FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Think your children are protected at school? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Think your children are protected at school?
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
District denies it has to protect

This is really shocking to me. Here are some excerpts from the article:
quote:
The Allentown School District said it was ''not obligated'' by law to protect its students and asked a federal judge Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit alleging negligence by school officials led to the rapes of four boys at Central Elementary School.
quote:
School district solicitor John Freund argued that case law supports his contention that the school, though a public entity, is not required to protect its children. ''Unless the children are in the custody of the state, they are not entitled to be protected,'' Freund said.

U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Golden said the case ''clearly shocks the conscience,'' but that federal law is clear and unless the plaintiffs can prove the defendants took ''affirmative'' actions that led to the alleged rapes, the case could be dismissed.


Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Euripides
Member
Member # 9315

 - posted      Profile for Euripides   Email Euripides         Edit/Delete Post 
No obligation even within the school?

Even if they aren't legally obliged to protect the children, can't the teachers be held liable for remaining silent about a rape? And lying to one of the victim's parents about calling the police?

Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hank
Member
Member # 8916

 - posted      Profile for Hank   Email Hank         Edit/Delete Post 
There are no words. This is ridiculous. I can see why the judge would rule the way they have, since it is their job to rule according to the laws set in place, but the laws clearly need to be changed if they allow this to happen to anyone, ever.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
So. The letter of the law is clearly negligent in establishing the responsibility that the state holds for students at its school facilities, and does not evidence any obligation that it should legally hold towards the care and protection of its wards. The school should be clearly held culpable for negligence, and any legal wording that allows this cop-out should be slammed straight off the books. Fast.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
Think about this in a bigger context. If your child brings a gun to school, how do you know your District is actually doing anything about it? They do not have to report it, or try to keep your child safe. There could be several known rapists in your schools right now and the district doesn't have to do a thing about it.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet
Member
Member # 1104

 - posted      Profile for Olivet   Email Olivet         Edit/Delete Post 
This is just the classic school CYA, except the incidents are much worse than usual. Every school, private or public, has it's own way of minimizing their involvment in such things.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Wilhelm said F.H. came from an abusive home.

That's shocking news.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
I would bet that if this had involved a religous institution it would be covered on nationwide news. How come there are no investigations into sexual abuses at public schools?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure if allowing people to sue the school more easily is going to help anything. My guess is that it'd mainly cause the school system to have to spend more money on lawyers, and less on other things, such as sensible principals who know enough to do something if rapes are going on.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My guess is that it'd mainly cause the school system to have to spend more money on lawyers, and less on other things, such as sensible principals who know enough to do something if rapes are going on.
How much sense do you really have to have to know that this should be reported? Principals must have at least a Bachelor's degree, if not a Master's degree. I'm hoping that was an attempt at humor
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
My point was that the solution here is not a lawsuit, but rather to get the school system to figure out how to hire more reasonable officials. A Principal that lets rapes go on is not performing their job reasonably. And if you have a Principal who lacks that sense, threatening them with lawsuits might make them scared, but it is not going to make them a good Principal - and thus is not really going to make the school safe.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes Tres, but it might convince the school district administration that such Principals should be removed, despite the cost of finding a replacement.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
More shooting power.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Much of this outrage should be saved until the "law" that the district is claiming does not impose this requirement is actually identified. If, for example, the district is arguing that the 14th amendment does not create a constitutional right to such protection, I'm not sure I disagree.

And this is from someone who would strongly consider criminal charges against the administrators (although I'd need to know a lot more facts first).

There might be something to be outraged about here. My experience with reporting on such matters gives me pause about this, though.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
Dagonee, This is my local school district so I can tell you that they do have the reported facts straight in the article.

"According to the suit, filed in August in Philadelphia, the first attack happened in December 2003 and was stopped when a teacher walked into a restroom and found F.H. and a 6-year-old boy in or near a stall. The suit claims F.H. admitted to certain acts, and the first-grader told Haddon and other school personnel what happened.

None of the school officials contacted the police, and F.H., a special education student, was allowed to remain near the first-grade student population.

Several weeks later, F.H. allegedly raped another 6-year-old, who described what happened to school officials. Again, according to the suit, the administration failed to call police. After the third assault, the suit alleges, school officials told a parent of the assaulted boy they had called police, but hadn't.

The assaults ended after the fourth attack when the father of the assaulted boy called police. The Lehigh County district attorney's office prosecuted F.H. in that case, the suit says, and he was declared delinquent by a Lehigh County Family Court judge in 2004. He was sent to the Harborcreek Youth Services treatment center near Erie, where he will remain until he is 18, the suit says."

The District has a long history of covering up everything that happens. This is the one that finally put me way over the edge.

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
To clarify, I'm certainly outraged about how the district handled the situation. What I'm not yet outraged about is the possibility that a specific law might not grant a cause of action in these circumstances.

quote:
Dagonee, This is my local school district so I can tell you that they do have the reported facts straight in the article.
That still doesn't tell me enough to know if criminal charges against the administrators are warranted, or if the legal claim is outrageous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
What kind of other things would you need to know? You know way more about law stuff than I do
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
With repsect to criminal charges, I'd have to know how qualified immunity works in the state, whether regulations or laws limited the response to the previous attacks, whether any policy or law regarding mandatory reporting was broken, the scope of the criminal negligence/reckless endangerment laws, and a lot of other things.

With respect to whether the legal claim that "the law" doesn't create a right to protection from the wrongful acts of others is outrageous, I'd need to know the law in question. Then I could tell you what else I needed to know.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
This legal stuff always sorta makes my head spin a little. The law usually comes down to layers upon layers of lawyer speak...and interestingly layer and lawyer are only a 'w' different in spelling...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
What were the teachers thinking? How could not reporting this possibly be okay? I know how much training and emphasis on keeping the boys safe Boy Scout leaders go through - I can't believe that this was considered okay.

It's realy telling to me that things we tolerate children doing to one another are the kinds of things that merit harassment suits and restraining orders in adults.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Mandatory reporting laws are what I jumped to. Are those not federal?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't understand this part:

quote:
U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Golden said the case ''clearly shocks the conscience,'' but that federal law is clear and unless the plaintiffs can prove the defendants took ''affirmative'' actions that led to the alleged rapes, the case could be dismissed.
Does it mean that the defendants would have had to put the boys together in the bathroom and showed them what to do?? I don't think it means that, but the wording "affirmative actions that led to the alleged rapes" makes me think it requires a dominant role. Someone care to explain?

Also, let's say that the law, whatever laws they're referring to, really doesn't say anything about the district/school having an obligation to protect the students. Is there anything to said protection being implied, even if it's not in print? And haven't there been other cases where schools have been found to be negligent in other cases where one student harms others? I, of course, don't know any personally, but I can't believe there wouldn't already be an established precedent that schools do have an obligation to protect the students.

Anybody know?

Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes! What rivka said! If you have to report suspicious bruises, don't you HAVE to report it when you witness a rape of a child?!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
I was under the understanding that school officials are, in effect, in loco parentis and therefore they would indeed have a duty to protect children. I would be very surprised to hear this wasn't the case.

quote:
The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent", refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent. American courts primarily apply the doctrine of in loco parentis to educational institutions.
From wikipedia
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Mandatory reporting laws are what I jumped to. Are those not federal?
I doubt it. All the ones I've ever dealt with are state (because of where I worked). It's very possible there are also federal laws, but I don't know.

Katarain, this is all conjecture - decently informed conjecture (edit to clarify: what I am about to say is conjecture) - not based on research into this specific issue. "Affirmative action" is usually used to contrast to failure to act. A mundane example is that you have no legal duty (in general) to save a drowning person even if you can do so at no risk to yourself. This would be contracted to the affirmative action of pushing them into the river. The standard jargon is that failing to save the victim is an "omission" and pushing someone in is an "act." The act/omission distinction is critical to many areas of tort and criminal law. General, you will have more legal liability for an act than an omission.

Here, the accusation is that the school failed to take steps to stop this boy - an omission. An omission can lead to liability when there is a duty to act.

I think there's no question the school has a duty to act to protect children - a teacher who watched her student drown would likely be criminally and civilly liable. In general, this duty arises under state law. The district has almost certainly not argued that there is no duty at all to protect children, rather that a specific law does not create this duty. And the choice of law might be very important.

Here's my guess about this case: the claim being brought is a civil rights claim that the failure to protect the child deprived the child of his civil rights, causing injury to the child.

Reason I think this is the type of claim being pursued:

1.) They mentioned constitutional issues.

2.) States and state entities (of which the school board may be one - not sure) are immune from suits for monetary damages by citizens unless the state has waived this immunity (i.e., by creating a cause of action) OR the cause of action arises out of an amendment later than the 11th.

3.) There is almost certainly a state-imposed duty of care on teachers and school administrators. The fact that this claim was not brought under such laws suggests to me that the state has not waived immunity for causes arising out of those duties, meaning a federal cause of action is the only one available.

4.) The 14th amendment is the source of almost all civil rights claims against the states; it post-dates the 11th. Since this is a claim for money against (possibly) a state entity, there almost has to be a 14th amendment claim involved.

quote:
Yes! What rivka said! If you have to report suspicious bruises, don't you HAVE to report it when you witness a rape of a child?!
Yes. Again, this might be a state law requirement. Also, there might not be a cause of action even if they HAVE to report such a thing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Also, let's say that the law, whatever laws they're referring to, really doesn't say anything about the district/school having an obligation to protect the students. Is there anything to said protection being implied, even if it's not in print? And haven't there been other cases where schools have been found to be negligent in other cases where one student harms others? I, of course, don't know any personally, but I can't believe there wouldn't already be an established precedent that schools do have an obligation to protect the students.
Again, we have no way of knowing - and I would be VERY surprised - if the defense being asserted is that schools have no legal duty to protect students. "The law" likely refers to some specific law. Further, not every violation of a legal duty can be the subject of a lawsuit.

Belle, in loco parentis is a state law construction, not a federal one (in general).

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, thank you - that makes sooo much more sense.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Found a site that has information on laws. It looks like Dag is right; all laws on this appear to be state.

Here's what I found for PA:

quote:
Sexual Abuse
Citation: Tit. 23, § 6303

Child abuse shall mean any of the following:
An act or failure to act by a perpetrator that causes sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age
Any recent act, failure to act, or series of such acts or failures to act by a perpetrator that creates an imminent risk of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age
Sexual abuse or exploitation means the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in or assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct or any simulation of any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing:

Any visual depiction, including photographing, videotaping, computer depicting, or filming of any sexually explicit conduct
The rape, sexual assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, molestation, incest, indecent exposure, prostitution, statutory sexual assault, or other form of sexual exploitation of children



quote:
Professionals Required to Report
Citation: Ch. 23, § 6311

Physicians, osteopaths, medical examiners, coroners, funeral directors, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, nurses, hospital personnel, or Christian Science practitioners
Members of the clergy
School administrators, teachers, or school nurses
Social services workers, daycare center workers, or any other childcare or foster care workers, or mental health professionals
Peace officers or law enforcement officials

quote:
Standards for Making a Report
Citation: Ch. 23, § 6311

When, in the course of their employment, occupation, or practice of their profession, they have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional, or other training and experience, that a child coming before them is an abused child

From http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/search/
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Dag, could you explain "cause of action" to me briefly? I find it a little confusing.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
"Cause of action" can be thought of as a combination of the right to sue and the authority from which that right derives.

For example, if you photocopy Ender's Game, OSC's publisher has a cause of action under federal copyright law - that is, the publisher's right to sue derives from the copyright law. I could (but won't [Smile] ) look up the actual statute that creates that right.

Many acts "give rise" to multiple causes of action. If I open a hamburger stand and call it McDonald's, I'd be sued under the federal trademark statutes and under state unfair competition laws. Each is a separate cause of action arising from a common nucleus of facts.

If I hire a person with eight drunk driving convictions to deliver pizza and he wrecks your car while delivering your pizza drunk, I could be sued under two causes of action: negligence based on his drunk driving while delivering your pizza (an employer is liable for the torts of employees commited during the course of employment, in general) and for negligent hiring/entrustment when I gave a known bad driver the keys to the delivery car.

The cause of action determines what has to be proven. Often, a suit with many causes of action will have some dropped before trial for various reasons.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
Why does the particular law matter? What I mean is, if the particular law doesn't cover this obligation to protect students, why not sue them under a law that DOES cover the obligation? If you can't sue the institution, why not the individuals involved? And if not that, why haven't there been criminal charges brought? In other words, shouldn't there be SOME sort of punishment, restitution, and actions taken to be sure this doesn't happen again?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why does the particular law matter?
It matters to the extent that people think this decision (or potential decision) represents a failure of the legal system. It doesn't.

It also matters to the extent people were thinking this potential decision meant that schools have no duty at all to protect children.

quote:
What I mean is, if the particular law doesn't cover this obligation to protect students, why not sue them under a law that DOES cover the obligation?
Again, not all laws that create an obligation also create a right to sue.

quote:
And if not that, why haven't there been criminal charges brought?
I don't know, and I've listed the types of things I'd have to know to make it possible.

quote:
In other words, shouldn't there be SOME sort of punishment, restitution, and actions taken to be sure this doesn't happen again?
Yes. It's not necessarily clear that a federal civil rights lawsuit is the way to go about it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay. Thanks for all the info, Dagonee. I hope that the lawyers on this case (on the plaintiffs' side) know what they're doing and try again if this tactic doesn't work.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks, Dags! You are a wellspring of knowledge. And you are capable of talking remarkably straight for someone who's spent so much time in law school. [Wink] [Kiss]
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post 
I actually homeschool my kids more for safety reasons than for educational reasons.

A mildly mentally handicapped child of a friend of ours was molested, in class, by the student sitting next to her. This went on for a matter of weeks.

When it was finally brought to light, the teacher's reaction was, "How was I supposed to know?"

Now if any of you can't see how audacious that statement is (and it was a statement, not a question), I'm not saying there was any way she neccesarily could have known (Although honestly, I feel she should have). But the complete lack of regret, the completely selfish, uncaring attitude in that statement is mind boggling.

A human being, in this situation, would be overwhelmed with guilt. Even if they are confident in their own personal inoccence, once made aware of the situation, the teacher should want to take actions to keep such a situation from happening again.

The question, "How could I have known?" would not be rhetorical.

I know there are lots of absolutely fantastic teachers and school officials out there, who are fully aware of the awesome burden that comes not only with trying to educate children, but in trying to take responsibility for a group who is literally the world to those friends and family members who know them and love them.

But teaching is like every other profession. There are good ones and bad ones, there are some who put thier heart into it and some people who just phone it in day after day. Some are the same people, at different times of the year.

If the world made sense, our teachers would make more money than our stockbrokers, and, in turn, our teachers would be as responsible for their teaching and other responsibilites as our children are for their grades and their actions.

(I felt this same way in college. If I'm the one who's paying for my education, doesn't that make me; the customer? Shouldn't I be grading how well they're doing?)

Until I live in a school district that feels this kind of responsibility (actually they are out there, and I even know of one in PA), my kids are taught at home.

Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post 
Just speculation of course, but it seems that the lawyers for the victims are arguing that a child has a Constitutional right to protection while in and from the school. That is one unique issue and does not settle all issues.

There may or may not be a constitutional right involved, but there are certainly state and federal laws that come into play, there is certainly an issue of civil liability, reasonable expectations, and implied contract as well as moral obligation.

As ketchupqueen points out above, and as has been raised by others, there is a manditory reporting law that say in essense, adults can not stand by passively while knowing or suspecting with reasonable certainty that a child is being abused, regardless of whether the abuser is a child, teen, or adult.

The plea that "it's not my job" in cases like this doesn't carry any more weight than saying "I was just following orders" in a war crimes trial. There is a point that supercedes all other laws written or implied, and that is 'crimes against humanity'. When an act commited during wartime becomes so horrendous as to be unconscionable by any standard, you are morally obligated to break existing laws to uphold this higher moral law.

I think that applies in this case. The school had knowledge of criminal sexual abuse. They knew the perpetrator, they had testimony of victims and probably witnesses, they knew of multiple incidence, and in my opinion, they had a clear legal and moral obligation to take action.

Now, on one hand, at the first event (not personally knowing the details), they could have concluded that this was just a little innocent playing around. Kids playing Doctor. But, at the second event, it should have been clear that this kid had a problem, and a problem that needed to be addressed, if not for the safety of others, then for the sake of this kid and his future.

In my view, not only did the school fail the victims, but they also failed the victimizer.

I think schools do have some reasonable obligation and expectation of a requirement to maintain a safe and orderly environment for the students for which they are temporary acting as 'loco parentis'. You put your trust and your children into the care of these people with a reasonable expectation that your children will be safe.

That in my mind is an implied contract.

Further, can we transfer these events to any other venue and come to the same conclusion. If the child was being assaulted in daycare. If the child was being assaulted while at Boy Scout Camp. If the child was being assaulted while acting as an Alter Boy.

Some one mentioned that the police really don't have any duty to protect anyone. With in certain limits and under certain circumstance I can see that but in general, if they are not here to protect us then why are we paying their salaries. If this whole "it's not my job to protect you" is rationalized to the extreme, then we have anarchy. We have completely lost the rule of law. If it's nobodies job to protect anybody, then the criminals can run wild.

So, this court can rule one way or the other on the issue of Constitutional Right to Protection, but that does not in any way resolve the issue or absolve the school of responsibility. Even without a Constitutional Right to Protection, there are still plenty of laws that exist to insure that protection.

If there is no constitutional right to be protected by the school, then there is equally no constitutional right for the school to be protected. That implies that that teachers and administrator can be raped, assaulted, robbed, and murdered and the students are under no constitutional obligation to protect those teachers. They are under no obligation to report or support allegations of this abuse. It works two ways.

This last part is just a bit of a ramble, but I stand by all the other stuff I said.

Steve/BlueWizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Altáriël of Dorthonion
Member
Member # 6473

 - posted      Profile for Altáriël of Dorthonion   Email Altáriël of Dorthonion         Edit/Delete Post 
My mom always told me to watch out for myself since I was a little girl. If anything happened where I didn't feel comfortable, I was to tell her. This included teachers, if they ever "touched me" in my noble areas.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That implies that that teachers and administrator can be raped, assaulted, robbed, and murdered and the students are under no constitutional obligation to protect those teachers.
Of course students have no constitutional obligations to protect those teachers. Only government actors have constitutional obligations - the sole exception is the obligation not to force involuntary servitude on someone.

quote:
Even without a Constitutional Right to Protection, there are still plenty of laws that exist to insure that protection.
Because the negligence is so egregious, I have to assume they would have sued for it if they could. The fact they didn't leads me to believe that the school is immune from suit - that is, the state has not waived its sovereign immunity. Hence the need to find a federal cause of action and (possibly) a post-11th amendment federal cause amendment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Your "noble areas?"
Man. Maybe my areas are a lot less noble than yours, but that particular euphemism would never have occurred to me.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ketchupqueen
Member
Member # 6877

 - posted      Profile for ketchupqueen   Email ketchupqueen         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom, I grinned when I saw that, too. That's awesome. So much cooler than "private areas."
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samuel Bush
Member
Member # 460

 - posted      Profile for Samuel Bush           Edit/Delete Post 
''Unless the children are in the custody of the state, they are not entitled to be protected,'' Freund said.

What a load of hypocritical fertilizer is that? I’d be willing to bet that this John Freund fellow would have a hissy fit if “the children” used the “C” word in school. (That is, “Christ” or Christmas”) He’d be squawking about the violation of separation of Church and State. Oh yes, the school would be a state entity then.

I think I just had my quota of disgust for the day.

Oh, and another thing, if a student tried to protect himself or his parents tried to protect him they would end up in jail. So you can’t protect yourself and the school won’t protect you and the cops won‘t protect you. Well, I guess that is what school is for - to teach students about the real world.

Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
Is there any information on whether the earlier victim's parents were notified? Or does it actually say that the children never told their parents?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around the idea that no parents called the police until this last rape.


Sam Bush: As for "protection" I'm a little hazy on the concept of what you might intend in terms of protection. Could you specify what you would consider reasonable?

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samuel Bush
Member
Member # 460

 - posted      Profile for Samuel Bush           Edit/Delete Post 
No, I don’t think I want to play that game. You know, the game in which we quibble about semantics rather than the real issues. I don’t know if that is what you are doing or not so I will apologize ahead of time if you are not.

(I will also admit that I was exaggerating and being facetious and sarcastic to make a point. Obviously not every thing a person does to prevent becoming a victim will get him in trouble.)

So anyway, let’s do this instead. Let’s list all the ways in which a student can defend himself against (or prevent) the various depredations they might face in school. Also list all the ways in which a parent might defend or protect their student. Now, which ones of those ways can they do legally and which ones will likely get them in trouble. Also let’s list which ones are likely to be effective.

I’d be willing to bet that most of the effective ones are likely to get the student or parent in trouble, and the that most of the legal ones are likely to be ineffective.

Now, if I am right then it becomes incumbent on the school system to protect our children.

Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
''Unless the children are in the custody of the state, they are not entitled to be protected,'' Freund said.

What a load of hypocritical fertilizer is that?

It's the expression of a legal argument for which at least 75% of the information needed to evaluate it is missing. It most likely means that there's no federal constitutional right to such protection. You can blame piss-poor reporting for our inability to actually judge the district's argument here.

quote:
So anyway, let’s do this instead. Let’s list all the ways in which a student can defend himself against (or prevent) the various depredations they might face in school. Also list all the ways in which a parent might defend or protect their student. Now, which ones of those ways can they do legally and which ones will likely get them in trouble. Also let’s list which ones are likely to be effective.

I’d be willing to bet that most of the effective ones are likely to get the student or parent in trouble, and the that most of the legal ones are likely to be ineffective.

So go ahead and do it. You're the one who made the claim.

quote:
Now, if I am right then it becomes incumbent on the school system to protect our children.
It's incumbent on the school board to protect the children regardless of the outcome of your little challenge. That doesn't mean that every failure to do so should be the basis for monetary damages.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlueWizard
Member
Member # 9389

 - posted      Profile for BlueWizard   Email BlueWizard         Edit/Delete Post 
BlueWizard:

"Even without a Constitutional Right to Protection, there are still plenty of laws that exist to insure that protection."


Dagonee

"Because the negligence is so egregious, I have to assume they would have sued for it if they could. The fact they didn't leads me to believe that the school is immune from suit - that is, the state has not waived its sovereign immunity. Hence the need to find a federal cause of action and (possibly) a post-11th amendment federal cause amendment."

Perhaps the Constitutional Issue is just one aspect of the suit. I don't really understand legal proceedings in detail, but I wonder if the Constitutional issue was raise, then needed to be resolved before they could proceed further.

Just a thought.

Steve/BlueWizard

Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
You can blame piss-poor reporting for our inability to actually judge the district's argument here.

Classic Dagonee. [Smile]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
If by "in trouble" you mean "spend a bit of time convincing the police (and possibly the DA) that you (or your child) used appropriate force to stop an imminent attack in which you (or your child) felt that your child's life was threatened...then yes, I can't think of single effective thing you could do to stop an in-process rape that wouldn't get you "in trouble."

Prevention, however, is a much wider hole we can drive a truck or two through.


As for the arguments in this case, I agree that we don't have enough information. It does seem pretty clear to me, however, that the lawyer's arguments are about whether or not the school district should be monetarily liable whereas at least a few people here are arguing about whether they did right by the children in their care.

Those appear to be separable issues. And it's at least not-unexpected that a lawyer defending the school system would make the argument that it has no financial liability. It will be interesting to see whether that argument holds up, and if so, whether there is any reaction by lawmakers as a result.

In a similar case in a town where I lived, the sheriff filed criminal charges against the principal and the school district's counsel for failure to report abuse when they tried to investigate charges against a teacher on their own instead of referring the complaint to law enforcement.

What I'm hinting at is that there might be other visits to a courthouse for the people involved and this one might be ONLY about whether the parents of these kids get money from the school district.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Here's the Supreme Court case that I think parallels what might be being attempted here.

I'm not posting it to justify the decision, but to establish the framework in which the district's argument might be being made - again, I don't know for sure.

quote:
Background

In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of child abuse and a hospital visit in January, 1983, prompted the county Department of Social Services (DSS) to obtain a court order to keep the boy in the hospital's custody. Three days later, "On the recommendation of a "child protection team," consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and returned the boy to the custody of his father."[1] The DSS entered an agreement with the boy's father, and five times throughout 1983, a DSS social worker visited the DeShaney home and recorded suspicion of child abuse and that the father was not complying with the agreement's terms. No action was taken; the DSS also took no action to remove the boy from his father's custody after a hospital reported child abuse suspicions to them in November, 1983.[2]. Visits in January and March, 1984, in which the worker was told Joshua was too ill to see her, also resulted in no action. Following the March, 1984, visit, "Randy DeShaney beat 4-year-old Joshua so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time. Joshua did not die, but he suffered brain damage so severe that he is expected to spend the rest of his life confined to an institution for the profoundly retarded. Randy DeShaney was subsequently tried and convicted of child abuse."[3]

Case History

Joshua DeShaney's mother filed a lawsuit on his behalf against Winnebago County, the Winnebago County DSS, and DSS employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The lawsuit claimed that by failing to intervene and protect him from violence about which they knew or should have known, the agency violated Joshua's right to liberty without the due process guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin issued a summary judgment against Joshua and his mother, who appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 21, 1988.

Ruling

The court ruled 6-3 to uphold the appeals court; the summary judgment was thus upheld. The DSS's actions were held not to constitute a violation of Joshua DeShaney's due process rights.

Court Opinion

The court opinion, by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that the Due Process Clause protects against state action only, and as it was Randy DeShaney who abused Joshua, a state actor (the Winnebago County Department of Social Services) was not responsible.

Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor. Although there exist conditions in which the state (or a subsidiary agency, like a county department of social services) is obligated to provide protection against private actors, and failure to do so is a a violation of 14th Amendment rights, the court reasoned "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf... it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf - through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty - which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means." (emphasis added)

SB has made allegations that such deprivation has occurred here, which would be relevant to this case, but I'm having a hard time imagining what that deprivation could be. It might be the requirement of mandatory school attendance itself, but I doubt the Supreme Court would go that far. Still, it's the only promising avenue I can think of based on the limited set of facts we've been given.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nathan2006
Member
Member # 9387

 - posted      Profile for Nathan2006   Email Nathan2006         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm so glad I'm homeschooled, even though I am socially backward. <Twitch, twitch>

<Bites nails>

Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samuel Bush
Member
Member # 460

 - posted      Profile for Samuel Bush           Edit/Delete Post 
I made no such allegation of anyone being “deprived” of anything. The word I used was “depredations” not “deprivation.” There is a big difference.

Here are some definitions of the word “depredation” : http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/depredation

I DID make the allegation that students are faced with various “depredations” in school. The connotations that “depredations” brings to mind may be too strong for some people’s tastes when used in connection with public school. But I don’t think it is too strong a word at all. I’m thinking of such depredations as: the bully stealing your money or beating you up for whatever reason; or a couple of football heroes stuffing the little geeky kid head first into a garbage can or toilet, or various forms of physical hazing; and, oh yes, a child being raped by another student kind of fits that definition too.

These are all “depredations” in my opinion, but by no means the only ones that children face every day in public schools.

I was also suggesting the hypothesis that we are becoming increasingly unable (or not permitted) to protect our children, and that schools are becoming increasingly unable (or unwilling or maybe even not permitted) to protect our children.

So, yes, I alleged, suggested, and argued some stuff, but mainly I was just stirring the bucket. [Evil Laugh] And since I have neither the time nor the means to investigate the problem further, I may never know if I’m right. My hypothesis may be wrong.

I also can’t tell if the above court case that Dagonee cited (with it’s "deprivation of liberty" argument and all) has any parallel to the Allentown case. It looks like lawyeresk obfuscation to me. But the Allentown case probably has plenty of lawyeresk obfuscation too. I’ve never learned much legal jargon so I just don’t know.

As for whether or not this Allentown article was poor reporting or there is not enough information, I don’t know. But unless Matt Birkbeck of The Morning Call was flat out lying, (oops, I mean “spinning“ the facts) the article seemed pretty clear : Someone fouled up.

Here is this 12 year old who, in December, raped a first grader and was caught in the act. The school officials allowed him to continue to have access to younger children and by March he had raped 3 more first graders. And the school officials knew about each rape immediately after it occurred.

Of course that is what Scott Wilhelm, the attorney for the three victims is alleging - that the school know about the rapes and didn’t do enough to protect the children. So I suppose it is possible the rapes may not have really occurred, or, if they did occur, the school officials didn’t know about it.

It is not unreasonable to wonder if there are a lot of things the article is not telling us that we would need to know in order to draw a reasonable and intelligent conclusion.

But, if the tone of the article is to be believed, no one is trying to deny the occurrences nor the school officials knowledge of them. They are just trying to weasel out of any responsibility. I can understand them trying to avoid the huge payout. I can also understand the outrage of the folks on the other side of the issue. If the article is to be believed.

The amount of the payout does seem huge. But on the one hand, maybe it is punitive to send a message to school districts to not let stuff like this happen again.

On the other hand, I have somewhat of an idea just how hideously expensive it can be to get therapy for a child who has been severely traumatized. So maybe the payout is not unreasonable after all - considering the fraction of it that will be left after the lawyers and various governments get their cut of the loot.

But on the other foot the loot will have to come out of the taxpayers’ wallets anyway so that everyone gets shafted separately but democratically. Including the families of the victims - again.

What a world! What a world!

Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2