Court rejects church liability in online sexual abuse suit

Listen to this article

In Brief

• Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of negligence claims against church and diocese.
• Teen alleged sextortion by adult volunteer posing as female online over several years.
• Court ruled abuse was not foreseeable and no duty of care existed.
• Volunteer pleaded guilty to possession of child sexual abuse material after FBI investigation.

A Minnesota teen was deceived into sending nude images to a male church volunteer posing as an interested female. Affirming the district court’s dismissal of the suit, the Minnesota Court of Appeals determined that the there was no duty of care owed to the teen by the church and diocese.

According to the complaint, A.S. and family were members of St. John the Evangelist Episcopal Church in St. Paul. A.S. became involved in a program called Minnesota Teens Encountering Christ (TEC), which was a retreat movement offering youth-led weekend experiences. Kirby Maze, once a youth member of TEC, became a volunteer for the program as an adult.

Episcopal Church in Minnesota (ECMN) sponsored and oversaw the TEC program. While TEC retreats were held at churches including St. John, St. John did not organize the retreats.

Maze, who saw A.S. when A.S. was just 14 year old during a Sunday coffee hour, invited A.S. to attend at TEC retreat. They interacted at TEC events where Maze was in a leadership role. Maze and A.S. exchanged their Snapchat information at one of the retreats.

Maze allegedly posed as a female on social media, asking A.S. to send him naked photos and videos. A.S. became uncomfortable with the interactions and tried to stop communication with Maze. However, Maze told A.S. that he needed to continue to send photographs or he would distribute the ones A.S. had already sent to his friends and family. Inappropriate conduct allegedly continued for over three years.

Eventually, A.S. told his mother what was going on, and she contacted the FBI. Maze pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing pornographic work involving a minor. Maze is no longer permitted to attend diocesan youth events.

A.S. filed suit against ECMN and St. John’s. In the complaint, plaintiffs argued that St. John had custody of A.S. and that Maze was one of its agents. “St. John and the ECMN’s culture and holding out clergy and other youth leaders as esteemed members of the church community created pressure on Plaintiff to not report the things Kirby Maze was doing to him.”

“St. John and ECMN knew or should have known of his actions and that he was not fit to work with minors,” plaintiffs said in their complaint. “ECMN and St. John negligently and recklessly believed Kirby Maze was fit to continue to work with minors at the church.”

However, St. John and ECMN moved for summary judgment, arguing that they did not owe A.S. a duty of care. Additionally, they argued that Maze was never a St. John or ECMN employee.

The district court held that a duty of care was not owed because Maze’s conduct was not foreseeable. “While A.S. highlights red flags, the court finds nothing in the record that reasonably presaged he would give his Snapchat information to Maze and that Maze would then pose as ‘Miley Oliver’ to solicit sexually explicit photos from him,” Ramsey County Judge Stephen Smith concluded. “There is nothing here that creates even the gossamer’s thread of a connection between this conduct and anything the defendants did or did not do. Any perceived connection is simply too tenuous.”

A.S. appealed, citing an email from the director of Children, Youth, and Family Ministry describing a 2019 TEC event at which Maze, then over 18 and participating as a young adult, attempted to sleep in a church loft with one or two minors. He was directed not to do so. The court pointed to the fact that the minors were Maze’s friends of roughly the same age. Additionally, it noted that there was no evidence that defendants knew of this incident prior to the email, sent after the abuse ended.

Additionally, A.S. cited a contact-information sheet where teens could provide contact info to TEC, including social media accounts. The court found that this alone did not make online sexual abuse objectively foreseeable to respondents. Absent evidence that respondents knew of Maze’s propensity for sexual abuse, the sheet and Maze’s possible access to it are insufficient to establish foreseeability.

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to A.S., no reasonable jury could conclude that the online, off-site sexual abuse at issue was a foreseeable consequence of the parties’ relationship or respondents’ conduct,” wrote Judge Anne Rasmusson