Working with Respondents 6 th June 2018

1. Working with Respondents 6th June 2018

2. Welcome and Prayer

3. Aims • To discuss learning from past experience • To outline good practice in working with respondents throughout the case management process

4. Training Day – Risk Assessments and Monitoring – 8th November 2017

5. Learning from the Past

6. Group Work • How have respondents been treated in the past? • From your own experience what have you found that works in terms of managing and supporting respondents? • How should respondents be treated in the future?

7. What we have found-Problems from the past • Denying that any problem exists • Not seeing safeguarding or the welfare of the child as the priority • Seeing allegations against clerics or religious as an attack on the Church, or a ploy to extract money • Moving the respondent around rather than dealing with the issue • Not reporting to the statutory authorities • Not using canonical procedures • Not keeping records • Not being aware of information available in the case files

8. What we have found-Problems from the past • Not seeking or ignoring advice • Not assessing risk to children • Not assessing the mental and physical health of the respondent for ministry • Over reliance on professional assessor • Absence of permanent or interim management plans • Not providing support to the respondent • Not communicating with those who need to know • Inconsistencies by individual Church authorities in their response to concerns

9. How we have responded • Caring pastorally for respondents and other affected parties is now one of five commitments in the Safeguarding Policy and Standards (page 11) • Care and Management of Respondents is now a separate standard with 4 indicators. • 44 pages of Guidance to outline each step

10. Initial Screening

11. After receiving the allegation an initial enquiry is carried out to establish if the threshold for reporting has been reached • Establishing the name of the complainant, the nature of the allegation and the name of the respondent; • Checking if the respondent was in the reported location at the time of the alleged abuse.

12. Once this is complete the DLP informs the statutory authorities as the threshold has been reached, alongside the Church authority and the NBSCCCI • Permission must be sought from the statutory authorities to enable you to inform the respondent and begin an initial assessment of risk

13. Initial Assessment of Risk Guidance 4.2A 4.2B Template 1 https://www.safeguarding.ie/roles2?task=document.viewdoc&id=293

14. Initial Assessment of Risk • Does information reach a semblance of truth? • Is there statutory authority action • What is the ministry of the respondent • Seek advice from NCMC/Advisory Panel

15. Issues to be considered when assessing initial risk • Is the allegation recent or of a historical nature? • Has the allegation continued over a significant period of time? • Is there any evidence to support complaints?

16. What is the respondent’s role in the Church? • Does the respondent have access to children? • Can they continue to work in public?

17. What is the number, gender and age range of complainants? • Have there been any other previous complaints? • Is there any evidence to support complaints?

18. Informing the Respondent

19. In Advance of the Meeting This meeting is about breaking bad and unwelcome news to the respondent, something which medical practitioners have developed guidance about you can access it here: Dean, A. and Willis, S. (2016). The use of protocol in breaking bad news: evidence and ethos, Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/12857/

20. In Advance of the Meeting • The Church authority needs to remember that the communication of bad news, in this case an allegation, is more than the communication of matters of fact; it has life altering implications; • The emotional labour of breaking bad news should be recognized by the Church authority and by the Catholic Church in Ireland in general. Every Church authority should have training in relation to communicating bad news, and psychosocial support for them should be considered, and be available if needed

21. In Advance of the Meeting • The Church authority should inform the respondent who will be attending and the purpose of the meeting, and the fact that it will be minuted • Sensitivity to the unique circumstances of the respondent is important they should be offered the services of an advisor and the role outlined to them • The respondent should be informed that they can be accompanied by another person for their own support

22. Role of Advisor • Keep the respondent informed of the process of the case; • Help direct the respondent to counselling and support; • Record any meetings or contact they have with the respondent, and report to the DLP as appropriate; • Uphold the seven standards in practice and behaviour.

23. Advisors should be particularly alert to the sense of isolation and vulnerability that a respondent may experience. • The advisor is not a counsellor for the respondent and should not act in that role. • The advisor should not act as spiritual guide for the respondent. • The advisor is not an advocate for the respondent. • The advisor does not manage the case file and will not have access to it.

24. At the meeting • The respondent must be informed of their rights to both canonical and civil legal advice; • The respondent must immediately be advised of their right to remain silent – they may admit, deny or decide not to respond at this stage; • The respondent needs to be given enough detail about the suspicion, concern or allegation and about the person making it in order to be able to offer a response, if they choose todo so. However, if a written statement has been given by the complainant, this cannot be given to the respondent, but a summary of its content can be shared.

25. After the meeting • A dated, written record of the meeting is forwarded to the respondent for signing. This record should detail what they have been informed of, and their response (if any); • The respondent is given written information about the Church procedure, so that they are clear about the process that will be followed. This includes consideration of a public announcement what it contains and who will deliver it

26. Using the information at this meeting you can complete your initial risk assessment by considering: • What is the respondent’s attitude to the allegations/complainants? • Are there other contributory factors that may increase risk (e.g. alcohol, single accommodation, refusing to comply with safeguarding process, etc.)? • Are there any issues with the respondent’s accommodation? • Who has the respondent shared information about the allegations with? • What action has the respondent taken to protect • themselves or others?

27. Positive Factors • What internal strengths does the respondent have? • What external supports have they put in place for themselves (personal/environmental)?

28. Restrictions to consider based on • assessment • Ministry • Priests Clothing • Accommodation • Support • Contact with complainant • Remember that restrictions are not punishments they are administrative acts under Canon law (Canons 35-47)

29. Interim Management Plan • 4.2B Template 3: Example Interim Management Plan • https://www.safeguarding.ie/roles2?task=document.viewdoc&id=293

30. 4.2B – Templates • Template 1: Sample Risk Assessment Framework • Template 2: Sample Risk Management Update Tool • Template 3: Sample Interim Management Plan • Template 4: Sample Notification to Follow Child Safeguarding Policy and Procedures

31. Data Protection and Information Sharing Group Work • Using the process we have discussed so far from receiving the allegation to an interim management plan discuss the following: • Who needs to know? • What do they need to know? • Why do they need to know?

32. BREAK

33. Feedback

34. Preliminary Investigation and Collecting of Proofs

35. A word on due process The criminal laws in both jurisdictions in Ireland have well-established and long cherished procedures for investigation, prosecution and court determination of allegations against individuals, which are based on the twin principles of Due Process and Natural Justice. These essentially require that the procedures used are objectively fair; that it is free from bias and partiality, and that no person should be judged without a fair hearing in which they are given the opportunity to respond to the evidence against them. Respondents should have the assistance of a solicitor, paid for by their Church body, to protect their interests in the criminal process. This civil legal assistance is perhaps more readily available to members of religious orders than it is to diocesan priests, but it should be offered to all respondents by their Church authority.

36. Preliminary Investigation/Collecting the Proofs These are canonical terms that refer to the initial investigation by which a Church authority determines whether an allegation of child abuse, which has reached the threshold of a semblance of truth, is not manifestly false or frivolous and there remains a case to answer. There are two different canons that govern them 1717 and 695. We will use the term Preliminary Investigation to talk about both processes

37. Semblance of Truth Evidence that, at face value, corroborates the notification. The certitude being sought is “much less than probable and even less than certain. In the end the Church authority is looking to see if the notification contains facts, circumstances, and imputability which are even remotely possible. When this semblance of truth is gained, no matter how low a certitude it might contain, it carries a certain level of moral and juridic responsibility which impinges on the Church authority to initiate a preliminary investigation.

38. The allegation, suspicion, concern or knowledge may come in a variety of forms but if it reaches the threshold it is passed to the Statutory authorities, the NBSCCCI and the Church authority. • Generally, if it meets the threshold for reporting to the statutory authorities it has automatically fulfilled the requirement of ‘a semblance of truth’. However there are exceptions. • If it fails to meet the threshold for reporting to the statutory authorities the Church authority must assess whether a semblance of truth is present. • Once the semblance of truth has been reached Canon 1717 § • requires the Church authority to conduct a further inquiry The First Decision- A semblance of Truth

39. Church authority initiates the preliminary Investigation by a decree: • indicating the date the complaint was received, • the name of the cleric accused, • the object of the investigation, i.e. a violation of article 4 of the norms of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela(SST) • the provisions of universal law under which the investigation is committed. • Appoints the delegated person • Pauses the process until the statutory authorities have given the go ahead to proceed. Semblance of truth present

40. The investigation focuses on the facts and circumstances extant in a particular case, asking who? What? Where? and when? • Circumstantial evidence is admissible and would include items such as the residence of the individual at the time of the complaint or the internal consistency of the complaint itself. • The law presumes the imputability (canon 1321) • Canon 1717 § 2 Care is to be taken that this investigation does not call into question anyone's good name. • This canon needs to be read in relation to canon 220 which states: No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right to protect privacy. The Task Ahead

41. INTERVIEWS • Declaration of the parties (cc. 1530-1538) • Witnesses (cc. 1547-1573) • Expert Testimony (cc. 1574-1581) • DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE • Access and Inspection (cc.1582-1583) • Through Documents (cc.1539-1546) • Public Private Documents • Presumptions (cc.1584-1586) • It is important to recognise that every type of indication has • different probative values. Possible Proofs

42. When the process stops When? When the delegated person believes they have gathered enough information to enable the Church authority to make a determination. The level of certitude being sought is greater than a mere “semblance of truth”, but it is less than “moral certitude” which is required (is there a case to answer)

43. The Next Part of the Process When? When the delegated person believes they have gathered enough information to enable the Church authority to make a determination. The level of certitude being sought is greater than a mere “semblance of truth”, but it is less than “moral certitude” which is required (is there a case to answer) The Delegated Person much compile a report with their findings,including all the testimony and acts of the preliminary investigation. The Church authority issues a decree closing the Preliminary Investigation. The Church authority may review report with his review board or the National Case Management Committee.

44. Considerations for the Respondent The presumption of innocence applies throughout The respondent must be informed as to the process of the interviews and their involvement, they must be supported throughout the process and the role of the advisor will be crucial here It is important to emphasise to the respondent that this process is not a trial but a fact finding exercise for the Church authority Revisiting and potentially revising the interim management plan based on the conclusion of the process When can they see the report of the Delegated Person?

45. LUNCH

46. Check In Group Work • What are the issues that the presentations so far have raised with you? • At this point in the process, using your experience what are the care and support needs and management requirements of respondents and their families?

47. Permanent Management Plan, Monitoring or Return to Ministry

48. If there is a case to answer Congregation in Rome finds the respondent guilty and they remain responsibility of the Church

49. Considerations for the Respondent A permanent management plan is created which outlines the restrictions on ministry and also the support the Church body will offer. The respondent must agree to abide by this and considerations to think about as part of this would include: Who will know about the detail of the plan? How will it be monitored? How will people be informed including my family? What happens if the respondent does not abide by the plan? What is appropriate and fulfilling ministry which manages risk but gives the respondent a role?

50. Monitoring