A federal courtroom battle over allegations of institutional involvement in child sexual abuse has been delayed until late summer.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. McShane has set Aug. 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., for oral arguments—replacing the original July 1 date. The adjustment follows a formal scheduling order filed Monday, issued at the parties’ joint request.
The proceeding is poised to shape the next phase of the litigation, as the court prepares to rule on two pivotal motions: the church’s request for judgment on the pleadings and the plaintiff’s updated motion seeking permission to submit a revised complaint.
The lawsuit stems from incidents involving a teenage girl who, according to court documents, remained in close contact with her adoptive father despite known patterns of abuse. Court records indicate that church leaders, including local clergy, played a role in the circumstances surrounding her prolonged isolation.
The defense mounted by the institution asserts that civil liability does not attach because the abuse occurred in the family home, outside formal church activities. Attorneys representing the church have emphasized that its actions were grounded in pastoral discretion, including a reportedly advised silence from the victim’s mother—a choice they classify as constitutionally safeguarded ecclesiastical counsel.
Legal filings further argue that Washington state’s reporting obligations for clergy, though tied to criminal penalties, do not impose civil duties requiring disclosure to authorities. Thus, the church maintains, its nonreporting cannot support the plaintiff’s claims.
Opposing this position, the plaintiff’s legal representatives assert that the church misread existing case law and overextended constitutional protections. They argue that the bishop’s active role in advising the mother not to report the abuse created measurable new risks for the child, weakening claims of religious autonomy.
The complaint also highlights involvement from the church’s national leadership in Salt Lake City. According to court submissions, officials there reportedly placed a confidential note in the abuser’s membership file and alerted an Oregon bishop to concerns about the home environment.
Attorneys for the plaintiff view these steps as evidence that the institution voluntarily accepted responsibility for the teenager’s well-being—a commitment they say was later neglected through delayed disciplinary action, insufficient communication with officials, and limited emotional or procedural support for the victim.
With the Aug. 5 hearing now on the horizon, both sides will present formal legal theories before Judge McShane. His eventual decisions on the pending motions could determine whether the case advances with the expanded allegations or narrows in scope due to the church’s broader “no legal duty” framework.