Clergy child abuse allegations illustrate importance of mandatory reporting laws

The priest abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church for years, both in the U.S. and abroad, came home to Solano County with allegations this week of similar incidents at St. Timothy Orthodox Church, an Eastern Orthodox church in Fairfield.

Robert Ruark, 65, of Suisun City, is scheduled to be arraigned Monday in Solano County Superior Court. He was jailed late last week in lieu of $500,000 bail.

The allegations against Father Silas, as Ruark is known within the church, are horrendous on their face. He is suspected of molesting teenage boys and girls as far back as 1994 and as recently as Monday, according to police. Many of the alleged incidents occurred within the church, and at Ruark’s home in Suisun City.

Photos of nude teens also weigh into the allegations.

In California, there’s a laundry list of what are known as mandatory reporters, those who are required by law to report any suspicion of child abuse or face potential prosecution themselves.

The list of mandatory reporters includes those who have regular contact with children: public safety personnel such as police and firefighters and emergency medical responders; state and county public health workers; animal control or humane society officers; medical personnel including doctors, nurses and medical students; social workers and counselors; teachers and a number of other school employees; and those who work in various capacities at child-care facilities.

One category of mandatory reporters may not even have direct contact with children, but the category makes perfect sense: They are commercial film and photographic print processors.

This is just a partial list to illustrate the level to which the law requires that even suspicions of child abuse be reported to authorities.

There are two other classifications that are relevant to the Fairfield case: members of the clergy and those who keep the records of members of the clergy. So when police report that church officials at the archdiocese level notified them of their suspicions, the church officials were simply complying with the law.

A question comes to mind: How much did church officials know, and when did they know it? If the allegations are true, it’s hard to believe that such a pattern of alleged abuse could have gone unnoticed for nearly two decades. Early indications from police are that church officials reported their suspicions quickly once the allegations surfaced. Let’s pray that’s true.

We can expect to learn the answer for ourselves as the case makes its way through the courts.

It’s important for all of us to remember that Ruark is innocent until proven guilty. All we know at this point is what Fairfield police have released in the case. We should all learn more once criminal charges are filed, and after a review of the search warrant once it’s filed with the court. Then, as I mentioned, during the course of further legal proceedings.

Whatever the outcome, let justice be served.

Reach Managing Editor Glen Faison at 427-6925 or gfaison@dailyrepublic.net. Follow him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/GlenFaison.