scared Mama-bear
Jul. 11th, 2004 09:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
celticdragonflyIf I get any farther out of my comfort zone, I would go throw up. I've been having a very hard time trying to eat.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
selenite and I had some long serious conversations about personal stuff on Saturday. Which was good, but got a bit worldshaking at times. I thought that was going to be the tough part of the weekend.
Then there was today. Three times today at the UU church I ended up in situations where my childhood social training said "sit down, shut up, be a quiet little woman" and I bucked it all three times. Responded back to a guy doing the thoughtless politcal shit in the hallway - the kind of stuff where he thinks the US prosecuting crack and PCP dealers is the equivalent of Nazi fascism. Has no kids, and as best as I can tell has no clue. That was unpleasant.
Then I ended up going and supporting confrontations between the UU president who is telling people not to spread the news about the registered child molester who is on parole and has been breaking parole terms by being at the church, and the woman who discovered that we had this child molestor in our midst, and had the courage and resourcefulness to start informing parole officers and letting the church know. The president of the church and the minister do not want to let people know about this yet, and think having told the guy not to come back is enough, and they want to have a meeting with the criminal tomorrow. I think they are acting foolishly. I think in such a situation you notify the police FIRST, then next notify the congregation, and if you want to talk to the criminal, that comes last. I backed up the other woman in making quite a stink about it. The congregation president was engaging in all sorts of intimidating behavior to us - leaning over me, standing in WAY too close a position, engaging in unnecessary touching - all things that are clearly being used to try to make me shut up and back down, but are hard as hell to prove. I think he's decided he wants to protect the image of the church as a safe place, so donations will keep coming in - and in trying to protect the image, he is REDUCING the safety of the church. When asked point blank if he was willing to inform parole officers of this, he refused to give a yes or no answer and was weasel wording and saying things were going to be "handled" and he was going to "discuss" things with the man in question.
I discussed things a bit with the minister as well - because, as stomach-churning as this is to do, I do not like going around with "I hear that somebody said that Rev. Roshaven doesn't want anybody to talk about this to the congregation", I think it is more to the point to go to the person and say "I heard you said this; is it true?" The discussion with him was more reasonable, without the physical intimidation tricks and weasel wording that the president was using. Part of his point was saying that he did not have proof of the terms of the parole that this man has apparently broken. Okay, if he needs to get proof of that, perhaps. Although I think people deserve to know that a registered sex offender was showing up. Talked to the woman who discovered this - she says it's typical parole terms for any Texas sex offender. I do not have documentation to back that up at this time.
I don't care about things from the criminal's point of view. I care about the mothers and grandmothers and such in the congregation. I don't want to find out that while they were "handling" this and sanitizing the information in the next few weeks, that this guy molested another kid, because nothing was said out in public and some family didn't know, and thought of this as a safe guy because hey, they knew him from First Jefferson church.
The whole thing makes me terrified. I've let FJUUC people take my kid from the nursery down the hall to the Sunday school classroom, without demanding to see their background check. I've let my son go to the bathroom unescorted. I've let my kids run and play at the potluck in the hall with the other kids (and apparently this guy was going to those), they were all playing together. Could we have missed a kid long enough for him or her to get led into the parking lot, into a car, and out? Possibly. That's scary.
Threaten kids, and I get upset. Especially my kids, yes, but other kids, too. There's a lovely Pratchett bit about how once you wear the label of "Mother", the whole world gets a bit of the label "child". And yeah, that's true. So even though it goes against all my training and comfort, I was making a stink. And if they don't notify the congregation soon, I will continue to make a stink.
The president was also trying to blow off the woman who discovered this on her concerns about her being endangered as a whistle-blower. I think he's full of it. I'd be scared in her position. This guy was convicted of a violent crime, and she's going to take steps to put him back in jail. Yeah, that's scary.
Here's the link, by the way. The name matches the name that he's given to the CUUPS group. Names can be common, you say? They say that looks like him in the more recent picture (which you click on the picture to get to), and that's the address he gave the group. Sounds reasonable grounds for concern to me.
http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soDetail.cfm?ShowNav=False&DPS_NUMBER=05065755
It's been enlightening to find out about this database.
When it comes to protecting kids from a child molestor, my view is that you err on the side of caution, err on the side of the kids, and notify people immediately.
I have been reading Kipling, "The Female of the Species", and finding relevance in some of the passages about men and how they act. Although I do not assume it is true of all men, I think the description fits how these two men at the church are acting now.
selenite and I had some long serious conversations about personal stuff on Saturday. Which was good, but got a bit worldshaking at times. I thought that was going to be the tough part of the weekend.Then there was today. Three times today at the UU church I ended up in situations where my childhood social training said "sit down, shut up, be a quiet little woman" and I bucked it all three times. Responded back to a guy doing the thoughtless politcal shit in the hallway - the kind of stuff where he thinks the US prosecuting crack and PCP dealers is the equivalent of Nazi fascism. Has no kids, and as best as I can tell has no clue. That was unpleasant.
Then I ended up going and supporting confrontations between the UU president who is telling people not to spread the news about the registered child molester who is on parole and has been breaking parole terms by being at the church, and the woman who discovered that we had this child molestor in our midst, and had the courage and resourcefulness to start informing parole officers and letting the church know. The president of the church and the minister do not want to let people know about this yet, and think having told the guy not to come back is enough, and they want to have a meeting with the criminal tomorrow. I think they are acting foolishly. I think in such a situation you notify the police FIRST, then next notify the congregation, and if you want to talk to the criminal, that comes last. I backed up the other woman in making quite a stink about it. The congregation president was engaging in all sorts of intimidating behavior to us - leaning over me, standing in WAY too close a position, engaging in unnecessary touching - all things that are clearly being used to try to make me shut up and back down, but are hard as hell to prove. I think he's decided he wants to protect the image of the church as a safe place, so donations will keep coming in - and in trying to protect the image, he is REDUCING the safety of the church. When asked point blank if he was willing to inform parole officers of this, he refused to give a yes or no answer and was weasel wording and saying things were going to be "handled" and he was going to "discuss" things with the man in question.
I discussed things a bit with the minister as well - because, as stomach-churning as this is to do, I do not like going around with "I hear that somebody said that Rev. Roshaven doesn't want anybody to talk about this to the congregation", I think it is more to the point to go to the person and say "I heard you said this; is it true?" The discussion with him was more reasonable, without the physical intimidation tricks and weasel wording that the president was using. Part of his point was saying that he did not have proof of the terms of the parole that this man has apparently broken. Okay, if he needs to get proof of that, perhaps. Although I think people deserve to know that a registered sex offender was showing up. Talked to the woman who discovered this - she says it's typical parole terms for any Texas sex offender. I do not have documentation to back that up at this time.
I don't care about things from the criminal's point of view. I care about the mothers and grandmothers and such in the congregation. I don't want to find out that while they were "handling" this and sanitizing the information in the next few weeks, that this guy molested another kid, because nothing was said out in public and some family didn't know, and thought of this as a safe guy because hey, they knew him from First Jefferson church.
The whole thing makes me terrified. I've let FJUUC people take my kid from the nursery down the hall to the Sunday school classroom, without demanding to see their background check. I've let my son go to the bathroom unescorted. I've let my kids run and play at the potluck in the hall with the other kids (and apparently this guy was going to those), they were all playing together. Could we have missed a kid long enough for him or her to get led into the parking lot, into a car, and out? Possibly. That's scary.
Threaten kids, and I get upset. Especially my kids, yes, but other kids, too. There's a lovely Pratchett bit about how once you wear the label of "Mother", the whole world gets a bit of the label "child". And yeah, that's true. So even though it goes against all my training and comfort, I was making a stink. And if they don't notify the congregation soon, I will continue to make a stink.
The president was also trying to blow off the woman who discovered this on her concerns about her being endangered as a whistle-blower. I think he's full of it. I'd be scared in her position. This guy was convicted of a violent crime, and she's going to take steps to put him back in jail. Yeah, that's scary.
Here's the link, by the way. The name matches the name that he's given to the CUUPS group. Names can be common, you say? They say that looks like him in the more recent picture (which you click on the picture to get to), and that's the address he gave the group. Sounds reasonable grounds for concern to me.
http://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/soDetail.cfm?ShowNav=False&DPS_NUMBER=05065755
It's been enlightening to find out about this database.
When it comes to protecting kids from a child molestor, my view is that you err on the side of caution, err on the side of the kids, and notify people immediately.
I have been reading Kipling, "The Female of the Species", and finding relevance in some of the passages about men and how they act. Although I do not assume it is true of all men, I think the description fits how these two men at the church are acting now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-11 08:17 pm (UTC)I missed that Pratchett label, but it's true. I get a LOT of Momma Bear/Wolf/Cat, and I GROWL LOUDLY.
I find the President's behavior as described incredibly inappropriate, and I'd call him on it in public.
Kids deserve ALL the caution in the world.
I hope there's no way for this criminal to get the whistleblower's name. There shouldn't be, unless the President or someone reveals it. And if they do, if I were that woman I'd sue them to hell and back.
She DOES, however, need to be careful about her personal security. We all do, but it's a good time for her to do whatever she can to improve hers. I recommend Paxton Quigley's book Not an Easy Target as a guide.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-11 08:39 pm (UTC)Well, we were, really. The debate was being held in a public outside area where people were walking through. And I was continuing things even after the other lady left. And a couple of times a member would walk up and say "what's this all about?" and I would chime right in and TELL them.
Karl says that by doing this I was really trashing the guy's plans. Good.
But my gods, this sort of thing does NOT come easy to me. It felt like going into combat.
I believe the Pratchett reference is in _Lords and Ladies_. Checking online... No, I was wrong, it's from _Carpe Jugulum_.
"It was as if, just because they'd got the label which said 'mother', everyone else got a tiny part of the label that said 'child'..."
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-11 09:01 pm (UTC)Blow them thar whistles!
Date: 2004-07-11 09:07 pm (UTC)Re: Blow them thar whistles!
Date: 2004-07-12 08:54 am (UTC)I really don't even want to go back to the church, although I should at least make sure that the congregation does get notified.
Hugs
Date: 2004-07-12 05:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-12 07:48 am (UTC)On the other hand, the "reform" rate on this sort of thing is... A: not comforting, and B: not worth a damn if you're dealing with the X% that aren't, and C: if he's actually breaking parole, then hell, yes, put him back in jail!
(And even if he wants to be reformed, reducing temptation might be a good thing!)
If the other guy is touching you in ways you don't like, call him on that, I'd suggest? Say, "Don't touch me to make me shut up." (There's always a chance that he is not consciously aware he's doing it.) Or even just, "You are not my husband. Hands off me."
Luck, and good for you, and gods, stress is awful.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-12 08:52 am (UTC)Nor do I much care. His salvation is his own problem. My kids are mine. (And I know you'd agree with me on that, not thinking you don't. I've just decided to actively refuse to feel the least sorry for this guy.)
Thanks for the phrasing for the touching thing. I wish I'd thought of that. I was staying aware enough to realize what he was trying to do, and making sure I did not back down, but it's HARD to keep this many mental balls in the air during something that emotionally upsetting. I shall try to file them for any future occurrence.
Although frankly I don't want to go back. I feel like I HAVE to, I have to go back at least long enough to make sure they DO notify the congregation.
Church
Date: 2004-07-12 09:23 am (UTC)Attempting to protect the good name of the church by hushing up accusations wound up doing even more damage to that "good name" than the original problem.
Lazarus Long suggests appeals to a fellow's good sense and better nature might not work if he ain't got any. But appeals to his self-interest have at least a chance...
Re: Church
Date: 2004-07-12 09:39 am (UTC)The whole thing continues to make me sick to my stomach.
These people recite every week "Love is the doctrine of this church. The quest for truth is our sacrament"
I'm thinking that if nothing is said by next week I probably need to stand up during services and say something. And that will be HIDEOUSLY AWFUL for me. And that still won't catch everybody, darn it, it's summertime and not everybody makes it to summer services.
But I can't force them to print it in the newsletter.
Frankly at this point I'd rather just never go again.
Re: Church
Date: 2004-07-12 01:40 pm (UTC)Tell the staff of the childcare set-up, at least?
If you stand up and tell the people who are there, it at least has a chance to make it into common gossip.
*more hugs*
Re: Church
Date: 2004-07-12 02:10 pm (UTC)So that was good.
The guy's conviction was on a crime against a 12 year old, so it's actually the thought of things like letting my 8 year old go to the bathroom unescorted that was scary.
Re: Church
Date: 2004-07-12 11:13 am (UTC)Some UUs have figured that out. First Unitarian Universalist in Austin now requires a criminal background check for any position that involves working with kids, whether paid or volunteer -- Sunday School teacher, nursery worker, youth group mentor, etc. If this situation came up there, I can't see anyone on staff or board hushing things up.
But Laura's church sounds like it needs to be reminded. Betcha if all the parents of underage children stopped coming to church for a month, they'd notice....
Re: Church
Date: 2004-07-12 11:18 am (UTC)No, he was apparently coming to CUUPS events, but then (as one of the CUUPS ladies told me yesterday) "he always disappeared during circle". Yeek. Sounds like he was casing the setup to me.
So far they're not TELLING the parents of underage children. The president claimed he thought oh, everybody must know. BS. The only reason I knew is that
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-12 09:59 am (UTC)*nod* I figured that it was a case of focusing on priorities, and a case of second-guessing the person in the field on my part. But something to remember, mayhap, for the future.
I wouldn't want to go back either. But if I were around, I'd go with you.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-07-12 10:44 am (UTC){{{{{HUGS!}}}}}
I hope you've regained your equilibrium and that you come up with a solution that both gets what you want done without making you do things you don't want to!
{{{{{More hugs}}}}}
Courage is...
Date: 2004-07-13 10:43 am (UTC)Wisdom is recognizing when you need to be brave.
You're two for two from my perspective.
Kirsten