Coordinated Silence Across States in LDS Abuse Case
Newly unsealed court records show the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ response to severe sexual abuse of a minor girl was not confined to one region but involved deliberate inaction by leadership in Salt Lake City and local clergy in both Washington and Oregon.
The plaintiff, now known as Julie Doe, was subjected to ongoing abuse by her adoptive father, Craig Ford, while residing in Ridgefield, Washington, and later in Albany, Oregon. According to court filings dated March 13, 2026, attorneys for Julie Doe have asked permission to amend their original lawsuit, citing recently obtained internal church documents that underscore a pattern of institutional awareness and inaction.
Church Records Reveal Widespread Knowledge
Documents released to Julie Doe’s legal team in late 2025 and early 2026 indicate that multiple Church representatives—including staff at the Salt Lake City headquarters, local bishops, and stake presidents—were informed of the abuse before authorities were notified. In Oregon, where clergy are legally required to report suspected child abuse, local leadership still refrained from doing so.
The abuse came to light in spring 2016 when Jennifer Ford, Julie’s adoptive mother, alerted Ridgefield LDS Stake President Wade Pickett. His decision not to escalate the matter to civil authorities enabled Craig Ford to relocate Julie to an Albany apartment, where the abuse intensified.
It was not until November 2016—after Craig Ford’s youngest daughter handed a note describing the abuse to a classmate—that the Vancouver Police Department launched an investigation. At that point, Stake President Pickett confirmed to investigators that Jennifer had previously informed him of the abuse.
Headquarters Labels Abuse as “Consensual Relations”
The amended complaint highlights how Church leadership in Salt Lake City responded after receiving reports from Washington. By December 2016, the Confidential Records Department had documented Craig Ford’s conduct, noting “Child Abuse or Incest” in his membership file. Yet internal communications described the relationship between Craig and Julie as “consensual relations,” despite Julie being a minor and Craig her adoptive parent.
The records also show that Church officials acknowledged uncertainty over whether civil authorities were aware of the abuse, but chose not to act—neither reporting the case nor implementing safeguards for Julie.
Oregon Clergy Bound by Law, Yet Silent
A key element of the updated complaint focuses on Oregon, where clergy must report child abuse under state law—a contrast to Washington, where religious leaders were exempt during the relevant period. Bishop Nathan Hess in Washington, though initially involved, took months to locate the Fords after the abuse surfaced.
By late February 2017, Daniel White, bishop of the Three Lakes Ward in Albany, was formally notified that Craig Ford and Julie Doe resided within his congregation’s jurisdiction. Despite this awareness and Oregon’s mandatory reporting requirements, neither Bishop White nor other Oregon-based church leaders initiated reports to local or state authorities.
A bishop within the local branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) was aware of prior sexual abuse allegations and had reviewed the organization’s internal Confidential Member Information Report regarding the misconduct. Although there were reasonable grounds to suspect the abuse was continuing, neither the bishop nor other agents of the Oregon church contacted law enforcement, a failure that allegedly contravened state mandatory reporting laws.
Impact on the Victim
Court filings describe the difficult circumstances faced by Julie Doe, a resident of Albany, while her abuser, a local man, was actively harming her. During this period, both the victim and her abuser continued attending services at the local congregation.
The amended complaint asserts that local church officials maintained frequent contact with the victim. These leaders reportedly visited the apartment where the man was housing her, oversaw her participation in youth activities without her legal guardians present, and provided transportation to and from her employment at a nearby restaurant.
According to the documents, church representatives noticed the abuser displaying suggestive photographs of himself and observed behaviors they described as unusual and strange within the household. Rather than intervening, the organization allegedly maintained its silence to protect internal secrets.
The legal filings detail significant psychological harm resulting from the church’s response. They allege that the abuser’s wife subjected the teenage victim to severe mental abuse, including blaming her for the sexual misconduct. The wife allegedly engaged in repeated verbal harassment, threatened to reveal the abuse to the victim’s biological mother, and encouraged the teenager to end her life.
Dispute Over Legal Obligations
The motion to amend the complaint challenges recent legal arguments made by the LDS Church. On February 20, 2026, the church submitted a motion for judgment on the pleadings, contending that it was immune from suit because Washington and Oregon generally follow a "no-duty-to-rescue" legal standard.
Church legal representatives argued that ruling for the plaintiff would require the court to establish that a volunteer clergyman had an obligation to save the victim from her father’s abuse.
In rebuttal, the plaintiff’s legal team cited a December 2025 decision by the Oregon Supreme Court in *Stone v. Witt* to argue that a duty did exist. The plaintiff contends that the church created a special relationship and voluntarily assumed a duty of care by integrating the victim into its community, supervising her, transporting her, and maintaining internal policies that pledged to protect abuse victims.
The plaintiff’s attorneys also challenged the church’s effort to dismiss the claim for punitive damages. In their response, they noted that the church’s counsel had selectively quoted a prior precedent, *Jane Doe 130 v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon*, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (D. Or. 2010), by omitting a key clause. The omitted text indicated that punitive damages may be awarded in negligence cases if the evidence supports findings of aggravated misconduct.
The court is now set to determine whether the amended complaint will proceed, potentially leading to a significant trial concerning institutional liability, mandatory reporting requirements, and the boundaries of clergy-penitent privilege.
To use the article, copy the provided HTML code. When publishing it on a website, link to the original source using the specified canonical address to ensure search engines properly attribute the content. Avoid modifying the narrative, except for adjustments to style, length, or the updating of time references. Additionally, the story should not be sold or used as a primary tool for advertising sales. For inquiries, reach out to the provided contact.