[Discussion] Sexual Abuse Claims Against MJ Estate - Robson/ Safechuck/ Doe

respect77;4166658 said:
So that list interprets (8) as "administrator or employee of a public or private children’s organization". MJJP/V weren't children's organizations. I know it is the law that matters and that maybe gives room for a more liberal interpretation, but at the end of the day it will have to make sense,

None of those examples in the list fit MJ's companies. Don't they have to show at least one
precedent case where company like had mandatory reporters? The judge won't create a precedent for them that would make a lot of
companies and organizations vulberable for such lawsuits.


respect77;4166658 said:
The fact that he waited until decades after the alleged abuse took place – and three years after Jackson had died – has raised some eyebrows, but his lawyer says that Robson repressed the painful memories until 2012, after becoming a father to now 5½-year-son Koa.

So now they are back to the repressed memory version? Robson said this was not a case of repressed memory
he remembered everything he just didn't think it was abuse but consensual sex.


respect77;4166658 said:
Charli Michaels complained that she was admonished by Norma Staikos for talking to guests.

Where did you see that? And what do we know about Michaels?
Was she fired? Did he sue MJ? Did she talk to tabloids? Was she deposed in 1993?
Was she a grand jury witness in 1994?
Why didn't Sneddon call her as a witness in 2005?


BTW I wonder whether Beckloff will tell Finaldi it's such a pleasure to read your papers.
I think he will think geez why did Robson bring in these loons their papers give me migraine
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Where did you see that?

It is in their own complaint. Of course, they are trying to make it look like something shady, but apparently those were simply the rules at NL.

Clipboard02.jpg


And what do we know about Michaels?
Was she fired? Did he sue MJ? Did she talk to tabloids? Was she deposed in 1993?
Was she a grand jury witness in 1994?
Why didn't Sneddon call her as a witness in 2005?

Michaels was one of Diane Dimond's recruits that Hard Copy paid. From Lisa Campbell's The King of Pop's Darkest Hour.

Aside from the talk of the Jackson family reunion special, there was still more scandalous dirt to deliver, and Hard Copy, as always, was happy to dish it out. In another "exclusive" interview with yet another former security guard, which was stretched out to last for three shows, Diane Dimond talked with Charli Michaels, a former female security guard who worked at Neverland Valley. In the interview the former guard, who filed court documents in connection with the lawsuit filed by the other five former guards suing Michael, claimed she saw Michael touch the crotch of a young boy in a dance studio. She also claimed to have seen another boy in tears because Michael "had touched him funny." She went on to describe all of the "weird" or "questionable" circumstances she saw while working at the ranch. At the end of one part of the interview, Dimond added, "It must be said here that the two boys mentioned in this story have talked to police, they deny abuse occurred." This sentence, this very significant sentence which casts huge doubt on the guard's claims, took eight seconds for Dimond to say. Nice piece of balanced, objective reporting. This one part of the three part interview lasted eight minutes, the total interview lasted approximately twenty four minutes, while eight seconds was devoted to presenting the opposing side of the story.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've been thinking of this as well. Even IF Michael was just an employee at his companies that could be hired or fired like any other employee. Even IF it is established that his cooks and maids were mandated reporters. Was there substantial legal ground to fire Michael or bar him from interacting with children? He had not been accused or charged with any crime. No children had ever claimed Michael harmed them (at that point). The parents were completely supportive of Michael and encouraged their children to be with him. What was there to be reported other than 'gut feelings' and 'suspicions' that lacked any basis in proof? I assume that if Michael had been fired or if the company 'management' warned parents not to leave their children with him, Michael could have simply sued the companies for wrongful termination or libel/slander and be reinstated (quite possibly with a nice compensation too... paid for out of his own pocket?). Otherwise, what is stopping any company from making up allegations against their employees if they want to get out of a fixed contract or whatever?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I agree that his past comments bout Michael wasn't nice at all but he makes a good point . I think he's right maybe someone in his family is the real molester and he's using mj as a scapegoat

I don't think Wade was abused at all. This is just a cynical money grab for him.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

So now they are back to the repressed memory version? Robson said this was not a case of repressed memory
he remembered everything he just didn't think it was abuse but consensual sex.
The attorney sent out a revised statement. It's posted above.

I agree he should have kept to repressed memories.even though that is eye rolled by many its far more believable than thinking child rape was a normal loving thing until you got into your 30's even more so when when you were involved in 93/03.was he kept in a bubble in the desert where he didnt know what child abuse was.
He just exchanged one eye roll theory for another. But I think the repressed memory theory is way more credible. His new theory is downright laughable.
But hey, if this helps the judge to roll HIS eyes and throw the case out, then I'm all for it!
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I've been thinking of this as well. Even IF Michael was just an employee at his companies that could be hired or fired like any other employee. Even IF it is established that his cooks and maids were mandated reporters. Was there substantial legal ground to fire Michael or bar him from interacting with children? He had not been accused or charged with any crime. No children had ever claimed Michael harmed them (at that point). The parents were completely supportive of Michael and encouraged their children to be with him. What was there to be reported other than 'gut feelings' and 'suspicions' that lacked any basis in proof? I assume that if Michael had been fired or if the company 'management' warned parents not to leave their children with him, Michael could have simply sued the companies for wrongful termination or libel/slander and be reinstated (quite possibly with a nice compensation too... paid for out of his own pocket?). Otherwise, what is stopping any company from making up allegations against their employees if they want to get out of a fixed contract or whatever?

The point of this mandatory reporter claim that they can say if Blanca Francia, Quindoy etc. had reported what they allegedly had seen then it could have been stopped. That they didn't report it is the fault of the companies' because they did not inform them that they were mandatory reporters and because of that it was the companies' fault they didn't report it and the companies were negligent which resulted in Robson's continued alleged abuse. That's the logic behind this argument. Mandatory reporting isn't about, say, Blanca Francia firing MJ. Of course she couldn't do that. A mandatory reporter would report to authorities.

Basically they are taking these crooks (Blanca Francia, Quindoy, Charli Michaels) to say there were people who witnessed things. By common sense it is the fault of those people if they truly had seen something like that but they hadn't reported it until the tabloids paid them money for it, but obviously they do not want to blame them (they want to use them instead as their witnesses, and blaming and suing them wouldn't bring them the millions of dollars they hope for), but instead want to shift the blame on the companies with this mandatory reporter thing so that they can sue the companies. Having said that, I don't think these people were mandatory reporters, so this is all theoretic.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The point of this mandatory reporter claim that they can say if Blanca Francia, Quindoy etc. had reported what they allegedly had seen then it could have been stopped. That they didn't report it is the fault of the companies' because they did not inform them that they were mandatory reporters and because of that it was the companies' fault they didn't report it and the companies were negligent which resulted in Robson's continued alleged abuse
---------------

A totally illogical law. The only ppl at fault are those that saw something and did not report it. They are morally obliged as a human being to say something and if they did not and the abuse continued they are the guilty /liable party. You dont need a law that says the company should tell ppl "hey if you see something u should report it" its common sense! Its funny how robson wants to blame everyone but the ppl who are truely liable. ie his mother and those ex employees. In any normal situation you woild be sueing them but of course they dont have money
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^^haha-Wade read it and reminded them that he changed his "repressed memory" story and it's on the Today show for all to see. I think he should have stuck to the repressed memory story. I know he only changed it, because the few media outlets that picked it up challenged the science, but it still makes his story more plausible.

Yes, especially now that we know Wade claims Michael tried to anally rape him when he was 14. It is impossible that a teenager that age doesn't know that this is inappropriate behaviour. Wade didn't grow up in a basement, he was exposed to the world and had 'normal' family and friends around him. And somehow none of them noticed anything unusual about his interactions with Michael. If he was truly that brainwashed to believe at the age of 14 that anal penetration was an expression of mutual love, why wasn't he absolutely devastated when Michael suddenly lost interest in him a few months later? Not even his own mother noticed a hint of change in his behaviour. Who can believe that?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Yes, especially now that we know Wade claims Michael tried to anally rape him when he was 14. It is impossible that a teenager that age doesn't know that this is inappropriate behaviour. Wade didn't grow up in a basement, he was exposed to the world and had 'normal' family and friends around him. And somehow none of them noticed anything unusual about his interactions with Michael. If he was truly that brainwashed to believe at the age of 14 that anal penetration was an expression of mutual love, why wasn't he absolutely devastated when Michael suddenly lost interest in him a few months later? Not even his own mother noticed a hint of change in his behaviour. Who can believe that?

Didn't Wade date Brandi, Michael's niece around that time? In that 2011 radio interview with Joy Robson the interviewer tells about a story that he took classes from Wade when Wade was 15 and he was hitting on his (the interviewer's) girlfriend. And Joy laughs and say "that sounds like him".

In his lawsuit Wade claims the molestation "felt good" and he was "looking forward to it", so how come he did not become at least sexually confused? If sex with another man "felt good" that he was "looking forward to" at least that would cause a little confusion in a young person's mind about his sexuality, wouldn't it? But Wade never showed any sign of sexual confusion. He dated and hit on girls since his teens.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The point of this mandatory reporter claim that they can say if Blanca Francia, Quindoy etc. had reported what they allegedly had seen then it could have been stopped. That they didn't report it is the fault of the companies' because they did not inform them that they were mandatory reporters and because of that it was the companies' fault they didn't report it and the companies were negligent which resulted in Robson's continued alleged abuse. That's the logic behind this argument. Mandatory reporting isn't about, say, Blanca Francia firing MJ. Of course she couldn't do that. A mandatory reporter would report to authorities.

Basically they are taking these crooks (Blanca Francia, Quindoy, Charli Michaels) to say there were people who witnessed things. By common sense it is the fault of those people if they truly had seen something like that but they hadn't reported it until the tabloids paid them money for it, but obviously they do not want to blame them (they want to use them instead as their witnesses, and blaming and suing them wouldn't bring them the millions of dollars they hope for), but instead want to shift the blame on the companies with this mandatory reporter thing so that they can sue the companies. Having said that, I don't think these people were mandatory reporters, so this is all theoretic.

I know but my point is that there was nothing to be reported. If Francia went to the authorities and said "I saw Michael Jackson abuse Wade Robson" but then the authorities went to Wade and his parents and they vehemently denied it (as they did), what were the authorities supposed to do? The argument that if only Francia and Quindoy had reported their allegations to the authorities, the abuse could have been stopped just doesn't make sense. Like I said, I don't think the companies would have been allowed to fire Michael or restrict his duties based on unsubstantiated allegations. As long as the children and their parents deny that any abuse has occured, what distinguishes these allegations from mere libel/slander? Why should the companies be expected to act upon these allegations?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The point of this mandatory reporter claim that they can say if Blanca Francia, Quindoy etc. had reported what they allegedly had seen then it could have been stopped. That they didn't report it is the fault of the companies' because they did not inform them that they were mandatory reporters and because of that it was the companies' fault they didn't report it and the companies were negligent which resulted in Robson's continued alleged abuse. That's the logic behind this argument. Mandatory reporting isn't about, say, Blanca Francia firing MJ. Of course she couldn't do that. A mandatory reporter would report to authorities.

Basically they are taking these crooks (Blanca Francia, Quindoy, Charli Michaels) to say there were people who witnessed things. By common sense it is the fault of those people if they truly had seen something like that but they hadn't reported it until the tabloids paid them money for it, but obviously they do not want to blame them (they want to use them instead as their witnesses, and blaming and suing them wouldn't bring them the millions of dollars they hope for), but instead want to shift the blame on the companies with this mandatory reporter thing so that they can sue the companies. Having said that, I don't think these people were mandatory reporters, so this is all theoretic.

even if we accept that these people were mandatory reporters, it's still not enough. you need to be reporter of actual knowledge, not mere suspicions. as we've seen already,it is indisputable that those people had severe credibility issues. also, mj always denied any wrong doing, with the robson repeatedly defending him. given these, there is nothing the companies could have done.
 
LindavG;4166898 said:
What was there to be reported other than 'gut feelings' and 'suspicions' that lacked any basis in proof?

I was thinking about this the other day too. I'm copying the below from a handout prepared by CA Attorney General's office. It's a few years old btw.

When Do You Have To Report?
Child abuse must be reported when a mandated reporter, “in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom themandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.”(P.C. 11166 (a))

“Reasonable suspicion” occurs when “it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing,when appropriate, on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect.” (P.C. 11166 (a)(1)) Although wordy, the intent of this definition is clear: if you suspect that abuse has occurred, make a report.

another source elabortes a little more

"Reasonable suspicion" does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient. For purposes of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse.
 
ivy;4166921 said:
I was thinking about this the other day too. I'm copying the below from a handout prepared by CA Attorney General's office. It's a few years old btw.

When Do You Have To Report?
Child abuse must be reported when a mandated reporter, “in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom themandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.”(P.C. 11166 (a))

“Reasonable suspicion” occurs when “it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing,when appropriate, on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect.” (P.C. 11166 (a)(1)) Although wordy, the intent of this definition is clear: if you suspect that abuse has occurred, make a report.

another source elabortes a little more

"Reasonable suspicion" does not require certainty that child abuse or neglect has occurred nor does it require a specific medical indication of child abuse or neglect; any "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient. For purposes of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse.

With the credibility problems those people had, we can reasonably rule out the "reasonable suspicion" argument.
 
ivy;4166921 said:
I was thinking about this the other day too. I'm copying the below from a handout prepared by CA Attorney General's office. It's a few years old btw.

About that: to judge whether the companies were negligent in informing their workers about mandated reporting, shouldn't we look at the laws as they were back in the early 90s?

When Do You Have To Report?
Child abuse must be reported when a mandated reporter, “in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom themandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect.”(P.C. 11166 (a))

“Reasonable suspicion” occurs when “it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing,when appropriate, on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect.” (P.C. 11166 (a)(1)) Although wordy, the intent of this definition is clear: if you suspect that abuse has occurred, make a report.

The sentence in bold stands out to me. What facts - not allegations or innuendo - were there to report in or before 1991 that suggest Michael had sexually abused children? And what training or relevant experience did the employees at Michael's companies have (or were required to have) to be able to recognise symptoms of child sexual abuse?
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The sentence in bold stands out to me. What facts - not allegations or innuendo - were there to report in or before 1991 that suggest Michael had sexually abused children? And what training or relevant experience did the employees at Michael's companies have (or were required to have) to be able to recognise symptoms of child sexual abuse?

They would say Blanca Francia, Quindoy and Charli Michaels saw things that would raise a reasonable suspicion. We know these are not credible people. But a Judge cannot say that. About the credibility of such witnesses typically a Jury trial would decide, not a Judge on demurrer/summary judgement. And they are saying exactly that the fact these people didn't get any training in that is the company's fault - ie. the negligence claim.

But this is of course only if Francia, Quindoy, Michaels are mandatory reporters - which I don't think they are. But that's what it will depend on.

I know but my point is that there was nothing to be reported. If Francia went to the authorities and said "I saw Michael Jackson abuse Wade Robson" but then the authorities went to Wade and his parents and they vehemently denied it (as they did), what were the authorities supposed to do? The argument that if only Francia and Quindoy had reported their allegations to the authorities, the abuse could have been stopped just doesn't make sense. Like I said, I don't think the companies would have been allowed to fire Michael or restrict his duties based on unsubstantiated allegations. As long as the children and their parents deny that any abuse has occured, what distinguishes these allegations from mere libel/slander? Why should the companies be expected to act upon these allegations?

Yes, the Robsons denied abuse until 2013, but I am not sure that at least on summary judgement you can defend with "well, if Blanca Francia would have gone to police they would have denied it anyway" as that is just an assumption.

Again, this will depend on whether they are or aren't mandatory reporters. (I doubt they are.)
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Quindoys dead so thay knocks him off.francia admitted under oath see didnt see anything
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

One question, was Wade employed by both company or one of them only
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

I am just looking at old versions of the laws they cite. The content of the laws they cite are currently different to what they were in 1987-1993. the companies are bind by what was effective at that period not now in 2016. Are they dump or are they intentially playing stupid.
 
This is the law in 1996

"SEC. 4. Section 11166.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
11166.5. (a) On and after January 1, 1985, any person who enters
into employment as a child care custodian, health practitioner,
firefighter, animal control officer, or humane society officer, or with
a child protective agency, prior to commencing his or her
employment, and as a prerequisite to that employment, shall sign a
statement on a form provided to him or her by his or her employer
to the effect that he or she has knowledge of the provisions of Section
11166 and will comply with those provisions."

and this the one effective now and they cite as base for their negligence claim

11166.5. (a) (1) On and after January 1, 1985, any mandated
reporter as specified in Section 11165.7, with the exception of child
visitation monitors, prior to commencing his or her employment, and
as a prerequisite to that employment, shall sign a statement on a
form provided to him or her by his or her employer to the effect that
he or she has knowledge of the provisions of Section 11166 and will
comply with those provisions. The statement shall inform the employee
that he or she is a mandated reporter and inform the employee of his
or her reporting obligations under Section 11166 and of his or her
confidentiality rights under subdivision (d) of Section 11167. The
employer shall provide a copy of Sections 11165.7, 11166, and 11167
to the employee."

They claim the law clearly says that the companies should have provided the employees with such documentation. They even highlight all the added sections as basis for their claim.

Now look who was classified s a "child care custodian"

For purposes of this section, ‘‘child care custodian’’ includes
teachers; an instructional aide, a teacher’s aide, or a teacher’s
assistant employed by any public or private school, who has been
trained in the duties imposed by this article, if the school district has
so warranted to the State Department of Education; a classified
employee of any public school who has been trained in the duties
Ch. 1081 —10—
92
imposed by this article, if the school has so warranted to the State
Department of Education; administrative officers, supervisors of
child welfare and attendance, or certificated pupil personnel
employees of any public or private school; administrators of a public
or private day camp; administrators and employees of public or
private youth centers, youth recreation programs, or youth
organizations; administrators and employees of public or private
organizations whose duties require direct contact and supervision of
children and who have been trained in the duties imposed by this
article; licensees, administrators, and employees of licensed
community care or child day care facilities; headstart teachers;
licensing workers or licensing evaluators; public assistance workers;
employees of a child care institution including, but not limited to,
foster parents, group home personnel, and personnel of residential
care facilities; social workers, probation officers, or parole officers;
employees of a school district police or security department; any
person who is an administrator or a presenter of, or a counselor in,
a child abuse prevention program in any public or private school; a
district attorney investigator, inspector, or family support officer
unless the investigator, inspector, or officer is working with an
attorney appointed pursuant to Section 317 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code to represent a minor; or a peace officer, as defined
in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of
this code, who is not otherwise described in this section.



 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ It still has the relevant part though a little differently.

administrators and employees of public or private
organizations whose duties require direct contact and supervision of
children and who have been trained in the duties imposed by this
article;

The highlighted part is what is missing from the newer version.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Reread what they emphasize in their motion. Many parts were not there.

Moreover, what that portion says is the child care custodian should sign a form provided by the employer. However, who is the child care custodian in the first plac ?

For an employer to be obliged to provide the employee with that form, the employee should have met the criteria of the child care custodian. An an employee would fit the definition of a child care custodian if he was 1- someone whose duties require direct contact and supervision of children. AND
2- who have been trained in the duties imposed by the article.

Notice that most of the other persons classified as child care custodians did not have to recieve training in order to be classified that way. Moreover, there was no mention of the employers being responsible to train the child care custodians. The employer was obliged to provide those who were already classified that way with the relevant form. That's it. But, what if they did not fit?!

I believe that could have been the reason that warranted such condition to be removed, and more amendments be made to the article referring to cases on or after January 1985.
 
Last edited:
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

^ Sounds good to me.

I am sure the Estate lawyers will go back to those laws which were relevant at the time.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Even the current law does not require the employers to train the mandated reporters. They are only "strongly encouraged to train them"

(c) Except as provided in subdivision (d), employers are strongly
encouraged to provide their employees who are mandated reporters with
training in the duties imposed by this article. This training shall
include training in child abuse and neglect identification and
training in child abuse and neglect reporting. Whether or not
employers provide their employees with training in child abuse and
neglect identification and reporting, the employers shall provide
their employees who are mandated reporters with the statement
required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 11166.5.
(d) Pursuant to Section 44691 of the Education Code, school
districts, county offices of education, state special schools and
diagnostic centers operated by the State Department of Education, and
charter schools shall annually train their employees and persons
working on their behalf specified in subdivision (a) in the duties of
mandated reporters under the child abuse reporting laws. The
training shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, training
in child abuse and neglect identification and child abuse and neglect
reporting.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

The sentence in bold stands out to me. What facts - not allegations or innuendo - were there to report in or before 1991 that suggest Michael had sexually abused children? And what training or relevant experience did the employees at Michael's companies have (or were required to have) to be able to recognise symptoms of child sexual abuse?

The CA Attorney General office said "if you suspect it, report it", they don't require any hard proof. With that definition any suspicion can be reported. I read a training document too. It says the main source of sexual abuse reports is the disclosure of the child or a friend. They also talk about some behavior such as being overly sexualized, bed wetting etc as possible signs of sexual abuse.

And they are saying exactly that the fact these people didn't get any training in that is the company's fault - ie. the negligence claim.

Even the current law does not require the employers to train the mandated reporters. They are only "strongly encouraged to train them"

This is a draft of a proposed amendment to the law in 1998 which talks about deleting the requirement training. Read please. Wade is screwed lol

true you don't need to train them. The law even says not being trained isn't a reason to not report.

But pay attention to this part


Whether or not
employers provide their employees with training in child abuse and
neglect identification and reporting, the employers shall provide
their employees who are mandated reporters with the statement required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 11166.5.


So it says you need to tell the employees who are mandated reporters that they are mandated reporters. If that don't happen there could still be negligence.

You are partially right. Training is irrelevant. However if these people were supposed to be mandated reporters and they weren't notified about it, it could still be negligence.

disclaimer: I don't believe they were mandated reporters.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

true you don't need to train them. The law even says not being trained isn't a reason to not report.

But pay attention to this part


Whether or not
employers provide their employees with training in child abuse and
neglect identification and reporting, the employers shall provide
their employees who are mandated reporters with the statement required pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 11166.5.


So it says you need to tell the employees who are mandated reporters that they are mandated reporters. If that don't happen there could still be negligence.

You are partially right. Training is irrelevant. However if these people were supposed to be mandated reporters and they weren't notified about it, it could still be negligence.

disclaimer: I don't believe they were mandated reporters.

But the trick now is, that Soundmind says that the law changed since 1993 regarding that crucial (8) section.

Formerly it was:

administrators and employees of public or private
organizations whose duties require direct contact and supervision of
children and who have been trained in the duties imposed by this
article;

And now it is

administrators and employees of public or private
organizations whose duties require direct contact and supervision of
children

That is if these websites are correct and we read them right.

If so, I am sure that modification means something.
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

It seems that, according to Social Worker's current guidance: 'In every state, anyone who is not mandated by law to report child abuse still has the option to report it voluntarily. Additionally, each state permits voluntary reports to be made anonymously. This protection is often helpful when the reporter is fearful of repercussions or would otherwise not report. '

http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/031912p14.shtml

In this case, Wade might have been better advised to sue Charli Michaels, if she was the first person to have allegedly had any suspicions, and if he wishes to raise awareness of the importance of timely reporting of suspicions. He wouldn't then need to go through all these tortuous claims about MJ's companies controlling MJ. He says in the following paragraphs of his 4th amended complaint:

P101 'had defendants adequately reported molestation of Plaintiff and other minors as required by Calif. Penal code 11166, further harm to P and other minors would have been avoided.'

P102 'As a proximate use of defendants (MJJP, MJJV, Does 6-50) failure to follow the mandatory reporting requorements, defendants (ditto) wrongly denied P. and other minors the intervention of Child Protection Services'.

And of course, it doesn't matter if Charli Michaels is not especially wealthy, as Wade isn't doing this for money:

'The idea that I would make all of this up and put myself, my wife, my son, my entire family through this extremely stressful and painful experience all for money is incomprehensible,' he said.
'I've lived in silence and denial for 22 years and I can't spend another moment in that.'
'I'm never going to go away with this for the sake of money. I'm never going to be silenced for money. That's not going to happen.'

It would be interesting to see liar pitted against liar....
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

Can you elaborate which part you mean?

In the very first page, the sixth paragraph talking about changing the definition of child care custodian by deleting the requirement for training
 
Re: [Discussion] Wade Robson / James Safechuck file claim of sexual abuse against MJ-Estate

'The idea that I would make all of this up and put myself, my wife, my son, my entire family through this extremely stressful and painful experience all for money is incomprehensible,' he said.
'I've lived in silence and denial for 22 years and I can't spend another moment in that.'


It would be interesting to see liar pitted against liar....

Then let's remind him again how he initially filed his lawsuit:

Clipboard03.jpg


'I'm never going to go away with this for the sake of money. I'm never going to be silenced for money. That's not going to happen.'

Yet, you now hired lawyers specialized in big money settlements.
 
Back
Top