I like the three definitions of restoration: relationship, position, and location. I would like to pursue further here the problem of the grey area in abuse investigations.
Thanks, Theresa. I really like the three definitions of restoration: relationship, position, and location. It clarifies some of the issues we are facing. I would like to pursue further here the problem of the grey area. What are some things we might consider, if the investigation isn’t clear-cut? I think there are two major ways in which this happens. The first is that you think that there might have been some abuse, but the statute of limitations has run out for the legal side, and you can’t get to witnesses because they are unavailable, or they won’t talk to you. The other is that there are numerous witnesses who give conflicting and confusing responses. One says there was abuse, another says no, and another questions the credibility of the one who insists there was abuse.
Perhaps this also leads us into how a report is developed in these cases, and who it goes to. It seems to me that in missions investigations, there is often no middle ground. There is an assumption that if there is an allegation, then the abuse certainly happened. That really makes the follow-up messy when the facts as you are able to discover them don’t point to any abuse.
How do you handle these problems in your investigations?
Disclaimer: not official legal or psychological advice or opinion
- Can You Be Liable for Not Doing a Background Check? Part 3 of a Series on Background Checks
- What Your Mission Needs to Know About Internal Investigations, Part 3: Wrapping up the Investigation
- A Safer Playground
- What Your Mission Needs to Know About Internal Investigations, Part 2: Conducting the Investigation
- Check Background or Risk a Smackdown for your Organization, Part 1 of a Series on Background Checks