Jun 05, 2018 — MOSCOW, ALACHUA, FLORIDA (SUN) —
Since there is discussion about procedures of the ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection, I thought to share a few comments of an historical nature.
Quoting from the chapter Child Abuse and the Hare Krishnas, in The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant (Columbia University Press- 2004)-
"In 1997 the GBC established the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force, whose assignment was to develop a comprehensive plan for ISKCON to address past, present, and future cases of child abuse, as well as a system for child protection education. The Task Force is composed of ISKCON youth, ISKCON leaders, and devotees with professional credentials in social work and law. At the annual GBC meetings early in 1998 the GBC ratified a lengthy report issued by the Task Force. The Task Force Report called for the establishment of an ISKCON Central Office of Child Protection, that became known as the Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children (APVC), which opened in April, 1998. The main functions of the APVC, as outlined in the Task Force Report, are to investigate and adjudicate cases of alleged child abuse in ISKCON, both past and present, to establish a grant program specifically for persons who suffered mistreatment when they were children under the care of ISKCON, and to assist ISKCON schools and temples to develop child protection programs."
The Task Force Report established guidelines and policies for the operations of the APVC (also known as the CPO- Child Protection Office), including the investigative and adjudicatory procedures. The Task Force did an excellent service in producing the Task Force Report. This is not self-glorification. It is appreciation for the efforts of the individuals on the ISKCON Child Protection Task Force. I was not on that committee. We might say that I gave hands and legs to the Task Force Report, in my role as director for six years (March, 1998- June, 2004). Also in mentioning the Task Force and the Task Force Report, I am expressing appreciation for the ISKCON GBC, for forming the Task Force and following its recommendation to establish, and fund (substantially, for at least some period of time), an ISKCON International Central Office of Child Protection. The GBC deserves much credit for this.
As indicated above, the fundamental structures for investigation and adjudication recommended by the Task Force Report were and are rigorous and representative of high-level professional standards. Of course, as months went on, and we had practical experience endeavoring to apply and implement the guidelines and policies, we, as would fully be expected, discovered various aspects of the guidelines and policies that benefitted from tweaking, adjusting, fine-tuning, and in a very few instances, substantive change. And I understand that, in the 14 years or so since I left the directorship of the CPO, there have been further refinements. Professionals from diverse fields, including law, law enforcement, psychology, and social work, enthusiastically commended the procedures of the CPO (and thus, of the Task Force).
The 2004 Report on the Status of the ISKCON Child Protection Office, citing Stephen Johnson, a lawyer with decades of experience, states- "Mr. Stephen Johnson, a lawyer for more than thirty years who has worked with and helped ISKCON in various capacities, including serving as the legal representative for an alleged child sexual abuser connected with the organization, wrote 'I have been very impressed with the efforts of the APVC on behalf of ISKCON International in dealing with child abuse situations. I reviewed their adjudicatory process, their procedures, their definitional sections and the training involved in becoming judges in that adjudicative process. I find that process to be one which affords due process to the person who is the alleged perpetrator, as well as opportunities for rebuttal, and strikes the necessary balance between fundamental fairness and the search for truth. In this regard, APC's initiative is a very important one. The APC shows sensitivity to the victims as well as understanding of the perpetrators and provides for opportunities for those perpetrators to make amends and continue on their spiritual path, while making sure the Vaisnava children are protected.'"
Sanaka wrote, "Inform your legal counsel that the CPO is not the advocate of the victims!" That is correct. In my capacities as CPO Director and CPO Case Manager, I was equally interested to find evidence that would acquit, as to find evidence that would convict.
Sanaka states that Hrdayananda Maharaja wrote, "I will say this: I have come to believe that the basic flaw of the CPO was to combine the two roles of advocate for the abused and judge of the accused. In respected systems of justice, an advocate for one side in a dispute cannot also be the judge. Again, an impartial, trained judge must assess the details of CPO process".
So, as Sanaka has already indicated, Hrdayananda Maharaja's statement (assuming that he did write it) is wrong- that is, it is based on the faulty assumption that the CPO procedures combine the role of advocate and judge. I'll mention again that I'm writing from an historical perspective, from my experience with child protection in ISKCON internationally from 1998- 2004. For a few years after 2004 I remained tangentially involved, and for the past 8-10 years I've really had practically no involvement. So, perhaps procedures and policies, conceptually and in practice, have radically changed in the past decade. Assuming they haven't, then, as I've already stated, the CPO function was never, in principle or in practice, to serve in the role of guardian ad litem for alleged or confirmed victims of child maltreatment.
Above I have highly lauded the guidelines and procedures produced by the Task Force, and I've cited various professionals in doing so. In doing that I'm not referring to enforcement. The CPO would issue official decisions that provided directives and guidelines. How effectively, or sincerely, various devotees in positions of leadership in the ISKCON organization would enforce the injunctions of CPO official decisions- that's another discussion.
Sanaka quoted me- "Related to what you present, I remember several cases of those who were in leadership positions or friends with those in leadership positions-…" While there were some instances of "would cry out, in the name of fairness and justice, about the unfairness of the CPO and its procedures…" – in the vast majority of such cases those in leadership positions found no reason for such theatrics. Rather, they would, simply, flout the CPO decision- disregard it, ignore it- not enforce it.
In writing about "those in leadership positions", I do not mean to paint with too broad a brush. Definitely there were (and, no doubt, are) devotees serving in leadership positions who consistently demonstrated sober, fair-minded, balanced views, which were reflected in their actions, in relation to child protection in Srila Prabhupada's movement. For example, I found Badrinarayana Prabhu (now Maharaja) and Anuttama Prabhu to be in that category, and I know that they, and many others, were actively concerned about child protection in Srila Prabhupada's movement for many years before I was requested by the GBC, in 1998, to get involved in the international child protection scene.
Also I'll take the opportunity to mention, to emphasize, that, when I was serving as CPO director, I was really interested, in the many cases in which I was involved, to hear diverse perspectives from all parties who cared to be involved. "Diverse perspectives", including, for example, character references (favorable or unfavorable) related to the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim, factors in the case that anyone regarded as mitigating, or aggravating, leads for ascertaining further evidence- towards indicating that the allegations were true, or towards indicating that the person(s) making the allegations were being deceptive- or just, outright lying, etc.
An instance that comes to mind is that of Jayadvaita Swami and the case of Dhanurdhara Maharaja. It's almost two decades now, and I'm fuzzy on the details. Definitely I remember, though, that Jayadvaita Swami and I had lots of communication regarding the case of Dhanurdhara Maharaja. I remember at least one phone conversation of well over an hour (maybe more than 2 or 3 hours). Jayadvaita Swami had some messages he wanted to express, and that he wanted me and everyone involved in the case, to clearly understand. Though my understanding is that Jayadvaita Swami and Dhanurdhara Swami were and are friends, I didn't get that Jayadvaita Swami was primarily coming from "he's my friend". Rather, he was coming from "Dhanurdhara Swami is a potent preacher with much to contribute to Srila Prabhupada mission, and that ought to be seriously considered." I completely appreciated all aspects of these exchanges with Jayadvaita Swami. He was up front, straightforward. The communication was clean and clear. There were no smokescreens related to "procedures", or thinly veiled covert agendas (such as threats, or related to sabotaging or destroying the efforts of the Child Protection Office- agendas which I definitely encountered in abundance amongst some in leadership positions in ISKCON). And of course, each of us, in considering and processing various pieces of information, will naturally give various weights to interrelated considerations such as directly protecting children, directly encouraging the preaching mission, the integrity and perceived integrity of Srila Prabhupada's mission, rectification, punishment, degree of perceived remorse, restitution, the message the organization sends, etc., etc.
Over the years I've often found that when there are discussions related to Child Protection Office procedures, some or many think or state something to the effect of "Well, why doesn't ISKCON just refer all cases to the police….." I encountered that recently, in a thread on fbook, and below I'm including my reply to that thread.
I hope this meets all recipients of this message enthused in Krsna consciousness. Hare Krsna.
Your servant,
Dhira Govinda dasa
David Wolf
Satvatove Institute School of Transformative Coaching- Director
"There is a simple and effective solution …..The GBC should pass a resolution that any behavior they learn about which appears to be child abuse will just be immediately turned over to the law enforcement authorities. if the GBC doesn't do this then each of us as an individual is obliged to do it ourselves."
Based on my experience for more than a decade in the field of child protection in the State of Florida, in capacities such as foster care caseworker, and children and family counselor, and with the ISKCON organization, in my capacity as founder and director for 6+ years of the Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children, my understanding is that, as a general principle, in relation to cases of alleged child maltreatment from the past, governmental law enforcement and social service authorities won't accept a case, won't investigate it, unless the alleged victim, or perhaps a parent of an alleged victim, files a report, presses charges. ….I'm thinking of one instance, for example, more than 20 years ago, where several victims of child sexual abuse came forward to report what had happened to them, in their childhood, at the hands of a prominent leader in ISKCON. It was clear that child sexual abuse was perpetrated on them. Okay, that's clear, let's take it to law enforcement authorities. I actually went to the sheriff in the locality, and was informed that unless the alleged victims, or their parents (parents acceptable, because the crime happened when the victim was a minor), press charges, the governmental authorities won't do anything. In this particular instance, none of the several victims or their parents were willing, for very understandable reasons, to file charges. And, this was in a Western country. In dealing with other countries we'd often run into the scenario, speaking with an adult who was, years earlier, the victim of child sexual abuse within the ISKCON organization, "Speak publicly, to the police or anyone, about what the Maharaja did to me…..okay, then, the next day my mother will be drowned in the Ganges……….. no thank you……" ……..Above I'm speaking about instances of alleged child maltreatment from the past. Of course, if we're speaking about any situation where there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child is currently at risk for being neglected or maltreated, then we want to all (and especially those in any sort of leadership position) be responsible to know and follow laws regarding reporting suspected child abuse. In my capacity as director of the Association for the Protection of Vaisnava Children, I always advised- anyone- temple presidents, GBCs, mothers, fathers, teachers, temple devotees- to learn and follow their local laws regarding reporting suspected child maltreatment….. That said, there's also a need for an internal system. Even if it is a situation where governmental social services and law enforcement take action, such agencies and systems won't actively care, for example, whether the convicted perpetrator, after serving time in prison, gives a Bhagavatam class in the temple- internal systems can, ideally, handle such questions. Hare Krsna.
