Oh, no!!

[Tamara224]

Neph, the daycare is out of business, now, I guess, but I don't know if they fired him before they went out.

And the abuser is supposed to pay $82,000 or so.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Neph, the daycare is out of business, now, I guess, but I don't know if they fired him before they went out.

And the abuser is supposed to pay $82,000 or so.

Well good!

My step-sister got in trouble when she ran her own day care at home. She was real stupid though. She admitted to one of the mothers that she had to spank her child because he was acting up. Of course she is not allowed to do that and the mother reported her to the police, she went to trial and ended up recieving 3 years of probation. This was like 15 years ago.

 

[nephilimiyr]

People here in Columbus are calling World Harvest "greedy church". Reputation reveals.

Well, typical, and I suppose they deserve it since they tried to cover this thing up, or at least defending the man who did this instead of defending the child who suffered.

 

[probinson]

I didn't say that the child who suffered the fractured skull was beat with a ruler, Pete.

And, yes, there was evidence that the fractured skull was a result of abuse.

You don't find it the least bit odd that the parents of Z.C. who suffered a fractured skull as a result of what appeared to be (but not confirmed) abuse and took no action against the school, but 2 parents who allege abuse with a ruler that left marks and claim "emotional distress" think they're entitled to use their child as their meal ticket for the rest of their lives? That doesn't strike you as even a tiny bit odd?

Obviously, Z.C.'s parents concern was for their child, and not so much their bank account.

Whether or not he was charged with a crime is completely irrelevant.

How can whether or not someone is charged of abuse after a police investigation in a case concerning child abuse be "irrelevant"?

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Totally irrelevant. The jury, not the plaintiffs, awarded $6M.

This is not an "abuse" of the legal system. It was a legitimate cause of action.

I agree with you that there is genuine cause for concern and this was a legitimate cause of action. According to what I read, I agree that the school should have responded very differently than they did to the incident with Z.C. and the fractured skull. I do not, however, agree that a $3,000,000 award is merited.

Everyone's anti-litigious until it's their kids who get abused, or until they are the ones who get t-boned at an intersection. Then they realize why people sue.

I know it might be hard to imagine in our modern society, but not everyone sees it necessary to exploit their misfortunes as a way to get rich. If one of my children were abused or I was in an accident and I needed legal counsel, I can assure you that my intent would not be to capitalize on that misfortune. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population that only sees dollar signs when these things happen, and they are encouraged by our remarkably litigious society and hugely disproportionate financial settlements such as this one.

 

[probinson]

What does word of faith teachings have to do with a guy doing criminal acts in the church day care?

Not a golly gosh darn thing.

 

[nephilimiyr]

You don't find it the least bit odd that the parents of Z.C. who suffered a fractured skull as a result of what appeared to be (but not confirmed) abuse and took no action against the school, but 2 parents who allege abuse with a ruler that left marks and claim "emotional distress" think they're entitled to use their child as their meal ticket for the rest of their lives? That doesn't strike you as even a tiny bit odd?

Obviously, Z.C.'s parents concern was for their child, and not so much their bank account.




How can whether or not someone is charged of abuse after a police investigation in a case concerning child abuse be "irrelevant"?



I agree with you that there is genuine cause for concern and this was a legitimate cause of action. According to what I read, I agree that the school should have responded very differently than they did to the incident with Z.C. and the fractured skull. I do not, however, agree that a $3,000,000 award is merited.



I know it might be hard to imagine in our modern society, but not everyone sees it necessary to exploit their misfortunes as a way to get rich. If one of my children were abused or I was in an accident and I needed legal counsel, I can assure you that my intent would not be to capitalize on that misfortune. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population that only sees dollar signs when these things happen, and they are encouraged by our remarkably litigious society and hugely disproportionate financial settlements such as this one.

You're real close in getting me to agree with you because I know what you're saying, agree with it, and have said as much with other cases where it looked like the people were just out to get rich rather than simply wanting justice to be done.

I still have a problem here with the actions of the church, who seemed to want to protect their employee rather than being concerned for the welfare of the child who was abused and the children who remained in the day care. I think that sometimes a clear and strong message has to be sent. So I'm torn between that and protecting churches and companies from getting hammered with over the top judgments.

In otherwords, $3,000,000 seems an aweful alot to have to pay for such an incident, but because the church not only didn't conduct their own investigation but seemed intent to cover this up I think a stiff judgment was in order. When parents go to a church with such claims it should be taken seriously, the church here seemed more intent on sweeping it under the rug. For that they are wrong and not only need to be taught a lesson but other churches, companies, and or organizations need to see the result if they should chose to handle a simiar problem in the sameway this church did. This is the same problem the RCC went through with all the molestation that was going on. The RCC tried to hide it, and instead of doing anything with the offending priest they would just move the priest to a new parish, putting other children in harms way.

 

[Blade]

Well Jim, with all do respect, I don't think any of us in this thread have ever been to Pastor Parsley's church or are active members of it now. So why and how could any of us start talking about the financial crisis they're in when we don't even know the whole story? :shrug:

Praise God thank you. I will say this Jim. Thank you for bringing this up I will be PRAYING for them.

Were family and this is how Jesus taught us to be? Few will see..

If it was you what would you want? Yep .. PRAYER!

 

[New_Wineskin]

Do you think it is really an “attack” … or something else?

PS, I have opened this thread in the debate forum for those who want to debate it.

I won't debate it - only reply with this post ...
With that kind of money , it is no attack - it is nothing but irresponsible behaviour . Such a waste ...

 

[Ajax 777]

I know this post will be simply swept asunder as most of my posts are,
and that anyone who feels stung by what I say will just shrug it off
and justify the practice with worldly platitudes,
but the big crime here is a church having quarterly profit margins
and deficits. This is not a corporation!
This is a CHURCH!!!
Did NO ONE pay attention to how the LORD dealt with
the moneychangers in the Temple, nor heed HIS words
about the fact that we cannot serve two masters?!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ajax 777]

...

 

[Tamara224]

You don't find it the least bit odd that the parents of Z.C. who suffered a fractured skull as a result of what appeared to be (but not confirmed) abuse and took no action against the school, but 2 parents who allege abuse with a ruler that left marks and claim "emotional distress" think they're entitled to use their child as their meal ticket for the rest of their lives? That doesn't strike you as even a tiny bit odd?

Obviously, Z.C.'s parents concern was for their child, and not so much their bank account.

I do find it odd that Z.C.'s parents didn't pursue anything. But, knowing the ins and outs of things like this I know there are a dozen possible explanations for why they didn't, from being convinced lawsuits are evil all the way to having been secretly paid off (mere possibility, in no way am I suggesting I think that happened).

Also, you of all people, Pete, should be a little more wary of judging the hearts and motivations of people you've never met. To say that the parents who did sue were using their child's suffering as a "meal ticket" is rather cynical, IMHO. Remember that these people are your brothers and sisters in Christ. Every bit as much worthy of the benefit of the doubt as the church and its pastor.

I've lost count of the number of times one of my clients has said "I don't want to have to sue them, I don't want their money, I just want them to acknowledge that what they did is wrong and apologize." And I've had to explain over and over again that they are not going to get an apology, the best they can hope is that a jury will vindicate and 'compensate' them with a monetary award.

I have no doubt in my mind that had the people of WHC acted in a more Christ-like manner, a lawsuit would have been avoided.

How can whether or not someone is charged of abuse after a police investigation in a case concerning child abuse be "irrelevant"?

Because there are a lot of politics and other considerations involved in whether someone is charged with a crime. A civil action is not precluded just because a district attorney decides not to pursue criminal charges. The standard of proof is higher for a criminal case than it is for a civil one... so the same facts and circumstances which might make it difficult for a prosecutor to get a conviction could very well sustain a jury award.

So the mere fact that a prosecutor decided not to indict is not evidence for us, or anyone, that there was not abuse. All it shows us is that the prosecutor didn't think he could prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' Clearly, though, there was a preponderance of the evidence because the jury did find that abuse occurred and that WHC knew or should have known about it.

I agree with you that there is genuine cause for concern and this was a legitimate cause of action. According to what I read, I agree that the school should have responded very differently than they did to the incident with Z.C. and the fractured skull. I do not, however, agree that a $3,000,000 award is merited.

Okay, but I think you fail to understand that the point of punitive damages is just what the word indicates: punishment. Punitive damages are awarded only when a person's/entity's actions are outrageous and extreme because they are meant to make the person/entity change his/its behavior. An award of damages that does not hurt a corporation's pocket-book does not serve to teach them to correct their behavior. Thus, an award that is equivalent to 1/4 of the corporations yearly earnings is not outrageous but well-tailored.

The policy reason behind allowing punitive damages is that, though it results in a windfall for the plaintiff, it benefits all of society by punishing the tortfeasor and preventing the continuance of wrongdoing.

I know it might be hard to imagine in our modern society, but not everyone sees it necessary to exploit their misfortunes as a way to get rich. If one of my children were abused or I was in an accident and I needed legal counsel, I can assure you that my intent would not be to capitalize on that misfortune. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of the population that only sees dollar signs when these things happen, and they are encouraged by our remarkably litigious society and hugely disproportionate financial settlements such as this one.

It's true that there are some who just see dollar signs. But I know that MOST people who are injured are not as greedy as you would like to paint them.

Most people who sue in situations like this would rather not have. And it truly is not about the money for them. It's about vindication and justice and making sure the same thing doesn't happen to someone else.

Those parents, IMHO, were not being greedy. They were angry and disillusioned. Their child was abused at the church and the church acted outrageously instead of taking responsibility for it. I have no doubt in my mind that the parents just wanted to see WHC acknowledge the wrongdoing and apologize.

 

[probinson]

It's true that there are some who just see dollar signs. But I know that MOST people who are injured are not as greedy as you would like to paint them.

Most people who sue in situations like this would rather not have. And it truly is not about the money for them. It's about vindication and justice and making sure the same thing doesn't happen to someone else.

Those parents, IMHO, were not being greedy. They were angry and disillusioned. Their child was abused at the church and the church acted outrageously instead of taking responsibility for it. I have no doubt in my mind that the parents just wanted to see WHC acknowledge the wrongdoing and apologize.

What is it that causes you to have no doubt in your mind about that?

As much as I would like to believe that about them, and I take your admonishment about judging these people that I do not know at all to heart, I find it very difficult to do so given the path they ultimately chose and the monetary reward they accepted.

While I appreciate the legal explanations you've provided of the purpose of punitive damages, I can't help but remember that, as you pointed out, these people are my brothers and sisters in Christ. So while the world's system may entitle them to punitive damages, we do not operate by the world's system. Therefore, given their actions, I have significant doubt in my mind that the parents were simply looking for an apology.

"I just want someone to apologize to me, but I'll take the $3,000,000 for my emotional distress if I must." Call me cynical if you must, but for me, that casts a significant doubt that someone is just looking for an apology.

 

[Tamara224]

What is it that causes you to have no doubt in your mind about that?

Because of the mom's reaction to Parsley's plea for money. She noted that WHC never did apologize. To me that indicates what the rub is for her. It's clear she's still very angry with the church. That does not indicate to me the cold-hearted greediness of someone who is just using her child as a "meal ticket."

As much as I would like to believe that about them, and I take your admonishment about judging these people that I do not know at all to heart, I find it very difficult to do so given the path they ultimately chose and the monetary reward they accepted.

While I appreciate the legal explanations you've provided of the purpose of punitive damages, I can't help but remember that, as you pointed out, these people are my brothers and sisters in Christ. So while the world's system may entitle them to punitive damages, we do not operate by the world's system. Therefore, given their actions, I have significant doubt in my mind that the parents were simply looking for an apology.

I agree, and as a Christian trial lawyer this is one of the things I struggle with the most. Scripture tells us not to take a brother to court but to settle our disputes amongst ourselves. We are supposed to forgive.

OTOH, I recognize that not all Christians are perfect. Oops, I mean none are. So, while it would be ideal if we never took one another to court.... what are we left with when our "brother" refuses to hear us or to meet with us in an attempt to settle the dispute?

What to do when the "church organization" treats believers worse than a worldly organization is expected to?

"I just want someone to apologize to me, but I'll take the $3,000,000 for my emotional distress if I must." Call me cynical if you must, but for me, that casts a significant doubt that someone is just looking for an apology.

Well, there is one thing about this story that has been bugging me.

The jury awarded ~$6M (which was reduced to $3.1 M) but we keep hearing about a "settlement". Usually, the time to settle a case is before a jury verdict. Sometimes a plaintiff will agree to settle for less than the amount of the jury award in lieu of having to proceed to collect the full amount - the collection process can be long and drawn out.

But Parsley says he wrote a check for $3M. So what was the "settlement"? If he paid the full amount of the jury award, then it wouldn't be a settlement. IIRC, one of those articles that have been linked to said that the parents had been paid some amount but didn't say how much.

So my question is: Did they really receive the full $3M? And if not... how much did they actually get?

In any event, the fact that they settled means it was for less than the judgment. They would not have had to do that. And if they were just after the money, IMHO, the would not have.

 

[nephilimiyr]

What is it that causes you to have no doubt in your mind about that?

As much as I would like to believe that about them, and I take your admonishment about judging these people that I do not know at all to heart, I find it very difficult to do so given the path they ultimately chose and the monetary reward they accepted.

While I appreciate the legal explanations you've provided of the purpose of punitive damages, I can't help but remember that, as you pointed out, these people are my brothers and sisters in Christ. So while the world's system may entitle them to punitive damages, we do not operate by the world's system. Therefore, given their actions, I have significant doubt in my mind that the parents were simply looking for an apology.

"I just want someone to apologize to me, but I'll take the $3,000,000 for my emotional distress if I must." Call me cynical if you must, but for me, that casts a significant doubt that someone is just looking for an apology.

Well, for me it's not that I have no doubt but I know if I was in the same situation as those parents I would be every bit as angry and hurt, as well as insulted, as they might've been by the actions of the church. The church was totally irresponsible in how they handled the whole situation, and for the church to never have apologized to the parents for any of this is I think terrible.

Just as much as I think it wrong to sue just to get rich, I think judgeing the people who do sue is just as wrong. Let me ask you a question, why does it seem you have no doubt that they sued to get rich and that these people are going to take the money and spend it on themselves? I've heard of people taking the money and giving it to charities after winning their case. What makes you so sure that these parents aren't going to do the samething?

And I sure hope that is what the parents plan to do with the large majority of that money. I hope they realize that although the money is coming from the church, it originally came from the members of the church in the form of offerings and or tithes.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I know this post will be simply swept asunder as most of my posts are,
and that anyone who feels stung by what I say will just shrug it off
and justify the practice with worldly platitudes,
but the big crime here is a church having quarterly profit margins
and deficits. This is not a corporation!
This is a CHURCH!!!
Did NO ONE pay attention to how the LORD dealt with
the moneychangers in the Temple, nor heed HIS words
about the fact that we cannot serve two masters?!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!

Well, just because no one replied to your posts doesn't mean they weren't read.

And just because I have replied doesn't mean I am justifying anything.

 

[probinson]

Well, for me it's not that I have no doubt but I know if I was in the same situation as those parents I would be every bit as angry and hurt, as well as insulted, as they might've been by the actions of the church. The church was totally irresponsible in how they handled the whole situation, and for the church to never have apologized to the parents for any of this is I think terrible.

Was the church "totally irresponsible"? Is that really an accurate assessment?

In the same way that I don't know these people, I don't know this church. And so for me to say unequivocally that the church was "totally irresponsible" would be equally as judgmental. At this point, we have a he said/she said lawsuit. That the jury found in favor of the church does not convince me that the church acted "totally irresponsibly", only that the jury, like most people, felt bad for the child's parents, which probably factored heavily into their decision.

Now again, I'm not saying the church is blameless, and from what I've read, I would say they could have and SHOULD have handled it MUCH better than they did. But to say that the church was "totally irresponsible" and that they were "covering up" is not a conclusion supported by the facts.

Naturally, the plaintiffs are going to try and make the case sound as damning to the church as humanly possible to increase their chances of winning. That's the nature of lawsuits. But as with most things, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of this mess. It is not the lawyer's job to find the truth. It is the lawyer's job to make a case that best insures the chances of their client winning the case.

On a slightly different note, can you just imagine if every time Jesus was done wrong, He ran around saying, "That guy hurt me, and he won't even apologize!" Maybe we put too much weight in people's apologizing.

Again, I do agree with you that the church should have apologized to these parents, but I also think that people who are all upset because people won't apologize to them need to read up on Jesus' ministry and see all the wrong things done to Him with no apologies, and maybe get some perspective on how Jesus taught and DEMONSTRATED forgiveness.

Just as much as I think it wrong to sue just to get rich, I think judgeing the people who do sue is just as wrong. Let me ask you a question, why does it seem you have no doubt that they sued to get rich and that these people are going to take the money and spend it on themselves?

Read what I said again. I said that I had "significant doubt", or IOW, the actual events cause me to doubt their motives. Are they going to give their money to charity? Maybe. And if they do, my significant doubt will be proven baseless, and if it will make them feel better, I'll apologize.

 

[JimB]

Then I would say that rushing to defend the guilty is just as bad as rushing to judge the innocent. It sounds nobler to defend but it really isn’t. Defending (or ignoring) the guilty is abetting injustice.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

 

[nephilimiyr]

Read what I said again. I said that I had "significant doubt", or IOW, the actual events cause me to doubt their motives. Are they going to give their money to charity? Maybe. And if they do, my significant doubt will be proven baseless, and if it will make them feel better, I'll apologize.

Well, read what I said again, I said "it seems" and you admitt to having "serious doubt", why should I read what you said over again?

And you don't have to take this discussion so seriously that you think you have to apologize to me or anyone else if you turned out being wrong about the parents motives. After today I'm probably going to forget all about this, and I certainly am not going to track what those people are doing with their awarded money.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Then I would say that rushing to defend the guilty is just as bad as rushing to judge the innocent. It sounds nobler to defend but it really isn’t. Defending (or ignoring) the guilty is abetting injustice.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​

I'm not defending them at all, Tamara is the lawyer. I'm just stateing my opinion that none of us knows for sure the true motives of the parents and that I hope they do give much of the money to charity.

 

[JimB]

I'm not defending them at all, Tamara is the lawyer. I'm just stateing my opinion that none of us knows for sure the true motives of the parents and that I hope they do give much of the money to charity.

Heck, I would buy a home like the pastor lives in.

~Jim

Mercy triumphs over judgment. ~James 2.13​