Nearly 100 current and former California residents have recently sued The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints over allegations of childhood sexual abuse, alleging in related but separate lawsuits filed across the state that they were assaulted by leaders of their local congregations over the past several decades while the Utah-based church did nothing to halt the abuse.
Five of the plaintiffs allege they were abused in San Diego County, including three who say they were sexually assaulted by their bishops, the top spiritual leaders of local congregations in the LDS church, which is widely known as the Mormon church.
The lawsuits, which number at least 91 and counting and were filed late last year in county superior courts up and down California, have not been widely reported previously. Some deal with incidents that date back several decades, while others are more recent. But all contain similar allegations that church leaders used their positions of power to groom, manipulate and abuse children. Each suit alleges sexual abuse of a minor, negligence and other related claims against the church, alleging leaders either knew or should have known about the abuse but did not act to stop it.
“The abuse of a child or any other individual is inexcusable,” a church spokesperson told the Union-Tribune in a statement. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes this, teaches this, and dedicates tremendous resources and efforts to prevent, report and address abuse. We have deep concern for all victims of abuse.
“Church leaders and members are instructed that their responsibilities related to abuse are as follows: Assure that child sexual abuse is stopped; help victims receive care, including from professional counselors; and comply with whatever reporting is required by law. The Church’s help line assists leaders in ensuring these policies are followed.
“Each of these specific California cases have been filed by a single contingency law firm, which has aggressively marketed for clients,” the church statement continued. “The majority of these claims are decades old and many potential witnesses who could provide information have passed away. The Church takes these claims seriously and is carefully investigating each case individually. Early investigation has revealed multiple discrepancies in many of the claims.”
Several of the San Diego-area plaintiffs allege they disclosed the abuse to other church leaders, but those leaders instead “acted to protect the heinous and unforgivable acts” of the abusers, according to one woman’s civil complaint. That suit alleged she was abused for her entire childhood by four people in an Escondido congregation and that she disclosed the abuse on at least three occasions, but the church “handled the repeated allegations internally as a ‘matter of sin’ and not one leader reported any matter to police.”
Michael Carney, a Los Angeles attorney whose firm Slater Slater Schulman is representing each plaintiff in the recently filed cases, said the church tolerated abuse in some instances and enabled it in others. He said the LDS church is unique because of “how much power and influence the church has over people’s lives” outside of regular Sunday meetings.
Attorneys representing plaintiffs in similar, recently filed federal cases accused the church — which requires its roughly 17 million members worldwide to pay 10% tithing on all earnings — of hiding the extent of the abuse in order to protect its substantial wealth.
Court documents show the church’s attorneys have issued boilerplate denials that are routine at the start of civil litigation but have not yet responded substantively to specific accusations. In one filing, attorneys for the church wrote: “The Church condemns all abuse, especially child sexual abuse, but denies liability in this case.”
For now, the early stages of litigation are focused on whether cases will be heard in state courts where the plaintiffs filed them, or federal courts where the church had them moved late last year. Those rulings could have a huge impact on the potential damages plaintiffs could receive if they take their cases to trial.
‘A very difficult process’
The five San Diego-area cases were filed on behalf of three men, one woman and the estate of a woman who died last year. Two of the cases date back to 1961 while the most recent alleged abuse occurred about a decade ago allegedly involving the bishop of a congregation, or “ward” in LDS parlance, near Imperial Beach.
Carney said it’s common for childhood sexual abuse survivors to wait decades before coming forward.
“What every study has shown when it comes to disclosing childhood sexual abuse is that first you have to address it personally, then among friends and family and then in a public forum such as a lawsuit — that is a journey that most victims never take,” Carney said. “That’s a very difficult process. A lot of people don’t get to that for many, many years, if at all.”
California lawmakers, in recognition of how long it can take, passed a law in 2023 that completely removed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse cases, according to Irwin Zalkin, a San Diego-based attorney whose nationwide firm is solely focused on such cases. But the law was not retroactive, so for anyone abused before 2024, there is still a time limit — either the person’s 40th birthday or within five years of discovering a causal connection between the trauma of their alleged childhood sexual abuse and psychological injury or illness as an adult.
The recent wave of cases against the LDS church, however, were mostly filed under the California law that temporarily removed the statute of limitations for such cases during a three-year window starting in 2020. Court records indicate that the plaintiffs were in talks with the LDS church before the three-year window was supposed to close at the end of 2022. The two sides “entered into a tolling agreement that extended the time to file” until August 2024, according to the lawsuits.
The LDS church’s general handbook states that “abuse cannot be tolerated in any form” and that “when abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse.” It also states that “if members become aware of instances of abuse, they report it to civil authorities and counsel with the bishop.”
But the handbook also directs church leaders to “not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases for members in their units without first consulting with Church legal counsel.” The same policy states: “However well intentioned, Church leaders sharing information in legal proceedings can be misinterpreted and damaging. Such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families. Following the Church’s policy also helps keep the Church from being inappropriately implicated in legal matters.”
A 2022 Associated Press investigation revealed that since 1995, the LDS church has operated a “help line” staffed by social workers and attorneys who have at times directed local church leaders not to report sexual abuse, citing clergy-penitent privilege even when state laws don’t require such privilege.
None of the recent California lawsuits reviewed by the Union-Tribune include specific allegations of misuse of the helpline, but they point to it as an example of the church’s alleged efforts to cover up abuse.
‘Ignored and disregarded’
One woman from Escondido alleged that she was sexually assaulted during her entire childhood, beginning as early as 1961 and continuing until at least 1978. She alleged that two of the perpetrators were male family members, including one who was a bishop. Her lawsuit also alleged that one of her “home teachers” — each family in the LDS church is assigned two home teachers, both male, and expected to welcome them into their home for a spiritual lesson once a month — sexually assaulted her at least 20 times between the ages of 4 and 10.
The daughter of a woman who died last year alleged in her lawsuit, filed on behalf of her mother’s estate, that her mother was repeatedly abused by her home teachers while a member of the San Diego South Stake. In the LDS church, a stake is made up of several nearby wards or branches. The daughter’s lawsuit alleged that from 1961 to 1970, beginning when her mother was just 3 years old, “the abuse took place within the chapel, kitchen, men’s bathroom, and breastfeeding room on Defendants’ premises.” The suit alleges the abuse also took place in a nearby park and in the home teachers’ vehicles and homes.
Another member of the San Diego South Stake alleged he was abused between five and nine times over a two-month span in 1978 when he was 14 years old by his bishop, “a figure of religious authority, whom Plaintiff had been taught to trust with his life and well-being and had never been given the choice but to trust,” his suit alleged. He alleged the abuse occurred after weeknight youth meetings known as “mutual” when he was called in alone to the bishop’s office at a chapel near Imperial Beach. The lawsuit alleged that the victim disclosed the abuse to the bishop of a different ward around 1991, but that bishop “ignored and disregarded Plaintiff, just as Defendants had done when the abuse was ongoing.”
An Oceanside man alleged that his bishop assaulted him in 1995 when he was 14 years old during an interview to determine his worthiness to move from one priesthood quorum to another. He alleged that he immediately reported the abuse to his father, who likewise immediately reported it to the stake president, a man assigned as the leader of several wards and the bishop’s immediate superior.
The same lawsuit alleged that the stake president relayed to the father that he had received other complaints about the bishop “being inappropriate with other children both in his behavior and questioning.” According to the lawsuit, that stake president was soon thereafter replaced, and the new stake president told the father “that he needed to support his son’s abuser or risk being excommunicated from the Church.” After the family left that ward for another Oceanside ward, the father was chosen, or “called” in LDS terms, to a leadership position. “In the ultimate act of humiliation, (the stake president) forced Plaintiff’s father to pledge his support of (the allegedly abusive bishop) in order to receive the calling and stay in the Church,” the lawsuit contended. “The cover-up complete, Plaintiff has been left to deal with the consequences of the sexual abuse allowed and buried by Defendants.”
The fifth San Diego plaintiff was not a baptized member of the church, but in 2015 at age 16 was attending a ward near Imperial Beach in the San Diego South Stake as a prospective member. His lawsuit alleged that the bishop began inviting him to attend one-on-one scripture study sessions after bi-weekly group meetings. The alleged abuse started during those private lessons and quickly escalated.
“Making matters worse, (the bishop) psychologically manipulated Plaintiff, telling him that if he kept quiet, he would go to Heaven, but if he told of the abuse, he would go to Hell,” the lawsuit alleged. “As a result, the sexual abuse was allowed to continue uninterrupted for a full year.”
A question of venue
As of Friday, all of the San Diego cases remained in U.S. District Court where church attorneys moved them late last year. The plaintiffs have argued the cases should go back to San Diego Superior Court where they were initially filed, but federal judges in four of the local cases have not yet ruled on those arguments. One local federal judge on Friday rejected moving the case back to state court. That continued a mixed bag of decisions so far from federal judges across the state, with some ruling the cases should remain at the federal level and others ruling they should go back to the state level.
Zalkin said plaintiffs would want the cases in state court because the jury pools are typically more diverse than in federal court, and state courts use 12-person juries that require just nine votes for a favorable verdict. Six-person civil juries in federal court require a unanimous vote.
For the cases that federal judges do remand back to state court, they will all be heard in Los Angeles County under a California Judicial Council coordination plan approved by a Los Angeles judge. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said that will improve efficiency and ensure uniform rulings on important pre-trial issues.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys in federal court, meanwhile, are seeking to set up a similar consolidation process in federal court, whereby plaintiffs across multiple federal districts who have sued or plan to sue the LDS church could choose to move their cases to the same judge. The plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested that a federal judge in Los Angeles or San Francisco hear those cases.
