Late last week, Anglican Watch (AW) spotted a noteworthy legal motion in the ongoing domestic abuse allegations and divorce case involving Episcopal priest Dan McClain. This post addresses that motion and other recent developments in the case.
For starters, let’s recognize that the vast majority of abuse allegations involving children are truthful. Even in cases involving sexual abuse, only about 5 percent of claims are inaccurate — with many experts suggesting that even in those cases, the issue typically is not about lying but the youth and inexperience of many victims.
Anglican Watch also notes the importance of believing women when they say they may be in danger. For example, in the case of Angie Solomon, she was warning persons in positions of power almost two years before the murder of her son, Grant, while in the care of his father.
In the case of Kate McClain, we have seen the prototypical efforts by Dan McClain to discredit his wife by claiming she has a mental illness, then enlisting the aid of gossipy parishioners at St. Paul’s Dayton to spread the claim and have others perceive it as reality.
Meanwhile, Dan McClain continues to portray himself as a loving father and husband.
All of that raises the question: Why did Kate McClain’s attorney file a motion to prevent her husband from bringing their children to court? Isn’t divorce traumatic enough for children? Did Dan bring one or more of the children to court to watch the proceedings?
If he did, we’re going to spell it out for Dan and his “broham”: He is a world-class asshole and a spectacularly lousy father. Feel free to quote us — but provide attribution, please.
Relatedly, we’re appalled that he continues to engage in adultery and hang out with his new girlfriend, aka Plant Woman. (Those in the know will get the reference.)
As things stand, Dan remains legally married. The children will have enough challenges from his behavior without another woman in their lives.
And for the record, the word is “adultery.”
While we’re not going to publish her name, we also want to point out that it is not at all hard to learn the identity of Dan’s adulterous partner. Just follow the web of his seedy connections, and it quickly becomes apparent.
As for the claimed loyalty of the St. Paul’s vestry, members of the vestry are backing the wrong horse in this race. Not only is the gossip about Kate within the parish ugly and toxic, but the only people who don’t see what a mess this situation is are parishioners.
As for them, we’ll borrow a description used by third-party observers of members of AW editor Eric Bonett’s former Episcopal parish, “childish and hateful.”
Yes, St. Paul’s says it’s inclusive, but if the choice involves being part of the hot mess that is St. Paul’s, no thanks. We’ll go for exclusion, thanks.
Meanwhile, AW continues to follow this case closely, even when we are not writing about it. Right now, we are investigating several additional allegations about Dan from persons outside the family, including:
- Possible recreational drug use.
- Potential misuse of parish funds.
- Apparent sexual conduct outside the marriage.
- His conduct at academic conferences.
As for Dan’s claims that his wife put us up to covering the hot mess that is St. Paul’s, that’s right up there with his claim that this publication is written by a former Episcopal priest. In case he hadn’t noticed, we’re fiercely independent and cover what we want, when we want, how we want.
In other words, spare us.
We will continue to provide updates on this case.