Biblical Mennonite Alliance and credential removal of past abusers

[barnhart]

Did Oakhill take over the orphanage?

Mexican authorities implemented an unplanned, government-mandated 100% reduction in minor child occupancy following adverse findings in the facility’s child-safety performance metrics.

Keep digging.

It's likely not wise to assume the abuse came from the staff.

[I Timothy]

There are 2 sides to this story about the Mexican orphanage. My niece was there teaching and agrees there were some problems that had to be dealt with but they were working on it when others came in and a big mess ensued.

I am willing to listen to the other side, I am open to the truth. I want to hear about how these others made a big mess.

1. Were Mexican authorities notified voluntarily, or did they become involved because of an outside complaint? Did BMA themselves report crimes to the authorities?

2. Why did Mexican authorities ultimately remove the children? What specific findings or legal basis did they cite?

3. Who were the “others” who came in, what authority did they have, and what specifically did they do that allegedly made things worse?

4. Most importantly. What happened to the children afterward, and were they actually safer and better cared for as a result of removal?

[QuietlyListening]

I don't know all the answers, have just heard bits and pieces but I have heard the children were not better off. A few, yes, but only because they found homes, but the others no and they were told by authorities they would not be separated and then were.

I don't know names of who to talk to about hearing all that happened but know that there is more than one side to the story.

[JohnH]

BMA is not an institution that represents the kind of "authority" to report an "abuser" to American authorities, let alone ones in Mexico (where I am sure the laws are quite different, although I am bemused to see that some seem to have a very high degree of confidence in the Mexican government).

That would be up to whomever was actually operating the orphange and its board. BMA is not a rigid conference-like structure, doesn't own much of anything, and doesn't control things like EBI. It's a voluntary association. Their power is limited to removing a listing in a directory - although "soft power" certainly counts too.

For those who don't like this... I'd like to hear you explain (a) why you think rigid, high-control power structures in churches are a good thing, and then (b) explain why episcopal-style high-control power structures didn't prevent abuse in the Catholic church, Anglican church in Australia, or many other places.

[I Timothy]

BMA is not an institution that represents the kind of "authority" to report an "abuser" to American authorities, let alone ones in Mexico (where I am sure the laws are quite different, although I am bemused to see that some seem to have a very high degree of confidence in the Mexican government).

That would be up to whomever was actually operating the orphange and its board. BMA is not a rigid conference-like structure, doesn't own much of anything, and doesn't control things like EBI. It's a voluntary association. Their power is limited to removing a listing in a directory - although "soft power" certainly counts too.

For those who don't like this... I'd like to hear you explain (a) why you think rigid, high-control power structures in churches are a good thing, and then (b) explain why episcopal-style high-control power structures didn't prevent abuse in the Catholic church, Anglican church in Australia, or many other places.

I respect Mexico as a sovereign nation and respect its laws. Americans do not get to enter a country we perceive as economically poorer and simply operate according to whatever standards or accountability structures we prefer.

Mexican citizens deserve the same basic human rights we take for granted.

There is significant legal deficiency in this argument: it conflates authority over an organization with the ability or obligation to report concerns about children. Those are two entirely different questions.

BMA may well be a voluntary association. It may not have owned the children's home, employed its workers, controlled its board, or possessed authority to run its day-to-day operations. Those facts could substantially limit BMA's responsibility for the actions of the home itself.

But they do not establish that BMA leaders are powerless to report suspected abuse, neglect, or serious child-safety violations to Mexican authorities. You do not have to own an institution in order to report what is happening inside.

Mexican federal child-protection law is important here. Article 12 of the General Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents places an obligation on persons who know of children suffering violations of their rights to bring that information to competent authorities so the situation can be investigated and protective measures considered.

So saying, “That was the responsibility of the people operating the orphanage and its board,” does not resolve their legal question. Reporting obligations can attach to people based on what they know and their circumstances—not merely on who owns or controls the institution.

Nor does pointing to abuse in the Catholic or Anglican churches answer questions. Of course centralized church structures can fail catastrophically. Nobody needs to defend episcopal government to believe that a voluntary association, is BMA, should exercise whatever authority, influence, reporting responsibilities, and child-safety mechanisms it actually possesses.

The relevant questions aren't whether BMA could “police Mexico” or whether critics want a high-control church.

They are much simpler:

Who knew what, when did they know it, what obligations did that knowledge create, and what did they do about it?

Church autonomy may limit institutional control. It does not automatically eliminate legal duties, individual reporting obligations, or moral responsibility.

Mexico should not be treated as a place where Americans get to decide for themselves which child-protection standards matter.

[JohnH]

I respect Mexico as a sovereign nation and respect its laws. Americans do not get to enter a country we perceive as economically poorer and simply operate according to whatever standards or accountability structures we prefer.

Mexican citizens deserve the same basic human rights we take for granted.

I have no idea how Mexican law is in this area, other than an observation that it is, generally, a failed state which has trouble enforcing its own laws and has very endemic corruption; cartels run with near-impunity and engage in violent sexual assaults all the time. So, with that said, I hope they can enforce laws around abuse, but their track record so far is quite poor.

There is significant legal deficiency in this argument: it conflates authority over an organization with the ability or obligation to report concerns about children. Those are two entirely different questions.

There is a near-obsession with "reporting" in these abuse-advocacy circles. Reporting does not fix abuse and doesn't solve it. When legally required, sure, go ahead and do it, but it's not like it's some magic cure all.

BMA may well be a voluntary association. It may not have owned the children's home, employed its workers, controlled its board, or possessed authority to run its day-to-day operations. Those facts could substantially limit BMA's responsibility for the actions of the home itself.

BMA is an association of congregations. That is all it is.

But they do not establish that BMA leaders are powerless to report suspected abuse, neglect, or serious child-safety violations to Mexican authorities. You do not have to own an institution in order to report what is happening inside.

BMA leaders who are stateside and aren't even in Mexico and have no idea what the situation is certainly are not in a good position to "report to Mexican authorities" (whom I have serious doubts would accomplish much anyway, considering how many children in the country are in very dangerous situations having nothing to do with plain people). I am aware of some very negative things going on here in America, but I am not in a position to "report it". What do you think people should do? Just start calling random police departments making unfounded allegations?

Mexican federal child-protection law is important here. Article 12 of the General Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents places an obligation on persons who know of children suffering violations of their rights to bring that information to competent authorities so the situation can be investigated and protective measures considered.

In that case, Mexico is doing a very poor job of upholding its own laws. They should probably get on top of that.

So saying, “That was the responsibility of the people operating the orphanage and its board,” does not resolve their legal question. Reporting obligations can attach to people based on what they know and their circumstances—not merely on who owns or controls the institution.

Dude, the responsibility of running the orphanage (including under Mexican law) lies with the orphanage employees, volunteers, and board members. Period. I guess the donors have a tiny bit of moral responsibility, but no legal responsibility.

You seem to want a world where people just run around making accusations to the government. The real world doesn't work that way. The guy who is a pastor at my local BMA church is not in a position to "report to the Mexican authorities". What's he supposed to report?

Nor does pointing to abuse in the Catholic or Anglican churches answer questions. Of course centralized church structures can fail catastrophically. Nobody needs to defend episcopal government to believe that a voluntary association, is BMA, should exercise whatever authority, influence, reporting responsibilities, and child-safety mechanisms it actually possesses

It certainly does answer questions, because those are examples of high-control, top-down institutions that have the structures to do what you seem to want BMA to do.

BMA is not that institution. In BMA, authority to actually do things is devolved to the members and leaders of individual congregations. As far as non-church institutions, BMA has no authority over them at all. They are operated by and accountable to their boards. BMA's involvement would be limited to saying "We don't want our member congregations to be associated with X independent organisation anymore."

Who knew what, when did they know it, what obligations did that knowledge create, and what did they do about it?

Church autonomy may limit institutional control. It does not automatically eliminate legal duties, individual reporting obligations, or moral responsibility.

BMA has pretty much zero legal responsibility to do anything in this situation. They have gone above and beyond whatever their legal requirements are.

Mexico should not be treated as a place where Americans get to decide for themselves which child-protection standards matter.

Nobody said it is. But BMA is not an institution that has much at all to do with Mexico.

By the way, I would respect you a lot more if this post hadn't been 100% AI written:



Maybe you could share with us the prompt you input to your chatbot to generate this post.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Bottom line is that the board that is running it is the entity that is responsible for the operation of the home...not a faraway entity in another country. Saying BMA is responsible does not reflect any understanding of how board or institutional governance works. I suggest you look into that before assigning blame.

[I Timothy]

Bottom line is that the board that is running it is the entity that is responsible for the operation of the home...not a faraway entity in another country. Saying BMA is responsible does not reflect any understanding of how board or institutional governance works. I suggest you look into that before assigning blame.

Following a rapid unscheduled disassembly of the previously fantasy of “faraway entity with limited residual accountability” model, LOH personnel were actual W-2 employees of BMA. Shocker I know!

I am a BMA loyalists, this shocked me.

When BMA's s own compensated workforce has primary operational task associated with the care of vulnerable children, the organization can no longer be described as "distant spectator" whose primarily responsibility is maintaining a church directory.

Try showing up within BMA with a wedding band. See how long you will be in "the association". BMA has teeth.

The existence of other layers or "committees" may remain an important structural component. This is not a magical liability firewall capable of severing employment relationships, information pathways, supervisory responsibilities, institutional influence, or every potential duty of care.

I have done as you suggested and looked into this. I am not assigning blame, that is not my job.

“BMA had virtually nothing to do with Mexico” appears to have experienced an unexpected loss of structural integrity upon contact with payroll records.

[I Timothy]

JohnH:

I come from a "failed city", so your argument bothers me. I have heard Mennonite's in PA, NYC, IN and elsewhere denigrate my city. As a result, some conservative Anabaptists have come into my city thinking they don't need to follow our laws.

I've heard this kind of thing my city my whole life. We have crime, we have corruption, we have gangs and violence. The government has failed people plenty of times.

Is this a valid excuse when something bad happens to a child here?

Could we really say, "There are worse crimes happening in our city, so why are you making such a big deal about these kids?"

Of course not. It wouldn't matter that something worse happened 3 miles or 5 miles away. It wouldn't change what happened to the child standing in front of you or your responsibility to do something about it.

That's why I don't understand bringing up cartels, corruption, sexual violence, or all the other problems Mexico has. What does any of that have to do with whether the LOH children were being properly cared for?

Mexican kids don't deserve less because Mexico has problems. If anything, kids in difficult situations need adults to be more careful about protecting them. Church missions need to tread more carefully, they need reporting mechanisms to keep staff and children safe.

I wouldn't accept "Well, that's a failed city" as an excuse for failing kids in my own city.

I'm not going to accept "Well, that's Mexico" either.

And we are talking about the church here. The church should have high standards. We shouldn't accept crimes as a normal church activity that needs defended and covered up.

[JohnH]

JohnH:

I come from a "failed city", so your argument bothers me. I have heard Mennonite's in PA, NYC, IN and elsewhere denigrate my city. As a result, some conservative Anabaptists have come into my city thinking they don't need to follow our laws.

Nobody said that there isn't a need to follow laws. I did, however, say that I have a rather low level of confidence in the Mexican government at the moment to protect children, seeing as it is routinely failing to do so.

Reporting things to government authorities often results in... exactly nothing happening. I'm not saying not to report, but my general expectation from making a report is that nothing good will be accomplished from it. The most likely result is nothing at all. Sometimes the result is negative, including when the government investigates and then declares there isn't a problem when there actually is.

Are you sure you don't have an axe to grind against BMA and against plain Anabaptists as a whole? Be honest.