What If a Person's Been Accused of Child Abuse and Then Moves Kingdom Hall?

What are the policies from the Watch Tower Society, under the leadership of the Governing Body, that the elders need to follow if a person has been accused of molesting a child, but the accused denies the allegation and there are no witnesses to the alleged abuse?

from "Shepherd the Flock of God" elders' manual, used under "fair use" policy.

To summarise, if there is no evidence, via witnesses who can corroborate the accusation, the matter is "left in Jehovah's hands". Details of the accusation of child molestation are recorded and then sealed in an envelope.

Let's propose a scenario. Let's imagine that the "brother" in question is molesting children and he's serving as an elder in the congregation, but as yet there are no corroborating witnesses to the allegation of abuse. The matter is dropped by the congregation, the accuser is told to remain quiet about the accusation as they don't have witnesses to back them up, therefore to talk about it would be to slander the accused. I'm not going to comment on whether this organisational procedure is ethical or not; it is what it is.

Let's now imagine that the "brother" in question decides to move congregation. As he's an elder, an as he's been accused of abusing a child, what is the official Watch Tower Society position?

• are the rest of the elders obliged to mention to the congregation this elder is moving to that he's been accused of molestation, but there insufficient evidence (i.e. only one witness, namely the alleged victim)?
• or is this left to the Branch office to decide?

Here's the answer:

Basically, as you can see, it's up to the Branch to decide whether the new congregation's body of elders gets to know about the accusation, an accusation that the congregation can't act on because of a lack of witnesses to the alleged abuse.








Again, I'm not going to comment on the ethics of this procedural model; it is what it is. It does, however, seem to leave the Watch Tower Society with a problem, one that I can hopefully illustrate via this model;

• elder is accused of abuse
• no witnesses to abuse
• case dropped
• the matter is written up and put in a sealed envelope
• elder decides to move congregation
• Branch office decide that new congregation do not need to know about accusation of abuse
• elder is, in new congregation, accused of abuse
• no witnesses to abuse
• case dropped
• the matter is written up and put in a sealed envelope
• elder decides to move congregation
• Branch office decide that new congregation do not need to know about accusation of abuse
• elder is accused of abuse in new congregation
• and so on

What's disturbing to me is that role the Branch office plays. For example, in the "Shepherd the Flock of God" book, page 131 under the heading "Child Abuse", we find the following:

The Branch office is key. It's no secret that the Watch Tower Society is accused of holding a database of both convicted sex offenders and a list of those accused of abuse. The local congregations are not necessarily told that a new elder in their congregation has previously been accused of abusing children, and again I'm not making a comment on the ethics of such a policy. It does, however, place an enormous amount of trust in the integrity of the men who govern at a country's Branch office, does it not?* There's no indication in the "Shepherd" book's policies that the Branch would, by default, choose to join the dots in such a scenario as the one outlined above, whereby an elder is accused of abuse, then subsequently moves onto a new congregation, only to be accused again.

Why not?

Some Jehovah's Witnesses will perhaps look to make excuses, perhaps surmising that of course the Branch office will realise that the brother in question has been accused of abusing children more than once and in more than one congregation and that the need for two witnesses is moot as there are now more than one, unrelated accusations of abuse.

Yet there is no indication within the official policies of the Watch Tower Society that they will come to such conclusions or that they even want to come to such conclusions. For example, what if the elder in question moved to another country thereby coming under the authority of a different branch office?

Why does all information need to flow through the Branch in matters of child abuse? Is it perhaps understandable that some feel the Watch Tower Society protects, even harbours, child abusers?


* perhaps some would come to the conclusion that the men and women who serve at Branch offices are more honest or ethical than "rank and file" Witnesses. For those who have concluded this, here's a question;
- are there locks on the doors of the apartments at Bethel, yes or no?