worked for the helpline said he did not work with social workers.[70]

What is the policy of the Church on reporting sexual abuse?

The policy is that bishops should take action to stop abuse.[71] The handbook also states that laws differ in various states and countries and that local Church leadership should follow the local law in regard to reporting abuse to governmental authority.[72]

Did the Arizona bishops follow this policy?

Yes and no. The first step of Church policy insists that the abuse be stopped.[73] Bishop Herrod reportedly attempted to stop future abuse by separating Paul from his family, which he believed was effective, but it wasn't.[74] Both bishops did satisfy Arizona reporting law, which gives clergy discretion on whether to report.[75]

What is the Arizona law with respect to reporting abuse?

Arizona Revised Statute § 13-3620 states that because the clergy-penitent relationship is privileged, clergy are exempt from mandatory reporting of child abuse "if the member of the clergy . . . determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."[76]

And Arizona Revised Statute § 12-2233 states that "clergyman" cannot be made to testify against someone who has confessed to them in a civil action.[77]

If the helpline advised Bishop Herrod to not report the abuse, why would it do so if it is optional under the Arizona Revised Statues?

It's unclear. Attorneys representing the Church noted that "defendants were constrained by applicable law from reporting the abuse without permission of the perpetrator or his wife," which is consistent with the official statements made by the Church in 2020.[78] This seems to conflict with Arizona Revised Statute § 13-3620.[79]

The helpline may have made an interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute § 12-2233 which states that "clergyman" cannot be made to testify against someone who has confessed to them in a civil action.[80]

Wasn't Shaunice Warr, the visiting teacher, a law enforcement officer? Wasn't she legally required to report abuse?

Yes, Shaunice Warr was a Border Patrol officer and was required to report abuse.[81] She testified that she was not aware of any particular abuse, but she suspected abuse was occurring in the Adams's home and encouraged Leizza to leave Adam.[82]

Wasn't John Herrod the family doctor of the Adams? Wasn't he legally required to report abuse?

Possibly. According to the 2020 civil lawsuit documents, Herrod saw the parents as a doctor, but "never treated or examined the Adams children, had no physician/patent relationship with any of them, and never obtained any information from or about them in his professional capacity as a physician."[83]

However, the plaintiff alleged that John Herrod was the "family physician"[84] and filed a sworn statement from one of the Adams children that stated that they saw Herrod as a patient numerous times.[85] Under Arizona law, doctors are required to report sexual abuse.[86]

Was Paul Adams an active member of the Church during the time of the abuse? Was Leizza?

Paul was reported to have "rarely" attended after his excommunication in 2013.[87] Leizza reportedly attended with her children nearly every Sunday and held a calling to play the piano in the primary.[88]

In 2022, Bishop Mauzy testified in a deposition that Paul was not a Melchizedek priesthood holder and did not hold a temple recommend.[89]

What has the Church said about the bishops’ actions or the lawsuit?

The Church has made four statements. The first two statements said that the bishop made efforts to protect the children, but did not know the scope and magnitude of the abuse and that the bishop and the Church worked within their limited knowledge to prevent the abuse.[90]

The third and fourth statements were in response to the Associated Press story released on August 4, 2022, and clarified the nature of the abuse hotline[91] and the facts of the case.[92]

What happened with the criminal investigation of the Church that started in 2018?

DHS Agent Robert Edwards testified that there was a criminal investigation of the Church in 2018 related to the reporting of the sexual abuse.[93] This may be connected with the Cochise County closed grand jury proceedings (GJ21-0072) in January 2021.[94]

Cochise County grand jury trials are legislated to be six months in length, so it is likely that the grand jury concluded.[95] There are no known criminal indictments filed against the Church related to this case.

What policies and practices does the Church have in place to prevent abuse?

The Church has systems and processes in place to protect children from abuse, such as two-deep leadership;[96] mandatory abuse training for leaders;[97] a helpline staffed by mental health experts and attorneys;[98] handbook instructions on definitions, responses, and how to address abuse;[99] windows into the classroom of children to allow observation;[100] and a membership record annotation system for members that may be seen as a risk to children.[101]

Shouldn't the Church policy be to always report abuse no matter what?

Possibly. Some people believe mandatory reporting would be in the best interest of protecting children from abuse,[102] but others believe it would prevent abusers from coming forward which would result in more children being abused.[103]

In 2014, the University of Michigan published research that indicated that counties in the US that had mandatory reporting for clergy were correlated with lower reporting rates than those that didn't.[104] A 2017 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found similar results and concluded that universal mandatory reporting may "lead to poorer outcomes" for endangered children.[105]