Arthur Stout

Sources

• facts
• facts
• summary
• summary
• sources
• sources
• add info
• add info

1. Jane Roe EA 10 v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints et al
   view source details | 10 Dec 2024 | PacerMonitor

Source details

• Jane Roe EA 10 v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints et al
  Publisher: PacerMonitor
  Date: 10 Dec 2024
  Archive.org
  Source type: Court record

  case 24STCV22547 - excerpt from complaint [redacted by FLOODLIT]:

  [warning - graphic descriptions of child sexual abuse]

  Plaintiff Jane Roe EA 10 was a minor child and a member of Defendants’ Church, in Littlerock, California. Arthur Stout was an "Elder" of the Church and used his position of authority therein to groom and to sexually abuse Plaintiff.

  Abuse by Arthur Stout began when Plaintiff was just 5 years old.

  Intent on manipulating Plaintiff's emotions and taking advantage of her innocence, so that he eventually could sexually abuse her, Arthur Stout exploited Plaintiff's fragile mental state to cause her extreme fear, anxiety, and confusion; coercing and manipulating Plaintiff in order to gain further power and control over her.

  All tactics employed for abuse purposes occurred during the most vulnerable time of Plaintiff's life.

  Eventually, Arthur Stout initiated extreme sexual abuse of Plaintiff.

  Plaintiff endured ongoing, humiliating events of child molestation by Arthur Stout, a figure of religious authority, whom Plaintiff had been taught to trust with her life and well-being and had never been given the choice but to trust.

  Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew Arthur Stout was using his position of authority within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to groom and to sexually abuse one of its minor members, Plaintiff, and Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to protect her.

  Arthur Stout, engaged in fondling, digital penetration, oral intercourse, and attempted
  vaginal rape with Plaintiff at various locations, including at Defendants’ controlled events and meetings and on Defendants’ properties.

  From 1991 to 1997, the abuse took place within the changing room on Defendants’ premises in Littlerock, California.

  Additional abuse occurred at various locations allowing Arthur Stout direct, unsupervised access to Plaintiff, including Plaintiff’s home, Stout’s vehicle, and Stout’s residence.

  Before the first instance of abuse in 1991, and at all times thereafter, Defendants, bishops and/or counselors knew, should have known, reasonably suspected, or were otherwise on notice of the ongoing verbal, physical and sexual abuse by Arthur Stout.

  From its very inception, the abuse involved a male religious leader in his seventies accessing a 5-year-old member of the congregation alone within a room in the meetinghouse.

  While this alone would provide Defendants notice of the imminent harm faced by Plaintiff, all the more alarming was the fact that Stout chose to confront Plaintiff in a changing room.

  By its very nature, this was an area of the meetinghouse where there was no conceivable, benign explanation for an adult member of the Priesthood to sequester a small female child of the Church.

  The abuse was allowed not only to continue, but repeat several more times over a 6-year period.

  Given the circumstances providing clear notice of the harassing and harmful relationship between Stout and Plaintiff, it is clear that the initial assault should have been prevented by Defendants.

  Defendants allowed conditions identical to the first to persist, resulting in additional, ongoing abuse of Plaintiff.

  Despite this notice of Stout’s misconduct on their property and while Plaintiff was under their supervision, Defendants further allowed Stout additional unsupervised access to Plaintiff off Church grounds.

  Yet, as the abuse on Church property had gone unaddressed and unreported, Stout was unencumbered by Defendants and went on to commit innumerable additional sexual assaults in addition to those in the changing room.

  Had Defendants exercised their duty to Plaintiff and heeded the notice of the sexual abuse as required, Plaintiff would not have been harmed in additional, unsupervised locations.

  In 1991, Plaintiff was a 5-year-old member of Defendants’ ward in Littlerock, California.

  Arthur Stout was a well-established member of the same ward, given his position as “Elder” within the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the additional authority he held by virtue of his age.

  Plaintiff regularly attended service and other events on Sundays, some of which required her to utilize the changing room on Defendants’ property.

  It was there that she was approached by Arthur Stout, who despite the event at the Church and the highly alarming nature of the room he was entering, was allowed to digitally penetrate Plaintiff.

  He also forced Plaintiff to fondle his genitalia both over and under his clothing.

  When he had finished abusing Plaintiff, he offered her money and told her not to discuss what had taken place.

  With Defendants having ratified this first sexual assault, Stout would repeat the sexual abuse several more times until 1997 when Plaintiff was then 11 years old.

  Left unfettered, Stout expanded his sexual abuse of Plaintiff to other unsupervised locations nearby.

  Stout explicitly used his position of religious authority in Defendants’ Church to lure Plaintiff even when outside the meetinghouse walls.

  Under the pretense of offering religious lessons, Stout entered Plaintiff’s bedroom, fondling her breasts and genitals over and under her clothing.

  He likewise assaulted Plaintiff in this manner in her backyard, and in his own residence and vehicle.

  Eventually, Stout engaged Plaintiff in oral intercourse, and had also tried to vaginally rape Plaintiff.

  In that instance, he was unsuccessful in penetrating Plaintiff given her age.

  Altogether, Arthur Stout was permitted to sexually abuse Plaintiff on a weekly basis for 6 years, both on Defendants’ property and pursuant to his religious authority off Church premises.

  Had Defendants upheld their duty to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have suffered through severe sexual abuse on a weekly basis for six years at the hands of Defendant’s “Elder.” Yet, as a result of Defendants’ failure to do so, Plaintiff has suffered extreme emotional pain and suffering throughout her life and to this day.